## Zevachim Daf 90a

###### Zevachim 90a:1
[Zevachim 90a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:1)

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** one **is not liable** to receive *karet* **for them due to** prohibitions against eating ***piggul*** or ***notar*, or** for partaking of the flesh while he is **ritually impure.** All these prohibitions apply only if the sacrificial portions are otherwise fit for sacrifice. **Rabbi Akiva says** that one who benefits **from them** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, **and** one **is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **them due to** the prohibitions of ***piggul*, *notar*, or** partaking of the flesh while he is **ritually impure.**


###### Zevachim 90a:2
[Zevachim 90a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:2)

מַאי, לָאו בְּדַהֲדַר עַיְּילִינְהוּ פְּלִיגִי? וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What, is it not** correct to say that they **disagree with regard to** a case **where** after taking the portions to be burned out of the Temple courtyard one **then brought them** back **into** the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? **And,** if so, it is **with regard to this** very point that **they disagree: As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that the portions **are disqualified by leaving** the courtyard, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that the portions **are not disqualified by leaving** the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 90a:3
[Zevachim 90a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:3)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּדַהֲדַר עַיְּילִינְהוּ – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי; וְהָכָא בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי פְּלִיגִי, וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, וּמָר סָבַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **Rav Pappa said** that **with regard to** a case **where** after taking these portions out of the Temple courtyard one **then brought them** back **into** the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, **everyone agrees** they are fit. **And here** they **disagree with regard to** a case **where** these portions **are outside** the courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar. **And they disagree with regard to this** following matter: **As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that the **sprinkling** of the blood **is not effective** with regard **to** those portions that were **taken out** of the courtyard, i.e., it does not render them fit, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that the **sprinkling** of the blood **is effective** with regard **to** those portions that were **taken out** of the courtyard, i.e., it renders them fit.


###### Zevachim 90a:4
[Zevachim 90a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:4)

וְהָא רַב פָּפָּא הוּא דְּאָמַר: בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, בִּדְעַיְּילִינְהוּ לְגַוַּואי פְּלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** Rav Pappa’s statement here apparently contradicts his claim concerning the two loaves brought with the two sheep on the festival of *Shavuot*. The sprinkling of the blood of the sheep renders those two loaves fit for consumption by the priests, and the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva also applies in that case. The Gemara elaborates: **Rav Pappa is** the one **who said** that **with regard to** a situation **where** the two loaves **are outside** the Temple courtyard when the blood of the two sheep is sprinkled on the altar, **everyone,** even Rabbi Akiva, **agrees** that the sprinkling does not render the two loaves fit, and therefore if one eats them he is not liable to receive *karet* due to the prohibition against eating *piggul*. Rather, the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** a case **where** one **returned** the loaves **to within** the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood.


###### Zevachim 90a:5
[Zevachim 90a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:5)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּי לֶחֶם – דְּלָאו גּוּפֵיהּ דְּזִיבְחָא; אֲבָל אֵימוּרִין, דְּגוּפֵיהּ דְּזִיבְחָא הוּא – בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This statement** of Rav Pappa applies only **to** the **two loaves, as** they **are not** part of **the offering itself. But** with regard to the **sacrificial portions, which are** part of **the offering itself,** everyone agrees that they are rendered fit if they are within the Temple courtyard at the time the blood is sprinkled on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva **disagree** only **with regard to** a case **where they are outside** the Temple courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar.


###### Zevachim 90a:6
[Zevachim 90a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:6)

עוֹפוֹת קוֹדְמִין כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מְנָחוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִבּוּר כְּבַיָּחִיד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִינֵי דָמִים עֲדִיפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: The **bird** offerings **precede** meal offerings due to the fact that they are types whose blood is presented, and atonement is effected by the blood. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary, meal offerings** should **precede** bird offerings, **as they are** sacrificed both as **communal** offerings and **as individual** offerings, whereas there are no communal bird offerings. The Gemara explains: **Even so,** the fact that bird offerings are **types** whose **blood** is sprinkled is of **greater** importance.


###### Zevachim 90a:7
[Zevachim 90a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:7)

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מִנְחַת נְדָבָה קוֹדֶמֶת, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הַבָּאָה עַל חֵטְא עֲדִיפָא, דִּמְכַפֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches: **The meal offering of a sinner** precedes a voluntary meal offering. The Gemara challenges: **On the contrary, a voluntary meal offering** should **precede** the meal offering of a sinner, **as it requires oil and frankincense.** The Gemara explains: **Even so, the meal offering of a sinner, which comes due to a sin,** is of **greater** importance, **as** it **effects atonement.**


###### Zevachim 90a:8
[Zevachim 90a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִנְחַת סוֹטָה וּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן קוֹדֶמֶת? מִנְחַת נְדָבָה קָדְמָה – שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן (אוֹ) וּלְבוֹנָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה קָדְמָה – שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **the meal offering of a *sota*,** a woman suspected by her husband of having committed adultery, **and a voluntary meal offering** being brought by someone at the same time, **which of them precedes** the other? Does the **voluntary meal offering take precedence, as it requires oil and frankincense? Or perhaps the meal offering of a *sota* takes precedence, as it comes to clarify** the woman’s **transgression,** as part of the rite performed with a *sota*.


###### Zevachim 90a:9
[Zevachim 90a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הוּא דְּקָדְמָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, הָא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה – לָא! מִי קָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת״?! ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא״ קָתָנֵי, וְהָא נָמֵי בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear,** as the mishna states that **the meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering.** One can infer from this that **it is** only **the meal offering of a sinner that precedes a voluntary meal offering, but the meal offering of a *sota*** does **not.** The Gemara rejects this proof: **Is** the mishna **teaching** that the meal offering of a sinner takes precedence **due to** the fact **that it effects atonement?** The mishna **teaches: Due to** the fact **that it comes** because **of a sin, and** the meal offering of a *sota* **also comes** because **of a sin,** as she secluded herself with another man.


###### Zevachim 90a:10
[Zevachim 90a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: זוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לָזוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ בָּאָה מִן הַחִיטִּין וְזוֹ בָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. מַאי, לָאו מִנְחַת נְדָבָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה? לָא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** the statement of a *baraita*: **This** meal offering **precedes that** meal offering, **as this** meal offering **comes from wheat, and that** meal offering **comes from barley. What, does** this *baraita* **not** refer to the precedence of **a voluntary meal offering to the meal offering of a *sota*?** The Gemara rejects this proof as well: **No,** the *baraita* is referring to the precedence of **the meal offering of a sinner over the meal offering of a *sota*.**


###### Zevachim 90a:11
[Zevachim 90a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:11)

תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּהָא מְכַפְּרָא וְהָא לָא מְכַפְּרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: If the *baraita* is referring to the meal offering of a sinner, why is its precedence to the meal offering of a *sota* derived from the fact that the meal offering of a sinner comes from wheat, whereas the meal offering of a *sota* is brought from barley? **I** could **derive** the precedence of the meal offering of the sinner **due to** the fact **that** the meal offering of a sinner **effects atonement and** the meal offering of a *sota* **does not effect atonement.**


###### Zevachim 90a:12
[Zevachim 90a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:12)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי, מִנְחַת נְדָבָה? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּזוֹ טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי טַעְמֵי [נָקֵיט].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **Rather, what** is the *baraita* referring to? Is it referring to the precedence of **a voluntary meal offering** over the meal offering of a *sota*? If so, **I** could **derive** its precedence from the fact **that this** voluntary meal offering **requires oil and frankincense and that** meal offering of a *sota* **does not require oil and frankincense. Rather,** one cannot prove anything from the omission of an alternative explanation, as whichever way one interprets the *baraita* it clearly **cited one of two reasons.**


###### Zevachim 90a:13
[Zevachim 90a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:13)

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף קוֹדֶמֶת כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֶת אֲשֶׁר לַחַטָּאת רִאשׁוֹנָה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְלַמֵּד שֶׁתִּקְרַב רִאשׁוֹנָה, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: The sacrifice of **the bird sin offering precedes** the sacrifice of the bird burnt offering. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: This is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering that a poor sinner sacrifices instead of an animal sin offering. The verse states: **“And he shall offer that which is for the sin offering first”** (Leviticus 5:8). **Why** must **the verse state** this? **As** there is **no** need for **the verse to state** this in order **to teach that** the sin offering **is sacrificed first, as** it **is already stated: “And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering”** (Leviticus 5:10).


###### Zevachim 90a:14
[Zevachim 90a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:14)

אֶלָּא זֶה בָּנָה אָב לְכׇל חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁיִּקְדְּמוּ (לְעוֹלָה) [לְעוֹלוֹת] הַבָּאוֹת עִמָּהֶן – בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, בֵּין חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this** verse **established a paradigm for all sin offerings,** teaching **that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them; whether** in the case of **a bird sin offering** taking precedence **over a bird burnt offering, whether** in the case of **an animal sin offering** taking precedence **over an animal burnt offering, and even** with regard to **a bird sin offering** taking precedence **over an animal burnt offering.**


###### Zevachim 90a:15
[Zevachim 90a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:15)

הִלְכָּךְ, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף – מִ״וְּאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי״, חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה – מִדְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה – מִזֶּה בָּנָה אָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara summarizes: **Therefore,** the precedence of **a bird sin offering over a bird burnt offering** is learned **from** the verse: **“And** he shall prepare **the second** for a burnt offering.” The precedence of **an animal sin offering over an animal burnt offering** is derived **from** the fact **that the Merciful One extends** the *halakha* derived from the sin offering of the Levites (see 89a). Finally, the precedence of **a bird sin offering over an animal burnt offering** is derived **from** the principle stated in this *baraita*, that **this** verse **established a paradigm** for all sin offerings, teaching that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them.


###### Zevachim 90a:16
[Zevachim 90a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּפָה חַטָּאת – חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, וְכָאן (בְּיוֹלֶדֶת) – עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a further proof from a *baraita*. The Torah states that a woman who has given birth must bring a sheep as a burnt offering and a bird as a sin offering. If she is poor she may bring two birds: “One for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). **Rabbi Eliezer says:** In **every** other **instance where** a bird offering **is exchanged** for an animal **sin offering,** the **sin offering precedes** the burnt offering. For example, in the case of the sliding scale sin offering brought for entering the Temple while ritually impure, where a poor person brings two birds, one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, the sin offering comes first. **But here, in** the case of **a woman who gave birth,** the **burnt offering takes precedence,** as it takes the place of an animal burnt offering, mentioned first in the verse: “She shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6).


###### Zevachim 90a:17
[Zevachim 90a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:17)

כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁבָּא עַל חֵטְא – חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, וְכָאן עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת; וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם בָּאִים תַּחַת חַטָּאת – חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, וְכָאן עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, in **every instance where** the sin offering **comes** because **of a sin,** the **sin offering precedes** the burnt offering. **But here,** in the case of a poor woman who gave birth, where the sin offering effects ritual purity rather than atonement, the **burnt offering precedes** the sin offering. **And** in **every instance where two** birds **come instead of** an animal for **a sin offering,** the **sin offering precedes** the burnt offering. **But here,** in the case of a poor woman who gave birth, the bird burnt offering replaces the animal burnt offering of a rich woman, whereas the bird sin offering is sacrificed even by a rich woman who gave birth. Therefore, in this particular case of a woman who gave birth, the **burnt offering precedes** the sin offering.


###### Zevachim 90a:18
[Zevachim 90a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמִקְרָאָהּ הִקְדִּימָהּ הַכָּתוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The straightforward reading of this *baraita* contradicts the statement of the previous *baraita*, which teaches that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering. In order to reconcile the two *baraitot*, **Rava said:** The fact that **the verse mentions** the animal burnt offering **first** is only **with regard to reading** it, but in practice the sin offering is sacrificed first.


###### Zevachim 90a:19
[Zevachim 90a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/90a:19)

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים קוֹדְמִין לְאֵילִים, וְאֵילִים קוֹדְמִין לִכְבָשִׁים, כְּבָשִׂים לִשְׂעִירִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another *baraita* which apparently contradicts this principle. When there are different animal offerings to be sacrificed, **bulls precede rams, and rams precede sheep,** and **sheep** precede **male goats.**