THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ZEVACHIM 89-90 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y. Mazel Tov
on the Bar Mitzvah of his son; may he grow to be a true Ben Torah and Yerei
Shamayim and bring his parents -- and all of Yisrael -- much Nachas!
1) THE SOURCE FOR OFFERING THE "KORBAN TAMID" BEFORE THE "KORBAN MUSAF"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the source for the Halachah that the
Korban Tamid is brought before a Korban Musaf is the verse, "Milvad Olas
ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid" -- "Besides the burnt offering in the
morning that is for the continual burnt offering, you shall offer these"
TOSFOS (DH Kol ha'Tadir) asks that we find that the Gemara in Pesachim (58b)
derives this Halachah from a Beraisa which gives a different source. The
verse states, "ha'Olah" -- "*the* Olah" (Vayikra 6:2), implying that this
Korban (the Olas Tamid) must be the first Korban brought every day, and
nothing should be brought before the Olah. Why does the Gemara in Pesachim
not cite the teaching of the Mishnah here?
(a) TOSFOS answers that these two verses are talking about two different
things. The verse cited by the Mishnah here is discussing which Korban
should be slaughtered first. It teaches that the Korban Tamid should be
slaughtered first. The verse cited by the Beraisa in Pesachim is discussing
the burning of the Korban. We learn from that verse only that the Korban
Tamid must be burned first, but not that it must be slaughtered first.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Pesachim is looking for
a stronger source which states explicitly that no Korban should be brought
before the Korban Tamid. It therefore prefers the teaching of the Beraisa,
which states explicitly that nothing may be offered before the Korban Tamid,
over the teaching the Mishnah here, which says merely that the Korban Tamid
is brought before the Korban Musaf.
(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU CHAYIM who says that the verse of "ha'Olah"
teaches us more than the verse quoted by our Mishnah. Our Mishnah excludes a
Korban Musaf which is not offered every day (and, by extension, other
similar Korbanos which are not offered every day). How, though, do we know
that the Minchas Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol -- which is also brought every
day -- is not brought before the Korban Tamid? For this we need the verse of
"ha'Olah," which teaches us that the Tamid is absolutely the first Korban
brought every day (see also Tosfos in Bava Kama 111a, DH Talmud Lomar).
(d) The KEREN ORAH gives another explanation. The verse in our Mishnah
teaches us that the Korban Tamid is always brought before the Korban Musaf.
However, we might have thought that this rule applies only to the Korban
Musaf. If other Korbanos are present and ready to be offered before the
Korban Tamid is ready to be slaughtered, then perhaps they should be offered
first. This would be similar to the rule taught in the next Mishnah that if
one has two Korbanos in front of him to offer, he should offer the one that
is most Kadosh first. The verse of "ha'Olah" cited by the Gemara in Pesachim
teaches us that the Tamid must be the first Korban of the day, even if it is
not ready to be brought yet and other Korbanos are waiting.
It seems that according to this explanation, the Korban Tamid must always be
brought first, and it will even cause us to delay bringing other Korbanos in
the event that a sheep cannot be found to be brought as the Korban Tamid.
However, the SEFAS EMES, who also suggests the answer of the Keren Orah,
says that if we will not be able to find a sheep the entire day, then it is
possible that the verse of "ha'Olah," which teaches that the Tamid must be
first, does not apply, and other Korbanos may be offered. The logic for this
seems to be that we may understand the verse as saying only that if it
*will* be brought, then it must be brought first, and not that it must
always be the first Korban brought every day.
There is an explicit Gemara which supports the suggestion of the Sefas Emes.
The Gemara in Erchin (11b) states that on the day that the first Beis
ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Kohanim were saying Shirah. The Gemara asks,
for what Korban were they saying Shirah? They could not have been saying
Shirah on the Korban Tamid, since, from the seventeenth of Tamuz of that
year, no sheep were allowed into the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered as the
Korban Tamid! The Gemara concludes that it must have been a different animal
that was brought as an Olas Nedavah (and not a sheep, which is required for
the Tamid). This shows that the Kohanim brought other Korbanos even though
they did not bring the Korban Tamid, supporting the suggestion of the Sefas
The Gemara there poses a strong question on the view of the OR HA'CHAYIM
(Vayikra 6:2), who says that it is impossible to bring Korbanos when the
Beis ha'Mikdash is surrounded by enemies, without first bringing the Korban
Tamid. (Regarding offering animals that were slaughtered before the Tamid
was brought, see Tosfos here who says that it does not disqualify the
Korban, and see Tosfos in Menachos (49b, DH Talmud) who says that the Korban
is Pasul mid'Rabanan.) (Y. Montrose)
2) WHY DOES THE BLOOD OF A "KORBAN ASHAM" NOT PRECEDE THE BLOOD OF A "KORBAN
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the levels of precedence with regard to
performing identical Avodos of difference Korbanos that are brought at the
same time. One of the questions the Gemara addresses is whether sprinkling
the blood of an Olah takes precedence over sprinkling the blood of an Asham.
The Gemara says that perhaps the blood of an Olah is more Kadosh and should
be sprinkled first, since it comes from a Korban which is totally burned on
the Mizbe'ach. On the other hand, perhaps the blood of an Asham should take
precedence, because its Zerikah provides atonement for the owner of the
Korban. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.
The MAHARI KURKAS (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 9:5) has difficulty with the
Gemara. The Gemara earlier says that the blood of a Chatas is sprinkled
before the blood of an Olah, since the Zerikah of the blood of a Chatas
provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. Why does the Gemara consider
this a sufficient reason to sprinkle the blood of a Chatas before the blood
of an Olah, but it is not a sufficient reason to sprinkle the blood of an
Asham before the blood of an Olah?
(a) The MAHARI KURKAS answers that the Mishnah says that a Chatas comes
before an Olah, because a Chatas requires four Zerikos on the corners of the
Mizbe'ach, while an Asham requires only two. When the Gemara says that a
Chatas precedes an Olah because it provides atonement, this reason includes
the fact that the Zerikah of a Chatas involves four sprinklings. It is
unclear, though, whether the atonement provided by an Asham, which is
accomplish with two sprinklings, is a more Kadosh event that the sprinkling
of the blood of an Olah, which is totally burned.
(b) The RADVAZ answers that an Asham does not provide the same level of
atonement as a Chatas. A Chatas atones for accidental sins which are
punishable with Kares when committed willfully. Thus, the Zerikah of an
Asham is not as Kadosh as that of the Chatas, and therefore the Gemara
remains with a question whether it is more Kadosh than the Zerikah of an
(c) Perhaps we may suggest a third explanation. We know that the bringing of
an Olah also atones for transgressing a Mitzvas Aseh, even though that does
not need to be reason for bringing the Olah. An Asham is brought as an
obligatory Korban which provides a required atonement to its owner. However,
because the Olah's blood comes from a Korban which is totally burned on the
Mizbe'ach *and* it achieves a slight degree of atonement as well, we cannot
clearly say that the atonement provided by an Asham, which is not the
highest form of atonement, is better than both of the holy attributes of an
Olah. (Y. Montrose)