Zevachim 76b — the Talmud in English

And if not,

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

this “guilt-offering”

that I am bringing because of the doubt

shall be a voluntary peace-offering

.

And that “guilt-offering,”

which is a doubtful leper’s guilt-offering, a doubtful voluntary peace-offering,

requires slaughter in the north, and the placing of

the blood on

the thumbs and toes

because of the doubt—of leprosy, in accordance with the law of a leper’s guilt-offering,

and laying of hands, and libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh

in accordance with the law of a peace-offering.

And it is eaten for one day and one night

only, in accordance with the law of a guilt-offering.

And it is proven from this that Rabbi Shimon permitted him to bring the sacrifice and to eat it only for one day and one night, even though there is a possibility that it is a peace-offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, that Rabbi Shimon also initially permits bringing sacred offerings to a state of disqualification, and this is a difficulty for Rabba.

And we answer:

The repair of the person is different,

for they were not stringent because of the concern that the sacrifice would come to a state of disqualification, in order not to prevent the leper from attaining his purification; for because of the doubt he is one lacking atonement, and he is not pure to enter the Temple and eat sacred offerings.

And now, after we have answered Rabba’s words, the Gemara comes to discuss Rabbi Shimon’s matter concerning the leper:

It is satisfactory

that they permitted him to bring a sacrifice,

a guilt-offering,

and to stipulate concerning it that if he is not a leper it shall be a peace-offering. But the bringing of

a log

of oil of a leper—

what is there to say?

For on the possibility that he is not a leper, he is bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard, and with non-sacred oil he performs the service of sprinkling the oil opposite the entrance of the Temple and placing it on the thumbs and toes; and how does Rabbi Shimon permit this?

And we answer: There is a remedy for him: to bring the log of oil with a stipulation, such as

when he says, “This log shall be a voluntary offering

if I am not a leper.” For we learned below that a person can vow a sacrifice of oil and bring it by itself.

But we still raise it:

And 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,

and he requires taking a handful,

to perform taking a handful from the oil, just as a handful is taken from the meal-offering [and afterward to burn the handful of oil on the altar]?

And we answer: Indeed, we require

that he take a handful

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

And we object: How does he take a handful of the oil and burn it?

And perhaps

indeed

he is a leper, and he requires the placing of seven

sprinklings from the log of oil opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting?

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, it is speaking of a case

where he placed,

where he gave [sprinkled] the seven sprinklings from the oil.

But it is still difficult:

But,

for with his taking a handful, which he took from the oil,

it lacks

this measure of a handful from the log of oil, and it emerges that he does not perform the seven sprinklings from a full log of oil, and it is thereby disqualified!?

And we answer: Here, with what are we dealing?

That he brings,

that he brings after taking a handful from the oil

a little,

some other oil,

and fills it,

and fills the measure of a log of oil.

And the Gemara proves that one may do so,

as we learned:

If the oil was

lacking

from

the log,

then

before he poured

from it onto his left palm,

he fills it

to a log with other oil. And if so, here too he can first take a handful from the log, thereby fulfill the obligation of the doubtful voluntary offering, and afterward fill it with other oil, even before the priest pours from it onto his palm.

And we still raise it:

But it requires

that handful of oil

burning

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

And we answer: Indeed so,

that he burns it.

And after the burning of the handful of oil, the remainder is eaten in either case. For whether it is the remainder of the log of oil of a leper, which remained after the sprinklings and the placing on the thumbs and toes, or whether it is the remainder of the oil-offering that remained from the taking of the handful, in either case it is eaten.

And furthermore we raise it:

That he burns it

—this handful that he took from the log of oil—

when?

If

he burns it

after

he gave from the log

the seven gifts

[the seven sprinklings that they sprinkled from the oil in the log opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting], this 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 already gave from it the seven gifts before burning the handful of oil,

they become

the oil that remained after the giving of the seven gifts

the remainder

of a meal-offering

that became lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning. And one does not burn the handful over them.

Because we require that the remainder that remained from the taking of the handful remain complete until the time of burning the handful; and if it became lacking in the interim, one does not burn the handful over it!?

And if

he burned the handful

before the giving of the seven,

this too is a difficulty: Perhaps the log of oil is a voluntary offering, and the burning of the handful constitutes burning, and how is he permitted to perform the seven sprinklings? For the sprinkling is considered burning [for in the log of oil of a leper there is no burning other than the seven sprinklings, which come in place of the burning of the handful in the meal-offering], and we have a principle:

“Anything from which [something] is for the fires, behold it is subject to the prohibition, ‘You shall not burn.’”

That is to say, all sacred offerings [including also the remainder of a meal-offering and the showbread], if something fit to be burned on the fires has already been offered from them [such as the fats from sacrifices, or the handful from the meal-offering, or the bowls of the showbread], then one is subject to the prohibition of burning anything further from the remainder. That is, it is forbidden to burn anything additional from it after something from it has already been offered once. And if so, this is a difficulty: How is it permitted to perform the seven sprinklings after burning the handful of the oil!?

Rabbi Judah, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: That he brings them up

the sprinklings of the oil

“for the sake of wood.”

For the priest who performs the seven sprinklings stands and stipulates: If this person upon whom I am about to sprinkle is a leper, and it emerges that the log of oil is not a voluntary offering, and the handful of oil from which he burned is not included in the category of “anything from which [something] is for the fires,” for it is not destined to have a handful taken from it and to be burned on the fire, then I perform the sprinklings upon the leper according to their law, for the sprinklings are in place of the burning. And if this person is not a leper, and it emerges that the log of oil is a voluntary offering, and the handful that was burned from it on the fire upon the altar is included in the category of “anything from which [something] is for the fires,” then I perform the seven sprinklings not as the sprinklings of a leper, which are in place of burning, but as though they were merely the sprinklings of water. For just as it is permitted to bring the remainder of a meal-offering up onto the altar without burning it as an offering, but rather to burn it as the wood of the altar, so it is permitted to sprinkle the oil for the sake of merely sprinkling water, and not as burning.

And the Gemara adds: This that we established—that the priest stipulates and says that if this person is not a leper, the sprinkling of the oil shall be like merely the sprinkling of water, which is permitted to perform and is not subject to “anything from which [something] is for the fires, behold it is subject to the prohibition, ‘You shall not burn,’” just as it is permitted to bring the remainder of a meal-offering up for the sake of wood and not for the sake of burning—comes in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says:

After it was said, “For every leaven and every honey you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord,” to teach us that “anything from which [something] is for the fires is subject to the prohibition, ‘You shall not burn,’” it is written, “And upon the altar they shall not go up

for a pleasing fragrance,”

and from this verse one expounds: Only for the sake of a pleasing fragrance [of a sacrifice]

may you not raise

the remainder of a sacrifice from which something has already been offered on the fires.