QUESTION: In the Mishnah (60a), Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama) states that if the blood of the Par or Sa'ir spills during the procedure of one of the Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol must slaughter a new Par or Sa'ir and begin the Haza'os from the beginning of that set. (There are three sets of Haza'os: one set performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, one set in the Heichal in front of the Paroches, and one set 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 stopped 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.

In what way is the argument about how to continue an interrupted Avodah related to a Korban Asham of a Metzora which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo?

RASHI (61b, DH ul'Rebbi Elazar) explains that when the Torah says that the Metzora must offer "Keves Echad Asham" -- "one lamb as an Asham offering" (Vayikra 14:21), it teaches that the Metzora may offer only one Asham and not more. Consequently, if his Asham was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, he is unable to bring another Asham to rectify the Pesul of the first one, and the Matanos of the blood cannot be administered.

When the Asham is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, the Korban does not become entirely invalidated. It may be offered as a Korban but it cannot serve as the Metzora's Asham. Since the Korban is offered by the Metzora, it qualifies as the "Keves Echad" which he is obligated to bring, and thus he should not be able to bring another Korban Asham.

Rebbi Meir (who maintains that when a procedure is interrupted one must return to the beginning of the procedure) completely disregards all parts of an Avodah that were done before the Avodah was interrupted; the Avodah is considered as though none of it was done. According to Rebbi Meir, since the Metzora's lamb was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, it should be considered like an Avodah that was only partially done, and thus it should be disregarded. Therefore, the Metzora may bring another Keves as his Asham.

According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (who maintain that the parts of an Avodah that were done before the Avodah was interrupted are valid and are not discounted, and thus one continues the Avodah from where he left off), the Metzora's lamb that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo is considered to be his Asham. However, the Metzora may not offer it because it was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, nor may he offer an additional Keves as his Asham.

The RASHASH challenges Rashi's explanation. If the verse "Keves Echad Asham" teaches that the Metzora may bring only one lamb as his Asham and he may not continue the Avodah by slaughtering a second lamb, then the same teaching should be inferred from the verse which discusses the oil which the Metzora is required to bring. When the verse says, "v'Log Echad Shamen" (Vayikra 14:10), it should imply that the Metzora may bring only one Log of oil and not more. However, the Beraisa earlier (61a) clearly states that if his Log of Shemen spills, he brings another one and the sprinklings of oil are continued from the point at which they were interrupted, according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon.

(a) The Gemara earlier (61a) quotes Rebbi who said, "Rebbi Yakov taught me to differentiate with regard to the Lugin [of oil]." This means that the argument in the Mishnah does not apply to the case of oil of a Metzora that spilled. In that case, everyone agrees that the Metzora cannot redo the sprinklings of oil. The Gemara challenges Rebbi's statement from the Beraisa which the Rashash quotes in his question, and it concludes that Rebbi actually said that "Rebbi Yakov taught me to compare with regard to the Lugin." That is, the argument in the Mishnah does apply to the case of oil of a Metzora that spilled.

The first version of Rebbi's statement says exactly what Rashi's words here imply. If the verse of "Keves Echad Asham" teaches that the Metzora cannot offer another Asham when his Korban is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, then the verse of "v'Log Echad Shamen" also must teach that if the oil spills during the Haza'os, the Kohen may not bring another Log of oil for the Metzora and continue the Haza'os (even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon). (In the case of spilled oil, Rashi there (61a) does not specify what must be done. Presumably, the Kohen must bring another Log and repeat the Haza'os of the oil from the start. However, the Gemara here (61b) makes it clear that there is no recourse for the Metzora (according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon). He cannot bring another Log of oil because he started his Taharah with a different Log, and the Torah specifies that only one Log be used and not two.)

Accordingly, Rebbi Yochanan, who makes the statement about Asham Metzora, follows the view of Rebbi as he was originally quoted. It must be that Rebbi Yochanan either was unaware of the Beraisa which the Gemara quotes to refute the original statement of Rebbi, or he was aware of it but he maintained that the original Beraisa which quotes Rebbi argues with the second Beraisa. According to the first Beraisa, the verse of "v'Log Echad Shamen" indeed teaches that no more oil may be brought (as Rashi says there, DH Li Chilek Rebbi Yakov), just as the verse of "Keves Echad Asham" teaches that no additional Korban Asham may be brought. (M. Kornfeld)

(b) TOSFOS apparently understands Rashi as explained above, because he does not question Rashi's words the way the Rashash does. Tosfos instead asks a different question on the explanation of Rashi: Why is an Asham that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo considered "partially" done? Since the Asham slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo does not serve the purpose for which it was designated, it is unrelated to the Metzora and is considered as though it was never brought as a Korban, even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon.

Tosfos therefore favors the Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL, according to which Rebbi Yochanan does not equate the case of an Asham that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo to the case of the Mishnah. Rather, Rebbi Yochanan equates the case of an Asham whose blood was spilled (she'Nishpach Damo) before the Haza'os were completed to the case of the Mishnah. Accordingly, the case of the Asham indeed is the same type of case as that of the Mishnah, and the argument in the Mishnah clearly applies to that case.

Tosfos also corrects the text from "[according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon...] Ein Lo Takanah" -- "there is no rectification" (in the case of Asham Metzora) to "[according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon...] here, too, Yaschil mi'Makom she'Pasak" -- "he should begin anew from where he left off" (just as in the case of the Mishnah), as the MAHARSHA points out. The TOSFOS YESHANIM adds that this Girsa circumvents the Rashash's question, since, according to this text, the Gemara here says exactly the same thing as the Beraisa earlier (61a) says with regard to the Log of oil. According to this text, the word "Echad" in the verse is used to limit neither the number of animals nor the number of Login used by the Metzora.

(Rabeinu Chananel himself does not make the second change in the text that Tosfos makes. Rabeinu Elyakim presents a third approach to the Sugya, which preserves the Girsa of Rashi, but which avoids the Rashash's question by differentiating between spilled (or lost) oil or blood (which is no longer present) and a Korban that was sacrificed she'Lo Lishmah (but which is still present). Only when the original, invalid animal is still present (as in the case of the Asham slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah) is it considered to be inconsistent with the requirement of "Echad.")