## Zevachim Daf 89b

###### Zevachim 89b:1
[Zevachim 89b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the placement of the blood of a sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, whereas the burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the burning of the portions of a sin offering. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: This is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* discussing a verse about the consecration of the Levites: “Then let them take a young bull, and its meal offering, fine flour mingled with oil; **and a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering”** (Numbers 8:8).


###### Zevachim 89b:2
[Zevachim 89b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:2)

אִם בָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן שְׁנַיִם, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל שֶׁיְּהֵא חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: **If** this verse **comes to teach that they are two** bulls, this is superfluous, as it **is already stated: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering”** (Numbers 8:12). **Why** must **the verse state: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering”? As** one **might** have thought **that** the **sin offering should precede all** the **rites of** the **burnt offering,** therefore **the verse states: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering,”** which indicates that the sin offering actually comes second to the burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 89b:3
[Zevachim 89b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:3)

אִי ״פַּר שֵׁנִי״, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַטָּאת לְכׇל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְדַם עוֹלָה – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצָּה; אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If** the verse had stated only that the sin offering is the **second bull,** one **might** have thought that the **burnt offering precedes** the **sin offering with regard to all its rites.** Therefore, **the verse states: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering,”** indicating that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. **How** can **these** verses be reconciled? The placement of the **blood of** the **sin offering precedes** the sprinkling of the **blood of** the **burnt offering because it effects acceptance,** whereas the burnt offering does not effect atonement. And burning the **limbs of** the **burnt offering** on the altar precedes burning the portions of the sin offering, in fulfillment of the phrase: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering.”


###### Zevachim 89b:4
[Zevachim 89b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:4)

וְאַמַּאי? מַתָּנָה קַמַּיְיתָא דִּמְכַפְּרָה – תִּיקְדּוֹם, וְהָנָךְ לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why** do all four placements of the blood of the sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering? **Let** only the **first placement** of blood, **which effects atonement, take precedence, and those** other placements should **not** come before the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 89b:5
[Zevachim 89b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:5)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הַלְוִיִּם עָסְקִינַן; וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי עוֹלָה דָּמֵי, קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא הִיא תִּיקְדּוֹם. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי: הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִיל בְּמַתָּנוֹת, גּוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** In the verse **here, we are dealing with** the **sin offering** brought by **the Levites** for their consecration. **And even though** it does not effect atonement and **is** therefore **comparable to a burnt offering, the Merciful One states** that the sin offering **precedes** the burnt offering with regard to the presentation of the blood. This indicates that in general, all four placements of the blood of a sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering, despite the fact that only the first placement effects atonement. **In the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **they say** there is another answer: **Once** the priest **commenced with the placements** of the blood of the sin offering, he **completes** all of them before sprinkling the blood of the burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 89b:6
[Zevachim 89b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:6)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם חַטָּאת וְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כָּלִיל לָאִישִּׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If there is **blood of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering** to be sacrificed, **which of them precedes** the other? Does the **blood of** the **sin offering take precedence, due to** the fact **that it effects acceptance? Or perhaps** the **limbs of** the **burnt offering take precedence, due to** the fact **that they are entirely** burned **in the flames** of the altar.


###### Zevachim 89b:7
[Zevachim 89b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. לְדַם עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה לָא קָדֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear,** as the mishna teaches that the **blood of a sin offering precedes** the **blood of a burnt offering.** One can infer from this that the blood of the sin offering does not precede all elements of the burnt offering; it is only **with regard to the blood of** the **burnt offering that it takes precedence,** whereas it does **not take precedence with regard to the limbs of** the **burnt offering.**


###### Zevachim 89b:8
[Zevachim 89b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:8)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת. לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְדַם חַטָּאת לָא קָדֵים! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **On the contrary,** the opposite conclusion can be inferred **from the latter clause** of the mishna, which teaches that **limbs of a burnt offering precede the portions of** the **sin offering** consumed on the altar. This indicates that **it is** only **with regard to the portions of** the **sin offering** consumed on the altar **that** the limbs of the burnt offering **take precedence,** but they do **not take precedence with regard to the blood of** the **sin offering.** The Gemara concludes: **Rather, no** inference is **to be learned from this** mishna concerning this matter.


###### Zevachim 89b:9
[Zevachim 89b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:9)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת קוֹדְמִין – (דְּקָאָתֵי) [דְּקָאָתוּ] מִכֹּחַ מְכַפֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If there is **blood of a burnt offering** to be sprinkled **and portions of a sin offering** to be burned, **which of them precedes** the other? Does **the blood of** the **burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from** an offering that is burned in its **entirety** on the altar? **Or perhaps the portions of** the **sin offering** to be burned **take precedence because they come from** an offering that **effects atonement.**


###### Zevachim 89b:10
[Zevachim 89b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. דַּם חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים לְדַם עוֹלָה, אֲבָל אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear,** as the mishna teaches that **the blood of** the **sin offering precedes the blood of** the **burnt offering.** One can infer from this that **it** is only **the blood of** the **sin offering that precedes the blood of** the **burnt offering, but the portions** of the **sin offering** to be burned do **not** take precedence.


###### Zevachim 89b:11
[Zevachim 89b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:11)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת. אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדְמִי לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֲבָל דָּם עוֹלָה לָא! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **On the contrary,** the opposite conclusion can be inferred **from the latter clause** of the mishna, which teaches that **the limbs of** the **burnt offering precede** the **portions of** the **sin offering** to be consumed on the altar. This indicates that **it is** only **the limbs of** the **burnt offering that precede the portions of** the **sin offering** to be burned, **but the blood of** the **burnt offering** does **not.** The Gemara again concludes: **Rather, no** inference is **to be learned from this** mishna concerning this dilemma.


###### Zevachim 89b:12
[Zevachim 89b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:12)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְדַם אָשָׁם, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל; אוֹ דִילְמָא דַּם אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם – (דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ) דִּמְכַפֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If there is **blood of a burnt offering and blood of a guilt offering** to be sprinkled on the altar, **which of them precedes** the other? Does the **blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from** an offering that is burned in its **entirety** on the altar? **Or perhaps the blood of a guilt offering takes precedence, as it effects atonement.**


###### Zevachim 89b:13
[Zevachim 89b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. אֲבָל דַּם אָשָׁם – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear,** as the mishna teaches that **the blood of** the **sin offering precedes the blood of** the **burnt offering.** One can infer from here: **But** the **blood of a guilt offering** does **not** precede the blood of a burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 89b:14
[Zevachim 89b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:14)

בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לְמִיתְנֵי דַּם אָשָׁם; וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **By right** the mishna **should have taught** this *halakha* with regard to **blood of a guilt offering.** One could then have inferred that the blood of a sin offering, which takes precedence over the blood of a guilt offering, also precedes blood of a burnt offering. **But since** the mishna **wants to teach the latter clause:** The burning of **the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the portions of a sin offering,** it also mentions a sin offering in the former clause.


###### Zevachim 89b:15
[Zevachim 89b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:15)

דְּאִי תְּנָא לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם הוּא דְּקָדְמִי, לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא קָדְמִי – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי תְּנָא חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why the latter clause had to mention a sin offering rather than a guilt offering: **As, had** the mishna **taught** this principle of the latter clause with regard **to the portions of a guilt offering, I would say** that **it is** only **the portions of a guilt offering** over **which** the limbs of a burnt offering **take precedence,** but they **do not take precedence over the portions of a sin offering,** as a sin offering is of greater sanctity than a guilt offering. **Due to this** reason the mishna in the former clause also **taught** this principle with regard to **a sin offering,** and one cannot infer from this that its *halakha* does not apply to the guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 89b:16
[Zevachim 89b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע: חַטָּאת קוֹדֶם לְאָשָׁם – חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדְמָה לֵיהּ לְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל עוֹלָה לָא. מַאי, לָאו דָּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear,** as the mishna states that **a sin offering precedes a guilt offering.** One can infer from this that **it** is only **a sin offering that precedes a guilt offering, but a burnt offering** does **not. What, is** the mishna **not** referring to the sprinkling of the **blood,** which would indicate that the blood of a burnt offering does not precede the blood of a guilt offering?


###### Zevachim 89b:17
[Zevachim 89b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:17)

לָא; אַאֵימוּרִים. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִיתָּן״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **No,** it is referring **to the** precedence of the **sacrificial portions** consumed on the altar. The Gemara adds that the language of the mishna **is also precise** in this regard, **as it teaches** that the sin offering takes precedence **due to** the fact **that its blood is placed** on the four corners of the altar, rather than simply teaching: It is placed on the four corners of the altar, as it would have taught had it been speaking of the blood. One can therefore **conclude from** the statement of the mishna that its subject is the sacrificial portions burned on the altar, not the blood.


###### Zevachim 89b:18
[Zevachim 89b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:18)

חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – אָשָׁם קָדֵים, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ קִיצְּבָה! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, רִיבּוּי דְּמִזְבֵּחַ עֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **A sin offering precedes** a guilt offering due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar and the remainder of its blood is poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary,** the **guilt offering** should **precede** the sin offering, **as it has a fixed** minimal **value** of two shekels, as stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:15), whereas the sin offering has no minimal value. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that the sin offering requires **more** placements of the blood **on the altar** is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 89b:19
[Zevachim 89b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:19)

אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לְתוֹדָה כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים עֲדִיפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches: **A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering** and the nazirite’s ram due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary, the thanks offering and** the **nazirite’s ram** should **precede** the guilt offering, **as they require loaves** to be brought with them. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that the guilt offering is an **offering of the most sacred order** is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 89b:20
[Zevachim 89b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:20)

תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – שְׁלָמִים קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִיבּוּר כִּבְיָחִיד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד עֲדִיפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **A thanks offering and** the **nazirite’s ram** precede a peace offering due to the fact that they are eaten for only one day. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary, peace offerings** should **precede** the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram, **as they are** offered **by the community as well as by the individual.** A communal peace offering is sacrificed on the festival of *Shavuot*, but there is no communal thanks offering or nazirite’s ram. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram **are eaten for** only **one day** is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 89b:21
[Zevachim 89b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:21)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר – אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? תּוֹדָה קָדְמָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם; אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים? תָּא שְׁמַע: זוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לָזוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If there is **a thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram** to be sacrificed, **which of them precedes** the other? Does the **thanks offering take precedence, as it requires four types of loaves,** whereas the nazirite’s ram requires only two? **Or perhaps** the **nazirite’s ram takes precedence, as there are other** offerings whose **blood** is placed on the altar together **with** the nazirite’s ram. A nazirite is required to sacrifice a burnt offering and a sin offering, as well as a ram. The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* that explicitly discusses this case: **This** offering **precedes that** offering, **as this** offering, i.e., the thanks offering, **requires four types of loaves, and that** offering, the nazirite’s ram, **requires only two types of loaves.**


###### Zevachim 89b:22
[Zevachim 89b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:22)

וְהַשְּׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לִבְכוֹר כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – בְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת עֲדִיפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And the peace offering precedes the firstborn** offering due to the fact that the peace offering requires two placements of the blood on the altar that are four, and the placement of hands on the animal’s head, and libations, and the wavings of the breast and thigh. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary,** the sacrifice of the **firstborn** offering should **precede** the peace offering, **as it is sanctified from** the **womb and it is eaten** only **by the priests,** whereas the peace offering may be eaten by non-priests. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that **additional mitzvot** are performed in the case of the peace offering is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 89b:23
[Zevachim 89b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:23)

הַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן מְקַדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קְדוּשָּׁה מֵרֶחֶם עֲדִיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches: **The firstborn** offering **precedes** the animal tithe offering because it is sanctified from the womb and is eaten only by the priests. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary,** the animal **tithe** offering should **precede** the firstborn offering, **as** if one mistakenly called the ninth or eleventh animal that emerged from the pen the tenth, those animals that came out **before or after** the tenth are also **sanctified.** The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that the firstborn is **sanctified from** the **womb** is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 89b:24
[Zevachim 89b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:24)

מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם לָעוֹפוֹת כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – עוֹפוֹת קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִין זֶבַח עָדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: The animal **tithe** offering **precedes bird** offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; and furthermore, there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood, which is presented on the altar, and its portions that are burned on the altar. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary, bird** offerings should **precede** the animal tithe offering, **as** they are **offerings of the most sacred order,** whether they are burnt offerings or sin offerings. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that the animal tithe is a **type of** offering that requires **slaughtering** is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 89b:25
[Zevachim 89b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:25)

אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – פְּסוּלִין. וּתְנָא תּוּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – דָּמָיו וְאֵימוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ravina bar Sheila says** with regard to the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar: **Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left** the Temple courtyard **before the sprinkling of** the **blood are disqualified. And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught:** The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings **due to** the fact **that it** requires **slaughtering, and there are** two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of **offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood and its sacrificial portions** consumed on the altar.


###### Zevachim 89b:26
[Zevachim 89b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:26)

בִּשְׁלָמָא אֵימוּרִין – לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּעוֹפוֹת; אֶלָּא דָּם מִיהָא אִיתֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימוּרִין כִּי דָּמוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how Ravina bar Sheila interprets the mishna in support of his opinion: **Granted, there are no sacrificial portions** consumed on the altar **from a bird** offering, **but** its **blood at least is** sprinkled. Why, then, does the mishna mention the blood? **Rather, is it not** mentioned in order to **teach us** that the status of the **sacrificial portions** consumed on the altar from the animal tithe offering and other offerings of lesser sanctity is **comparable to** the status of **its blood?**


###### Zevachim 89b:27
[Zevachim 89b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:27)

מָה דָּמוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, אַף אֵימוּרִין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – וְקָא קָרֵי לְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; וּמָה דָּמוֹ מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף אֵימוּרִין מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the implications of this comparison. **Just as its blood** referred to in the mishna is blood **before** its **sprinkling** on the altar, as afterward it no longer has any sanctity, **so too,** the **sacrificial portions** mentioned in the mishna are from **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, **and** the mishna **calls them** at this stage **offerings of the most sacred order. And** therefore one can infer from this that **just as** the animal tithe’s **blood is disqualified by leaving** the Temple courtyard, **so too,** the **sacrificial portions** to be burned on the altar **are disqualified by leaving** the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 89b:28
[Zevachim 89b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:28)

נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: בְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פְּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to prove the opinion of Ravina bar Sheila. **Let us say** that the following dispute between *amora’im* **supports his** statement: With regard to **flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that left** the Temple courtyard **before the sprinkling of** the **blood, Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is **fit** and **Reish Lakish says** that it is **disqualified.**


###### Zevachim 89b:29
[Zevachim 89b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:29)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כָּשֵׁר – הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּסוּל – עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי – אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּאֵימוּרִין לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this dispute: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is **fit, since it will ultimately leave** the Temple courtyard, as offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. **Reish Lakish says** that it is **unfit,** as **its time to leave** the Temple courtyard **has not yet arrived** because the flesh cannot be taken out until after the sprinkling of the blood. The Gemara infers that these *amora’im* **disagree only with regard to** the **flesh** of the offering, which will eventually leave the Temple courtyard. **But with regard to** the **sacrificial portions** of the offering, which will never leave the courtyard, they do **not** disagree, as Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that those portions are disqualified.


###### Zevachim 89b:30
[Zevachim 89b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:30)

הוּא הַדִּין דִּבְאֵימוּרִין נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי; וְהָא דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּבָשָׂר – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בָּשָׂר דְּסוֹפָהּ לָצֵאת, אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **The same is true with regard to** the **sacrificial portions,** i.e., these *amora’im* **also disagree** in that case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds they are fit. **And** the reason **that** they **disagree** explicitly **with regard to** the **flesh is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Reish Lakish, as even** with regard to the **flesh, which will ultimately leave** the Temple courtyard, **he says** that it is disqualified, because **its time to leave** the courtyard **has not yet arrived.**


###### Zevachim 89b:31
[Zevachim 89b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/89b:31)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute between *amora’im* is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*:** With regard to the **sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left** the Temple courtyard **before the sprinkling of** the **blood, Rabbi Eliezer says** that one who benefits **from them** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property,