Yoma 61b — the Talmud in English

The following sugya is explained according to Rashi’s version, and in the notes the version of Rabbenu Hananel is explained.

A guilt-offering of a metzora that was slaughtered not for its sake,

such as for the sake of a burnt-offering or for the sake of a peace-offering. And the Master said: All offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid [and he must cast its blood in accordance with all its laws, Ritva], except that they did not count for the owners as their obligation—

We have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi

Shimon,

just as they dispute with regard to blood that was spilled—whether he should begin at the outset, or whether he begins from the place at which he stopped—so too they dispute in this matter, as he explains and proceeds.

To

Rabbi Meir, who says: He must bring another offering and begin from the beginning,

a service that was not completed is considered as though it does not exist. Therefore, if the blood was spilled, he begins that service from its beginning.

Here too,

since this service too was not completed—for it did not count as fulfilling the obligation—even though he had already applied some of its blood to the thumbs and big toes, it is considered as though it does not exist, and he

must bring

a guilt-offering

of another animal and slaughter it.

Rabbi Meir, who says: He should bring another one and begin at the outset,

an act of Temple service that was not completed is considered as though it does not exist; and therefore, if the blood was spilled, he begins from the beginning of that act of service.

it is evident that they do not consider the earlier service as though it does not exist.

Here too,

it has significance, and the service cannot be completed with another offering. For it is written: “one sheep as a guilt-offering”—I told you to bring one guilt-offering, and not two guilt-offerings. Here, it cannot be rejected by the argument stated above, namely, “I told you to perform one purification service and not two purification services.” Therefore,

there is no remedy for him.

Here too,

this one, since it was not completed—for it did not count as his obligation—even though he applied some of it to the thumbs and toes, it is considered as though it does not exist, and he should bring another guilt-offering and slaughter it. And according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say: He begins from the place at which he stopped, it is evident that he does not say that it is considered as though it does not exist. Here too it is considered significant, and it is impossible to complete it with another one; for it is written: “one sheep, a guilt-offering”—I have told you one guilt-offering and not two guilt-offerings. And here it cannot be rejected as we said above, “one purification I have told you and not two purifications.” Therefore, there is no remedy. Rav Hisda challenges

Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that according to Rabbi Meir he should bring another one and slaughter it—

But

“and he shall offer

it

as a guilt-offering, and the log of oil”—

it is written,

And we conclude:

“it” that was waved together with the log, and not another one; and even according to Rabbi Meir as well there is no remedy?!

And we conclude:

Difficult!

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan,

that there is one who holds that he should bring another one:

A guilt-offering of a metzora that was slaughtered not for its sake, or whose blood was not applied to the thumbs and toes,

but he applied some of its blood on the altar:

It is fit for the altar,

for the burning of the sacrificial portions, for “all offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid.”

And it requires libations,

like a guilt-offering of a metzora [and not like other guilt-offerings, which do not require libations]; since if you do not say that it requires libations, but he sacrifices it without libations, you have invalidated it. To change it to the designation of another offering is impossible, for it was set aside for the designation of a guilt-offering, and a guilt-offering of a metzora is not rendered fit without libations, for there is no guilt-offering of a metzora without libations [Menahot 89b and Rashi from a manuscript].

And he requires another guilt-offering to render him fit

for this metzora, to purify him so that he may eat sacred food, [Rashi].

We have thus learned that there is one who says that he has a remedy through another guilt-offering.

He needs one, but there is no remedy for him.

And is it so that

a tanna

And Rav Hisda could say to you: What is the meaning of “he requires

another guilt-offering to render him fit”? He requires one, but there is no remedy. And

is it so that

a tanna teaches “he requires” and there is no remedy?!

Are there different tannaim who say “he requires” with regard to something for which there is no remedy?!

No,

indeed we find that the tanna says “he requires,” and nevertheless there is no remedy,

as it was taught;

in agreement:

It is written in the section of the nazirite: “A man or a woman, when he clearly utters a vow, the vow of a nazirite, and so forth. All the days of his vow of naziriteship, a razor shall not pass over his head, until the completion of the days that he shall abstain for the Lord, and so forth. And this is the law of the nazirite on the day that the days of his naziriteship are completed, and so forth. And he shall bring his offering to the Lord, and so forth. And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting the head of his naziriteship, and so forth.”

And since Scripture said, “A razor shall not pass over his head ‘until the completion of the days,’” it implies that when the days are completed, a razor shall indeed pass over his head, and he must shave with a razor.

for the Torah says, “And the nazirite shall shave,” and we require the act to be performed exactly as the verse states, namely, that he actually shave. Since he cannot perform a shaving, there is no remedy for him.

And Rav Avina’s view disagrees with that of Rabbi Pedat: For according to Rabbi Pedat, “he must, and there is a remedy”: He should pass a razor over his head even though he does not shave anything, because when the required act is impossible, we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written [“we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written”]. For Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Elazar stated one and the same principle: When the required act is impossible, we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written: Beit Shammai: This is the ruling we stated, that he passes a razor over his head even though “the nazirite shall shave” is not fulfilled, since the proper act is impossible.

And Rav Avina said: When Beit Shammai say “it is required,”

A nazirite who is bald,

without hair and has nothing to shave:

The House of Shammai say: He requires the passing of a razor.

for the Torah says, “And the nazirite shall shave,” and we require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written, so that he perform a shaving. Since he cannot fulfill the act of shaving, there is no remedy for him.

And Rav Avina disagrees with Rabbi Pedat; for according to Rabbi Pedat, “it is required and he has a remedy”: he should pass a razor over his head even though he shaves nothing, because since it is impossible, we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written [“we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written”]. For Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Elazar expressed one and the same opinion, that where something is impossible, we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written:

Rabbi Elazar, as it was taught:

If the leper has no

thumb of the hand or

big toe of the foot

on which to apply blood and oil in the “application to the thumbs and big toes,”

this leper has no

permanent purification.

Rabbi Elazar says: He applies the blood and oil to the place of the thumb or toe

that is missing,

and fulfills

And the House of Hillel say: He does not require the passing of a razor.

his obligation, since the required act is impossible.

Rabbi Shimon says: If he applied it to

the left thumb and big toe

of the left hand and foot—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the purification of a leper: “The priest shall take one of the sheep and offer it as a guilt-offering… He shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin-offering and the elevation-offering, in the sacred place, for like the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; it is most sacred; it belongs to the priest. ‘And the priest shall take’

And Rav Avina said: When the House of Shammai say “he requires,”

that is

and the priest shall apply it to the cartilage of the right ear of the one being purified, to the thumb of his right hand, and to the big toe of his right foot—

Everywhere that the expression “taking” is stated in connection with slaughter, it means receiving the blood:

One might have thought that the priest may receive the blood of the guilt-offering

in a vessel

in order to apply it to the thumbs and big toes—

The verse therefore says: “And the priest shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering,”

he requires it, but there is no remedy,

for the Torah says, “And the nazirite shall shave,” and we require the verse as it is written, that he perform shaving; and since he cannot fulfill shaving, there is no remedy.

And Rav Avina disagrees

with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat; for according to Rabbi Pedat, “he requires it and there is a remedy”: he should pass a razor over his head, even though he does not “shave” anything at all, for since it is impossible, we do not require him to perform it according to what is written in the verse [“we do not require the verse as it is written”]. For Rabbi Pedat said: The House of Shammai and Rabbi Elazar said one thing, for wherever it is impossible, we do not require the verse as it is written: The House of Shammai—the matter that we said, that he passes a razor even though “and the nazirite shall shave” is not fulfilled, since it is impossible. Rabbi Elazar, as it was taught: He does not have the metzora a thumb of the hand and a big toe of the foot on which to apply from the blood and from the oil the “application on the thumbs and toes”; therefore he does not have this metzora everlasting purification. Rabbi Elazar says: He applies on its place, of the thumb, and he fulfills his obligation, since it is impossible. Rabbi Shimon says: If he applied on the thumb of the hand and the foot of the left, he has fulfilled his obligation.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the section of the purification of the metzora: “And the priest shall take the one sheep and offer it as a guilt-offering, and so forth. And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where he shall slaughter the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place, for as the sin-offering is, so is this guilt-offering; it is most holy.”

“And he shall take”

the priest

from the blood of the guilt-offering

and the priest shall apply it on the cartilage of the right ear of the one being purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot—

And everywhere that the expression “taking” is stated with regard to slaughter, it is the expression of “receiving”:

to the altar [as with other offerings],

yes,

that he should receive it in his hand and apply to the altar some of the blood held in his hand—

The verse therefore says: “For like the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering”:

the law of this guilt-offering’s priestly service is like the law of the sin-offering [Rashi, there].

Just as a sin-offering requires a vessel

to receive its blood—since all offerings are compared to peace-offerings, concerning which it is stated: “Moses took half the blood [of the elevation-offerings and peace-offerings] and placed it in basins”—

so too a guilt-offering

of a leper

requires receiving the blood in a

vessel.

to receive its blood—for all offerings were equated with peace-offerings, concerning which it is stated: “And Moses took half of the blood [of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings] and placed it in basins”—

so too, this guilt-offering

One might have thought

that the priest should receive the blood of the guilt-offering

requires

receiving the blood in a

You therefore find that two priests receive the blood

of the leper’s guilt-offering:

one by hand and one in a vessel; the one who received it in a vessel goes to the altar

and applies some of the blood to it;

and the one who received it by hand goes to the leper

to apply it to his thumbs and big toes.

The Sages taught

concerning our Mishna [this appears to be Rashi’s understanding]: When the blood of the bull or goat brought for the second sprinkling toward the curtain was spilled, and afterward its blood was spilled, one brings a third bull or goat for the altar [Rashi]:

And all of them—

all those bulls and goats that he brought—

are subject to the law stated concerning the burning of the Yom Kippur bull and goat, and they

render garments impure and are burned at the ash place

in a vessel

in order to perform the application on the thumbs and toes— The verse states: “And the priest shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering,” “and he shall apply,” to teach you: Just as the application on the thumbs and toes is by the priest himself, with his finger, for “finger” is written with regard to the oil, and the application of the blood is learned from it [Rashi, Zevahim], so too the taking is by the priest himself. One might have thought even in order to give from the blood of the guilt-offering to the altar [A0183]like the other offerings— so; that he should receive it in his hand and give from the blood in his hand upon the altar— The verse states: “For as the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering,” according to the law of the sin-offering is the law of this guilt-offering in the service of the priest [Rashi there]; just as a sin-offering requires a vessel to receive its blood—for all offerings were compared to peace-offerings, concerning which it is stated: “And Moses took half the blood [of the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings] and placed it in basins”— so too a guilt-offering of a metzora requires receiving in a vessel. You therefore find that two priests receive its blood,

of the guilt-offering of the metzora:

one by hand and one in a vessel; the one who received it in a vessel comes to the altar

and gives from the blood upon it;

and the one who received it by hand comes to the metzora

to perform the application on the thumbs and toes upon him.

The Sages taught

with regard to our Mishna [so it appears from Rashi], concerning the blood that was spilled, in which case he brings a second bull or goat to the curtain, and if the blood was spilled afterward, he brings a third bull or goat for the altar [Rashi]:

And all of them—

all those bulls and goats that he brought—are subject to the law stated concerning the burning of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, and

they render garments impure and are burned at the place of the ashes

[a special place for this], that is: all of them require burning outside the three camps, and at the time of their burning they render impure the garments of the one who burns them—

As the verse says concerning the bull and goat of Yom Kippur: “And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought to atone in the holy place, he shall take outside the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their refuse”;

the words of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages say: they do not render the garments impure and are not burned at the ash heap,

but only the last one

alone,

since atonement was completed through it.

Rava asked Rav Nahman: How many goats does he send?

That is to say: He drew lots for two goats, slaughtered the goat upon which the lot for the Lord had fallen, and made the applications from it before and within the innermost area; and the blood was spilled after he had completed the applications within, and he had to bring two other goats and draw lots for them; and he slaughtered the goat upon which the lot for the Lord had fallen, and made from it the applications upon the curtain, and the blood was spilled, and he drew lots a third time. There are here, then, three goats for Azazel from three pairs. How many of them does he send to Azazel [Rashi]?

He said to him

Rav Nahman to Rava:

And does he send his herd?!

That is to say: Scripture required sending only one; while the others graze until they become blemished, are sold, and their monies fall to a freewill offering [Ritva]. Later the amoraim dispute which of them is sent.

He said to him

Rava to Rav Nahman: