יומא סא

יומא סא

בִּקְטוֹרֶת לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.

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.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: שָׂעִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן דָּמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. תְּנַן: הִקְדִּים דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְדַם הַפָּר — יַחְזוֹר וְיַזֶּה מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר אַחַר דַּם הַפָּר. וְאִם אִיתָא — יַחְזוֹר וְיִשְׁחוֹט מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תַּרְגְּמָא עוּלָּא, בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אַפָּס, בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל.

§ 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.

וְכֵן בַּהֵיכָל וְכֵן בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ — זֶה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, ״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ — זֶה הֵיכָל, ״מִזְבֵּחַ״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״יְכַפֵּר״ — אֵלּוּ עֲזָרוֹת.

§ 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.

״הַכֹּהֲנִים״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעָן, ״עַם הַקָּהָל״ — אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״יְכַפֵּר״ — אֵלּוּ הַלְוִיִּם. הוּשְׁווּ כּוּלָּן לְכַפָּרָה אַחַת, שֶׁכּוּלָּן מִתְכַּפְּרִין בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

“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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו — כָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁוִּידּוּי שֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת — כָּךְ וִידּוּי שֶׁל פָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ — זֶה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, ״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ — זֶה הֵיכָל, ״מִזְבֵּחַ״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוּלָּן כַּפָּרָה כַּפָּרָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן.

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.

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: נָתַן מִקְצָת מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מַתְחִיל אֶלָּא מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק. גָּמַר אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל.

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.

נָתַן מִקְצָת מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בַּהֵיכָל. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מַתְחִיל אֶלָּא מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק.

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.

גָּמַר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמַתְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. נָתַן מִקְצָת מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמַתְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק הוּא מַתְחִיל. גָּמַר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא מְעַכְּבִי.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה״,

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).

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: חַטָּאת אַחַת אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי: חִטּוּי אֶחָד אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא שְׁנֵי חִטּוּיִין.

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.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: לִי חִלֵּק רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּלּוּגִּין.

§ 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.

וְלֹא? וְהָתַנְיָא: נָתַן מִקְצָת מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַלּוֹג — יָבִיא לוֹג אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק הוּא מַתְחִיל.

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.

גָּמַר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַלּוֹג — יָבִיא לוֹג אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּבְּהוֹנוֹת. נָתַן מִקְצָת מַתָּנוֹת בַּבְּהוֹנוֹת וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַלּוֹג — יָבִיא לוֹג [אַחֵר] וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּבְּהוֹנוֹת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק הוּא מַתְחִיל. גָּמַר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּבְּהוֹנוֹת וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַלּוֹג — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מַתְּנוֹת הָרֹאשׁ לָא מְעַכְּבוֹת.

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.

אֵימָא: לִי שָׁנָה רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּלּוּגִּין.

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.

אָמַר מָר: מַתְּנוֹת הָרֹאשׁ — אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן״ — אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה״ הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְעַכְּבִי?!

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.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִיֶּתֶר … וְהַנּוֹתָר״.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר יָבִיא אַחֵר וְיַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִילָּה — הָכָא נָמֵי יָבִיא אַחֵר וְיִשְׁחוֹט.

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.

וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאוֹמְרִים מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק מִשָּׁם הוּא מַתְחִיל — הָכָא אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: וְהָא ״אוֹתוֹ״ כְּתִיב? קַשְׁיָא.

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.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מִדָּמוֹ לְגַבֵּי בְהוֹנוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלֶה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְטָעוּן נְסָכִים, וְצָרִיךְ אָשָׁם אַחֵר לְהַכְשִׁירוֹ. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר לְךָ: מַאי צָרִיךְ — צָרִיךְ וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.

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.

וְתָנֵי תַּנָּא: ״צָרִיךְ״ — וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: נָזִיר מְמוֹרָט, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צָרִיךְ הַעֲבָרַת תַּעַר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין צָרִיךְ הַעֲבָרַת תַּעַר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבִינָא: כְּשֶׁאוֹמְרִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי ״צָרִיךְ״, צָרִיךְ — וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.

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.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, (דְּתַנְיָא:) אֵין לוֹ בּוֹהֶן יָד וּבוֹהֶן רֶגֶל — אֵין לוֹ טׇהֳרָה עוֹלָמִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן עַל מְקוֹמוֹ וְיוֹצֵא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם נָתַן עַל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל — יָצָא.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הָאָשָׁם״, יָכוֹל בִּכְלִי — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן״. מָה נְתִינָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן — אַף לְקִיחָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן.

§ 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.

יָכוֹל אַף לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא״. מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה כְּלִי — אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן כְּלִי. נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים מְקַבְּלִים אֶת דָּמוֹ, אֶחָד בַּיָּד וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי. זֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל בִּכְלִי בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, וְזֶה שֶׁקִּיבֵּל בַּיָּד בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל מְצוֹרָע.

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.

תְּנַן הָתָם: וְכוּלָּן מְטַמְּאִים בְּגָדִים וְנִשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְאֵין נִשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶלָּא הָאַחֲרוֹן, הוֹאִיל וְגָמַר בּוֹ כַּפָּרָה.

§ 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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: כַּמָּה שְׂעִירִים מְשַׁלֵּחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי עֶדְרוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ? אָמַר לוֹ:

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: