Yoma 61B

אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו ⁠— באנו למחלוקת רבי מאיר ורבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון. רבי מאיר, דאמר יביא אחר ויתחיל בתחילה ⁠— הכא נמי יביא אחר וישחוט.

With regard to a metzora’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 R' Meir on the one hand and R' Elazar and R' Shimon on the other hand. R' Yoḥanan clarifies his statement: According to the opinion of R' 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 metzora’s guilt-offering, he brings another animal and slaughters it, as R' Meir maintains that a service that has not been completed is considered as though it had not been performed at all.

ולרבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון שאומרים ממקום שפסק משם הוא מתחיל ⁠— הכא אין לו תקנה.

And according to the opinion of R' Elazar and R' 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 ״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 R' Meir, he cannot use another offering. The Talmud comments: Indeed, this is difficult for R' Yoḥanan.