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
ZEVACHIM 66-68 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
1) HOW CAN AN "OLAS HA'OF" BECOME A "CHATAS HA'OF?"
QUESTION: The Mishnah (66b) discusses an argument between Rebbi Eliezer and
Rebbi Yehoshua regarding an Olas ha'Of which was offered with the Avodos of
an Chatas ha'Of, and with the intention that it be a Chatas ha'Of. Rebbi
Eliezer says that the bird is subject to the laws of Me'ilah, while Rebbi
Yehoshua says that it is not subject to the laws of Me'ilah. The Gemara says
that Rebbi Yehoshua's reasoning is that the bird, even though it was
designated to be an Olas ha'Of, changes into a Chatas ha'Of through being
offered as such. Since a Chatas ha'Of may be eaten by Kohanim, we apply the
rule that anything which can be eaten by Kohanim is not subject to the
prohibition of Me'ilah.
This seems difficult to understand. The Mishnah in Chulin (41b) states that
a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily. Rather, it can be offered only when
one is obligated to bring a Chatas due to a sin that was committed. How,
then, can the person's Olas ha'Of turn into a Korban that he is unable to
offer voluntarily? The Mishnah does not specify that this argument applies
only in a case in which the person happens to be obligated to bring a Chatas
ha'Of and has not yet done so. How, then, can his Olas ha'Of turn into a
Chatas ha'Of if he did not commit a sin?
(a) The commentaries deal with a similar question. We know that a person
cannot consecrate an animal as a Korban if it does not belong to him (for
example, an animal that he stole, or an animal that is Asur b'Hana'ah).
However, there are situations in which an animal that does not belong to the
person who declared it to be consecrated does seem to acquire the Kedushah
of a Korban. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:7) says that if one
offers a stolen Korban, the Korban is Pasul. The KEHILAS YAKOV (Nedarim
32:10) says that this implies that the animal has the Kedushah of a Korban
but is Pasul (and not that it never became a Korban in the first place).
How, though, can it become a Korban?
The CHAZON ISH (Nega'im 11:5) addresses this question with regard to an
animal that is Asur b'Hana'ah. He writes that it is true that the Kedushah
of such an offering cannot be achieved through a mere verbal declaration (as
other Korbanos become consecrated). However, when the Avodah is performed,
the *Avodah* itself gives the animal the Kedushah of a Korban.
SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests a similar approach to answer our question. It
is possible that the rule that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily means
that it cannot achieve the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas *through being
consecrated* if the owner has no obligation to bring a Chatas. However, once
the Avodah of a Chatas is performed with bird with intention that it be a
Chatas ha'Of, it acquires the Kedushah of a Chatas ha'Of through the Avodah.
(b) This question may also be answered based on the words of RASHI in
Nedarim (6a, DH Devarav Kayamim). The Gemara in Nedarim quotes a Tosefta
which states that if one who is obligated to bring a Chatas points to an
animal and says, "Harei Zo Chatas" -- "this animal is a Chatas," the animal
is not considered to be consecrated as a Chatas. Only by saying, "This is my
Chatas," does the animal acquire the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas. Rashi
comments that if the person would not be obligated to bring a Chatas, then
his verbal designation of the animal would not be effective, because he did
not say, "This animal is upon me (Alai) as a Chatas." Rashi implies that if
he did use this phraseology, then the Korban *would* have Kedushas Chatas.
This seems to contradict the aforementioned Mishnah in Chulin (41b) which
explicitly states that the problem is not the lack of the word "Alai," but
rather that a Chatas cannot be brought voluntarily!
The SHA'AR HA'MELECH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 14:8) answers this
question in the name of the MAHARI IRGAS. He explains that when the Mishnah
in Chulin says that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily, it means that
the Korban will be Pasul if it is brought. It will, however, have the
Kedushah of a Korban Chatas if one designates it as such, even though it may
not be offered as a Korban.
Based on this interpretation, we can suggest that the Mishnah in Chulin
(41b) only limits dedicating the Chatas in order to actually bring the
Korban; such a Korban will be Pasul. It does not say that the animal does
not attain Kedushah when the owner (who is not obligated to bring a Chatas)
designates it as a Chatas (whether through words or Avodah). (See also
TESHUVOS RAMA MI'PANO #26, KEHILOS YAKOV to Nedarim #7, MIKDASH DAVID 28:2).
2) MISTAKES REGARDING "KORBANOS HA'OF"
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Kinim (3:6) that discusses a
woman who, before giving birth, said that she will bring two birds as a
Korban if she gives birth to a boy. When she gives birth to a boy, she is
obligated to bring two Olos ha'Of for her vow, in addition to the standard
Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of that every woman brings after giving birth.
However, when she brought the birds to the Kohen to offer as Korbanos, the
Kohen mistakenly thought that each pair of birds was comprised of a Chatas
and Olah (and not one pair comprising a Chatas and Olah, and the other pair
comprising two Olos), and he offered them accordingly. The Mishnah says that
if all of the birds were Torim, or all were Benei Yonah, then the woman must
bring only one replacement Korban for an Olas ha'Of, from that species. The
problem arises when the birds were mixed; some were Torim and some were
Benei Yonah. The Mishnah in Kinim (2:5) states that a bird which is being
brought as a replacement must be of the same species as the bird that it is replacing. Since we are
unsure which kind of bird was the one which became Pasul (i.e. which was
brought as a Chatas instead of as an Olah), the woman must bring both a Tor
and a Ben Yonah as replacement Olos.
The Mishnah then discusses two more cases. One is a case of "Pirshah
Nidrah," meaning literally that the woman "verbally expressed her Neder."
The second case is "Kav'ah Nidrah," meaning that the woman "established her
Neder." Both of these cases result in the need to bring many more
replacement Korbanos. What are these cases, and why do they result in the
need to bring many more Korbanos?
(a) RASHI (DH Pirshah Nidrah) explains that "Pirshah Nidrah" means that the
woman donating the Korbanos ha'Of specified in her Neder the species that
she would bring to fulfill her Neder. She subsequently forgot which species
she had intended to bring, and then brought all of her Korbanos to the Kohen
(who was also negligent and offered two Chata'os and two Olos from the four
birds, instead of one Chatas and three Olos). The Mishnah states that she
now must bring three Olos ha'Of, because of the following reasoning. If all
four birds that she brought were of one species (such as Torim,) then she
must replace the one Tor, of the second pair, which was offered as a Chatas
and not as an Olah. In addition, since it is possible that she specified
that her Neder offering would be Benei Yonah, she must bring two Benei Yonah
as Olos to fulfill her vow. Thus, she must bring a total of three additional
If the birds that she brought were mixed (two Torim and two Benei Yonah),
and the Kohen does not know which set he offered first, then she must bring
four replacement birds -- two Torim and two Benei Yonah. If the two Benei
Yonah were offered last, then she must bring one replacement Ben Yonah to be
offered as an Olah (to replace the Ben Yonah that was offered as a Chatas).
She must also bring two Torim, since perhaps her Neder was to bring two
Torim as Olos, and not two Benei Yonah. She must also bring an additional
Ben Yonah, since perhaps the two Torim were offered last, and while she is
replacing the Tor that was offered as a Chatas with one of the two
additional Torim that she is bringing, perhaps her Neder was to bring two
Benei Yonah as Olos, and thus she must bring an additional Ben Yonah (so
that she is bringing a total of two Benei Yonah and two Torim, to cover all
of the doubts).
Rashi (DH Kav'ah Nidrah) explains that "Kav'ah Nidrah" means that she
established in her Neder that her voluntary offering would be brought
together, at the same time, with the offering that she was obligated to
bring as a result of giving birth. In this case as well, she specified, but
forgot, which type of bird she would bring as her Neder. In this case,
merely bringing replacement birds is not enough. Since she said that her
Neder would be brought with her obligatory Korban Olah, replacing just one
at a later date is not a valid replacement. Therefore, she must bring *five*
birds to be offered as Olos: four birds which cover the possible voluntary
offerings of two Torim and two Benei Yonah, and one which represents her
obligatory Olas ha'Of. Even though she already fulfilled her obligation of
her Olas ha'Of, she established for herself an obligation to bring her
voluntary offerings together with her obligatory Olah (or with a
representative obligatory Olah). This is why she must bring an additional, fifth Olas ha'Of.
If the birds that she brought were of different species, then she must bring
two birds in place of her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Since this is a replacement
for her obligatory bird, if she is unsure which type of bird was brought
originally, then she must bring one of each type to replace it, totaling six
(b) The RA'AVAD, RAZAH, and BARTENURA (Kinim 3:6) explain the cases
differently (with slight variations). They say that "Pirshah Nidrah" does
not mean that the woman said, at the time of her Neder, what types of bird
she would bring to fulfill her Neder. Her Neder was only that she would
bring two Olos ha'Of if she had a boy (but not what type of bird). Upon
bringing her birds to the Kohen, she explained ("Pirshah") that "these two
birds are for my obligatory Korban, and these two are my voluntary
offering." The Kohen mistakenly offered both sets of birds as if they were
both obligatory offerings for births, offering one as a Chatas and one as an
Olah from each pair.
According to the Bartenura, the three birds brought in the case of "Pirshah
Nidrah" are not three Olos, but rather two Olos and one Chatas. Only the
obligatory Olas ha'Of is valid when the Kohen offers two (from the two
pairs) as an Olas ha'Of and two as a Chatas ha'Of. Therefore, the woman must
bring replacements for the two birds of her Neder, which are Olos ha'Of, and
one bird to replace her obligatory Chatas ha'Of.
If the birds that she brought were from different species (two Torim and two
Benei Yonah), then she must bring four replacement birds. This is because it
is possible that the Torim that she intended to be offered as Olos (for her
Neder) were offered as her obligatory offering (with one as an Olah and one
as a Chatas), while the Ben Yonah that she brought as a Chatas was offered
as an Olah. Only her obligatory Olah is valid. However, it is also possible
that her obligatory Olah was done like a Chatas. Since she specified that
only the Torim are her Neder and the Benei Yonah are her obligatory
Korbanos, and all of them might have been Pasul, she must bring all of her
"Kav'ah Nidrah" means that she specified what type of birds she would bring
for her Neder when she made the Neder. She then forgot which type she had
pledged to bring. This adds to her replacement requirements two more Benei
Yonah (to fulfill her Neder), besides her requirement to replace the two
Torim which might be Pasul and the Chatas which might be Pasul (as described
in the case of "Pirshah Nidrah"). If she brought two different types of
birds, then she must bring four Olos and two Chata'os to account for the
various possibilities. (See TOSFOS YOM TOV). (Y. Montrose)