1) THE SOURCE FOR OFFERING THE "KORBAN TAMID" BEFORE THE "KORBAN MUSAF"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the source for the law that the Korban Tamid is offered before the Korban Musaf is the verse, "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid" -- "Besides the burnt offering in the morning that is for the continual burnt offering, you shall offer these" (Bamidbar 28:23).
TOSFOS (DH Kol ha'Tadir) asks that the Gemara in Pesachim (58b) derives this Halachah from a different source. The Beraisa there derives this law from the verse which states, "ha'Olah" -- "the Olah" (Vayikra 6:2), which implies that this Korban (the Olas Tamid) must be the first Korban brought each day, and no other Korban may be brought before this Olah.
Why do the Mishnah here and the Beraisa in Pesachim give different sources for this Halachah?
(a) TOSFOS in Pesachim (58b, DH ha'Olah) answers that both verses are necessary. The verse mentioned in the Mishnah here ("Milvad Olas ha'Boker") teaches that the Korban Musaf is not offered before the Korban Tamid. The verse mentioned in the Beraisa in Pesachim ("ha'Olah") teaches that Nedarim and Nedavos are not offered before the Korban Tamid. Without the verse of "ha'Olah," one might have thought that Nedarim and Nedavos differ from the Korban Musaf and they may be offered before the Korban Tamid, because they are brought frequently. On the other hand, without the verse of "Milvad Olas ha'Boker," one might have thought that the Korban Musaf may be offered before the Korban Tamid, because it is a Korban Tzibur, a communal offering. Therefore, both verses are necessary.
(b) TOSFOS here rejects the answer of Tosfos in Pesachim for a number of reasons. Instead, Tosfos explains that the verse cited by the Mishnah here teaches that the Korban Tamid should be slaughtered first. The verse cited by the Beraisa in Pesachim teaches that the Korban Tamid also be burned first.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Pesachim seeks a source which states explicitly that no Korban may be brought before the Korban Tamid. It therefore prefers the teaching of the Beraisa, which states explicitly that nothing may be offered before the Korban Tamid, over the teaching of the Mishnah here which says merely that the Korban Tamid is brought before the Korban Musaf.
(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU CHAIM who says that the verse of "ha'Olah" teaches more than the verse of "Milvad Olas ha'Boker" quoted by the Mishnah. The verse quoted by the Mishnah teaches that the Korban Musaf which is not offered every day (and all similar Korbanos which are not offered every day) does not precede the Korban Tamid. It does not teach, however, that another Korban which is offered every day, namely the Minchas Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol, does not precede the Korban Tamid. This is derived from the verse of "ha'Olah" which teaches that the Tamid must be the first Korban brought every day. (See also Tosfos to Bava Kama 111a, DH Talmud Lomar.)
(d) The KEREN ORAH suggests another answer. The verse in the Mishnah teaches that the Korban Tamid is always brought before the Korban Musaf. However, one might have thought that this rule applies only to the Korban Musaf. If other Korbanos are present and ready to be offered before the Korban Tamid is ready to be slaughtered, then perhaps they should be offered first. This would be similar to the rule taught in the next Mishnah that if a person has two Korbanos in front of him to offer, he should offer first the one that is most Kadosh. The Beraisa derives from "ha'Olah" that the Tamid must be the first Korban of the day, even if it is not ready to be offered and other Korbanos are waiting.
According to this explanation, the Korban Tamid always must be brought first, even when it will cause a delay in bringing other Korbanos (for example, when a sheep is not readily available to be brought as the Korban Tamid). However, the SEFAS EMES says that if a sheep cannot be found at all, then it is possible that the verse of "ha'Olah" does not apply, and other Korbanos may be offered even though the Korban Tamid has not yet been offered. The logic for this seems to be that the verse can be understood as saying that only when the Tamid will be brought that day, may no other Korban be brought before it, but when the Korban Tamid will not be brought that day, other Korbanos may be brought.
The Gemara in Erchin (11b) supports the suggestion of the Sefas Emes. The Gemara there relates that at the time that the first Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Kohanim were saying Shirah. The Gemara asks, over what Korban were they saying Shirah? They could not have been saying Shirah over the Korban Tamid, because from the seventeenth day of Tamuz of that year no sheep were allowed into the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered as the Korban Tamid. The Gemara concludes that they were saying Shirah over a different animal that was being offered as an Olas Nedavah (and not a sheep, which is required for the Tamid). The Gemara there supports the Sefas Emes, because it demonstrates that the Kohanim brought other Korbanos even though they did not bring the Korban Tamid. (The Gemara in Erchin poses a strong question on the view of the OR HA'CHAIM (Vayikra 6:2), who maintains that no Korban may be offered before the Korban Tamid, even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is surrounded by enemies and there is no animal to offer as the Korban Tamid.) (See also Insights to Pesachim 58:2.)
(When an animal other than the Tamid was slaughtered before the Tamid was offered, Tosfos here and in Zevachim says that the animal is not disqualified. Tosfos in Menachos (49b, DH Talmud) says that the Korban is Pasul mid'Rabanan.) (Y. MONTROSE)
2) WHY DOES THE BLOOD OF A "KORBAN ASHAM" NOT PRECEDE THE BLOOD OF A "KORBAN OLAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the levels of precedence with regard to the performance of identical Avodos of different Korbanos that are brought at the same time. One of the questions the Gemara addresses is whether the sprinkling of the blood of an Olah takes precedence over the sprinkling of the blood of an Asham. The Gemara says that perhaps the blood of an Olah is more Kadosh and should be sprinkled first, since it comes from a Korban which is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach. On the other hand, perhaps the blood of an Asham should take precedence, because its Zerikah provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.
The MAHARI KURKUS (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 9:5) has difficulty with this Gemara. The Gemara earlier says that the blood of a Chatas is sprinkled before the blood of an Olah, since the Zerikah of the blood of a Chatas provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. Why does the Gemara consider this a conclusive reason to sprinkle the blood of a Chatas before the blood of an Olah, but it is not a conclusive reason to sprinkle the blood of an Asham before the blood of an Olah?
(a) The MAHARI KURKUS answers that the Mishnah says that a Chatas comes before an Olah because a Chatas requires four Zerikos on the corners of the Mizbe'ach, while an Asham requires only two. When the Gemara says that a Chatas precedes an Olah because it provides atonement, this reason includes the fact that the Zerikah of a Chatas involves four Zerikos. The Gemara here is in doubt about whether the atonement provided by an Asham, which is accomplish with two Zerikos, is a more Kadosh event that the Zerikah of the blood of an Olah, which is entirely burned.
(b) The RADVAZ answers that an Asham does not provide the same level of atonement as a Chatas. A Chatas atones for accidental sins which are punishable with Kares when committed willfully. Thus, the Zerikah of an Asham is not as Kadosh as that of the Chatas, and therefore the Gemara remains with a doubt about whether it is more Kadosh than the Zerikah of an Olah.
(c) Perhaps a third explanation may be suggested as follows. An Olah offering atones for the transgression of a Mitzvas Aseh, even though it was not brought for that purpose. An Asham is brought as an obligatory offering which provides a required atonement for its owner. Since the Olah's blood comes from a Korban which is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach and which achieves a slight degree of atonement for the owner, the Gemara is in doubt about whether the atonement provided by an Asham, which is not the highest form of atonement, is better than both of the attributes of an Olah. (Y. MONTROSE)