Zevachim 76b (עו:) — the Talmud in English

And if not,

that I was not a leper, and this offering that I am bringing is not a leper’s offering, then

this guilt offering

that I am bringing as a matter of doubt shall be an offering

of voluntary peace offerings

.

And that guilt offering,

which is doubtfully a leper’s guilt offering and doubtfully an offering of voluntary peace offerings,

requires slaughter in the north and the placing

of the blood on

the thumbs and toes

of the doubtful leper, as required for a leper’s guilt offering,

as well as the laying of hands, the accompanying libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh

as required for an offering of peace offerings.

And it is eaten for one day and one night

only, as required for a guilt offering.

It is evident from this that Rabbi Shimon permitted one to bring the offering and eat it only for one day and one night, despite the possibility that it is an offering of peace offerings, which is eaten for two days and one night. It follows that Rabbi Shimon permits, even ab initio, bringing consecrated offerings to a state in which they become disqualified, contrary to Rabba’s statement.

And we answer:

The case of rectifying the person is different,

as they were not stringent because of the concern that the offering might become disqualified, in order not to prevent the leper from attaining purification. For, since he is in doubt, he lacks the offerings that complete his purification, and he is not pure enough to enter the Temple or eat consecrated offerings.

Now that the Gemara has resolved Rabba’s statement, it discusses Rabbi Shimon’s ruling concerning a leper:

This works well

with regard to permitting him to bring an offering,

a guilt offering,

and stipulate concerning it that if he is not a leper it shall be an offering of peace offerings. But with regard to bringing

a log

of a leper’s oil,

what can be said?

For if he is not a leper, he is bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard, performing with non-sacred oil the service of sprinkling the oil toward the entrance of the Temple and placing it on the thumbs and toes. How can Rabbi Shimon permit this?

And we answer: There is a remedy for him: he should bring the log of oil with a stipulation, as when

he says: “This log shall be a voluntary offering

if I am not a leper.” For we learned below that a person may donate an offering of oil and bring it by itself.

But we still raise an objection:

Perhaps he is not a leper,

and since he stipulated that if he is not a leper the log of oil shall be a voluntary offering,

he must perform kemitza,

taking a handful from the oil as one takes a handful from a meal offering [and subsequently burning that handful of oil on the altar]?

And we answer: Indeed, we require

that he take a handful

from the oil and burn that handful of oil on the altar.

And we ask: How does he take a handful from the oil and burn it?

Perhaps

he is indeed

a leper, and he requires seven sprinklings

from the log of oil toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, the case is one in which

he has given

the seven sprinklings from the oil .

But there is still a difficulty:

But,

when he takes the handful from the oil,

it is lacking

the requisite measure of a handful from the log of oil. Consequently, he is not performing the seven sprinklings from a full log of oil, and the oil is thereby disqualified!?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here? A case

in which he brings

after taking a handful from the oil

a small amount

of additional oil

and fills it,

completing the measure of a log of oil.

And the Gemara proves that this may be done,

as we learned:

If the oil was

lacking

from

the log,

then

before the priest pours

some of it onto his left palm,

he fills it

with other oil to make a complete log. If so, here too he can first take a handful from the log, thereby fulfilling the requirement in the case of a doubtful voluntary offering, and afterward fill it with other oil, before the priest pours from it onto his palm.

We still raise an objection:

But the handful requires

of oil

burning

on the altar, since perhaps it is a voluntary offering?

And we answer: Indeed,

he burns it.

After the handful of oil has been burned, the remainder may be eaten in either event. For whether it is the remainder of the leper’s log of oil, left after the sprinklings and the placing on the thumbs and toes, or the remainder of the offering of oil left after the kemitza, it may be eaten.

And we raise another objection:

When does he burn

this handful that he took from the log of oil,

and when?

If

he burns it

after

he has given from the log

the seven gifts

[the seven sprinklings performed from the oil in the log toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting], there is a difficulty: How is he permitted to burn the handful of oil? For perhaps this oil is a voluntary offering, like a meal offering, and since he has already given from it the seven gifts before burning the handful,

they become

the remainder of the oil left after the seven gifts,

the remainder

of a meal offering

that became deficient between the kemitza and the burning. And one may not burn the handful upon them.

For the remainder left after the kemitza must remain intact until the time the handful is burned, and if it became deficient in the interim, the handful may not be burned!?

And if

he burned the handful

before the seven gifts,

there is also a difficulty: Perhaps the log of oil is a voluntary offering, and burning the handful constitutes burning. How, then, is he permitted to perform the seven sprinklings? For the sprinkling is considered burning [since, in the leper’s log of oil, there is no burning other than the seven sprinklings, which take the place of burning the handful of a meal offering], and we have a principle:

“Anything from which something is burned on the altar is subject to the prohibition: Do not burn it.”

That is, with regard to all consecrated offerings [including the remainder of a meal offering and the showbread], once something fit to be burned on the altar has already been offered from them [such as the sacrificial portions of offerings, the handful of a meal offering, or the bowls of frankincense of the showbread], it is prohibited to burn anything else from the remainder. That is, it is forbidden to burn anything more from it after something has already been offered from it once. If so, there is a difficulty: How is he permitted to perform the seven sprinklings after burning the handful of oil!?

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said:

He makes them—the sprinklings of the oil—rise

“for the sake of wood.”

The priest performing the seven sprinklings stipulates: If this person upon whom I am about to sprinkle is a leper, and it follows that the log of oil is not a voluntary offering, and the handful of oil burned from it is not included in the category of “anything from which something is burned on the altar,” since it was not intended to have a handful taken from it and burned on the fire, then I am performing the sprinklings upon the leper in accordance with their law, as the sprinklings take the place of burning. But if this person is not a leper, and it follows that the log of oil is a voluntary offering, and the handful taken from it and burned on the altar is included in the category of “anything from which something is burned on the altar,” then I am performing the seven sprinklings not as the sprinklings of a leper, which take the place of burning, but as though they were merely sprinklings of water. For just as it is permitted to place the remainder of a meal offering on the altar without burning it as an offering, but rather burning it as wood for the altar, so too it is permitted to sprinkle the oil as merely a sprinkling of water, and not as an act of burning.

And the Gemara adds: This solution, in which we established that the priest stipulates and says that if the person is not a leper the sprinkling of the oil shall be merely like the sprinkling of water, which is permitted and does not violate “anything from which something is burned on the altar is subject to the prohibition: Do not burn it,” just as it is permitted to place the remainder of a meal offering on the altar for the sake of wood and not for the sake of burning as an offering, is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says:

After it was stated, “For any leaven and any honey you shall not burn from it an offering made by fire to the Lord,” teaching us that “anything from which something is burned on the altar is subject to the prohibition: Do not burn it,” it is written, “And on the altar they shall not ascend

for a pleasing fragrance,”

and from this verse it is derived: Only for the sake of a pleasing fragrance [as an

offering

may one place on the altar the remainder of an offering from which something has already been burned on the altar.