The mishnah on yesterday’s daf continued the discussion of which offerings take precedence over others with regard to both order of sacrifice and consumption. So far, the main criteria we’ve been offered are: a) a more frequent offering takes precedence over a less frequent offering and b) an offering of greater sanctity takes precedence over one of lesser sanctity. The Gemara opens by posing a dilemma:
If there is a frequent offering and an offering of greater sanctity, which of them precedes the other? Does the frequent offering take precedence, due to the fact that it is frequent, or perhaps the offering of greater sanctity takes precedence, as it is of greater sanctity?
Given we have two primary criteria, which ultimately wins out when they’re in conflict? The Gemara offers a lengthy series of proofs to try and demonstrate that a frequent offering takes precedence over an offering of greater sanctity, and subsequently rejects each proof as inconclusive. The Gemara’s last attempt comes from yesterday’s mishnah:
Come and hear: A peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the others. 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 even though the peace offering is more frequent.
This statement of Rabbi Meir seemingly gives precedence to a peace offering sacrificed yesterday over a sin or guilt offering from today because the former has less remaining time in which it can be eaten. The implication is that Rabbi Meir only gives the peace offering precedence due to this time consideration; otherwise, all else being equal, sin or guilt offerings take precedence, as they’re offerings of a greater sanctity, even though peace offerings are brought more frequently. Contrary to our prior proofs, this one suggests that the criteria of sanctity outweighs the criteria of frequency. However, Rava takes issue with this example:
Rava said: Are you speaking of a common offering? We raise the dilemma only with regard to a frequent offering, but we do not raise the dilemma with regard to a common offering.
Rava points out that the Gemara appears to be conflating two different concepts. The mishna’s paradigmatic example of a frequent offering is the tamid, the offering that must be sacrificed every morning and every afternoon. The frequency with which that offering is sacrificed is mandated. In contrast, when the Gemara said that peace offerings are more “frequent” than sin or guilt offerings, what it meant is they’re more common. Peace offerings can be brought either for a vow or as a voluntary offering, making them seemingly more common than those brought for expiation of a sin. However, there is no mandated frequency for peace offerings that exceeds the frequency of sin or guilt offerings; it’s just that, circumstantially, peace offerings are brought more often. Rava suggests that the criteria of a more frequent offering taking precedence therefore doesn’t apply to a sacrifice that is simply more common, and so the example from the mishnah proves nothing.
A colleague pushes back:
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Is that to say that a common obligation is not a frequent obligation? But isn’t it taught: I should exclude the neglect of the Paschal offering, as it is not frequent, and I should not exclude (the neglect of) circumcision, as it is frequent?
Rav Huna bar Yehuda brings a beraita which teaches that one is not liable to bring a sin offering for accidentally neglecting to bring the Paschal offering or perform circumcision, despite the fact that purposeful failure to fulfill them incurs karet (spiritual excision). One might have thought that a person should be liable for a sin offering when they unwittingly fail to perform circumcision, because this is a frequent mitzvah, in contrast to the Paschal offering, which is only brought once a year. Rav Huna bar Yehuda points out that in this beraita, the term tadir (frequent) is clearly used interchangeably with matzui (common). Circumcision is more common (there are many more days in the year that circumcisions are performed than there are Paschal offerings brought), but there is no fixed frequency with which it must occur; since the beraita nevertheless refers to it as frequent, it seems that the criteria of something being frequent (fixed schedule) and common (likely to occur often) can be used interchangeably!
Rava replies:
What is frequent (in that context)? Circumcision is frequent in mitzvot. And if you wish, say instead that circumcision in relation to the Paschal offering is considered like a frequent obligation.
Rava gives two, quite frankly, rather forced answers. One is that the term “frequent” in the context of the beraita means frequently associated with other related mitzvot. Alternately, because it is so much more common than the Paschal offering, perhaps in this case frequent and common can be conflated. But in the case of peace offerings and sin and guilt offerings, which are less unevenly distributed, maybe not. The Gemara leaves off without definitively proving whether frequency or sanctity is the more relevant criteria. Curiously, though Maimonides will often rule decisively even on matters left undecided in the Gemara, in this case he declares that when one has the option to sacrifice an offering of greater sanctity or one with greater frequency, the choice of which to give precedence is up to them! The Gemara here is so ambivalent that even Maimonides leaves the decision up in the air.
Read all of Zevachim 91 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on December 14, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
