אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו באנו למחלוקת ר' מאיר ור' אלעזר ור' שמעון ר' 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.
ולר' אלעזר ור' 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 (ויקרא יד, יב) 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 ב"ש אומרים צריך העברת תער וב"ה אומרים אין צריך העברת תער וא"ר 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 דר' 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 (ויקרא יד, יד) ולקח מדם האשם יכול בכלי ת"ל 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 ת"ל (ויקרא יד, יג) 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 ר"א ור' 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 א"ל 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: