Zevachim Daf 91 זבחים דַף 91

The Gemara asks: תדיר ומקודש איזה מהם קודם – between one item which is more frequent and one which is more sacred, which takes precedence? For example, would זריקה of the תמיד’s blood precede the blood of a חטאת, since it is תדיר, or would the חטאת’s blood take precedence, since it is מקודש? The Gemara offers a proof from the fact that תמידן are brought before מוספין of Shabbos (because they are more תדיר), although מוספין are presumably more קדוש, since they are korbanos brought for Shabbos. The Gemara replies: אטו שבת למוספין אהנאי – does the sanctity of Shabbos benefit the מוספין of Shabbos only, לתמידין לא אהנאי – but does not benefit the תמידין brought on Shabbos? In truth, the תמידין equally share the special sanctity of a korban of Shabbos. This answer is used for several more proofs. The Gemara infers from our Mishnah that sacrificing a חטאת or אשם would take precedence over today’s שלמים because they are more מקודש, despite a שלמים being brought more frequently (since it is voluntary). Rava replies: מצוי קאמרת – Are you discussing a korban which is merely more common, because people choose to bring it more often? Our inquiry is about תדיר, something required to be performed more frequently.

In the next Mishnah, Rebbe Shimon says that if one sees oil being distributed in the עזרה to Kohanim to be eaten, it can be the remainder from one of two procedures done with oil. If one sees oil being poured onto the fires of the מזבח, it can be one of two oil offerings which are poured onto the fire. However, neither can be from oil of a donated offering, שאין מתנדבין שמן – because one may not donate oil as an offering. Rebbe Tarfon says: מתנדבין שמן – one may donate oil. Shmuel says about this donated oil offering of Rebbe Tarfon, קומצו ושיריו נאכלין – [the Kohen] removes a kometz (which he burns on the מזבח), and its remainders are eaten by the Kohanim. The concept of a donated oil offering is derived from a מנחה; just as a minchah requires קמיצה, and its שירים are eaten, the same applies to an oil offering. The Gemara eventually proves that Tannaim argue about this ruling: the Rabbonon, who compare an oil offering to a מנחה, would agree with Shmuel, but Rebbe, who compares an oil offering to נסכים – wine libations, would hold it is completely burned on the מזבח.

Shmuel says: המתנדב יין מביא ומזלפו על גבי האישים – one who donates wine as an offering brings it and [the Kohen] sprinkles it onto the [מזבח’s] fires. The Gemara objects that he will invariably extinguish the fire, which is forbidden!? It first answers: כיבוי במקצת לא שמיה כיבוי – partial extinguishing is not called extinguishing and is not prohibited. The Gemara objects that Rabbah bar Avuha said that one who removes a single coal from the מזבח and extinguishes it is liable!? It first answers that the case is where there was only one coal, whereby he completely extinguishes the fire. Alternatively, Shmuel’s reasoning is כיבוי דמצוה שאני – extinguishing the מזבח fires is different and is permitted. The Gemara objects that two Baraisos say that wine donations are poured into bowls, and not onto the fires, and pouring onto the fires is prohibited because of extinguishing!? The Gemara answers that these Baraisos follow Rebbe Yehudah, that דבר שאין מתכוין – [an act] which may result in an unintended transgression is prohibited, and Shmuel’s ruling follows Rebbe Shimon, who holds דבר שאין מתכוין is מותר. [Rashi adds that although it is a "פסיק רישיה" – inevitable that large drops will put out some of the fire, small drops may not]