Zevachim Daf 91 - Tadir or Mekudash
Summary
- The text presents a sugya in Zevachim that tests the precedence between תדיר ושאינו תדיר, תדיר קודם and מקודש שאינו מקודש, מקודש קודם, surveys six attempted proofs and their rebuttals by asserting that the sanctity of the day elevates the companion offering or blessing, refines the definition of frequency by distinguishing *matsui* from true *tadir*, and explores an unresolved practical case when the non-*tadir* was slaughtered first. It then transitions to a new Mishnah about identifying oil seen in the Mikdash and whether oil can be brought as a donation, records Rabbi Tarfon’s view permitting donated oil, and analyzes whether such oil is entirely burned or partly eaten through a dispute between Shmuel and Abaye, with competing inferences from the Mishnah’s language. It adduces further sources regarding donated wine and oil, frames a Tannaitic dispute about the minimal measure of donated oil (one log vs. three log), ties it to the methodological debate of don minah u-minah versus don minah ve-oki be-atrah, and concludes with Rav Pappa’s proposed derivation and subsequent retraction in light of a Baraita.
- The sugya poses איבעיא להו: תדיר ומקודש, איזה מהם קודם, asking whether the rule of more frequent obligation or the rule of greater sanctity dominates. The opening proof cites the chapter’s mishnah that daily Tamid precedes Musaf even though Musaf is more *mekudash*, and the answer states that Shabbat makes the Tamid of Shabbat itself sanctified, implying that the day’s sanctity affects both offerings; the speaker notes Rav Rosensweig’s formulation of “hyphenated” versus “hybrid” kedushah. Subsequent proofs follow the same pattern: Musaf of Shabbat precedes Musaf of Rosh Chodesh; Musaf of Rosh Chodesh precedes Musaf of Rosh Hashanah; Beit Hillel rules that בורא פרי הגפן precedes the blessing of the day because the wine blessing is more *tadir* even though the day’s blessing is more *mekudash*, and the answer asserts that Shabbat elevates even the simple *birkat ha-nehenin*; if one reached Minchah time without having prayed Musaf, Minchah precedes Musaf by *tadir*, and the answer asserts that Shabbat elevates Minchah as well. A final proof attempts to show that Shelamim loses to Chatat/Asham despite being more common, but Rava rejects this as a case of *matsui* rather than true *tadir*, leading to a clarification that *matsui* (frequent occurrence) is not automatically *tadir* (frequent obligation), with two answers: Milah is “more *tadir*” either because it is “*tadir* in mitzvot” or because its overwhelming frequency relative to Pesach renders it functionally *tadir*, unlike Shelamim versus Chatat.
- The sugya asks whether, if the non-*tadir* was slaughtered first, the kohanim should finish that offering or keep its blood agitated and prioritize the *tadir*. A proof from the Shelamim-of-yesterday case is deflected by framing it as a scenario where both offerings have already been slaughtered, leaving the current question unresolved when only one is slaughtered. A proof from Beit Hillel’s order in Kiddush is answered that once wine is brought, the moment for both blessings has arrived, making it comparable to “as if both were slaughtered.” A proof from Minchah versus Musaf is answered that once Minchah time arrives, it is likewise “as if both were slaughtered.” A proof from Pesach slaughtered before the Tamid is limited to a case where the Tamid was already slaughtered, as shown by the precise wording “until the blood of the Tamid is thrown,” indicating that both bloods are present and leaving the initial question when only one has been slaughtered.
- Rabbi Shimon states that when oil is seen being distributed to kohanim in the Azarah, it is leftovers of רקיקי מנחת ישראל or the לוג שמן של מצורע; when oil is seen placed upon the fire, it is leftovers of רקיקי מנחת כהנים or of the מנחת כהן משיח. He explains that these are the only cases because אין מתנדבין שמן. Rabbi Tarfon says מתנדבין שמן.
- Shmuel says that, per Rabbi Tarfon, donated oil requires a *kometz* for burning and its *shirayim* are eaten, deriving from the extra word “קרבן מנחה,” which teaches that oil can be donated and that its law parallels a minchah. Rabbi Zeira supports Shmuel from a diyyuk in the reisha of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, which implies that if oil could be donated one would see oil being apportioned to kohanim. Abaye maintains that all of the donated oil goes to the fire and counters with a diyyuk in the seifa, which implies that if oil could be donated one would see oil entirely on the fires. The Gemara resolves for Rabbi Zeira by reading the reisha about *shirayim* and the seifa about *kometz*, and for Abaye by asserting that the reisha’s phrasing conforms to the seifa and does not support distribution to kohanim.
- A Baraita states: wine, according to Rabbi Akiva, is donated to the basins, and oil, according to Rabbi Tarfon, is donated to the fires. The inference that all oil must go entirely to the fires is rejected by noting that each Tanna speaks in his own framework, allowing for partial burning per Shmuel or total burning per Abaye.
- One Tanna rules that one who pledges oil should not bring less than a log, while Rabbi rules that he brings three logs. The initial explanation attributes the dispute to whether to apply don minah u-minah (deriving both measure and avodah from minchah, yielding a log and *kometz u-shirayim*) or don minah ve-oki be-atrah (deriving donation from minchah but fitting the details to nesakhim, yielding three logs and total burning). Rav Pappa proposes that Rabbi derives from “אזרח,” thereby allowing everyone to hold don minah u-minah while still reaching three logs by analogy to nesakhim, but a Baraita teaches that Rabbi derives from “קרבן מנחה” and rules three logs, leading Rav Pappa to concede: אי תניא תניא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions