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
1) KORBANOS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE "NESACHIM"
QUESTIONS: Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa follows his approach of explicating the reason
for a Mitzvah ("Doresh Ta'ama d'Kra"). He explains that certain Korbanos are not
brought with Menachos and Nesachim. Really, he says, all Korbanos should have
Menachos and Nesachim. The reason why a Chatas and Asham are not brought with
Menachos and Nesachim is because the Torah does not want a sinner's Korban to be
beautified or glorified. For this reason, the Chatas and Asham of a *Metzora* are
exceptions and *are* brought with Nesachim. The Metzora's Chatas and Asham are not
brought because of the person's sins (because the Tzora'as itself atoned for the
sins); rather, the Korban is brought to permit the owner to eat Kodshim.
RASHI (DH v'Chi ka'Maisi) points out that there are a number of Tum'os for which the
Torah prescribes that the person bring a Korban to make him completely Tahor. These
are the Korbanos of a Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, Metzora (like the Gemara mentions here),
and Nazir Tamei.
There are a number of difficulties understanding this Rashi.
(a) First, why does Rashi need to show us that there are other examples of Korbanos
that are brought to be Metaher the person? Also, if it is true that all of these
people bring Chata'os to be Metaher themselves, then those Chata'os should also be
accompanied by Nesachim! Why is it that only the Chatas and Asham of a Metzora
require Nesachim and not the other Korbanos that Rashi lists?
(b) Second, what does Rashi mean when he includes a Nazir Tamei in this list? It is
clear from the Gemara in Nazir (60a) that the Korban of a Nazir Tamei does not serve
to permit him to eat Kodshim, since he is already permitted to eat Kodshim once he
has become Tahor (even before he brings the Korban). This is also evident from the
Gemara in Kerisus (8b) that says that a Nazir Tamei is not included in the list of
those who need a Korban ("Mechusrei Kaparah") to permit them to Kodshim.
(c) Third, the following Gemara questions the view of Rebbi Shimon and asks why does
the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor not require Nesachim, since it is not brought for a sin?
The Gemara answers that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar who says that a
Nazir Tahor is considered a Chotei, a sinner. Why does the Gemara not ask the same
question about the Korban Asham of a Nazir *Tamei*? If a Nazir is not a Chotei, like
the Gemara initially assumes, then the Asham of a Nazir Tamei should also require
(a) Rashi brings these other examples of "Mechusrei Kaparah" to explain how the
Gemara could say that an Asham Metzora is not Mechaper when the verse (Vayikra 14:11)
explicitly says that the Asham of the Metzora *is* Mechaper ("l'Chaper")! Rashi
explains that "l'Chaper" sometimes means "l'Taher," like the verse says with regard
to a Yoledes, Zav, and Zavah who certainly did not commit a sin and yet the Torah
says (Vayikra 12:7, 15:15) that they must bring a Korban to be Mechaper ("v'Chiper").
This means that the Korban makes them Tahor, even though they did not sin. The reason
none of those "Mechusrei Kaparah" in Rashi's list require Nesachim with their
Chata'os is because they all bring a Chatas *ha'Of* and not a Chatas Behemah, and
Nesachim are never brought with a Chatas ha'Of (Nesachim are brought only with
Korbanos of animals).
(b) When Rashi writes that a Nazir Tamei needs a Korban to make him completely Tahor,
he does not mean that he needs a Korban to permit him to eat Kodshim, but rather that
he needs a Korban in order to begin his Nezirus Taharah. (Rashi here is following the
opinion of Rebbi in Nazir 18a who says that the Nezirus Taharah cannot begin until
the Korban of Nazir Tamei is brought.) The reason why Rashi includes a Nazir Tamei in
his list, even though a Nazir Tamei is not normally included in the list of Mechusrei
Kaparah (Kerisus 8b), is because there, also, the verse says "v'Chiper" (Bamidbar
6:11) teaching that the Korban is Mechaper, even though the Gemara at this point is
assuming the position that a Nazir is *not* considered a Chotei. (See HAGAHOS RAV
(c) The PORAS YOSEF suggests that the Gemara knew all along that a Nazir *Tamei* is a
Chotei. It thought, however, that a Nazir *Tahor* is not a Chotei and therefore
should bring Nesachim. It answers that even a Nazir Tahor is also a Chotei and that
is why he does not bring Nesachim.
However, this answer does not conform with the words of Rashi, because Rashi includes
a Nazir *Tamei* in the list of people who bring Korbanos only to make themselves
Tahor and not because of their sin! According to Rashi, why does the Gemara not ask
that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei should require Nesachim?
The answer to this can be found in the TOSFOS SHANTZ here and in the SHITAH
MEKUBETZES in Kerisus (27:25), who explain based on the Gemara in Kerisus (end of
27a) that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei is completely extraneous. It is not serving any
apparent purpose. The Taharah of a Nazir Tamei comes about through his Chatas and
Olah, like the verse says (Bamidbar 6:11). The Chatas is already Metaher him, and the
Asham serves no apparent purpose. The Tosfos Shantz and Shitah Mekubetzes explain
that since the Korban Asham is not serving a purpose of Kaparah or of Taharah, it is
not similar to any other Korbanos and thus it does not require Nesachim. (See also
Rashi in Nazir 59b, DH v'Sofrin, and TOSFOS in Nazir 55b, DH Ochel, who explain that
the Asham of a Nazir Tamei is not Me'akev.)
The Gemara questions Rebbi Shimon only from the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor, which *is*
serving a purpose, as are all of the Korbanos of a Nazir Tahor, since any one of them
can permit him to drink wine, cut his hair, and become Tamei. Therefore, they all
serve a purpose and should require Nesachim. The Gemara answers that a Nazir Tahor is
a Chotei and that is why his Korbanos do not require Nesachim.