§ The mishna teaches: If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation, which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught: “And he shall burn it as he burned the first bull” (Leviticus 4:21). Why must the verse state “the first”? The verse could simply state that he shall burn it as he burned the bull. It is in order to establish that the first offering precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions. Since the anointed priest atones for the entire Jewish people, and the congregation gains atonement, it is logical that the one who atones will precede the one who gains atonement. And so the verse states: “And he shall atone for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel” (Leviticus 16:17).

The baraita continues: A bull for an unwitting communal sin precedes a bull for idol worship. What is the reason for this halakha? This, i.e., the bull for an unwitting communal sin, is a sin-offering, and that, i.e., the bull for idol worship, is a burnt-offering, and it is taught in a baraita: “And he shall sacrifice that which is for the sin-offering first” (Leviticus 5:8); why must the verse state this? If it is to teach that the sin-offering will be first, it is already stated: “And the second he shall prepare as a burnt-offering according to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10). Rather, this established a paradigm from which all similar cases may be derived, teaching that all sin-offerings precede the burnt-offerings that accompany them, and we maintain that even bird sin-offerings precede animal burnt-offerings.

A bull for idol worship brought by the entire congregation precedes a goat for idol worship brought by the entire congregation. The Gemara asks: Why is this so; this, i.e., the goat is a sin-offering, and that, i.e., the bull is a burnt-offering? In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rava bar Mari: In the verse: “If it is performed unwittingly by the congregation, being hidden from their eyes, the entire congregation shall bring one young bull for a burnt-offering, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord, with its meal-offering, and its libation, according to the ordinance, and one goat as a sin-offering [leḥattat]” (Numbers 15:24), the sin-offering for idol worship is lacking an alef, i.e., “leḥattat” is written without an alef. This indicates that not all the halakhot of sin-offerings apply to it. Rava said: “According to the ordinance” is written concerning it, indicating that the service must be performed in accordance with the order stated in the verse, i.e., the bull is sacrificed before the goat.

The goat for idol worship of the congregation precedes the goat of the king. What is the reason for this? The reason is that this goat is brought by the general public and that goat is brought by an individual, and the communal precedes the individual even if that individual is the king. The male goat of the king precedes the female goat of the individual. What is the reason for this? This male goat is brought by a king, and that female goat is brought by a commoner.

The female goat of an individual brought as a standard sin-offering precedes the ewe of an individual brought as a standard sin-offering. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The ewe of an individual precedes the female goat of an individual? Abaye said: It is a dispute between tanna’im. One Sage holds that a female goat is preferable and takes precedence, as it has an increased applicability in that it is brought for idol worship by an individual, in which case one must bring a female goat, not a female sheep. And one Sage holds that the ewe is preferable and takes precedence, as it has more sacrificial portions than a female goat, as its tail is also included, which indicates that it is a preferable offering.

The omer offering precedes the lamb that accompanies it; the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves of bread from the new wheat, precede the sheep that accompany them. This is the principle: A matter that comes due to a mitzva of the day precedes a matter that comes due to the bread. The omer and two loaves are meal-offerings brought due to the day. The accompanying sheep are brought due to the meal-offerings.

MISHNA: The man precedes the woman when there is uncertainty with regard to which of them to rescue or to return a lost item to first. And the woman precedes the man with regard to which of them to provide with a garment first, because her humiliation is great, or to release from captivity first, due to the concern that she will be raped. When they are both subject to degradation, i.e., there is also concern that the man will be raped in captivity, the release of the man precedes the release of the woman.

GEMARA: Apropos precedence, the Sages taught in a baraita: If one and his father and his teacher were in captivity, his release precedes his teacher’s because one’s own life takes precedence, and his teacher’s release precedes his father’s release. His mother’s release precedes the release of all of them.

A Torah scholar precedes the king of Israel, because in the case of a Sage who dies, we have no one like him, but in the case of a king of Israel who dies, all of Israel are fit for royalty.

A king precedes a High Priest, as it is stated: “And the king said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord” (I Kings 1:33). King David was referring to himself as lord when speaking to Zadok the priest.

A High Priest precedes a prophet, as it is stated: “And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there” (I Kings 1:34); Zadok is written before Natan. And similarly, the prophet says: “Hear now, Joshua the High Priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you, for they are men that are a sign; for behold, I will bring forth My servant Zemah” (Zechariah 3:8). One might have thought that these colleagues were laymen. Therefore, the verse states: “For they are men that are a sign,” and “sign” means nothing other than a prophet, as it is stated: “And he gives you a sign or a wonder” (Deuteronomy 13:2).

A High Priest anointed with anointing oil precedes a priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. A High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments precedes an anointed High Priest who stepped down, even if he did so due to his seminal emission. An anointed High Priest who stepped down due to his seminal emission precedes an anointed High Priest who stepped down due to his blemish. An anointed High Priest who stepped down due to his blemish precedes a priest anointed for war. A priest anointed for war precedes a deputy High Priest, who replaces the High Priest when he is unable to serve in the Temple.

The baraita concludes: A deputy High Priest precedes the overseer [la’amarkal], one of the seven appointed officials in the Temple. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of amarkal? Rav Ḥisda said: Amarkal is an acronym for amar kulla, meaning: He says it all. The overseer of the Temple has the final word in matters concerning the administration of the Temple. The overseer precedes the Temple treasurer. The treasurer precedes the head of the priestly watch that would serve in the Temple for a period of one week at a time. The head of the priestly watch precedes the head of the patrilineal family. Each patrilineal family performed the Temple service for one day during the week of its priestly watch. The head of the patrilineal family precedes an ordinary priest.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the matter of ritual impurity, when there is a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], which even a priest and a nazirite are commanded to bury, and the deputy High Priest and the priest anointed for war are available to bury it, which of them precedes the other and becomes impure?

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a deputy High Priest and a priest anointed for war who were walking along the path and they encountered a met mitzva and one of them must bury him and become ritually impure, it is preferable that the priest anointed for war will become ritually impure and the deputy High Priest will not become ritually impure. The reason is that if disqualification befalls the High Priest, the deputy enters and performs the Temple service in his stead. Therefore, one must ensure to every possible extent that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A priest anointed for war precedes a deputy High Priest? Ravina said: When that baraita is taught, it is not with regard to ritual impurity; rather, it is taught with regard to rescuing him, as the standing of the priest anointed for war is higher than that of the deputy High Priest.

MISHNA: A priest precedes a Levite. A Levite precedes an Israelite. An Israelite precedes a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], and a mamzer precedes a Gibeonite, and a Gibeonite precedes a convert, and a convert precedes an emancipated slave. When do these halakhot of precedence take effect? In circumstances when they are all equal in terms of wisdom. But if there were a mamzer who is a Torah scholar and a High Priest who is an ignoramus, a mamzer who is a Torah scholar precedes a High Priest who is an ignoramus, as Torah wisdom surpasses all else.

GEMARA: A priest precedes a Levite, as it is stated: “The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Aaron was separated that he should be sanctified as the most sacred” (I Chronicles 23:13). A Levite precedes an Israelite, as it is stated: “At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name, unto this day” (Deuteronomy 10:8).

An Israelite precedes a mamzer because this Israelite is of legitimate lineage and that mamzer is not of legitimate lineage and is disqualified from entering into the congregation of Israel. A mamzer precedes a Gibeonite because this mamzer comes from a fit drop of semen, i.e., from Jewish parentage, and that Gibeonite comes from an unfit drop of semen, from gentile parentage. A Gibeonite precedes a convert, as this Gibeonite grew among us in sanctity and conducted his life as a Jew, and that convert did not grow among us in sanctity. A convert precedes an emancipated Canaanite slave as this emancipated Canaanite slave was included in the category of the curse while he was enslaved, and that convert was not included in the category of the curse.

The mishna teaches: When do these halakhot of precedence take effect? In circumstances when they are all equal in terms of wisdom. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “She is more precious than rubies [mipeninim]” (Proverbs 3:15). The Torah is more precious than the High Priest who enters the innermost sanctum [lifnai velifnim], the Holy of Holies.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: By right, an emancipated Canaanite slave should have preceded a convert, because this emancipated Canaanite slave grew among us in sanctity, and that convert did not grow among us in sanctity. But the convert precedes the Canaanite slave because this Canaanite slave was in the category of the curse, and that convert was not in the category of the curse.

The students of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, asked him: For what reason does everyone, i.e., do many people, run to marry a female convert, and not everyone runs to marry an emancipated Canaanite maidservant? He said to them: This Canaanite maidservant was in the category of the curse, and that convert was not in the category of the curse. Alternatively, the reason is that this convert has the presumptive status of chastity, and that Canaanite maidservant does not have the presumptive status of chastity.

The students of Rabbi Elazar asked him: For what reason does a dog recognize its master, while a cat does not recognize its master? Rabbi Elazar said to them: If it is established that with regard to one who eats from that which a mouse eats, eating that item causes him to forget, with regard to the cat, who eats the mouse itself, all the more so does eating it cause it to forget.

The students of Rabbi Eliezer asked him: For what reason do all predators dominate mice and prey on them? He said to them: Because concerning mice, their inclination [shesuran] is evil. The Gemara asks: What is the indication of this? Rava said: They gnaw even at cloaks, despite the fact that cloaks do not provide nourishment for them.