זבחים 76:2 — Soncino English Talmud

and if not, let this guilt-offering be a votive peace-offering. That guilt-offering must be slaughtered in the north, and requires sprinkling on the thumbs, laying [of hands], [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the thigh; and it is eaten one day and one night. — A man's repair is different. That is well of the guilt-offering; what can be said about the log [of oil]? — He declares: [If I was not a leper,] let this log be a votive gift.’ But perhaps he was not a leper, and he must take off a fistful? — He does take off a fistful. But perhaps he was a leper, and he requires seven sprinklings? — He makes them. But it is defective? — He brings a little more and replenishes it. For we learnt: If the log became defective before he poured it, he replenishes it. But it [the fistful] must be burnt? — He does burn it [on the altar]. When? if after the seven sprinklings, it becomes a residue which was reduced between the taking of the fistful and the burning, and you may then not burn the fistful on its account; while if before the seven sprinklings, [we have the exegetical rule:] Every offering whereof a portion has been consigned to the fire [of the altar] is subject to ‘Ye shall not make smoke [burn]’? — Said R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi: He brings it up [on the altar] as mere fuel ‘ For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: ‘For a sweet savour’ you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:This refers to a case of doubtful leprosy. ‘On the morrow’ means on the eighth day, the morrow after the final seven days of purification; v. Lev. XIII-XIV. If the man had not actually been a leper he is not liable now to a guilt-offerings and therefore he stipulates that in that event it shall be a votive peace-offering.
^ᵇnote:V. Lev. XIV, 14.
^ᶜnote:Like a guilt-offering. Thus he may reduce the time of its consumption (for it may be a peace-offering, which can be eaten two days) even at the outset!
^ᵈnote:There is no other way by which he can become clean.
^ᵉnote:This is not a refutation of Raba, but a difficulty in R. Simeon's statement. The guilt-offering can be a votive peace-offering, if the man was not a leper; but what about the log of oil, to which he is not liable in that case?
^ᶠnote:For oil could be brought by itself, without an animal sacrifice.
^ᵍnote:If oil is votively brought, a fistful must be taken off and burnt on the altar; v. infra 91b.
^ʰnote:V. Lev. XIV, 16.
^ⁱnote:As a fistful was removed, there is now less than a log, and that invalidates the rites.
^ʲnote:On to his left hand, v. ibid. 15.
^ᵏnote:Then the residue may be consumed in any event. For if he was a leper, it may be consumed, as stated supra 44b. While if this is a votive offering, it is the same as the residue of any meal-offering, which of course is eaten (v. Lev. II,3).
^ˡnote:It may be a votive offering, in which case the sprinklings are not a purification rite but simply a lessening of the oil. Now, the fistful had already been taken, and thus between that act and the burning the residue was reduced, in which case the fistful may not be burnt, v. Men. 9b.
^ᵐnote:V. Lev. II, 11. Here too, perhaps it was a votive offering, and so the burning of the fistful is a valid rite, in accordance with Lev. II, 2 q.v. When this burning has once been done, none of the residue may be burnt again on the altar. Now in this instance the sprinklings of the oil are equivalent to the burning on the altar of part of a meal-offering; hence just as that would be forbidden, so are the sprinklings forbidden.
^ⁿnote:Not as a fistful whose burning is a necessary rite. Thus when he sprinkles the oil the priest declares: ‘If he was a leper’ (so that the burning of the fistful was not a rite and does not count, since it was not a votive offering, for only such requires it), ‘this is not a residue, and I sprinkle of the whole, not of the residue. While if he was not a leper’ (so that the burning of the fistful was a necessary rite), ‘let this not be accounted as ritual sprinkling but as merely pouring water on the altar’ (the equivalent of burning the fistful not as a rite, but as though one added fuel to the altar). So Rashi. According to this explanation, the Talmud speaks figuratively: in the difficulty it raises, ‘Ye shall not make smoke’ means that you must not sprinkle, while ‘he brings it up as mere fuel’ in the answer means that he simply pours it out as water. This is perhaps forced, while it is questionable whether this sprinkling is the exact equivalent of the ritual burning of the fistful. Tosaf. therefore explains that the passage is meant literally, this agreeing with R. Akiba who maintained that it is forbidden to burn ritually a fistful of the leper's log of oil; hence the difficulty, How can he burn this fistful, in case he was a leper? The answer is that he does not burn it ritually, but merely as fuel.
^ᵒnote:Lev. II, 12.