Yoma 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

The following sugya is explained according to Rashi’s version; the notes explain the version of Rav Hai Gaon.

A leper’s guilt-offering that was slaughtered שלא לשמו—

for example, with the designation of a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, and the Master said: All offerings that were slaughtered שלא לשמן are valid [and he must sprinkle its blood according to all its laws, Ritva], except that they do not count for their owners as fulfilling their obligation—

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

Shimon.

Just as they dispute the case where the blood was spilled—whether he must begin the service again from the beginning or begin from the point at which he stopped—so too they dispute this matter, as will be explained.

For

according to Rabbi Meir, who says: He brings another one and begins 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 from the beginning of that service,

here too

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

he brings

another guilt-offering

and slaughters it.

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

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

it is evident that they do not say that the first service is considered as though it does not exist.

Here

too, the first offering retains significance, and it is impossible to complete the service with another one, for it is written: “One lamb as a guilt-offering”—I have told you to bring one guilt-offering, and not two guilt-offerings. Here one cannot reject this argument by saying, as we said above, “One purification have I told you to perform, and not two purifications.” Therefore,

there is no remedy for him.

Rav Hisda raised an objection

to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that according to Rabbi Meir he brings another offering and slaughters it—

But it is written: “And he shall offer

it

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

it

which was waved together with the log, and not another one. Even according to Rabbi Meir, then, there is no remedy for him?!

it is written,

It is written

and we conclude:

Difficult!

A beraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan,

that there is an opinion that he brings another offering:

A leper’s guilt-offering that was slaughtered שלא לשמו, or from whose blood he did not apply to the thumbs and big toes,

but he did apply some of its blood to the altar:

It is valid for the altar,

for burning the sacrificial portions, since “all offerings that were slaughtered שלא לשמן are valid.”

And it requires libations,

as does a leper’s guilt-offering [and not like other guilt-offerings, which do not require libations]. Since, if you do not say that it requires libations, but sacrifice it without libations, you have thereby invalidated it: changing its designation to that of another offering is impossible, since it was consecrated as a guilt-offering, and a leper’s guilt-offering is not rendered valid without libations, for there is no leper’s guilt-offering without libations [Menaḥot 89b and Rashi from a manuscript].

And he requires another guilt-offering to render him fit,

for this leper to purify him so that he may eat sacrificial food [Rashi].

Thus we have learned that there is an opinion that he has a remedy through another guilt-offering.

And Rav Hisda could say to you: What does “he requires

another guilt-offering to render him fit” mean?

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

And

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

is it the case that

a tanna teaches “he requires” when there is no remedy for him?!

Are there different tannaitic formulations of “he requires” concerning a matter for which there is no remedy?!

No—indeed, we find that a tanna says “he requires,” and nevertheless there is no remedy for him.

And it was taught

in agreement, without objection:

The Torah states concerning the nazirite: “When a man or woman clearly utters a nazirite vow…”; “All the days of his nazirite vow, no razor shall pass over his head until the completion of the days that he abstains for the Lord…”; “And this is the law of the nazirite on the day that the days of his naziriteship are completed…”; “And he shall bring his offering to the Lord…”; “And the nazirite shall shave the head of his naziriteship at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting…”

Since Scripture says, “No razor shall pass over his head ‘until the completion of the days,’” it implies that when the days are completed, a razor will indeed pass over his head, and he must shave with a razor.

A nazirite who is bald,

lacking hair and having nothing to shave:

Beit Shammai say: The passing of a razor is required.

And Beit Hillel say: The passing of a razor is not required.

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

A nazirite who is bald,

this means: It is required, but there is no remedy for him,

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:

Beit Shammai: This is what we said,

that he passes a razor over his head even though “and the nazirite shall shave” is not fulfilled, since it is impossible.

Rabbi Elazar, as it was taught:

If the leper has no

thumb of the hand and

big toe of the foot

on which to apply blood and oil as the application to the thumbs and big toes,

this leper has no

everlasting purification.

Rabbi Elazar says: He applies it to the place

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

of the thumb

and thereby fulfills his obligation,

since it is impossible.

Rabbi Shimon says: If he applied it to the

thumb of the hand and big toe of the foot

of the left side—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

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

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the purification of the leper: “And the priest shall take the one lamb and offer it as a guilt-offering…”; “And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he slaughters the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the sacred place; for as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; it is most holy.”

“And the priest shall take”

from the blood of the guilt-offering,

and the priest shall apply it to the middle ridge of the right ear of the one being purified, to the right thumb, and to the right big toe—

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

One might have thought

he requires it, but there is no remedy,

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

And Rav Avina disagrees

in a vessel

The Sages taught:

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

The verse states: The priest shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering

“and shall apply,”

teaching you:

Just as the application

to the thumbs and big toes is

performed by the priest himself,

with his finger, as “finger” is written concerning the oil, and the application of the blood is derived from it [Rashi, Zevaḥim],

so too, the taking is performed by the priest himself.

One might have thought that

in order to apply some of the blood of the guilt-offering

to the altar [as with other offerings],

yes,

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

The verse states: “For as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering,”

meaning that the law governing this guilt-offering is like that governing a sin-offering with regard to the priest’s service [Rashi there].

Just as a sin-offering requires 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

of the leper

requires

receiving the blood in a

vessel.

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

It follows that you can say: Two priests receive its blood,

the blood of the leper’s guilt-offering:

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

and applies some of the blood to it;

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

to apply it to the thumbs and big toes. The Sages taught concerning our Mishna [as appears from Rashi], which discusses the case where the blood was spilled, so that he brings a second bull or goat for the sprinkling toward the curtain, and if the blood of that offering was subsequently spilled, 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: they render garments impure and are burned at the place of the ashes

[a designated place for this purpose]. That is, all of them require burning outside the three camps, and while they are being burned they render impure the garments of the one who burns them—

as the verse states 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 effect atonement in the sacred place, he shall take outside the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides, their flesh, and their waste”;

the words of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon.

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: The garments do not become impure, nor

are they burned at the ash heap, except for the latter

alone,

since atonement was completed through it.

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

That is: He cast lots for two goats, slaughtered the goat upon which the lot for the Lord had fallen, and made the applications from it inside. The blood was then spilled after he had completed the applications inside, and he was required to bring two other goats and cast lots for them. He slaughtered the goat upon which the lot for the Lord had fallen, and made from its blood the applications at the curtain; the blood was then spilled, and he cast lots a third time. Thus, there are three goats for Azazel from three pairs. How many of them does he send to Azazel [Rashi]?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman said to Rava:

Does he send the entire herd?!

That is: The Torah required that only one be sent; the others graze until they become disqualified, after which they are sold and their proceeds go to voluntary offerings [Ritva]. Later, the amoraim disagree over which of them is sent.

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: