היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין
With regard to one who remarries his divorced wife, the Torah states: “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she is defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord; and you shall not cause the land to sin, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 24:4). By inference, she, the divorced wife, is an abomination, but her children are not abominations. In other words, if he transgressed the prohibition and remarried this woman, the daughters from that marriage are not disqualified from marrying priests.
שני מצורעין שנתערבו קרבנותיהן זה בזה וקרב קרבנו של אחד מהן ומת אחד מהן השני מה תהא עליו
The third question was as follows: Two wealthy people who were lepers came to purify themselves and each brought a sin offering, a guilt offering, and a burnt offering. Their offerings became intermingled with each other, and the offering of one of them was sacrificed, and subsequently one of them died. What shall be with the second individual, i.e., how can he complete his purification process? If the other one had not died, they could both bring the remaining offering with the stipulation that it should be sacrificed on behalf of whoever is the owner. But now that one is dead, the other person may not bring the remaining animal, as one may not sacrifice a sin offering for one who is dead. He may also not bring another animal instead, as the animal that was already sacrificed might have been his, and one may not bring a second sin offering.
אמר להן כותב נכסיו לאחרים והוי עני ומביא חטאת העוף הבא על הספק
Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: The solution is for him to write a contract giving all his possessions to others, whom he trusts to return them as a gift later, and he is then considered to be destitute. And as a poor leper, he brings a bird sin offering, which can be brought even in a case of uncertainty.
והאיכא אשם אמר שמואל כשקרב אשמו
The Gemara challenges: But there is the guilt offering that a leper must bring, and this must be an animal not a bird, and may not be brought in a case of uncertainty. How can this leper bring his guilt offering? Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehoshua was referring specifically to a case where his guilt offering had already been sacrificed, before the animals became intermingled.
אמר רב ששת גברא רבה כשמואל לימא כי האי מילתא כמאן אי כר' יהודה דאמר אשם קבעה וכיון דקבעה לה אשם בעשירות לא מצי מייתי חטאת בדלות
Rav Sheshet said: Is it possible that a great man like Shmuel would say a statement like this? In accordance with whose opinion does this solution apply? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the leper was wealthy when he sacrificed his guilt offering he has thereby fixed his manner of atonement, and must bring animals as his other two offerings, it is difficult: And once he fixed his guilt offering as an animal while he was wealthy, he may not bring a bird sin offering when he is destitute.
דתנן מצורע שהביא קרבן עני והעשיר או עשיר והעני הכל הולך אחר חטאת דברי ר' שמעון
As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 14:11): With regard to a leper who brought an offering of a destitute person and thereafter he became wealthy, or if he brought an offering of a wealthy person and thereafter he became destitute, everything follows after the sin offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. If he was wealthy when he brought the sin offering, he brings the burnt offering of the wealthy; if he was destitute at that time, he brings the burnt offering of the destitute.
ורבי יהודה אומר הכל הולך אחר אשם רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר הכל הולך אחר צפורים
And Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything, i.e., the sin offering and the burnt offering, follows after his status at the time that his guilt offering was brought. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Everything follows after the offering of the birds, brought seven days earlier, at the start of his purification process.
ואי כרבי שמעון דאמר חטאת קבעה אע"ג דלא קרב אשם ניתי אחר דהא שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר לייתי ולתני
Rav Sheshet continues: And if Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that the sin offering fixed the status of the remaining offerings, it is difficult: Why did Shmuel state that the case is where his guilt offering had already been sacrificed? Even if the guilt offering had not been sacrificed before the animals became intermingled, let him bring another animal as his guilt offering, and stipulate that if the guilt offering that was already slaughtered was his, this animal should be a peace offering. As we have heard that Rabbi Shimon said: Let him bring another animal and stipulate with regard to it.
דתניא אמר ר"ש למחרת מביא אשמו ולוגו עמו ומעמידו בשער נקנור ומתנה עליו ואומר אם מצורע הוא הרי אשמו ולוגו עמו ואם לאו אשם זה יהא שלמי נדבה
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says, with regard to a leper of uncertain status who must bring a guilt offering and a log of oil for his purification: The following day, on the eighth day of his purification, he brings his guilt offering and his log of oil with it, and the priest stands him at the Gate of Nicanor, and the leper stipulates with regard to the offering and says: If this person, i.e., I, was a leper, this is his guilt offering and this is his log of oil with it. And if not, this animal that I brought for a guilt offering shall be a voluntary peace offering, as the two offerings are sacrificed in the same manner.
ואותו אשם טעון
And that guilt offering of uncertain status requires