Yoma 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

altar, as it is understood,”

refers to one who performed a service while impure at the altar without incurring liability for impurity in the Temple—for example, he became impure in the Temple and performed a service without remaining there for the required time. In that case there is no impurity of the Temple, since with regard to one who became impure in the courtyard, we have an oral tradition from Sinai, recorded in Shevuot, that he is not liable until he remains there for the time required to bow. [Rashi’s wording, Hullin 131b; see the note

And who are those who achieve atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings through the blood of the bull and the goat? [See the note

—

and the blood was spilled, he must bring other blood and begin again with the applications in the innermost chamber. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins only from the place where he stopped.

—

—from there

he begins.

And.

Once he has completed the offerings on the altar and the blood has spilled, everyone agrees

the pouring of the remainder

does not invalidate.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them—

Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who disputed whether, if this occurs, he returns and performs the atonement from the beginning, or begins from the point at which he stopped—

derived their opinions from one verse:

As it is written: “And Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns”—of the inner altar—

“once a year from the blood of the sin-offering of the atonements”

he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations.

Rabbi Meir holds: “sin-offering”—one

animal—

I told you

to effect the entire atonement,

and not two sin-offerings

two animals for a single atonement. Therefore, he performs the entire atonement from the second animal.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold: “atonement”—one

sprinkling—

I told you

in one place,

and not two acts of atonement.

He does not repeat the sprinkling twice; rather, he performs only the continuation of the sprinkling from the second animal.

A leper who has recovered from his leprosy, after bringing for his purification two birds, cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool, and after the priest slaughtered one of the birds and immersed the other bird together with the cedar wood and the crimson wool in the blood of the slaughtered bird, and sprinkled upon the leper seven times, and shaved him and immersed him—

he counts seven days for him, and on the seventh day shaves him a second time [and immerses him again, Rambam]; and on the eighth day he immerses once more and brings his offerings [in order to render him fit to eat sacrificial food]: a sheep for a guilt-offering, and with the guilt-offering he brings a log of oil, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a sheep for a burnt-offering, and the meal-offering of fine flour.

At the beginning of his atonement, he slaughters the guilt-offering [and sprinkles its blood on the altar, and afterward] sprinkles from its blood on the leper’s right ear lobe and on the thumbs of his right hand and right foot, and afterward takes the oil, and the priest pours it onto the left palm of another priest, and sprinkles it toward the Curtain opposite the Holy of Holies seven times, and afterward sprinkles from it in the place where he sprinkled the blood, on the ear lobe and the right thumbs; and the priest places the remainder in his palm on the head of the one undergoing purification, and he offers the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, and the meal-offering, [the introduction of the Meiri].

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi said: Rabbi Yaakov apportioned for me the log measures

of the oil of a leper—

That is to say: Rabbi Yaakov transmitted to me a distinction concerning the applications of the log of oil of a leper, which are not equated with the application of the blood on Yom Kippur, and he taught me: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon also agree in this case that we do not say, “He begins from the point at which he stopped”; rather, if he brought another log in the middle of the applications of the oil inside, he returns to the beginning of the applications, and the same applies to the application on the thumbs—

and the reason is: “one log” of oil I told you was to effect the atonement, and not two logs for a single atonement, since here one cannot expound, “One act of atonement I told you, and not two acts of atonement.”

We raise an objection:

And

is it so that

not

did Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon also dispute the matter of the log of oil of a leper, saying: He begins from the point at which he stopped?!

But it was taught in a baraita

concerning the sprinklings of the log of oil of a leper, analogous to what they said concerning the bull and goat of Yom Kippur:

1.

If he applied

some of the oil

of the applications inside, and it spilled

the log; he must bring another log and begin again with the applications inside,

that is, with those applications with which he began.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins from the point at which he stopped,

and need not begin again from the beginning, because although the term “sin-offering” is not stated with regard to it, to expound the term “atonement,” nevertheless, we derive it from the applications on Yom Kippur [Ritva].

2.

If he completed the applications in the Sanctuary

before the Curtain

and the log spilled, he must bring another log and begin again with the applications on the thumbs,

but he need not repeat the applications inside.

3.

If he applied some of the applications on the thumbs and the log spilled, he must bring a log

another,

and begin again with the applications on the thumbs; Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins from the point at which he stopped,

and need not begin from the beginning of the applications on the thumbs.

4.

If he completed the applications on the thumbs and the log spilled, everyone agrees: The applications on the head do not invalidate.

And we answer:

Say

that this is what Rabbi said:

Rabbi Yaakov taught me

this dispute also

with regard to the logs.

The Master said: The applications on the head do not invalidate; what is the reason?

If you say it is because it is written: “And the remainder” of the oil

which is on the priest’s palm he shall place on the head of the one undergoing purification; and since Scripture calls it by the term “remainder,” conclude from this that the remainder does not invalidate [Ra’AL].

But if that is so,

with regard to the meal-offering, where it is written: “And the priest shall scoop a handful,” etc.:

“And that which remains of the meal-offering

shall be for Aaron and his sons,”

is it likewise the case that they do not invalidate,

merely because Scripture called it “that which remains,” as though it were merely an ancillary matter and a remainder [Ritva]?! But we learned: If the remainder of a meal-offering became lacking between the scooping and the burning, one may not burn the handful over it.

And we answer:

There it is different,

with regard to the leper,

as it is written:

“And the priest shall dip his right finger into the oil that is on his palm,” etc.

And from the remainder

of the oil that is on his palm the priest shall place on the ear lobe, etc.,

and the remainder

of the oil that is on the priest’s palm he shall place on the head of the one undergoing purification—

thus, what he places on the head of the one undergoing purification is “the remainder of the remainder,” indicating that it is not an actual remainder, but the remainder of the remainder, which does not invalidate [Ra’AL].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: