״וְהֶעֱלָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָעוֹלָה״ — שֶׁהֶעֱלָהּ כְּבָר. “And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:20); this is interpreted as referring to the burnt-offering that has already been offered. From here it is derived that the leper achieves atonement even if the standard order is reversed and the burnt-offering is brought before the sin-offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: לְדִידָךְ, דְּאָמְרַתְּ מַעֲלֶהָ וּמְלִינָהּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, קַיָּימִין וְעָבְדִינַן מִילְּתָא לְכֹהֲנִים דְּאָתוּ בַּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה, דְּסָבְרִי דְּיוֹמֵיהּ הוּא וְאָתוּ לְאַקְטוֹרֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן. Rav Shemen bar Abba said to Rav Pappa: According to your opinion, that you said he brings them up and leaves them overnight at the top of the altar, do we stand and perform an action for the priests whereby they may come to a mishap. As they may think that these fats are from offerings brought on that day, and so they may burn them that day, although these fats must be left until the next day. He said to him: Priests are vigilant and may be relied upon to avoid that mistake and to warn their fellow priests to be careful as well.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא כַּמָּה דְּלָא מִתְקַטְּרִי אֵמוּרִין כֹּהֲנִים לָא מָצוּ אָכְלִי בָּשָׂר, דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים רַשָּׁאִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק קוֹדֶם הַקְטָרַת אֵמוּרִין, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַחֵלֶב הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, וַהֲדַר: ״וְהָיָה הֶחָזֶה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana, and some say it Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But, isn’t it the case that as long as the sacrificial parts of the sin-offering have not been burned on the altar, the priests may not eat the meat? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to peace-offerings: I might have thought that the priests would be permitted to eat the breast and thigh, which are designated for them from the peace-offering, prior to burning the sacrificial parts of the offering on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar, and the breast shall be for Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 7:31). From here it is derived that the priest is first obligated to burn the fat, and only then: “The breast shall be for Aaron and his sons.
וְכַמָּה דְּכֹהֲנִים לָא אָכְלִי בָּשָׂר בְּעָלִים לָא מִתְכַּפְּרִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִים וּבְעָלִים מִתְכַּפְּרִין! And, in addition, as long as the priests have not eaten the meat of the offering, the owners of the offering have not achieved complete atonement, as it was taught in a baraita that the verse: “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made to consecrate them, to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat of them for they are sacred” (Exodus 29:33), teaches that the priests eat, and consequently the owners of the offerings achieve atonement. If so, how can one who lacks atonement achieve atonement that day when the priests may not eat the meat of his sin-offering until the sacrificial parts are burned the next day?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — עֲשָׁאוּם כְּמִי שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ. דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל נִטְמְאוּ אֵמוּרִין אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ לֹא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה הֶחָזֶה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. He said to him: Since it is impossible to complete the offering any other way, due to the positive mitzva of completion, they rendered these sacrificial parts as ones that became ritually impure or were lost. In those cases, it is permitted for priests to eat their portions. As it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that if the sacrificial parts became ritually impure or were lost, the priests would not be entitled to the breast and thigh, the eating of which ordinarily depends upon burning the sacrificial parts on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the breast shall be for Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 7:31), which indicates that in any event it is an absolute gift, even if some of the accompanying rites were not performed in the proper manner.
רַב כָּהֲנָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״לֹא יָלִין חֵלֶב חַגִּי עַד בֹּקֶר״ — עַד בּוֹקֶר הוּא דְּלָא יָלִין, הָא כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה כּוּלָּהּ יָלִין. וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים״ — עָלֶיהָ הַשְׁלֵם כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן! Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “Neither may the fat of My festive-offering remain overnight until morning” (Exodus 23:18), which indicates that the fat may not remain overnight and into the morning hours, but it may remain all through the night. However, in another verse it is written: “And he shall burn upon it the fat of the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 6:5), and it is interpreted: Upon it you shall complete all the offerings, which indicates that the fats of all the offerings brought during the day must be burned before the daily afternoon offering.
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ, כְּשֶׁנִּתּוֹתְרוּ. Rav Kahana raised the objection and he resolved it: The verse which indicates that the fat may remain all through the night is referring to fats that were left over after the blood was sprinkled during the day, after the daily morning offering, and there was no opportunity to offer them on the altar before the daily afternoon offering. Although ideally they should be offered on the altar before the daily afternoon offering, if they were left over, they may be offered until morning.
רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְרַב: כְּתִיב ״לֹא יָלִין לַבֹּקֶר זֶבַח חַג הַפָּסַח״ — לַבֹּקֶר הוּא דְּלֹא יָלִין, הָא כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה יָלִין. וְהָכְתִיב: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״ — וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב! Similarly, Rav Safra raised a contradiction before Rav: In one verse it is written: “Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of Passover be left over until morning” (Exodus 34:25), from which it can be inferred that it may not remain overnight and into the morning hours, but it may remain all through the night. Accordingly, the fats of a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday Passover eve may be offered on the altar on the night of the Festival. However, elsewhere it is written: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its own Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10), from which it is derived that the burnt-offering of a weekday is not offered on Shabbat, and the burnt-offering of a weekday is not offered on a Festival. Therefore, it should be prohibited to burn the fats of the Paschal lamb on the altar on the Festival, as it is a weekday offering and consequently may not be offered on a Festival.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר רַמְיַיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַב אַבָּא בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן, דְּחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב. Rav said to him: Rav Abba bar Ḥiyya already raised this contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu, and he answered him: Here, in the verse that says that the fat may not remain overnight and into the morning hours but it may remain on the altar all through the night, we are dealing with a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, as the fats of a Shabbat offering may be sacrificed on the altar on a Festival. It is only in that specific case that the fats of the Paschal lamb may be burned on the night of the Festival.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֲנַן נֵיקוּ וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ דְּהַאי קְרָא בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת הוּא דִּכְתִיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּהוּא דָּחֵיק וּמוֹקֵים אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ. He said to him: Because the fats of Shabbat offerings may be sacrificed on a Festival, shall we arise and say that this verse is written exclusively with regard to the special case of the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, and not with regard to the standard case? He said to him: Leave the interpretation of this verse alone, since it compels itself to be established as referring exclusively to this special case, because the contradiction needs to be resolved in some manner.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפָּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, וְקִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמוֹ — פָּסוּל. MISHNA: The Paschal lamb that the priest slaughtered not for its own purpose, i.e., at the time of slaughter he said that his intent was to slaughter it as a different offering, e.g., a peace-offering or burnt-offering, rather than as a Paschal lamb; or if the priest received the blood, or carried the blood to the altar, or sprinkled the blood on the altar while saying that it was not for the purpose of the Paschal lamb; or if the priest performed the rites both for its own purpose and not for its own purpose; or not for its own purpose and for its own purpose; in all these cases, the Paschal lamb is disqualified.
כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ? לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמוֹ — לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. How does one perform the rites for its own purpose and not for its own purpose? It is in a case where the priest said that his intent is for the purpose of the Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering. And how does one perform rites not for its own purpose and for its own purpose? It is in a case where the priest says that the offering is for the purpose of a peace-offering and for the purpose of a Paschal lamb.
גְּמָ׳ בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת תְּנַן, אוֹ בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת תְּנַן? GEMARA: Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: The mishna says: For its own purpose and not for its own purpose. Did we learn in the mishna concerning a case where the priest had both intentions while performing one rite, i.e., he stated both intentions while slaughtering? Or, did we learn in the mishna concerning a case where the priest had the two intentions while performing two rites, i.e., during one rite he said that it was for its own purpose and in another of the four rites he said that it was not for its own purpose?
בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת תְּנַן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס. Rav Pappa elaborates on the difference between these two different explanations. Shall we say that we learn in the mishna with regard to one rite, and therefore our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a person is held accountable even for the conclusion of his statement? Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Meir disagree in the case of one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Yosei says that not only the beginning but also the conclusion of his statement is significant, and the animal has been consecrated as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. It is therefore unfit to be offered on the altar; rather, it must be sold when it develops a defect and the money used to purchase animals for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. And similarly in the case of our mishna, where the priest says that his intent is for the purpose of a Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering, Rabbi Yosei would say that the animal has been slaughtered for both a Paschal lamb and a peace-offering, and is therefore disqualified.
דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָא אָמַר: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, For if our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, surely he said: Hold one accountable for the first expression, and what he says after that is of no consequence. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Yosei about the case of one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, for he maintains that the sacrifice has the status of a burnt-offering. Since the first term that he uttered was burnt-offering, the animal is consecrated as a burnt-offering, and it can no longer become a peace-offering. And similarly in the case of our mishna, where the priest says that his intent is for the purpose of a Paschal lamb and for the purpose of a peace-offering, Rabbi Meir would say that the animal has been slaughtered only for a Paschal lamb and the offering is fit.