## Yoma Daf 61b

###### Yoma 61b:1
[Yoma 61b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 61b:2
[Yoma 61b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 61b:3
[Yoma 61b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 61b:4
[Yoma 61b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yoma 61b:5
[Yoma 61b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yoma 61b:6
[Yoma 61b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 61b:7
[Yoma 61b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Yoma 61b:8
[Yoma 61b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 61b:9
[Yoma 61b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Yoma 61b:10
[Yoma 61b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/61b:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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:**