WHICH MITZVAH TAKES PRECEDENCE? - Yevamos 39 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora states that although it might be preferable for the older brother to perform a yibum, we do not wait for him. This is based on the principle that we do not delay the performance of a mitzvah in expectation of some future, better performance.

The Terumas Hadeshen (35) comments that the only time you do delay the performance of the mitzvah is we are concerned that by delaying, the mitzvah will not be fulfilled.

Similarly, the Gr”a (O”C 426) rules that this halacha is only applicable if the brother is overseas, but otherwise, we would be required to wait for him.

Sheorim Mitzuyanim B’halacha brings a proof from here to the Rama’s ruling regarding Kiddush Levanah. One should wait to recite the blessing for the moon for Motzei Shabbos if it will occur prior to the tenth of the month, but if it is afterwards, one should not wait for Motzei Shabbos, and he should recite the blessing in middle of the week. This is because there might be a few consecutive cloudy days and he will have missed the opportunity for the mitzvah this month.

There is an argument between the Radvaz (187) and the Chacham Tzvi (106) regarding a person who was in jail and he did not have the ability to perform any mitzvos and his captors gave him one day that he can choose to be released and perform the mitzvos of that day, which day should he choose. The Radvaz says he should choose the first opportunity that he has and the Chacham Tzvi disagrees and holds that one should wait until there is a mitzva of great prominence.

The Gemora in Yoma (34a) discusses the obligation of nesachim - the wine libations by the two temidin which were brought every day. There is an argument there if we derive the morning tamid from the afternoon or vice-versa. Tosfos comments that there would be a difference l'halacha if they would have only enough nesachim for one korban; which tamid should have the nesachim. Is the primary tamid the morning or the afternoon? Rabeinu Chananel says that there is no difference l'halacha; it's just a matter as to how we expound the pesukim. The Sfas Emes asks on Tosfos that the din should be clearly that whichever mitzva one is holding by, that is the one he should perform and if one is ready to bring the morning tamid, he should bring the nesachim with that one, even if the afternoon tamid is the primary one.

The Biur Halacha (109) has a shaila if one davens normally a long Shemoneh Esrei and he will certainly miss kedusha, should he daven with the tzibur and fulfill the mitzva of tefila b'tzibur or should he wait and fulfill the mitzva of reciting kedusha.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 27 - REPENTANCE IN THE SAME SITUATION

It is written [Yirmiyah 22:10]: Cry intensely for one who leaves, because he will not return again and see the land of his birthplace. Rav Yehudah said: This is referring to one who departs this world without children.

Rav Huna said: The verse is referring to a person who committed a sin and repeated it. The Gemora states: Rav Huna is following his reasoning stated elsewhere that one who commits a sin and repeats it; it has become permitted to him.

The Gemora asks: Do you actually think that it is permitted? The Gemora answers: Rav Huna means that it becomes to him as if it was permitted.

The Gemora (Yoma 86b) explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.

The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation.

The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure.

The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent.

The Kli Yakar adds that this is what the Gemora (Brochos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation. Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into such a situation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Yaakov's Tefilah Voluntary?

One opinion in the Gemora maintains that tefillas maariv is not an obligation but rather only voluntary. A question is asked by the mefarshim. Each of our forefathers instituted one tefillah. Yaakov avinu established maariv. He was known to be the bechir shebovos. How can it be that his tefillah is only a voluntary one.

I once heard from Rabbi Blum (possibly in the name of Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky) an explanation. The Sforno on the possuk "im yeheye Elokim imodi etc." says a fascinating pshat. Yaakov at that time was on such a high level that he begged from Hashem to be treated only with the midas hadin. He did not want to accept Hashem's boundless compassion. Hashem agreed and that is why it is found that Yaakov suffereed the most from all of the Avos.

This is why the tefillah that Yaakov instituted could not be a requirement on Klal Yisroel. The foundation of tefillah is compassion. We beseech and pray to Hashem for Him to shower us with His mercy. Yaakov who personifies midas hadin could not compel others to rely on midas harachamim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Maariv is Only voluntary if .....

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

The Gemora asks on Rav that he rules in Berochos that the tefillah of maariv is only voluntary and not required, so why would our Gemora say that neilah exempts him from maariv - he is not obligated anyway? The Gemora answers that his ruling here would be relevant to the one's that hold maariv is mandated.

Tosfos quotes the opinion of the R"i that maariv is only voluntary if he has other pressing needs at the time, such as performing a mitzva that cannot be done at another time, but if there is no other urgent necessities at this time, he would be obligated to daven maariv.

Tosfos asks that according to the R"I, what is our Gemora's question? While it is true that Rav holds maariv is only voluntary, that is only in circumstances where he has other obligations but normally one would be duty-bound to daven maariv. He answers that on Yom Kippur night, there is automatically pressing needs such as the preparing of the meal for after the fast. The Midrash states that the meal after Yom Kippur is tantamount to a Yom tov meal and there would be a mitzva to involve oneself in the preparation. This would cause that the davaning of maariv is only voluntary.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Time for Neilah

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

Many rishonim bring down a Gemora found in the Yerushalmi that disagrees with this and therefore they conclude that neilah must be recited by day. The Mordechai writes that although we witness many congregations davaning neilah after dark, this is not because this is the custom, but rather due to a mistake that the chazanim base themselves on.

The Beis Yosef writes that since tefillas neilah is a time that we beseech Hakodosh Boruch Hu for mercy and compassion, it should be commenced earlier in the day to enable the chazan's repeatal of shmone esrei to be by day and at least the birchas kohanim should be before nightfall. He concludes that based on his reasoning, neilah should be started very early in the day which is not practical, therefore the preferable manner is to shorten some of the slichos and pesukim in the middle of the tefillah and to instruct the chazan not to stretch out the words like he usually does.

There is a discussion in the poskim if Rav meant that neilah should be recited after dark preferably or did he mean that it can be recited at that time.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Violate one Shabbos to have many Shabbosos Observed

One opinion in the Gemara derives the source for the law that saving a life overrides the Shabbos laws from the verse that states the children of Israel shall observe the Shabbos in order to perform the Shabbos throughout their generations. This teaches us that one should violate one Shabbos by saving a life so that the person whose life was saved may live to observe many Shabbosos. The implication from the Gemara is that if we know for certain that the person whose life is being saved will not live until the next Shabbos, one is forbidden to violate the Shabbos on his behalf.

The commentators question this theory from the Gemara that we learned earlier (Yoma 71) that states that we allow the Shabbos to be violated even if the person for whom the Shabbos is being violated will only live for a few hours.

It is worth noting that the Ohr HaChaim in Parashas Ki Sisa (31:16) writes that we do not violate the Shabbos to save a life if the person will only live for a few more hours. The ruling of the Ohr HaChaim would appear to contradict the accepted halacha.

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 32) resolves this issue by writing that we allow the laws of Shabbos to be violated to save a person’s life even for a few hours if a rabbinical prohibition will be violated. Regarding a biblical prohibition, however, we do not allow one to violate the Shabbos laws to save a life for only a few hours. The verse quoted earlier which teaches us that one can violate the Shabbos laws to save ones life so that one will be able to observe many Shabbosos refers to violating biblical prohibitions.

The Minchas Chinuch concludes that the final halacha is that one can violate even the biblical prohibitions of Shabbos to save a life, even if the person whose life is being saved will only live for a few hours. This is based on the exposition of the Gemara that derives the source for saving a life on Shabbos and overriding the laws of Shabbos from the verse that states you shall guard My decrees and My laws that man shall carry out and by which he shall live.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - An Exalted Jew

An exalted Jew

The Gemara states that if one found an abandoned child in the city and we do not know whether the child is a Jew or a Cuthean, if a majority of the city’s inhabitants are Cutheans, he is treated as a Cuthean, and if the majority of the city’s inhabitants are Jews, he is treated as a Jew. If half of the inhabitants are Jews and half are Cutheans, then he is treated as a Jew. Rav said regarding the Mishnah that if most of the inhabitants are Jews, the child is treated as a Jew only with respect to sustaining him, but not with respect to ascribing pure lineage to him. Rashi explains that if the child is a female, a Kohen is prohibited to marry her even after she converts to Judaism, as a Kohen cannot marry a convert. Although the principle of majority dictates that this child was born a Jew, Rabbinic law requires extra safeguards to render her eligible for marriage to a Kohen. This is truly an amazing concept . One can be considered a Jew, yet we will not grant that person the status of having attained pure lineage. This idea can also be applied to the soul of a Jew. Although every soul was created from beneath the Heavenly Throne, one can cause his soul to be sullied through sin. The Gemara in Sanhedrin states that a Yisroel, even if he has sinned, is still a Yisroel. This implies that a Jew never loses his exalted status of being considered one of HaShem’s children. Yet, the Arizal writes that when a Jew sins, his soul departs from him. Yes, one is always a Jew, but a Jew without a soul is not an exalted Jew. Our ambition should be to remain exalted Jews, with the soul that HaShem breathed into us always functioning and retaining its pristine status that it had when it descended from the Heavenly Throne.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Perform a Less Severe Act even though Success is not Guaranteed

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Perform a less severe act even though success is not guaranteed

The halacha is that when feeding a sick person with forbidden food, we initially attempt to feed him the food that is least severe in punishment regarding its consumption. The Sefer Toras HaYoledes wonders what the halacha would be in a situation where the food that is more severe in punishment for its consumption will certainly heal the person, whereas the food that is more lenient regarding the punishment for its consumption will not definitely heal the ill person. Do we disregard the certainty of the former food and feed the patient the food that is less severe in punishment for its consumption? It is clear that this question is only relevant when there is time to attempt feeding the patient the food that is less severe in punishment regarding its consumption. If this was not the case, it is clear that we would feed the patient the food that would certainly cure him. The Toras HaYoledes offers a proof from Tosfos here who writes that the Gemara states that one can extinguish a fire on Shabbos or one can set up utensils that are filled with water which will cause the fire to be extinguished. Tosfos wonders why the Gemara found it necessary to state that one can place utensils near the fire to cause it to be extinguished if we have already been taught that one can extinguish the fire directly. In his second answer, Tosfos explains that one would have thought that one is permitted to extinguish a fire directly because one will accomplish what he has set out to do. When one places utensils near the fire to extinguish the fire, however, it is possible that he will not accomplish what he set out to do, i.e., extinguishing the fire, and one would have thought that such an act should not be permitted. The Gemara therefore felt it necessary to teach us that even if one is not certain of the outcome, he can place the utensils near the fire to cause the fire to be extinguished. The Toras HaYoledes understands from the words of Tosfos that placing the utensils near the fire is only a rabbinical prohibition, as such an act will cause the fire to be extinguished indirectly. Since the act is only prohibited rabbinically, we prefer that one exercise this approach even though he may not accomplish what he has set out to do. Hence, we have a proof that one must always attempt to perform the act that is less severe in punishment even though one cannot be certain of success.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Story Regarding the Riva

The Radvaz (3:444) relates an incident regarding the Riva, one of the Baalei HaTosafos, who was ill with an illness that he eventually succumbed to. The doctor informed the Riva that if he were to fast on Yom Kippur he definitely would not be able to continue living and were he to eat, it would be possible that he could continue to live. The Riva was adamant in his refusal to eat on Yom Kippur and he subsequently died. The Radvaz writes that the Riva certainly did not maintain that one is permitted to be stringent with regard to his own health, as one is prohibited from disobeying the directives of the doctor. If one was coerced to violate a mitzvah in the Torah, if through his death HaShem’s Name will be sanctified, he is permitted to forgo his life. Rather, the Riva was aware that even if he were to eat he was not going to live and this is an illustration of the proverbial dictum that the heart knows the bitterness of its soul.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 80 - Yom Kippur's Eating is Different

The Gemora states that in order to be liable for eating on Yom Kippur, one must eat food the size of a date. This must be eaten in the time it takes to eat a פרס - half a loaf.

By all other prohibitions in the Torah, there is a halacha that one must eat it in the normal manner in order to be liable. The Shagas Aryeh rules that if one eats raw meat on Yom Kippur, he would have violated the Torah's prohibition. This is because the Torah does not state by Yom Kippur "Don't eat," rather the Torah states "you should be afflicted." It therefore does not have the standard guidelines of eating.

The Ksav Sofer rules, based on this, that if one ate before Yom Kippur an amount less than a date and on Yom Kippur ate more which accumalatively equals a date and he is satiated, he will be liable for eating on Yom Kippur. This again can only be understood by saying that we must distinguish between the 'eating' on Yom Kippur and elsewhere. This person did not eat the full amount on Yom Kippur and yet has violated the trangression. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition is not to eat in a manner that will lead to satisfaction. The Achiezer discusses if one would be allowed to have food inserted through intravenous. The reason to say that it is not permitted is because the Torah is not particular on the action of eating, rather the satiation that comes from it.

This could be the explanation in our Gemora. Even though one who eats food in the amount of a date in a longer span that it would take to eat a half a loaf is considered eating, however he is not satiated through this and hence not liable.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 78 - Touching Food on Yom Kippur

There is a question discussed in some of the Poskim if one is allowed to touch food on Yom Kippur. Perhaps it has a halacha similar to muktza. Mahril Diskin brings a proof from our Gemora that it is permitted. Rav Yehuda stated that one is permitted to cool himself off with fruit and he actually did so with a certain type of vegetable. However, he retracts from this proof because the Gemora can be referring to fruits and vegetables that cannot be eaten raw and there is no suspicion that he will come to eat it, however a food that we are worried that one might forget and eat it, should not be touched on Tom Kippur.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 76 - Manna Due to Yehoshua

The Gemora states that in the merit that Yehoshua waited for Moshe at the bottom of the mountain, maana fell for him in the amount fitting for the entire Klal Yisroel. What was the point for this? Even if you collected more, you nevertheless only were able to get according to the amount of people in your household and only a set amount per person?

Meshech Chochma has a novel approach to this Gemora. Klal Yisroel received the manna in the zchus of Moshe. Moshe died on the seventh of Adar. The manna lasted for them until the sixteenth of Nissan when they entered Eretz Yisroel. These forty days, the manna was in the zchus of Yehoshua. This was a direct result from the forty days that Yehoshua waited for Moshe.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Agadta in Specific Mesechtos

posted by Reb Ben

The Gemara incorporated in Maseches Yoma the lessons of the manna that fell from heaven. Prior to the discussion of the manna the Gemara derives from verses that are stated regarding the manna the concept of inuy, affliction, which is the theme of Yom Kippur. Reb Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin writes in Tzidkas HaTzaddik that the Chachamim incorporated the agadata regarding the manna in Maseches Yoma similar to the discussion regarding the Receiving of the Torah which is recorded in Maseches Shabbos. The reason the Gemara discusses the receiving of the Torah in Maseches Shabbos is because the Torah was given on Shabbos and the power of Torah is through the Shabbos. Similarly, the Gemara expounds on the miracles of the manna in Maseches Yoma because the manna was absorbed into the bodies of those who consumed the manna. On Yom Kippur one is nourished from the spiritual aspect contained in the manna, and one needs Divine Assistance to merit this. In Maseches Gittin we find the discussion regarding the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash, as the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash and the exile of the Jewish People from Eretz Yisroel was similar to a divorce of which it is said, “what is your mother’s bill of divorce by which I sent her away?” Mahri Chagiz writes that all spiritual matter is clothed in this world in a physical garment, and one who is capable can separate the physical from the spiritual and the remnants are absorbed into one’s physical being. Such a person will not have a need to expel any waste. The Torah refers to the manna as lechem haklokel, the insubstantial food. Rashi in Avodah Zara and in Parashas Chukas writes that the manna was thus referred to because it was absorbed in the limbs of the Jewish People and they had no need to expel any waste from their system.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 73 - Urim V'Tumim

The Gemora states the format and the position of the kohen gadol when a question is being asked to the Urim V'Tumim. There seems to be two arguments between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi holds that the asker (the king) and the kohen were facing each other and the kohen's face was turned towards the choshen which encased the Urim V'tumim. The Rambam holds that the kohen was facing the aron and the asker faced the back of the kohen. Another argument pertains to the voice of the one asking. The Rambam holds that nobody else should hear him, similar to the way we daven and that is the proof of the Gemora to this form the tefillah of Chanah. Rashi, however (Tosfos Yeshonim is explicit regarding this) that the kohen hears the question which is being asked.

The sefer Imrei Chein explains these opinions. They are arguing as to who is the nishal - to whom are we asking the question. Rashi holds we are asking the kohen gadol and that is why the asker faces him and that explains why he must hear the question. Rambam disagrees and holds that the question is to the Shechina. The kohen is only a conduit to the Ribono Shel Olam. This is why they both are facing the aron, the place where the Shechina resides and this explains why the kohen does not have to hear the question.

Look in Ibn Ezra in Parshas Pinchos where the Torah informs us of the asking of the Urim V'Tumim and he says two explanations in the words of the passuk 'al piv yetzu'. One pshat is by the mouth of Elozar HaKohen through the Urim V'Tumim and his second explanation is by the words of the Urim V'Tumim. The two explanations are based on what we explained before.

According to this, perhaps we can explain a Gemora in Temurah. The Gemora relates that in the days when Klal Yisroel were mourning the loss of Moshe Rabbeinu, three thousand halochos were forgotten. They went to Yehoshua and Elozar (and others) and said "Go ask from Hashem these halachos." There were two responses given. One was that a prophet does not have permission to create new laws and a second answer to them was that Torah cannot be found in the heaven. What is the significance of these two responses?

The Brisker Rov asks on how would they have asked Hashem anyway? Moshe was the only one who had a direct channel to Hashem. They couldn't speak to Hashem whenever they wanted? He answers that the Gemora means that they would ask by utilyzing the Urim V'Tumim.

We now can understand the two responses of the Gemora (bderech drush ktzas), based on the two explanations of the Urim V'Tumim. If the question was asked to the Ribono Shel Olam and the kohen is only a conduit, the response that was given to Klal Yisroel at that time was Torah cannot be found in the heavens. A halachic shaila cannot be answered using the Urim V'Tumim. If the question was asked to the kohen and he would answer using the Urim V'Tumim, his response was that a prophet cannot create new halachos and therefore he doesn't have the power to return those halachos that were forgotten.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 57 - Connection to Eicha

It seems noteworthy to mention that daf 57, which is the daf we were to learn on Tisha B'Av has a little רמז to תשעה באב. Rebbe Yirmiya stated that the people who live in Bavel are fools - for they live in a dark land, they say over gloomy statements. The Gemora in Sanhedrin brings the passuk in Eicha במחשכים הושיבני and expounds it to mean that it is referring to Talmud Bavli.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 53 - Reciting the Ketores During the Week

The Rama (132) writes that one should be careful when saying the פטום הקטרת that it should be recited from a siddur and not by heart, for since the recital is in place of the haktara and if one of the ingredients are missing, there is a חיוב מיתה. He continues that this is why some have the custom of reciting this only on Shabbos when one has more time and he will not be in a rush. The Beis Yosef asks on this that מיתה is only by the burning and also only if it is intentional, therefore it can be said during the week as well.

The comments have been busy with the source for a klaf... try here.

RoshHashanah

Read more!

Yoma 53 Ingredients of the Ketores (review from 38)

The Gemora relates that there was a family named Avtinas that knew how to make the ketores but they didnt want to teach anyone else. Experts were brought in without success. Avtinas knew how to make it that it would be מעלה עשן - the smoke would rise in a column and the experts from Mitzrayim could not duplicate this. Rashi says they didn't know which עשב (herb, grass) was the correct one. The Beis Yosef (133) learns from here that even if this particular ingredient is missing, the ketores is still good. The Mishna L'melech and others are bewildered that the Beis Yosef is against a later Gemorah that states explicitly that if this ingredient is missing, there is a chiyuv misah? מהריץ חיות answers that there will not be a chiyuv if the ingredient is not available. Tosfos Yeshonim explains our Gemora by saying that they had an ingredient which was called מעלה עשן and therefore it was כשר, however it was not the one that could produce the smoke in the correct way. Rav Elozar Landau notes that they had the correct one, but they couldn't ascertain which was the best quality for the correct result.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 53 - Ketores Missing Ingredient

The Gemora states that if the kohen Gadol enters the Kodesh Kodoshim with the ketores and he is missing one of the ingredients, he will be חייב מיתה. The Gemora proceeds to ask, that he will be חייב anyway because of the prohibition of entering the Kodesh Kodoshim unnecessarily (for he did not fulfill the mitzva of ketores)?

In the Sefer Yam Hatalmud, he asks based on a Gemora in Shevuos, which learns according to the opinion of Rebbe that Yom Kippur will automatically be mechaper for any aveiros that are not specific for Yom Kippur. If so, what is our Gemora asking? If the issur is burning the ketores when it is missing an ingredient, this is an issur exclusive to Yom Kippur and he can be punished for it, but if the issur is entering the Kodesh Kodoshim for no reason, that is relevant the entire year and Yom Kippur will give him an atonement immediately? (See שמועת חיים for a possible answer.)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 48 - Holy Hands

The Gemora asks a שאלה as to what the halacha would be if the ketores which was in the hands of the kohen gadol spilled onto the floor, will he be allowed to gather it up. The basis for this question is how do we view his hands. Are his hands like the animal's neck and therefore it will be פסול (similar to blood that spilled from the neck of the animal) or do we consider his hands like a כלי שרת and hence it will be כשר. The Ritva explains why his hands should be considered a כלי by quoting the previous Gemora, that in truth the Torah does not mention the use of a utensil by the ketores. It is used because there was no method to bring the handful of ketores by hand together with the pan containing the coals, consequently, one can say that the kohen's hands served as the כלי.

Tosfos poses a solution to the dilemma of that Gemora, based on our Gemora that his hands will be regarded as a כלי שרת. He can hold the ketores in his hands and place the מחתה on top of it. When he enters the Kodesh Kodoshim, let him loosen his hands enabling the ketores to fall to the ground, place the coals down and then scoop up the ketores (which will now be allowed) and put it on the coals.

Read more!

Which Mitzva takes Precedence? - Yoma 34 - Daf yomi

The Gemora on Daf 34a learns out the obligation of nesachim - the wine libations by the two temidin which were brought every day. There is an argument there if we learn the morning tamid from the afternoon or vice-versa. Tosfos comments that there would be a difference l'halacha if they would have only enough nesachim for one korban, Which tamid should have the nesachim. Is the primary tamid the morning or the afternoon. Rabeinu Chananel says that there is no difference l'halacha, it's just a matter as to how we expound the pesukim. The Sfas Emes asks on Tosfos that the din should be clearly that whichever mitzva one is holding by, that is the one he should perform and if one is ready to bring the morning tamid, he should bring the nesachim with that one, even if the afternoon tamid is the primary one.

This actually is an argument between the Radvaz (187) and the Chacham Tzvi (106) regarding a person who was in jail and he did not have the ability to perform any mitzvos and his captors gave him one day that he can choose to be released and perform the mitzvos of that day, which day should he choose. The Radvaz says he should choose the first opportunity that he has and the Chacham Tzvi disagrees and holds that one should wait until there is a mitzva of great prominence.

The Biur Halacha (109) has a shaila if one davens normally a long shemone esrei and he will certainly miss kedusha, should he daven with the tzibur and fulfill the mitzva of tefila b'tzibur or should he wait and fulfill the mitzva of reciting kedusha.

Read more!