and one is not culpable on their account in respect of piggul, (1) nothar, (2) or uncleanness. (3) R. Akiba maintains: They involve trespass, and one is culpable on their account for Piggul, nothar, and defilement. Surely they disagree where they were taken in again, (4) and they disagree in this: one master [R. Eliezer] holds that they were disqualified by having been taken out, while another master holds that they were not disqualified by being taken out? — Said R. Papa: If they were taken in again, none disagree; (5) but here they disagree where they are still without, (6) and they disagree in this: one master holds [that] sprinkling is not effective for what is without, (7) while the other master holds [that] sprinkling is effective for what went out. But surely it was R. Papa who said:8 If they are still without, none disagree; (9) they disagree only where they were taken in again? — That is only in connection with the Two Loaves, which are not part of the sacrifice itself; but since emurim are part of the sacrifice itself, they disagree where they are still without. BIRD-OFFERINGS PRECEDE, etc. On the contrary, meal-offerings should take precedence, since they are both congregational and private? (10) — Even so, the fact that they are blood sacrifices outweighs this. A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING, etc. On the contrary, a votive meal-offering should take precedence, since it requires oil and frankincense? — Even so, a sinner's mealoffering, which is brought on account of sin, is more important, since it makes atonement. It was asked: [As to] the meal-offering of a sotah (11) and a votive meal-offering, which of these takes precedence? Does a votive mealoffering take precedence, because it requires oil and frankincense; or perhaps a Sotah's meal-offering takes precedence, because it is brought to investigate sin? — Come and hear: A SINNER'S MEALOFFERING PRECEDES A VOTIVE MEALOFFERING: thus, only a sinner's mealoffering precedes a votive meal-offering, but a Sotah’s meal-offering does not! — [No:] does he then teach, because it makes atonement; [surely] he teaches, BECAUSE IT COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, and this one [a Sotah’s meal-offering] too comes on account of sin. Come and hear: This one precedes that one, because the former is of (12) wheat, while the latter is of barley. (13) Surely that means, a votive meal-offering [precedes] a Sotah’s meal-offering? — No: [it means that] a sinner's meal-offering [precedes] a Sotah’s meal-offering. Then infer it from the fact that the former makes atonement while the latter does not make atonement? (14) — What then: [it refers to] a votive meal-offering? Then infer it from the fact that the one [a votive mealoffering] requires oil and frankincense, while the other does not require oil and frankincense? Rather, he states one of two reasons. (15) A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PRECEDES, etc. Whence do we know it? — For our Rabbis taught: And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first: (16) for what purpose is this stated? If to teach that it comes before the burnt-offering, surely it is already said, And he shall prepare the second for a burntoffering? (17) This, however, furnishes a general rule for all sin-offerings, that they take precedence over all burnt-offerings which accompany them, [sc.] the bird sin-offering [precedes] the bird burnt-offering, the animal sin-offering [precedes] the animal burntoffering, and even a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering. (18) Therefore, [that] a bird sin-offering [precedes] a bird burnt-offering [is inferred from], And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering. An animal sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because the Divine Law intimated an extension; (19) a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burntoffering, because this is a general rule. (20) Come and hear: R. Eliezer said: Wherever a sin-offering is exchanged, the sin-offering [of a bird] takes precedence, (21) but here (22) the burnt-offering [of a bird] takes precedence. (23) Wherever it comes on account of sin, the sinoffering takes precedence; but here the burntoffering takes precedence. (24) Wherever both [birds] come instead of one sin-offering, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here that they do not both come on account of one sin-offering, (25) the burnt-offering takes precedence? (26) — Said Raba: Scripture accorded it precedence in respect of designating it. (27) Come and hear: Bullocks take precedence over rams, rams take precedence over lambs, lambs over he-goats.

---

(1). ↑ Because they are as though blood had not been sprinkled for them, and so all their mattirin (q.v. Glos. and supra 29b, 43a) had not been presented.
(2). ↑ Because nothar applies only to what may be eaten within the prescribed period; this, however, may not.
(3). ↑ I.e., if an unclean person eats them, he is not liable. For only what is permitted to clean persons involves liability on account of personal defilement, but what is not so permitted does not involve liability. Now emurim (which are burnt on the altar, and so not permitted even to clean persons) are nevertheless included, as is deduced by Scriptural exegesis, but only on a similar basis to flesh: as flesh involves culpability only after sprinkling, so the emurim. Sprinkling, however, is ineffective in respect of these emurim, and therefore they do not involve culpability.
(4). ↑ Before sprinkling, yet even then R. Eliezer maintains that sprinkling is of no avail, because taking them out had disqualified them.
(5). ↑ Sprinkling is certainly effective.
(6). ↑ At the time of sprinkling.
(7). ↑ Lit., ‘for what went out’ — and is still outside.
(8). ↑ In connection with the two loaves which were brought on Pentecost, if they were taken out of the Temple court between the slaughtering of the accompanying sacrifice and the sprinkling of its blood.
(9). ↑ Sprinkling is certainly of no avail.
(10). ↑ Sc. the meal-offerings which accompanied the ‘omer (sheaf of corn) and the Two Loaves; these were congregational (v. Lev. XXIII, 10-21). There were no public offerings of birds.
(11). ↑ A wife suspected of adultery, v. Num. V, 12- 15.
(12). ↑ Lit., ‘comes from’.
(13). ↑ Wheat is superior to barley.
(14). ↑ Instead of because one is of wheat while the other is of barley.
(15). ↑ This answer must be given whatever you relate it to, and therefore it may well refer to a votive meal-offering and a sinner's meal-offering.
(16). ↑ Lev. V, 8.
(17). ↑ Ibid. 10.
(18). ↑ E.g. a woman after childbirth, who brings a year-old lamb for a burnt-offering, and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering.
(19). ↑ By the additional text.
(20). ↑ I.e., the law thus established applies to all sinofferings and burnt-offerings.
(21). ↑ Where an animal sin-offering is prescribed in the first place, but Scripture permits it, when one is poor, to be exchanged for two birds of which one is for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (e.g. when an unclean person enters the sanctuary, v. Lev. V, (1) seq.) the bird sin-offering takes precedence over the bird burnt-offering.
(22). ↑ In the case of a woman after childbirth to whom ‘here’ refers in the whole passage.
(23). ↑ Because she is liable to an animal burntoffering, and in poverty she may bring two birds, one for a burnt-offering and another for a sinoffering, v. Lev. XII, (1) seq.
(24). ↑ As even the sin-offering is not on account of sin.
(25). ↑ In poverty she substitutes a bird burntoffering for an animal burnt-offering, as a bird sin-offering was brought in any case, v. ibid. 6-8.
(26). ↑ This contradicts the Mishnah which teaches that a bird sin-offering takes precedence over an animal burnt-offering, whereas here she brings the animal burnt-offering before the bird sin-offering.
(27). ↑ One must first designate (i.e. dedicate) the animal (or bird) for the burnt-offering and then the bird for the sin-offering. But the latter is sacrificed first.