In the last part of our parsha appears the order of the sacrifices of all the times of the year. The Torah opens with the Tamid (perpetual, meaning daily) sacrifice, and continues with Mussaf (additional sacrifice) of Shabbat, of Rosh Chodesh, and of all the other Mo'adei HaShem (Festivals). The Mishna in Zevachim (89a) defines a fundamental Halachic principle: That which is tadir (frequent) precedes its counterpart. The Tamid sacrifices precede the additional sacrifices, and the Mussafin of Shabbat precede the Mussafin of Rosh Chodesh, as it says: "In addition to the Olah of the morning, which is offered as a continual burnt offering, you shall do (offer up) these." So it is, that the continual burnt-offering precedes all the other sacrifices because of its perpetuity, and similarly everything which is more frequent than its counterpart precedes its counterpart.

This principle, which is learned from the realm of sacrifices, touches all the laws of the Torah, and it has ramifications with regard to the Halachot of Kiddush of Shabbat and Yom Tov, and in certain situations also regarding the Mincha offering preceding the Mussaf.
 

In the next Mishna on the same page, another principle appears: "That which is holier than its counterpart precedes: the blood of the sin-offering precedes the blood of the burnt-offering because it appeases (atones). This principle is also leaned from the verses, although not in our parsha but from the purification of the Levites in parshat Beha'alotcha. This principle touches upon all the Halachot of the Torah as well.
 

The great question, which remains without an answer in the Gemara, is: what is the Halacha when we have before us tadir (more frequent) and mekudash (holier): in such a situation does the more frequent take precedence, or perhaps does the holiness of the other thing supersede the importance of the one which is tadir?
 

The Gemara tries to answer this question, and after six attempts the issue remains unresolved. Let us focus on the sixth question, from which we can learn an important principle:

"Come and hear: shelamim from yesterday, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings from today: shelamim from yesterday come first. However, if both are from today, then the guilt- and sin- offerings come first, even though the shelamim are more frequent!  Rava said: you mentioned matzui (more frequent), but the question is regarding tadir (perpetual)."
 

When a beast for shelamim was brought to the Temple courtyard yesterday and has not yet been slaughtered, and we have before us a sin- and guilt- offering which was brought today, the Halacha determines that we first offer the shelamim from yesterday in order to prevent the belittling of kodeshim that would result from a long delay. The Gemara specifies: if the shelamim were brought on the same day as the sin- or guilt- offering, then the latter must be offered before the shelamim, in spite of the fact that shelamim are offered more frequently than sin- and guilt- offerings, since they can be offered as a neder (vow offering) or a nedavah (voluntary offering). It follows that mekudash supersedes the more frequent, since sin- and guilt- offerings are kodshei kodeshim, whereas shelamim are kodeshim kalim - a lesser level of holiness. Rava rejects this: shelamim are not defined as "tadir" (perpetual) but as "matzui" (frequent). There is no obligation to offer them continually, but (in actuality) they are more commonly offered in Beit HaMikdash, and therefore the above discussion does not answer our question.  But we learn from this that tadir is relevant only to something which is an obligation upon the person.
 

According to this principle, which discerns between "perpetual" and "frequent", a serious question arises regarding an issue which is debated by Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai regarding the seudah:
 

The Gemara in Brachot (51b) and Pesachim (114a) describes the discussion between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the order of the blessings of Kiddush. According to Beit Shammai, the blessing over the day precedes the blessing over wine, and Beit Hillel says the opposite. One of the rationales of Beit Hillel is that the blessing over wine is more frequent, and tadir precedes that which is not tadir. We can ask regarding Beit Shammai: what could they answer to that claim? Do they not adhere to the principle that tadir precedes that which is not tadir? And we can ask an even greater question regarding Beit Hillel: The blessing over wine does not fit the definition of tadir but rather of matzui – frequent.  As we learned in Zevachim, a Mitzvah which it is not obligatory to constantly perform is only defined a matzui, and the blessing over wine, which indeed is said more frequently over the course of the year, is certainly not considered "tadir", and this entire issue requires clarification.
 

HaRav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers an amazing explanation in which each question is answered by its counterpart. He says, in the name of his grandfather HaGaon HaRav Chaim of Brisk, that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed regarding the nature of the blessing over the wine of Kiddush: we must examine whether the blessing over wine is appended to the blessing of the day and remains a birkat hanehenim (blessing before enjoyment), the purpose of which is to permit tasting the wine? Or is the blessing over the wine of Kiddush defined as an integral part of Kiddush, and therefore it has the status of birkat haMitzvot and not only a blessing which permits the drinking?

And therefore, we can say that according to Beit Shammai, the blessing over wine remains a birkat hanehenim and is considered matzui, and therefore they have no need to address the question of "tadir and not tadir." And according to Beit Hillel, the status of the blessing has changed and it is part of the obligation of Kiddush, and the logic of tadir preceding not tadir is entirely applicable.
 

According to this, he wrote that the practical implication of this is that one who did not hear the blessing over wine of Kiddush and heard only the blessing of the day, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah, and he must say or hear again the entire Kiddush since he missed part of the Kiddush. That is, he did not only miss the blessing over wine in the sense that it permits drinking it. But in reality I did not see that the Rabbis ruled this way.
 

As was mentioned earlier, the question in the Gemara was not resolved, and the Rambam ruled )T'midim uMussafin 9,2): "Before him were tadir and mekudash – he can give precedence to whichever one he wants."
 

According to this ruling of the Rambam, the brilliant author of the Sha'agat Aryeh (literally: the 'Roar of the Lion') attempted to challenge the order of actions which every man of Israel is accustomed to doing every day. The Nimukei Yosef wrote that we should first wrap with Tzitzit (put on the Tallit) before putting on the Tefillin, as is our custom, and this is for two reasons: the first, because the Tzitzit corresponds to the entire Torah, and the second, that Tzitzit is more frequent since this Mitzvah is practiced all the days of the year, and the Mitzvah of Tefillin is only observed on days of chol (excluding Shabbat or Festivals).

Regarding this, the Sha'agat Aryeh said the following: Isn't it true that the din (fundamental law) is that Tzitzit are not observed at night according to the majority of Poskim, among them the Rambam, whereas according to most opinions the din is that Tefillin are practiced at night, but the Rabbis decreed not to don them at night, lest one sleep with them on him. It turns out that the Mitzvah of Tefillin is more frequent than Tzitzit (!). Moreover, even should you want to assert that a day garment is obliged to have Tzitzit if it is worn at night, and also that (in practice) Tefillin are not put on at night, and therefore Tzitzit are more frequent – in any case Tefillin are Tashmishei Kedushah (articles of holiness) and Tzitzit are articles of Mitzvah. So we have arrived at the question which has not been answered – the issue of tadir and mekudash – in which case, according to the Rambam, one can give priority to whichever one he wants to.
 

So we can learn that it is preferable to put on Tefillin first and afterwards to wrap with Tzitzit. Mimah nafshach (what difference does it make): If Tefillin are more frequent as was explained, then Tefillin are tadir and mekudash in comparison to the Tzitzit. And if we say that the Tzitzit are more frequent, in any case it is tadir against mekudash, and if he puts on Tefillin first, he does not transgress shurat hadin (the fundamental law).
 

And on top of everything, the 'roaring lion' added that the Tzitzit is considered matzui, since there is no obligation (from the Torah) for every man to wear a four-cornered garment (which requires Tzitzit) as opposed to Tefillin, for which there is a clear, indisputable obligation.
 

And with regard to the Nimukei Yosef's first rationale - that the Tzitzit corresponds to the entire Torah - the Sha'agat Aryeh retorts that this is not a reason to put aside the Torah law of tadir and mekudash.
 

In terms of practical Halacha, the Acharonim did not accept the argument of the Sha'agat Aryeh, and instead upheld the words of the Nimukei Yosef, as is the practice of all of Israel.
 

Interestingly, the Beit Yosef (Ohr HaChaim, ch. 25) quotes the two reasons of the Nimukei Yosef in the preface to the laws of Tzitzit and Tefillin, however, in the corresponding chapter of the Shulchan Aruch, the Mechaber ('The Compiler' - HaRav Yosef Karo, who was also the author of the Beit Yosef) deleted both of the reasons which he brought in the Beit Yosef and wrote a different reason. And I found in the book Chatan Sofer that he wrote that Maran (our teacher) the Mechaber was not comfortable with the two reasons of the Nimukei Yosef because of the same difficulties which the Sha'agat Aryeh grappled with over two hundred years later. And therefore he chose a different explanation: ma'alin bekodesh (we ascend in holiness).
 

The Chatan Sofer added (according the Eliah Rabbah) that the law of ma'alin bekodesh is incumbent upon the person who ascends from holiness to a higher holiness. And therefore, even though regarding the Mitzvot themselves, there are grounds to say that Tefillin come first, nevertheless, regarding the man, it is proper to first wrap himself in Tzitzit and afterwards to put on Tefillin, and as he says: "With regard to Mitzvot with which one attires himself, and with them he cleaves to kedushah, it is much preferable to ascend from level to level, upwards and upwards in holiness, and understand this.
 

May we always merit to be tadirim (perpetual) in Torah and mekudashim in Mitzvot.