A lot of sacrifices were offered at the Temple every day: communal sacrifices, individual sin offerings and offerings of thanksgiving and — on special occasions — whole suites of festival offerings. At any given moment, the Temple would have been packed with people bringing their sacrifices. But how to move people through efficiently? We learned yesterday that the Temple operated on a sort of triage system, a hierarchy of which kinds of sacrifice took precedence over others and would be offered first. The mishnah yesterday laid out a set of rules, including this one:
The bird sin offering precedes the bird burnt offering, and likewise with regard to its consecration.
Today’s daf interrogates this rule.
From where are these matters derived? As the sages taught in a beraita: “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 to teach that it is sacrificed first, as it is already stated: “And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 5:10).
Rather, this verse established a paradigm for all sin offerings, that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them; whether a bird sin offering over a bird burnt offering, whether an animal sin offering over an animal burnt offering, and even a bird sin offering over an animal burnt offering.
Leviticus 5 lays out the laws of the sin offering. Leviticus 5:7 states that if one cannot afford to bring a sheep, one brings two doves — one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering. Leviticus 5:8 then makes clear that the dove designated for the sin offering is slaughtered first. But the rabbis note that this verse is redundant, because Leviticus 5:10 also makes clear that the sin offering dove is slaughtered first. So the rabbis read Leviticus 5:8 as doing something else — laying out a general principle that all sin offerings should be given before any accompanying burnt offerings, even if the sin offering is a less expensive and less impressive animal than the burnt offering. Why? In discussing not the slaughter but the offering of the blood, the mishnah yesterday explained that the blood of a sin offering takes priority because it enacts atonement, creating the foundation of a healthy relationship with God upon which all other sacrifices can be offered.
The Talmud is next going to interrogate whether this principle holds true in all cases. Let’s look at one of their attempts:
Rabbi Eliezer says: In every instance where (a bird offering) is exchanged (for an animal) sin offering, the sin offering precedes it. But here, in the case of a woman who gave birth, the burnt offering takes precedence.
Leviticus 12 lays out the sacrifices that a woman who just gave birth (the technical term is a parturient) is obligated to bring: a sheep as a burnt offering and a bird as a sin offering. If we follow the paradigm laid out above, the sin offering should be offered before the bird burnt offering. But Leviticus 12:6 seems to reverse the order: “She shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.” What would make this particular case different? Rabbi Eliezer tries to figure it out:
Every instance where it comes because of a sin, the sin offering precedes. But here, 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. But here, the burnt offering precedes.
First, Rabbi Eliezer roots the difference in the purpose of the parturient’s sin offering. The parturient hasn’t actually committed a specific sin, so perhaps that explains the difference? Next, Rabbi Eliezer distinguishes between a commanded bird offering and a bird offering offered on the sliding scale. With most sacrifices, people only bring birds if they cannot afford to bring a more expensive animal. But the Bible commands the parturient to bring a sin offering that is a bird, regardless of her personal wealth. Perhaps that makes this case different from cases where the birds are brought as cheaper alternatives?
Rava said: The verse mentions it first with regard to reading.
Rava takes a creative approach, rejecting the premise that the case of the woman who just gave birth is different to begin with. He concludes that while Leviticus mentions the burnt offering first, the Torah doesn’t actually intend it to be offered first. Instead, the standard rules of precedence apply and the bird sin offering is offered first. For Rava, the power of the general rule is greater than the textual intricacies of the biblical verses. Ultimately, in order for a relationship with God to be restored after any kind of rupture, the sin offering must be offered first.
Read all of Zevachim 90 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on December 13, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
