יומא 61 — Soncino English Talmud

¹He does not treat of the incense. ‘Ulla said: If he slew the he-goat before sprinkling the blood of the bullock, he has done nothing. We learned: IF HE SPRINKLED THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT BEFORE THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, HE MUST START OVER AGAIN, SPRINKLING THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT AFTER THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK. Now, if this view were right, [it] should read: ‘He shall start over again’ and slaughter? — ‘Ulla explained this to refer to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary; and thus also R. Afes explained it to refer to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. LIKEWISE IN MATTERS OF THE SANCTUARY AND THE GOLDEN ALTAR: Our Rabbis taught: And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, i.e., the Holy of Holies [for] The tent of meeting, i.e., the Sanctuary; [for] the altar in the literal sense. ‘He shall make atonement’ — this [refers to] the courts; ‘the priests’ in the literal sense; ‘the people’, i.e., Israel; ‘He shall make atonement’, this refers to the Levites. Then they are all declared alike in respect of one atonement, for all other sins they obtain atonement through the he-goat-that-is-to-be-sent-away, this is the view of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: Just as the blood of the he-goat [the rites of which are] performed within obtains atonement for Israel in all matters of impurity touching the Sanctuary and its holy things, thus also does the blood of the bullock obtain atonement for the priests in all matters of impurity touching the Sanctuary and its holy things; and just as the confession over the he-goat-to-be-sent-away obtains atonement for Israel with regard to all other transgressions, so does the confession over the bullock obtain atonement for the priest for all other transgressions. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place’, this refers to the Holy of Holies; ‘The tent of meeting’, i.e., the Sanctuary; the altar, in its literal sense — this teaches that for all of these special [independent] atonements must be obtained. Hence they said: If he sprinkled some of the sprinklings made within, and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and start again from the beginning with the sprinklings within. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: He shall start but from the place where he stopped. If he has completed the sprinkling due within and the blood was poured away, then he shall bring other blood and he shall start from the beginning with the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. If he had sprinkled some of the sprinklings due in the Sanctuary and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and start again from the beginning with the sprinklings due in the Sanctuary. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: He need start but from the place where he had stopped. If he had completed the sprinklings due in the Sanctuary and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and start again from the beginning with the sprinkling due on the altar. If he had made some of the sprinklings due on the altar and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and he shall start again from the beginning with the sprinklings due on the altar. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon said: He shall not start except from the place where he had stopped. If he had completed the sprinklings due on the altar and the blood was poured all agree that this is no handicap. Said R. Johanan: Both infer it from one scriptural passage: With the blood of the sin-offering of atonement . . . once a year. R. Meir holds: I have spoken to thee of one sin-offering [whereby to obtain one atonement], not of two sin-offerings; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon holding, I have spoken of one sprinkling, not of two sprinklings. It was taught: Rabbi said: R. Jacob taught me a difference with regard to the logs. But is there no [dispute]? Surely it has been taught: If he made some of the sprinklings within [the Sanctuary], and the blood was poured away, he must bring another log [of oil] and start again from the beginning with the sprinklings due within. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: He starts again from the place he had stopped at. If he had completed the sprinklings due within [the Sanctuary] and the log was spilt, he shall bring another log and start again from the beginning with the application on the thumbs and toes. If he had made some of the applications on the thumbs and toes and the log was spilt, he shall bring another log and start over again from the beginning with the applications on the thumbs and toes. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: He shall start where he had stopped before. If he had completed the applications due on the thumbs and toes and the log was spilt, then all agree that the applications on the head are not a handicap. Say rather: R. Jacob taught me also [the difference of opinion] concerning the log. The Master had said: The applications on the head are no handicap. Why that? Shall I say because Scripture says: And what remaineth over of the oil, but then [when it says]: But that which is left of the meal-offering etc., would you say that there, too, it constitutes no handicap? — It is different there because it is written: ‘And the rest’ and what remaineth over etc’23^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:He would certainly have to take anew the handfuls.
^ᵇnote:[It is assumed that the reference is to the sprinklings within the Holy of Holies, with the result that the he-goat was slaughtered before the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock.]
^ᶜnote:But the slaying of the he-goat took place in its proper place, after the blood of the bullock had been sprinkled within.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XVI, 33.
^ᵉnote:These sprinklings atone for any impurity that occurred in the Holy of Holies or the Sanctuary, if any person should have entered there unwittingly in a state of impurity. V. Shebu. 7b.
^ᶠnote:If any impurity occurred to any person at the altar, he staying there for a period co-extensive with the time of one prostration.
^ᵍnote:Priest, Levites and Israelites.
^ʰnote:Besides those of impurity. In the case of other transgressions the he-goat-to-be-sent-away obtains forgiveness for both priests and commoners. But for the sin implied in any impurity in the Temple, it is the bullock which obtains forgiveness for the priests, and the he-goat which brings it to Israel.
^ⁱnote:Without confession. As there was no confession with that he-goat.
^ʲnote:V. Sheb. 13b.
^ᵏnote:The anonymous authority who is R. Meir on the one hand, and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon on the other.
^ˡnote:Ex. XXX, 10.
^ᵐnote:The word ,tyj rendered ‘sin-offering’ means also ‘purge from sin’, hence sprinkle.
^ⁿnote:With regard to the log of oil used for the purification of the leper (v. Lev. XIV, 21) R. Jacob had taught that unlike the sprinklings of the Day of Atonement, there was no dispute concerning the question here where one must start again after a service had been performed out of order.
^ᵒnote:This refers to the purification rite of a leper, v. Lev. XIV, 16.
^ᵖnote:Lev. XIV, verse 17.
^ᵠnote:Hence the dispute between the Rabbis did affect the log of oil as well.
^ʳnote:The report had been originally misread. As R. Hananel suggests, it read: ‘R. Jacob had not made any difference with regard to the log’. In its original interpretation it implied: There was no difference of opinion among the Rabbis touching the log. But, since that report was now refuted, the meaning must have been: R. Jacob taught me that there was no difference between the log and the other case; in both the Rabbis are of divergent opinion.
^ˢnote:Lev. XIV, 29 which indicates that the oil used for the head is but a remainder and not an essential part of the rite.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. II, 10.
^ᵘnote:In reality it does, v. Men. 9a.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. XIV, 17 with reference to the oil applied to the thumbs and toes.
^ʷnote:The oil applied on the thumbs and toes is thus designated ‘remainder’ and that applied on the head ‘remainder of remainder’ and therefore constitutes no handicap.

²R. Johanan said: If the guilt-offering of a leper had been slaughtered not for its own purpose, — therein we find a dispute between [on the one hand] R. Meir, and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon [on the other]. R. Meir, who said he must bring another one and start all over from the beginning, would here consistently hold that he must bring another [animal as] guilt-offering and slay it, whereas R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who say: He shall start at the place he had left off before, would hold that here there is no redress. R. Hisda demurred to them: Surely it is written: ‘It’ — This is a refutation. It was taught in accord with R. Johanan: If the guilt-offering of a leper had been slaughtered not for its own purpose, or if one had not sprinkled of its blood upon the thumbs and toes, it is considered a burnt-offering in regard to the altar and requires the [prescribed] libations and he requires another guilt-offering to render him right again. — And R. Hisda? — He will answer you: What means, he requires? — He requires, but he has no remedy [to get it]. But would a Tanna teach: ‘He requires’ when he has no remedy [of getting it]? Indeed, as it was also taught: [Concerning] a baldheaded nazirite Beth Shammai taught he requires to pass through a razor [over his head], whereas Beth Hillel said: He need not pass through a razor [over his head]. And R. Abina said: When Beth Shammai say: It is necessary, [they mean] he requires to [do so] but he has no remedy. He thus contradicts R.Pedath, for R. Pedath said: Beth Shammai and R. Eleazar say one and the same thing. ‘Beth Shammai’, as we have stated above, and ‘R. Eleazar’ as we have learnt: If he have no thumb or toe, he can never obtain purity. R. Eleazar said: One should place it on the place due, and thereby the duty is done. R. Simeon said: If he placed it on [the thumb and toe of] the right, he has done his duty. Our Rabbis taught: And the priest shall take [receive] of the blood of the guilt-offering — one might have assumed that is to be done with a vessel, therefore the text reads: ‘And he shall put it’ i.e., just as the ‘putting’ must be done by the priest himself, so must the ‘taking’ be by the priest himself. One might have assumed the same applied to the blood which is to be used for [sprinkling upon] the altar, therefore the text reads: For as the sin-offering . . . so is the guilt-offering. Just as a vessel is necessary [for receiving the blood of a] sin-offering, so is a vessel necessary [for the blood of] the guilt-offering. You thus find yourself stating that in the case of the guilt-offering of the leper two priests receive the blood thereof, one in his hand, the other in a vessel. The first who receives it in the vessel proceeds to the altar, whereas the other who receives it in his hand goes to the leper. We have learnt there: All of them render the garments levitically impure and are to be burnt in the place where the ashes are deposited. This is the opinion of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. The Sages say: They do not render the garments ritually unclean and they are not to be burnt in the place where the ashes are deposited, except the last one because with that he completed the atonement. — Raba asked the following question of R. Nahman: How many he-goats is he to send away? — He answered: Should he perhaps send his flock away? — He said to him:^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ˣnote:[I.e., he offered it in the name of some other sacrifice. In such a case the sacrifice is valid but is not accounted to the owner in fulfillment of his duty and the owner must consequently bring anew the offering which was due from him.]
^ʸnote:[R. Meir, who holds that part of a service that has not been completed is of no account, would similarly regard this incomplete guilt-offering as not offered and would require another guilt-offering; whereas R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who do not disregard that part of the service which had been performed, would hold that he cannot bring a new guilt-offering as Scripture explicitly states ‘One lamb for a guilt offering’ (Lev. XIV, 12) and not two.]
^ᶻnote:Lev. XIV, 12: ‘And offer it as a guilt-offering’, i.e., only the one which has been waved together with the oil. This unequivocal statement of the Torah R. Meir too must accept, hence the interpretation just offered is to be rejected.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Num. XV, 1ff.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the leper becomes pure, normal again, so that he may eat holy things (sacrificial meat). This shews that there is a view that he can bring a new guilt-offering, which supports R. Johanan.
^ᵃᶜnote:Num. VI, 5: All the days of his vow of the Naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled, i.e., but when the days are fulfilled he shall have his hair cut.
^ᵃᵈnote:This bald-pate cannot do so. Yet it is stated ‘he requires’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Naz. 46b.
^ᵃᶠnote:The leper.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. XIV, 14.
^ᵃʰnote:Ibid. XIV, 13.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. Zeb. 97b.
^ᵃʲnote:For sprinkling on the leper himself.
^ᵃᵏnote:For the sprinkling on the altar.
^ᵃˡnote:All the bullocks and he-goats mentioned in our Mishnah, in connection with blood poured away before the completion of the individual atonement or the whole service in question, and for which substitutes are obligatory, must be burnt outside the three camps (that of the priests, the Levites, and of Israel) and they render the garments of those occupied with burning impure. Lev. XVI, 27-28.
^ᵃᵐnote:[Where, for instance, the blood of the he-goat was poured away after the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies in which case he has to bring anew two goats and cast lots afresh.]
^ᵃⁿnote:Obviously only one he-goat-to-be-sent-away is dealt with in Lev. XVI.