QUESTION: Rabah and Rav Chisda argue concerning a case of one who slaughters
the Korban Pesach having in mind that it should attain Kaparah for non-
owners of the Korban who are Arelim (uncircumcised people). Rabah says that
the Korban is Kosher, since a Machshavah that the Korban will atone for a
non-owner who is *not* a Bar Kaparah -- who is intrinsically unable to gain
Kaparah from the Korban, such as an Arel -- does not invalidate the Korban.
Rav Chisda, on the other hand, holds that an Arel *is* a Bar Kaparah, since
he could circumcise himself and thus be fit for Kaparah. Only a person such
as a non-Jew is entirely unable to get Kaparah from the Korban.
RASHI (60a, DH l'Arelim, and 61b, DH B'nei Chaburah) writes that when the
Mishnah says that "if one slaughters the Korban for an Arel it is Pasul," it
is referring to an Arel who is uncircumcised because *his brothers died from
Milah*. Such a person is exempt from Milah because of the danger that Milah
might pose to his life.
Rashi is consistent with the way he translates Arel throughout the Gemara
(e.g. Yevamos 70a); whenever the Gemara discusses an Arel not being able to
eat from Korban Pesach, Rashi explains that it is referring to one whose
brothers died from Milah, and not to an Arel who *chose* to transgress and
not be circumcised. Rashi explains this way because if the Arel under
discussion chose not to give himself a Milah, then he may not eat from the
Korban Pesach for a different reason -- he is a Mumar, one who rejects the
Mitzvos, and a Mumar may not eat from the Korban Pesach (because of "Ben
Nechar Lo Yochal Bo," Shemos 12:43).
According to Rashi, how can the Gemara here say that the Arel is a Bar
Kaparah because "if he wants, he could circumcise himself?" He cannot
circumcise himself because of the danger to his life, since his brothers
died from Milah! He should not be considered a Bar Kaparah by any standards!
(MAHARSHAM in Techeles Mordechai, end of Lech Lecha; editor's note by Rav
Moshe Feldman in HAGAHOS MAHARSHAM)
ANSWERS:
(a) It is true that this Arel is not allowed to circumcise himself because
of the danger that it poses to his life. However, if he *does* give himself
a Milah, he may then eat from the Korban. He is therefore considered to be a
Bar Kaparah since it is in his power to circumcise himself, albeit by
transgressing the prohibition of u'Shemartem l'Nafshoseichem. (TECHELES
MORDECHAI; YASHRESH YAKOV, Yevamos 70a)
(b) It is true that Rashi earlier says that the Arel who cannot eat from the
Korban is one whose brothers died from Milah. However, he is forced to
explain that the Arel under discussion there is one whose brothers died from
Milah. If one slaughtered the Korban having in mind to feed it to an Arel
who *chose* not to give himself a Milah, Rashi holds that the Korban will be
Kosher. It is in the hands of, and even the obligation of, the Arel to
repent and circumcise before the time that the Korban must be eaten, making
himself fit to eat the Korban. Therefore, he is not considered one who is
unfit to eat the Korban (she'Lo l'Ochlav) even before the circumcision.
The case of our Gemara, though, is when one slaughtered the Korban for
Arelim who are not owners of the Korban (she'Lo l'Be'alav). We know that if
one slaughters for a person (not the owner) who is not fit to eat the
Pesach, this does not invalidate the Korban. The question of the Gemara is
whether an Arel is also considered unfit to eat the Pesach since he is
"Mechusar Ma'aseh" -- an action must be done to him to make him fit to eat
the Korban -- or whether he is considered fit to eat, since he may
circumcise himself at will. This law will certainly apply to a person who is
an Arel *by choice*, and Rashi will understand our Gemara as referring to
just such a person. To the contrary, if one slaughters the Pesach for an
Arel whose brothers died from Milah, the Korban will be unquestionably Pasul
-- that is even Raba will agree that it is Pasul -- because such an Arel is
*not* a Bar Kaparah by any standard, since it is not in his ability to
circumcise himself.
The Gemara discusses the case of slaughtering for an *Arel* by choice, and
not slaughtering for any *Mumar* who rejects the Mitzvos, because everyone
agrees that a Mumar is not intrinsically unable to attain Kaparah, since his
Pesul is just a frame of mind which he can easily alter, and he is not
"Mechusar Ma'aseh."
(M. Kornfeld)