Yoma 61

בקטורת לא קא מיירי

The Gemara answers that this is no proof, as he is not dealing with the incense. In practice, the High Priest must indeed go back and scoop new incense after slaughtering the bull. The mishna did not mention this detail because it is discussing the issue of the sprinkling of blood, not the incense service.

אמר עולא שעיר ששחטו קודם מתן דמו של פר לא עשה ולא כלום תנן הקדים דם השעיר לדם הפר יחזור ויזה מדם השעיר אחר דם הפר ואם איתא יחזור וישחוט מבעי ליה תרגמא עולא במתנות שבהיכל וכן אמר רבי אפס במתנות שבהיכל

§ Ulla said: With regard to a goat that he slaughtered before presentation of the blood of the bull, it is as though he did nothing. The Gemara asks: But we learned in the mishna that if he performed the sprinkling of the blood of the goat before the sprinkling of the blood of the bull, he must repeat the action and sprinkle the blood of the goat after sprinkling the blood of the bull. And if it is so that Ulla is correct, the mishna should have said that he must return and slaughter another bull. The Gemara answers: Ulla interpreted the mishna as referring only to the presentations in the Sanctuary that were performed out of order. However, it is essential that the presentations in the Holy of Holies must be performed before the slaughter of the goat. And likewise, Rabbi Afes said that the mishna is referring to the presentations in the Sanctuary.

וכן בהיכל וכן במזבח וכו׳ תנו רבנן וכפר את מקדש הקודש זה לפני ולפנים אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו יכפר אלו עזרות

§ The mishna states: And similarly in the Sanctuary, and likewise on the golden altar, if the blood spills he must go back and begin that cycle of sprinklings afresh. The Sages taught: “And he shall make atonement for the most sacred place, and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). “And he shall make atonement for the most sacred place,” this is the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies; “the Tent of Meeting,” this is the Sanctuary; “altar” is meant as per its plain meaning; “he shall make atonement,” is referring to the second mention of this phrase in the verse, these are the courtyards.

הכהנים כמשמען עם הקהל אלו ישראל יכפר אלו הלוים הושוו כולן לכפרה אחת שכולן מתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות דברי רבי יהודה

“The priests” is meant as per its plain meaning; “people of the assembly,” these are the Israelites; “he shall make atonement,” these are the Levites, who also gain atonement. They are all equated in this verse in that they achieve one atonement in this verse, which indicates that they all achieve atonement through the scapegoat for all other transgressions, apart from the ritual impurity of the Temple and consecrated objects, i.e., entering the Temple or eating consecrated food while ritually impure. The bull presented inside atones only for the priests, while the goats atone solely for Israelites. Only the scapegoat atones equally for all Jews. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי שמעון אומר כשם שדם השעיר הנעשה בפנים מכפר על ישראל בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו כך דם הפר מכפר על הכהנים בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכשם שוידוי של שעיר המשתלח מכפר על ישראל בשאר עבירות כך וידוי של פר מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the blood of the goat presented inside atones for Israelites who sinned with the ritual impurity of the Temple and its consecrated objects, so too, the blood of the High Priest’s bull atones for the priests who sinned with the ritual impurity of the Temple and its consecrated objects. And just as the confession over the scapegoat atones for Israelites with regard to all other transgressions, so too, the confession over the bull atones for the priests with regard to all other transgressions, and therefore the priests do not require atonement through the scapegoat.

תנו רבנן וכלה מכפר את הקודש זה לפני ולפנים אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו מלמד שכולן כפרה כפרה בפני עצמן

The Sages taught in another baraita: “And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). “And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place,” this is the sprinklings in the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies; “Tent of Meeting,” this is the sprinklings toward the curtain in the Sanctuary; “altar,” as per its plain meaning. This teaches that they each constitute a separate atonement unto themselves, i.e., each one of these actions achieves a distinct atonement. If a disqualification occurs in any of the atoning actions, he must return to the beginning of that action.

מכאן אמרו נתן מקצת מתנות שבפנים ונשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויתחיל בתחלה במתנות שבפנים רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים אינו מתחיל אלא ממקום שפסק גמר את המתנות שבפנים ונשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויתחיל בתחילה במתנות שבהיכל

From here the Sages stated: If the High Priest presented some of the presentations inside the Holy of Holies and then the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins from the start of the presentations inside. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He need not start the cycle of sprinklings again; rather, he begins only from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations inside and then the blood spilled, he brings other blood and starts at the beginning of the presentations in the Sanctuary. However, he does not begin the presentations inside anew, as he has already sprinkled all the required blood inside, and that stage of the service is complete.

נתן מקצת מתנות שבהיכל ונשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויתחיל בתחילה בהיכל רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים אינו מתחיל אלא ממקום שפסק

If he presented some of the presentations in the Sanctuary and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins again from the start in the Sanctuary, as he has not yet completed all the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins only from the place where he stopped.

גמר מתנות שבהיכל ונשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויתחיל בתחילה במתנות המזבח נתן מקצת מתנות שבמזבח ונשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויתחיל בתחילה במתנות המזבח רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים ממקום שפסק הוא מתחיל גמר מתנות שבמזבח ונשפך הדם דברי הכל לא מעכבי

If he finished the presentations in the Sanctuary and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins at the start of the presentations at the altar, as he has already achieved the atonement of the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. If he presented some of the presentations at the altar and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins at the start of the presentations at the altar, as the atonement of the altar has yet not been completed. In this case, too, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that he begins from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations at the altar and the blood spilled before he poured the remainder of the blood at the base of the outer altar, everyone agrees that the remainders are not indispensable, and he need not slaughter another offering for this mitzva.

אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו מדם חטאת הכפורים אחת בשנה

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them, meaning the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Meir, the accepted author of unattributed mishnayot, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Shimon, derived their opinions from one verse: “And Aaron shall make atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once a year he shall make atonement for it throughout your generations; it is most sacred to the Lord” (Exodus 30:10).

רבי מאיר סבר חטאת אחת אמרתי לך ולא שתי חטאות רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון סברי חטוי אחד אמרתי לך ולא שני חטויין

Rabbi Yoḥanan elaborates: Rabbi Meir holds that God said: I said to you to bring one sin-offering and not two sin-offerings. In other words, the High Priest may not sprinkle the blood of two offerings on the inner altar. Consequently, if the blood of the sin-offering spilled in the middle of the rite, he may not complete the presentation with the blood of another animal; rather, he must slaughter new offerings so that he can present all the sprinklings at the altar from one sin-offering. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that God said: I said to you to perform one sprinkling and not two sprinklings. If he already sprinkled once, the High Priest need not sprinkle again, and if the blood spilled in the middle, the rite is completed with the blood of another offering.

תניא אמר רבי לי חלק רבי יעקב בלוגין

§ It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Rabbi Ya’akov differentiated for me with respect to lugin. In other words, Rabbi Ya’akov said that although Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree with Rabbi Meir with respect to the sprinkling on Yom Kippur, maintaining that the High Priest restarts from where he stopped, if some of the oil from the log used for purifying the leper spills in the middle of the sprinkling, these tanna’im do not disagree that the priest must start that rite afresh.

ולא והתניא נתן מקצת מתנות שבפנים ונשפך הלוג יביא לוג אחר ויתחיל בתחילה במתנות שבהיכל רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים ממקום שפסק הוא מתחיל

The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: And do they not disagree with regard to this issue as well? But wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: If he presented some of the presentations of oil that he sprinkles inside the Temple and the log spilled, he brings another log and begins from the start of the presentations in the Sanctuary; and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins from the place where he stopped.

גמר מתנות שבהיכל ונשפך הלוג יביא לוג אחר ויתחיל בתחילה במתנות שבבהונות נתן מקצת מתנות בבהונות ונשפך הלוג יביא לוג [אחר] ויתחיל בתחילה במתנות שבבהונות רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים ממקום שפסק הוא מתחיל גמר מתנות שבבהונות ונשפך הלוג דברי הכל מתנות הראש לא מעכבות

Likewise, if he finished the presentations in the Sanctuary and the log spilled, he brings another log and begins from the start of the presentations that he puts on the thumbs of the leper. If he put some of the presentations on the leper’s thumbs and the log spilled, he brings another log and begins from the start of the presentations on his thumbs. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations on his thumbs and the log spilled, everyone agrees that the presentations on the head are not indispensable. This baraita proves that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon also disagree with Rabbi Meir with regard to the purifying oil of the leper.

אימא לי שנה רבי יעקב בלוגין

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement must be amended, as one should say: Rabbi Ya’akov taught me this dispute with regard to lugin. Just as there is a dispute with regard to spilled blood during the presentations on Yom Kippur, Rabbi Ya’akov taught that a similar dispute applies to the leper’s log of oil.

אמר מר מתנות הראש אין מעכבות מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב והנותר מן השמן אלא מעתה והנותרת מן המנחה הכי נמי דלא מעכבי

The Gemara analyzes this issue: The Master said above that everyone agrees that the presentations of oil placed on the head of the leper are not indispensable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say it is because it is written: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:29), which indicates that this presentation involves only the rest of the oil and is therefore not an essential element of atonement, however, if that is so, consider the verse: “But the rest of the meal-offering shall be for Aharon and his sons; it is one of the sacred offerings of the Lord by fire” (Leviticus 2:3). Should we say, so too, that they are not indispensable? This cannot be the case, as the halakha is that if the remnants of the meal-offering are lost before the handful is burnt, the owner of the offering must bring another handful.

שאני התם דכתיב ומיתר והנותר

The Gemara answers: It is different there, with regard to the leper’s log of oil, as it is written earlier: “And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand, the priest shall put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be purified, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot” (Leviticus 14:17), and it is also written: “And of the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand, he shall put upon the head of him that is to be purified” (Leviticus 14:18). This shows that the presentation on the head is performed only with the remainder of the oil, and therefore this action is certainly not indispensable.

אמר רבי יוחנן

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו באנו למחלוקת רבי מאיר ורבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון רבי מאיר דאמר יביא אחר ויתחיל בתחילה הכא נמי יביא אחר וישחוט

With regard to a leper’s guilt-offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake but for the purpose of a burnt-offering or peace-offering, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other hand. Rabbi Yoḥanan clarifies his statement: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that in the case of a service that was not completed he brings another animal and starts from the beginning, here too, in the case of the leper’s guilt-offering, he brings another animal and slaughters it, as Rabbi Meir maintains that a service that has not been completed is considered as though it had not been performed at all.

ולרבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון שאומרים ממקום שפסק משם הוא מתחיל הכא אין לו תקנה

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that he begins from the place where he stopped, here he has no remedy. According to their opinion, a service that has not been completed properly remains valid. In this case, once he has slaughtered the animal he cannot bring a second guilt-offering, as the verse states: “And offer it for a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 14:12), and not two guilt-offerings.

מתקיף ליה רב חסדא והא אותו כתיב קשיא

Rav Ḥisda strongly objects to this: But isn’t it written: “And offer it for a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 14:12), which indicates that he must offer that same guilt-offering he waved earlier, and if he does not do so the rite is invalid? If so, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he cannot use another offering. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו או שלא נתן מדמו לגבי בהונות הרי זה עולה לגבי מזבח וטעון נסכים וצריך אשם אחר להכשירו ורב חסדא אמר לך מאי צריך צריך ואין לו תקנה

Even so, it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to a leper’s guilt-offering that the priest slaughtered not for its own sake, or if the priest did not put some of its blood on the leper’s thumbs, this guilt-offering is raised and sacrificed on the altar and requires libations as though it were valid. And yet the leper must bring another guilt-offering to make him eligible, i.e., pure of his leprosy. Evidently, there is an opinion that he may offer another guilt-offering, which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda that everyone agrees that he cannot use another offering. And Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: What is the meaning of the term: Must, stated here? It means that he must do so, but since it is impossible he has no remedy.

ותני תנא צריך ואין לו תקנה אין והתניא נזיר ממורט בית שמאי אומרים צריך העברת תער ובית הלל אומרים אין צריך העברת תער ואמר רבי אבינא כשאומרים בית שמאי צריך צריך ואין לו תקנה

The Gemara expresses surprise at this contention: But would a tanna teach: Must, when he means that he has no remedy? The Gemara answers: Yes, and indeed it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a totally bald nazirite, who cannot shave his hair with a razor as required, Beit Shammai say: He must perform the act of the passing of a razor anyway, and Beit Hillel say: He need not perform the act of the passing of a razor. And Rabbi Avina said that when Beit Shammai say: Must, they mean he must do so, but since it is impossible, he has no remedy.

ופליגא דרבי פדת דאמר רבי פדת בית שמאי ורבי אלעזר אמרו דבר אחד בית שמאי הא דאמרן רבי אלעזר (דתניא) אין לו בוהן יד ובוהן רגל אין לו טהרה עולמית רבי אלעזר אומר נותן על מקומו ויוצא רבי שמעון אומר אם נתן על של שמאל יצא

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Avina, in his interpretation of this matter, disagrees with Rabbi Pedat. As Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Elazar said the same thing, i.e., they have the same opinion in this regard. The opinion of Beit Shammai is that which we said, that a bald nazirite must pass a razor over his head. The opinion of Rabbi Elazar is as it was taught in a mishna: A leper who has no thumb or big toe on which to sprinkle can never attain ritual purity. Rabbi Elazar says: The priest puts it on the spot where the thumb was, and he thereby fulfills his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: If he put it on the left hand or foot, he has fulfilled his obligation. According to Rabbi Pedat, Rabbi Elazar and Beit Shammai both maintain that even if the rite cannot be performed in the precise manner, one fulfills his obligation regardless.

תנו רבנן ולקח מדם האשם יכול בכלי תלמוד לומר ונתן מה נתינה בעצמו של כהן אף לקיחה בעצמו של כהן

§ The Sages taught: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the guilt-offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him who is to be purified, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot” (Leviticus 14:14). One might have thought that he should take it in a vessel; therefore, the verse states: “And put.” Just as putting means with the priest’s own body, so too, taking means with the priest’s own body.

יכול אף למזבח כן תלמוד לומר כי כחטאת האשם הוא מה חטאת טעונה כלי אף אשם טעון כלי נמצאת אתה אומר אשם מצורע שני כהנים מקבלים את דמו אחד ביד ואחד בכלי זה שקבל בכלי בא לו אצל מזבח וזה שקיבל ביד בא לו אצל מצורע

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even with regard to the blood of the leper’s guilt-offering that he presents on the altar, like the blood of other guilt-offerings, it is so that he collects the blood in his hand rather than with a vessel. Therefore, the verse states: “For as the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering” (Leviticus 14:13): Just as a sin-offering requires a vessel for collection of its blood, so too, the blood of a guilt-offering requires collection in a vessel. And you find that you must say: The leper’s guilt-offering requires two priests to collect its blood; one collects by hand, and the other one collects in a vessel. The one who collected in a vessel comes to the altar and sprinkles some of the blood on it, and the one who collected by hand comes to the leper and sprinkles some of the blood on him.

תנן התם וכולן מטמאים בגדים ונשרפין אבית הדשן דברי רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון וחכמים אומרים אין מטמאין בגדים ואין נשרפין אבית הדשן אלא האחרון הואיל וגמר בו כפרה

§ We learned in a mishna there: And all of the animals whose blood was spilled, as stated in the mishna, render ritually impure the garments of those who are occupied with burning them. If a bull or goat was slaughtered, but their blood spilled after one stage of atonement, and another animal is brought to complete the sprinkling, the first animal is burned, an action that renders ritually impure the garments of the individuals who perform the burning. And each of these first animals is burned in the place of the ashes, in accordance with the halakha of inner sin-offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: They do not render the garments impure and they are not burned in the place of the ashes, except for the last animal, since the atonement is completed with it.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן כמה שעירים משלח אמר ליה וכי עדרו משלח אמר לו

Rava inquired before Rav Naḥman: How many goats does he send away? If the blood of the goat presented inside is spilled, the High Priest must bring an additional pair of goats and perform a new lottery. This might even happen several times, which would mean that one goat is offered on the altar while several goats are designated for sending away. What should be done with those goats? He said to him: Does he send away his flock? In other words, the Torah said to send only one goat, not an entire flock. Rava said to him: