Daf Yomi - Megillah 8 - Vow Offering

The Mishna had stated: There is no difference between vow offerings and freewill offerings except that regarding vow offerings he is liable for their security (if the animal gets lost or stolen, he will be required to bring another one), and regarding freewill offerings he is not liable for their security.

If one says, "Behold, an olah sacrifice is upon me (harei alay)," or "Behold, a shelamim is upon me," this is a vow; but if he says, "Behold, this animal is an olah or a shelamim (harei zu)," this is a freewill offering.

The Gemora cites the source teaching us this halacha. The verse says [Vayikra 1:4]: And it shall be accepted for him, to atone for him. Rabbi Shimon expounds this passuk to mean that if the vow is upon him, he is liable for the security, but if it is not upon him, he is not liable. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi explains: When he said “upon me,” that is as if he said that he will be accepting responsibility on the sacrifice.

The Brisker Rav asks: Isn’t this halacha (being liable for the security of the offering when he said “upon me”) an obvious one? Why is it necessary to cite a passuk explaining this? One who made a vow obligating himself to offer a korban will not discharge his obligation until he actually offers the korban.

He explains: It is evident from here that one can fulfill his vow of offering a korban when he designates the animal or when he brings it to the Beis Hamikdosh. The passuk teaches us that although his vow was fulfilled, he is liable to bring another korban (if it got lost or stolen) because there is a commitment of security on the account of his vow.

This is proven from the Rambam in Hilchos Maaseh Hakorbanos (16:7), where he writes: One who says, "Behold, an olah sacrifice is upon me," and he designates a bull and the bull got stolen, he is permitted to bring a sheep as a replacement and he has discharged his obligation coming from the vow.

The Brisker Rav asks: Why is this a novelty? In his vow, he never mentioned what type of animal he would be offering. Why can’t he bring any animal? The answer is that there is a commitment of security on the sacrifice and perhaps he should be required to replace the initial animal with another of the same type; The Rambam teaches us that the security is on the korban and not on the animal.

The Chochmas Shlomo (C”M 66:40) holds that the obligation to bring another one is only if it was through a negligence, however if it was a complete accident, he will not be liable to bring another one. The question is asked: What should be the difference how the animal got lost? One who made a vow to offer a korban, should not discharge his obligation until he actually brings the korban. Tehila L’Yonah answers according to the Brisker Rav. He has fulfilled his vow by designating the korban; he has an obligation of security based on the passuk and the Chochmas Shlomo holds that this liability is only if there was negligence but not by an accident.