## Zevachim Daf 91a

###### Zevachim 91a:1
[Zevachim 91a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:1)

וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמוּסָפִין קַדִּישִׁי! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לְמוּסָפִין אַהֲנַאי, לִתְמִידִין לָא אַהֲנַאי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even though** the **additional offerings** are **of** greater **sanctity,** as they are sacrificed due to the sanctity of Shabbat, the frequent offering precedes the offering of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof: **Is that to say** that the sanctity of **Shabbat affects** the sanctity of the **additional offerings** but does **not affect** the **daily offerings** brought on Shabbat? Rather, the sanctity of Shabbat elevates the sanctity of the daily offerings as well, and as both are of equal sanctity, the frequent daily offering precedes the additional offerings.


###### Zevachim 91a:2
[Zevachim 91a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ! אַטּוּ רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ לְמוּסָפִין דִּידֵיהּ אַהֲנִי, לְמוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת לָא אַהֲנִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another proof: **Come** and **hear** the continuation of this mishna: The **additional Shabbat offerings precede** the **additional New Moon offerings** because they are more frequent, despite the fact that the New Moon elevates the sanctity of its additional offerings. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: **Is that to say** that the sanctity of the **New Moon affects** the sanctity of **its additional offerings** but **does not affect the additional offerings of Shabbat?** These additional offerings are also imbued with the sanctity of the New Moon.


###### Zevachim 91a:3
[Zevachim 91a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה קַדִּשָׁה! אַטּוּ רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמוּסְפֵי דִּידֵיהּ אַהֲנִי, לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ לָא אַהֲנִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another proof: **Come** and **hear** the continuation of this mishna: The **additional New Moon offerings precede** the **additional New Year offerings** because they are more frequent, **even though the New Year** is **of** greater **sanctity.** The Gemara rejects this proof as well: **Is that to say** that the sanctity of **the New Year affects** the sanctity of **its additional offerings** but **does not affect the additional offerings of** the **New Moon?**


###### Zevachim 91a:4
[Zevachim 91a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר – בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, וְתָדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר – תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. אַף עַל גַּב דְּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם קַדִּישָׁה! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לְבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אַהֲנַאי, לְבִרְכַּת הַיַּיִן לָא אַהֲנַאי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another proof: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Berakhot* 5:25) that discusses the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the order of blessings in *kiddush*. After stating one reason for the opinion of Beit Hillel that one recites the blessing on the wine before the blessing of the sanctity of the day, the *Tosefta* adds: **Alternatively,** Beit Hillel say: **The blessing over wine** is recited **frequently, and the blessing over the day is not** recited **frequently, and** there is a principle: When **a frequent** practice **and an infrequent** practice clash, the **frequent** practice **takes precedence** over the infrequent practice. This applies **even though the blessing of the day** is **of** greater **sanctity,** as it is recited due to the sanctity of Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: **Is that to say** that the sanctity of **Shabbat affects** the sanctity of **the blessing of the day** but **does not affect** the sanctity of **the blessing on the wine?**


###### Zevachim 91a:5
[Zevachim 91a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה – מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מִנְחָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל מוּסָפִין! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לִתְפִלַּת מוּסָפִין אַהֲנַאי, לִתְפִלַּת מִנְחָה לָא אַהֲנַאי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another proof: **Come** and **hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one did not recite the additional prayer on Shabbat until the time of the afternoon prayer arrived, the ***halakha*** is that **a person prays the afternoon prayer and afterward the additional prayer,** as the afternoon prayer is more frequent. This ruling applies despite the fact that the additional prayer is of greater sanctity. Once again the Gemara rejects the proof: **Is that to say** that the sanctity of **Shabbat affects** the sanctity of **the additional prayer** but **does not affect** the sanctity of **the afternoon prayer?**


###### Zevachim 91a:6
[Zevachim 91a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל יוֹם – שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין. הָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּיוֹם – חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָדְמִי, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁלָמִים תְּדִירִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites yet another proof. **Come** and **hear** the mishna: If one has **a peace offering from yesterday** and **a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes** the others; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. One can infer from this that if both **this** offering **and that** offering are **from today,** the **sin offering or guilt offering takes precedence, and** this is the *halakha* **even though the peace offering** is more **frequent,** as people sacrifice voluntary peace offerings more often than sin offerings or guilt offerings.


###### Zevachim 91a:7
[Zevachim 91a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: מָצוּי קָאָמְרַתְּ?! תָּדִיר קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, מָצוּי לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response: **Are you speaking** of **a common** offering? Although peace offerings are sacrificed more often than sin offerings, there is no obligation to sacrifice them at any particular frequency. **We raise the dilemma** only with regard to a clash between **a frequent** offering and one of greater sanctity, but **we do not raise the dilemma** with regard to **a common** offering.


###### Zevachim 91a:8
[Zevachim 91a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: אַטּוּ מָצוּי לָאו תָּדִיר?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אוֹצִיא אֶת הַפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמִּילָה שֶׁהִיא תְּדִירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Is that to say** that **a common** obligation is **not** considered tantamount to **a frequent** obligation? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to positive mitzvot whose intentional neglect results in the punishment of *karet* but whose unwitting transgression does not entail the sacrifice of a sin offering: **I should exclude** the neglect of **the Paschal offering** from the obligation to sacrifice a sin offering, **as it is not frequent, and I should not exclude** the neglect of **the** mitzva of **circumcision, as it is frequent?** Circumcision is considered a frequent mitzva, as it is performed more often than the Paschal offering, despite the fact that there is no obligation to perform circumcisions at any particular frequency.


###### Zevachim 91a:9
[Zevachim 91a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:9)

מַאי תְּדִירָה – תְּדִירָה בְּמִצְוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִילָה לְגַבֵּי פֶּסַח – כִּי תָדִיר דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answers: **What** is the meaning of **frequent** in that context? It means that circumcision is **frequent in** terms of the numerous **mitzvot** commanded with regard to its fulfillment. **And if you wish, say** instead that **circumcision in relation to** the **Paschal offering is considered like a frequent** obligation, as it occurs far more often, whereas peace offerings are brought only somewhat more often than sin offerings. In sum, one cannot infer from the mishna that an offering of greater sanctity precedes a frequent offering.


###### Zevachim 91a:10
[Zevachim 91a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, וּקְדֵים וּשְׁחַט לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ – מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, יָהֵיב לְאַחֵר דִּמְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד דְּמַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ לְתָדִיר, וַהֲדַר מַקְרֵיב לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ An additional **dilemma** with regard to precedence **was raised before** the Sages: If the priest had two offerings to sacrifice, **a frequent** offering **and an infrequent** offering, **and** although he should have initially sacrificed the frequent offering **he slaughtered the infrequent** offering **first, what** is the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **since** he already **slaughtered** the infrequent offering he also proceeds to **sacrifice it? Or perhaps** he does not yet sacrifice it but **gives** it **to another** priest, **who stirs its blood** to prevent it from congealing, **until** he **sacrifices** the **frequent** offering; **and then** he **sacrifices the infrequent** offering.


###### Zevachim 91a:11
[Zevachim 91a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:11)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִסּוּרָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל יוֹם – שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדֵם לְשֶׁל יוֹם. הָא דְּיוֹם דּוּמְיָא דְּאֶמֶשׁ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna from Sura said: Come** and **hear** an answer from the mishna: If one has **a peace offering from yesterday** and **a sin offering or a guilt offering from today,** the peace offering **from yesterday precedes** the sin offering **from today.** It can be assumed that the mishna is not discussing a case where none of the offerings have been slaughtered, as the peace offering would not take precedence in this situation. Rather, it is discussing a peace offering from yesterday that was slaughtered but its blood has not yet been presented. One can infer from this that only a peace offering from yesterday takes precedence in this situation, **but** in the case of a peace offering **from today** that is **similar** in other aspects **to** a peace offering **from yesterday,** the peace offering does not take precedence.


###### Zevachim 91a:12
[Zevachim 91a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:12)

וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי, דִּקְדֵים שַׁחְטֵיהּ לִשְׁלָמִים – חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָדְמִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And what are the circumstances** of this case? This is a situation **where** one **first slaughtered the peace offering** from today. In this case the **sin offering or guilt offering takes precedence,** although the peace offering is already slaughtered, as both of them are of greater sanctity. The same should apply to an infrequent offering that was slaughtered before a frequent offering: The frequent offering is slaughtered before the blood of the infrequent offering is presented.


###### Zevachim 91a:13
[Zevachim 91a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:13)

דִּלְמָא שְׁלָמִים דְּאֶמֶשׁ וְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּיוֹם הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – דְּשַׁחְטִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ; אֲבָל לָא שַׁחְטִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this answer: **Perhaps** when the mishna makes reference to **a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today,** the circumstances should be understood differently. **How can you find these** other circumstances? The mishna discusses a case **where** the priest already **slaughtered both of them,** the peace offering and the sin or guilt offering, and the blood of both awaits presentation on the altar. **But** had he **not** yet **slaughtered both of them,** but only the peace offering, **you** can still **raise the dilemma** of whether the priest should set aside the blood of the peace offering in order to slaughter the sin offering first, due to its greater sanctity.


###### Zevachim 91a:14
[Zevachim 91a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר – בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, וְתָדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר – תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another proof: **Come** and **hear** the aforementioned *baraita*: **Alternatively,** Beit Hillel say: With regard to the order of blessings in *kiddush*, **the blessing on wine** is recited **frequently and the blessing of the day is not** recited **frequently, and** there is a principle: When **a frequent** practice **and an infrequent** practice clash, the **frequent** practice **takes precedence** over the infrequent practice. The obligation to recite the blessing of the day is due to the sanctity of Shabbat and applies at the start of Shabbat, before wine is placed on the table. Nevertheless, the blessing on the wine takes precedence due to its frequency. So too, the slaughtering of the frequent offering should take precedence, even if the priest had already commenced the sacrificial rites of the infrequent offering.


###### Zevachim 91a:15
[Zevachim 91a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:15)

הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּכֵיוָן (דְּאָתְיָין) [דַּאֲתָא יַיִן] – כְּמַאן דִּשְׁחִיטִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Here too,** with regard to *kiddush*, the circumstances are different, **since** wine is available when one recites *kiddush*, and therefore the obligation of both blessings **come** together. This means that it is **comparable to** a situation **where one** already **slaughtered both** animals.


###### Zevachim 91a:16
[Zevachim 91a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה, מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל מוּסָפִין! הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטֵי זְמַן תְּפִלַּת מִנְחָה – כְּמַאן דִּשְׁחִיטִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites yet another proof: **Come** and **hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is that **a person prays the afternoon prayer and afterward the additional prayer,** despite the fact that the obligation of the additional prayer applies first, which is similar to an offering slaughtered first. The Gemara rejects this proof: **Here too, since the time of the afternoon prayer has** now **arrived,** one is obligated in both prayers, and again this is **comparable to** a situation **where one** already **slaughtered both** animals.


###### Zevachim 91a:17
[Zevachim 91a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: שְׁחָטוֹ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״. קוֹדֶם לַתָּמִיד – כָּשֵׁר, וִיהֵא מְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina** that an answer to this dilemma can be found in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 61a): If one **slaughtered** the Paschal offering **before midday** it is **disqualified, because it is stated in its regard: “In the afternoon”** (Exodus 12:6). If he slaughtered it **before the daily** afternoon **offering** was slaughtered it is **valid,** even though the daily offering should be sacrificed first, **but** someone **should stir its blood** to prevent it from congealing **until** he slaughters and **sprinkles the blood** of the daily offering. Although the infrequent Paschal offering is already slaughtered, the priest first slaughters the frequent daily offering and then sprinkles the blood of the Paschal offering.


###### Zevachim 91a:18
[Zevachim 91a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:18)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דִּקְדֵים שַׁחְטֵיהּ לְתָמִיד בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא – דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם״ (תָּמִיד), וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט וְיִזְרֹק דָּם״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** he **gave precedence to the daily offering** and **slaughtered it first,** and then slaughtered the Paschal offering before sprinkling the blood of the daily offering. Since the blood of both offerings requires sprinkling on the altar, the blood of the daily offering takes precedence. **Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi** that the wording of **the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled, and does not teach: Until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood.** This indicates that the daily afternoon offering has already been slaughtered. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** its wording that this is the meaning of the mishna.


###### Zevachim 91a:19
[Zevachim 91a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:19)

וּבְכוּלָּן כֹּהֲנִים רַשָּׁאִין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״לְמׇשְׁחָה״ – לִגְדוּלָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים אוֹכְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And with regard to all of** the offerings that are eaten, **the priests are permitted** to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: The **verse states,** with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “Of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them ***lemoshḥa*”** (Numbers 18:8). *Targum Onkelos* renders this term as: **For greatness,** indicating that the flesh of the offerings should be eaten **in** the **manner that kings eat** their food, i.e., prepared in any way they want.


###### Zevachim 91a:20
[Zevachim 91a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַלֵּק בַּעֲזָרָה – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מְנָחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard** for consumption by the priests and you seek to ascertain its nature, you **do not need to ask what it is. Rather,** it is **left over** from the oil **of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites** after they smeared a bit of oil on them, **or** it is left over from the ***log* of oil of a leper** after a small amount of the oil was placed on him.


###### Zevachim 91a:21
[Zevachim 91a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91a:21)

אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא נִיתָּן עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you saw oil that is placed on the flames** of the altar in the manner of an offering, you **do not need to ask what it is. Rather,** it is **left over** from the oil **of the wafers of the meal offering of priests, or** it is the leftover oil from **the meal offering of the anointed priest,** which requires a great deal of oil and which is burned in its entirety on the altar. The mishna adds: One cannot say that the oil distributed to priests or burned on the altar was brought as a gift offering, **as one may not contribute oil** as a gift offering. **Rabbi Tarfon says: One may contribute oil** as a gift offering.