THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
MENACHOS 92 (12 Teves 5764) - dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky and daughters
to honor the first Yahrzeit of Joel Bikelnitzky, Reb Yoel Yitzchak ben
Shraga Feivish, affectionately known as "Feter Yoel" to everyone in Crown
Heights. Beloved uncle of Layah Bergman (Chicago IL), Zahava Mandel
(Cedarhurst NY), and Sima Weinstock (Kew Gardens Hills, NY)
1) "NESACHIM" FOR AN INHERITED KORBAN
OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that a person who inherits a Korban performs
Semichah on the Korban and brings Nesachim. RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH ha'Yoresh
Somech) explains that the Mishnah is referring to a case in which a person's
father dedicated a Korban Olah or Korban Shelamim, and died before he was
able to bring the Korban.
The Mishnah does not clarify, though, whether the heir is supposed to bring
the Nesachim from his own property, or whether he brings Nesachim only if he
inherited the Nesachim from his father. What is the Mishnah's intention?
(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV explains that the case of the Mishnah is when a
person inherits the Nesachim from his father. It seems that the Tosfos Yom
Tov would agree that if the original owner of the Korban had not set aside
any Nesachim, his son would still have to bring Nesachim from money that he
inherited from his father. However, if he did not inherit anything other
than the animal from his father, then he would not have to buy Nesachim.
(b) The OR GADOL argues and says that a person who inherits a Korban is
considered like the owner of the Korban. Even if he does not inherit
anything else, he must bring Nesachim from his own money in order to
complete the Korban. The Or Gadol proves this from the Mishnah in Shekalim
(7:6) which states that if a convert dies with no heirs and leaves a Korban
that needs to be brought, we bring the Korban, together with the Nesachim
that the convert left as well. If he left no Nesachim, then we bring
Nesachim from the public funds. According to the Tosfos Yom Tov, why does
that Mishnah discuss a convert who dies? The same Halachah applies to an
ordinary Jew who dies! The Or Gadol proves from there that it must be that
the heir of an ordinary Jew always brings Nesachim from his own money if his
father did not provide Nesachim. This is also the opinion of the CHAZON ISH
The TIFERES YISRAEL in Shekalim apparently learns like the Tosfos Yom Tov.
He explains why the Mishnah in Shekalim talks specifically about a convert.
If an ordinary Jew dies and leaves a Korban without Nesachim, we would say
that the Nesachim should be brought from his estate. If a convert dies and
leaves a Korban without Nesachim, it is not possible to bring Nesachim from
his estate, because the property of a convert who dies without heirs is
considered Hefker, ownerless. Since his property is Hefker, there is no
property of the convert from which to bring Nesachim, and therefore the
Nesachim are brought from the public funds.
The Or Gadol cites the KEHILOS YAKOV (on Mishnayos) who understands that
this argument is based on a different argument. There is a dispute regarding
whether the lien on one's property that is created when one commits himself
to a monetary obligation is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan ("Shi'abuda d'Oraisa"
or "Shi'abuda Lav d'Oraisa"; see end of SHULCHAN ARUCH CM 175, and
Background to the Daf to Bava Basra 175:18). One opinion maintains that even
though the convert committed himself to bring a Korban while he was alive,
his commitment did not cause the monetary value of the Nesachim to become
designated for Nesachim, since the lien that results from such a commitment
is only mid'Rabanan. The other opinion, which holds "Shi'abuda d'Oraisa,"
maintains that the Nesachim should be brought from the estate of the
convert, because a lien mid'Oraisa was created on the converts property for
the monetary value of the Nesachim. This might be why the Tosfos Yom Tov
holds that the case of a convert in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which says that
Nesachim are brought from his property, applies only when the convert
separated these actual Nesachim before he died. According to the opinion
that "Shi'abuda d'Oraisa," even if the convert did not separate specific
Nesachim, there would be a lien mid'Oraisa on his property for the purpose
of bringing Nesachim, and this lien overrides the property's new status of
Hefker. According to this opinion, the Mishnah in Shekalim is obviously
discussing a case in which the convert had no possessions to bequeath, and
he did not dedicate any Nesachim before his death. In such a case, the
Nesachim must be brought from public funds. In contrast, when a Jew -- who
has heirs who inherit his property -- dies, those heirs must bring his
Nesachim for him from their own property.
The Or Gadol points out, however, that according to the Tosfos Yom Tov who
explains that the heir is not considered the owner of the Korban and cannot
bring his own Nesachim, why should the Mishnah discuss specifically a
convert? Why should an ordinary Jew be different? If the Jew did not
dedicate the Nesachim before he died, why should the Nesachim be brought
from the money he bequeathed to his children, when that money is no longer
the property of the person who died? It must be that the heir indeed is
considered an owner of the Korban, and therefore his money is also valid to
use for Nesachim for this Korban. (See also SHOSHANIM L'DAVID in Shekalim
7:6, and MIKDASH DAVID 10:3). (Y. Montrose)
2) THE KORBANOS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE "SEMICHAH"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah state that all private Korbanos require Semichah, with
the exception of a Bechor, Ma'aser, and a Korban Pesach. The Gemara suggests
that these exceptions are derived from the three extra times that the Torah
mentions the word, "Korbano" -- "his Korban" (RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH Korbano)
says that these three extra words are written with regard to the Semichah of
Shelamim, referring to Vayikra 3. However, we find only two words "Korbano"
in that chapter that are written with regard to Semichah, while there are
many other occasions of the word in that chapter with regard to Shelamim in
general.) These three extra words exclude Bechor, Ma'aser, and Pesach.
How does the word "Korbano" imply that we should exclude these three types
(a) RASHI (DH Korbanos) explains that the word "Korbano" implies that one is
trying to bring himself closer to Hashem voluntarily ("*his* Korban"). This
refers specifically to a voluntary, freewill offering, and not to a Korban
that one is obligated to bring, such as a Bechor, Ma'aser, and Pesach.
The CHIDUSHIM HA'MEYUCHASIM LA'RASHBA asks that this explanation is not
consistent with the Halachah regarding an Asham and a Chatas. Both of these
Korbanos are obligatory, and yet they still require Semichah! He answers
that an Asham and a Chatas "are not Kadosh before they are offered, and they
are brought solely for the person's own benefit, and therefore they are
called 'Korbano.'" In contrast, a Bechor is Kadosh immediately upon birth.
This answer, however, does not explain why Ma'aser and a Korban Pesach --
which are not Kadosh from birth -- are different from an Asham and Chatas.
The EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests that it is possible that "Korbano" implies that
there are two requirements necessary for Semichah. First, the person
bringing the Korban must be Makdish the animal (and not that it is Kadosh
from birth), and, second, that it is a Korban that is offered for
appeasement. A Bechor becomes Kadosh at birth, while Ma'aser and Pesach are
not offered for appeasement, but rather to fulfill the obligation of
bringing these special Korbanos. An Asham and Chatas are brought for
appeasement, and therefore they require Semichah even though they are
obligatory. It seems that the Rashba himself alludes to this when he writes,
"And they are brought solely for the person's own benefit," referring to the
appeasement attained by the Korban. This is a reason which is not necessary
for Bechor, since the Rashba already stated Semichah does not apply since it
becomes Kadosh at birth and not through the owner's act of being Mekadesh
(b) The SEFAS EMES also explains that "Korbano" excludes a Bechor because a
Bechor is Kadosh from birth. However, he explains that Ma'aser is similarly
excluded, because whichever animal is the tenth animal becomes Kadosh, and
its Kedushah is considered to happen by itself. A Korban Pesach is excluded
from "Korbano" for a different reason altogether. "Korbano," or "his
Korban," refers to a Korban which is exclusively *his*, as opposed to a
Korban that everyone is obligated to bring on the same day, such as the
Korban Pesach. (Y. Montrose)