Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 61

1) APPLYING THE ARGUMENT IN OUR MISHNAH TO A CASE OF AN "ASHAM METZORA"

QUESTION: In the Mishnah (60a), Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama) says that if the blood of the Par or Se'ir spills during the procedure of one of the Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol must slaughter a new Par or Se'ir and begin the Haza'os from the beginning of that set of Haza'os. (There are three sets of Haza'os, one set performed in the Kodesh Kadoshim, one set performed in the Heichal in front of the Paroches, and one set performed in the Heichal upon the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon argue and say that the Kohen Gadol continues the Haza'os with the blood of the new animal from the point at which he left off when the blood spilled. Rebbi Yochanan (61b) says that the same argument applies in a case of a Korban Asham of a Metzora which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo.

What does the argument of how to continue an Avodah that was interrupted have to do with a Korban Asham of a Metzora that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo?

RASHI (61b, DH u'l'Rebbi Elazar) explains as follows. When the Torah says that the Metzora must bring "one lamb as an Asham offering" -- "Keves Echad Asham" (Vayikra 14:21), it is teaching that the Metzora can *only* bring one Asham, and not more. Consequently, if the Asham which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo is considered to be his Korban Asham, he is unable to bring another Asham to rectify the Pesul of the first one, and the Matanos of the Dam cannot be administered.

When the Asham is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, the Korban does not become entirely Pasul from being brought as a Korban. Rather, it may be brought as a Korban but it cannot be used as the Metzora's Asham. Since this Korban is nevertheless brought by the Metzora, it is considered the "Keves Echad" which he brings, and thus he should not be able to bring another Korban Asham. However, Rebbi Meir -- who requires that when a procedure was interrupted one must go back to the beginning and start again -- completely disregards any part of the Avodah which was only half-done. He considers it not to have been done at all. According to him, since this lamb was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, it is like something that was half-done and thus it is disregarded. Therefore, the Metzora may bring another Keves as his Asham. According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, who maintain that something which is half-done is taken into account and one continues where he left off, this Keves that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo is considered to be the Metzora's Asham, but it cannot be offered because it was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, nor may an additional Keves be brought as his Asham.

The RASHASH challenges Rashi's explanation. If the verse "Keves Echad Asham" teaches that he may bring only *one* lamb as his Asham and he cannot continue the Avodah by slaughtering a second lamb, then the verse regarding the oil that he is required to bring should also teach that he may only bring one Log of oil, for it similarly says, "v'Log Echad Shamen" (Vayikra 14:10). However, the Beraisa earlier (61a) states clearly that if the Log of Shemen spilled, he brings another one and the sprinklings of oil are continued where he left off, according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon!

ANSWERS:

(a) On 61a, Rebbi is quoted as having said that "Rebbi Yakov taught me to differentiate regarding the Login [of oil]" -- that is to say, the argument in our Mishnah (between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar/Rebbi Shimon) does *not* apply to the case of a Metzora's oil that spilled. Rather, in that case everyone will agree that he cannot go back and re-do the sprinklings of oil. The Gemara challenges that statement from the Beraisa that the Rashash quoted in his question, and concludes that Rebbi actually said that "Rebbi Yakov taught me to *compare* regarding the Login." That is, the argument in our Mishnah *does* apply to the case of the Metzora's oil that spilled.

The first version of Rebbi's statement is saying exactly what Rashi's words here (61b, DH u'l'Rebbi Elazar) imply; if we utilize the Derashah of "Keves Echad Asham," then we must also utilize the Derashah of "v'Log Echad Shamen" to teach that if the oil spills in middle of the Haza'os, even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon do not permit the Kohen to bring another Log of oil for the Metzora and pick up where he left off. (Rashi there does not specify what must be done instead, and it is presumed by the reader that the Kohen must bring another Log and repeat the Haza'os of the oil from the start of the Haza'os. However, after seeing the Gemara on 61b, it becomes clear that that is not the case. Rather, according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon there simply is nothing for the Metzora to do. He cannot bring another Log of oil, since he started his Taharah with a different Log, and the Torah specifies that only one Log, and not two Login, may be used.)

If so, Rebbi Yochanan, who made the statement about Asham Metzora, held like Rebbi was originally quoted as saying. It must be that Rebbi Yochanan either did not hear of the Beraisa the Gemara quotes to refute the original Beraisa of Rebbi, or he heard of it but he maintained that the original Beraisa which quotes Rebbi's statement *argued* with the second Beraisa. According to the first Beraisa, we indeed utilize the Derashah of "v'Log Echad Shamen" (as Rashi says there, DH Li Chilek Rebbi Yakov) just like Rashi explains here that we utilize the Derashah of "Keves Echad Asham." (M. Kornfeld)

(b) TOSFOS must have understood Rashi as we explained, because otherwise he would have asked this question on Rashi. Instead, he asks a different question on the explanation of Rashi. Why should the Asham that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo be considered even half-done? If it does not serve its purpose, then it has nothing to do with the Metzora and it is as if it was never brought as a Korban, even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon!

Tosfos therefore favors the Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL. Instead of equating the case of an Asham that was *slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo* to the case of our Mishnah, Rebbi Yochanan equates the case of an Asham *she'Nishpach Damo* -- whose blood was spilled before the Haza'os were completed -- to our Mishnah. If so, it is the same type of case of our Mishnah and it is clear how the argument in our Mishnah applies to that case. Furthermore, Tosfos also changes the Girsa of "according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shomon... Ein Lo Takanah" ("there is no way of rectification" in the case of Asham Metzora) to "according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shomon... here, too, Yaschil mi'Makom she'Pasak" (he should begin anew from where he left off, just as in the case of our Mishnah), as the MAHARSHA points out. As TOSFOS YESHANIM points out, this neatly avoids the Rashash's question, since that is exactly the same as the Beraisa on 61a ruled regarding the Log of Shemen. Neither by the Asham nor by the Log do we use the word "Echad" to limit the number of animals or Login used.

(Rabeinu Chananel himself does not make the second Girsa change of Tosfos, only the first. Rabeinu Elyakim presents a third approach to the Sugya, maintaining the Girsa of Rashi, which likewise avoids the Rashash's question by differentiating between *spilled* or lost oil or blood, and a Korban that was sacrificed she'Lo Lishma, but is still present. Only when the original, invalid animal is *still present*, as in the case of she'Lo Lishma, is it considered to be inconsistent with the requirement of "Echad.")

61b