Post # 1,500!!! Reciting Korbanos in the Morning and the Reason for the Nazir's Chatas

Shulchan Aruch (O”C 1:5) rules that it is beneficial to recite every morning the portions in the Torah dealing with the korban olah, mincha, shelamim, chatas and asham.

The Magen Avraham asks: Shouldn’t the chatas be mentioned before the olah, since the chatas always takes precedence?

The Chidah offers the following answer: The Gemora in Menachos (110a) states that whoever recites the portion in the Torah discussing the korban chatas is recognized as if he offered a chatas on the Altar. This, he explains, is only applicable to the portions of the korban which are burned on the Altar; however, with respect to the portion that is given to the Kohanim, and that which they eat which provides atonement for the owner, the recital of the relevant verses does not help for this. Therefore, he says, that which our Gemora said that a chatas takes precedence over an olah, that is only with respect to the sacrifice; however, with respect to the recital of the korbanos, it is preferable to recite the olah portion prior to the portion dealing with the chatas. When one recites the verses of the chatas, he only receives credit for the portion that was to be brought on the Altar, but he does not receive credit for the portion of the korban which was to be eaten by the Kohanim; however, with the recital of the olah verses, it is regarded as if he offered the entire korban, for an olah is completely burned on the Altar. This is the reason that the olah is recited before the chatas.

The Nazir’s Chatas

The nazir brings three animals; a chatas, olah and a shelamim.

It is not explained why a nazir brings a korban chatas. The Ramban writes that it is for the following reason: A nazir separates himself to serve Hashem in a manner of extreme sanctity. It is only fitting, that after he has reached such a high level, he should strive to remain on that level for the remainder of his life. Since he concluded his nezirus and he reverted back to the desires of this world, he is required to offer a korban chatas to atone for this reversal.

The Meshech Chochmah writes that the accepting of nezirus upon oneself results in the forfeiture of many mitzvos, such as involving himself with the burial of his close relatives, reciting kiddush over wine and making havdalah. Although, a nazir accomplishes much in his abstainment and he is considered praiseworthy for this, he nevertheless is required to bring a korban chatas to atone for the mitzvos that he has lost.

Read more!

Drinking Wine by Kiddush

The Gemora (Nedarim 4a)explains that the novelty of a chatas nazir is that it cannot be pledged to be brought as a vow. When we asked earlier that this is a trademark of all chatas offerings, it is possible to answer that all other chatas offerings are obviously not brought because they are pledged, as they are obligated to be brought to atone for a sin. However, why is a korban chatas of a nazir brought? [One might therefore have thought the prohibition of delaying vows does not apply to it, which is why the hekeish is needed.]

The Gemora asks: The korban chatas of a woman who gives birth is also not brought for a sin that she committed, but nonetheless we know the prohibition for delaying vows does apply to her korban chatas. [Why should a korban chatas of a nazir be different?]

The Gemora answers: Her korban chatas is still different than that of a nazir, as it enables her to eat kodoshim (korbanos, which she was unable to eat beforehand and is a mitzvah).

The Meiri asks: Doesn’t the chatas offering of a nazir help him that he is now permitted to drink wine?

Tosfos and the Ran answer that drinking wine is a voluntary act, and it is not a mitzvah like the eating of kodoshim.

However, we can ask: What about the mitzvah of drinking wine for kiddush and havdalah? The Gemora Pesachim (106a) derives from the verse Remember the day of Shabbos to sanctify it that there is an obligation to recite kiddush over a cup of wine. Accordingly, we should say that a nazir’s bringing of the korbanos is similar to that of a woman who gave birth; he is bringing the korban in order to be permitted to partake in the mitzvah of drinking wine for kiddush?

The Meiri answers: The mitzvah of drinking the wine for kiddush is only a Rabbinical one, and the korban is not coming for that.

Tosfos explains that although there is a Biblical obligation to recite kiddush with wine, the obligation that the one who recites the blessing should drink the wine is only Rabbinical.

Reb Koby Shapiro in the Hebrew Midrashiya states that there may be a practical difference in halacha whether the mitzvah of drinking the wine is a Biblical one or merely Rabbinical.

It is ruled upon in Shulchan Aruch that a woman is Biblically obligated in the mitzvah of kiddush on Shabbos. Accordingly, she would be allowed to discharge a man of his obligation by reciting the kiddush for him.

The Acharonim raise the following question: When a man comes home from Shul Friday night, he has already fulfilled his Biblical obligation of kiddush in the Shemoneh Esrei of ma’ariv. He still has a Rabbinical obligation to recite the kiddush over a cup of wine. His wife, on the other hand, who did not daven ma’ariv, still has a Biblical obligation to recite kiddush. How can the man, who only has a Rabbinical obligation discharge his wife of her Biblical obligation?

Some answer that she should recite vayechulu prior to kiddush.

Reb Akiva Eiger answers that there is no concern here because of the principle that one who has fulfilled the mitzvah can nevertheless discharge an obligation for someone who did not yet fulfill the mitzvah. This works because every Jew is a guarantor for another. Some Acharonim are not satisfied with this answer because they say that a woman is not included in this guarantee for each other.

The Chasam Sofer answers: It is as if the husband had intention not to fulfill the Biblical obligation of kiddush when he is davening ma’ariv. This way, they are both Biblically obligated in the mitzvah of kiddush.

This entire discussion is based upon the Meiri’s opinion that the mitzvah of drinking the wine is merely a Rabbinical mitzvah. However, if we would hold that there is a Biblical mitzvah to drink the wine of kiddush, then, there would be no discussion, for the husband still has not discharged his own obligation by davening ma’ariv; he still has a Biblical obligation to drink the wine.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 41 - A Pauper Bringing the Korban of a Rich Person

The Gemora quotes a Mishna in נגעים, if a poor person who is a מצורע brings the קרבן that a rich person is supposed to bring, he fulfills his obligation. The Chinuch (123) states by a קרבן עולה ויורד - (certain sins which require a korban chatos, he either brings an animal, bird or flour offering depending on his status - this is called a fluctuating korban) if an עני brings the קרבן of an עשיר, he does not fulfill his obligation. The Chinuch explains the reason: the Torah had compassion on the poor person, it is not proper for him to compel himself to bring a korban which he cannot afford. How can the Chinuch hold against the Mishna, which explicitly states that he does fulfill his obligation?

The Chasam Sofer answers based on a Gemora Shabbos that states that Hashem punishes each person according to what he can afford. A rich person who sins will lose his cow. A poor person, on the other hand, will lose his chicken or some eggs. Therefore, there is a distinction between the קרבן of a מצורע or יולדת (a woman who gave birth) and the קרבן עולה ויורד. A מצורע is not required to bring a קרבן because he sinned, it is to purify him and allow him to eat kodoshim. If a poor מצורע decides to bring the rich man's קרבן, he will be יוצא. Conversely, a sinner who does that will not be יוצא, for here the Torah prescribed for him the קרבן which will give him atonement according to his status. The קרבן is in place of the punishment. It is not decided by the עני what his punishment should be and therefore when he brings the קרבן of an עשיר, he does not fulfill his obligation.

The Sfas Emes (here and quoted in Moadim U'zmanim as a story which occured by a כנסיה גדולה) answers that there is a basic distinction. A מצורע disregarding if he is an עשיר or an עני is required to bring a חטאת and an עולה. The rich man brings animals and the pauper brings birds. If the עני brings the קרבן of an עשיר, he fulfills his obligation, for he brought the prescribed amount. A קרבן עולה ויורד is different. A rich person brings an animal for a קרבן חטאת and an עני brings two birds, one for a חטאת and one for an עולה. If an עני will force himself to bring the קרבן of an עשיר, he will not fulfill his obligation because he cheated the מזבח out of one קרבן - namely the עולה.

There are two questions on this explanation (look in שמועת חיים and in מצות המלך from Harav Ezriel Cziment). Firstly, the chinuch says a different reason for his not being יוצא. He says because the Torah doesn't want the עני to overburden himself. He does not say the reason of the Sfas Emes that he missed a קרבן? Secondly, one must ask, why is it that an עני is required to bring two קרבנות and an עשיר only brings one? The אבן עזרא explains the reason for this: A חטאת העוף is completely eaten and an עולת העוף is completely burned on the מזבח. These two birds together replace a regular קרבן which entails אכילת אדם and אכילת מזבח. They are actually one קרבן. Therefore, one can say that the עני is not missing a קרבן by bringing one animal instead of two birds?

It would seem, however, that this question can be answered. Even according to the אבן עזרא, the two birds are not one קרבן. They are two קרבנות complimenting one another. The rationale behind bringing the two קרבנות could be because the Torah wants אכילת אדם and אכילת מזבח, nevertheless, it is still two קרבנות and the עני is missing one קרבן when he brings the קרבן of an עשיר.

Read more!