Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 73

1) PRIVATE PROPERTY VS. PUBLIC PROPERTY

QUESTION: If the owner of a Korban Asham died before he had a chance to offer his Korban, then the animal is left to graze until it gets an invalidating blemish (Mum), and then it is sold and the money is used to by a Korban Olah. The Gemara asks that if the owner of the Korban Asham died, why must we let it graze until it gets a Mum and then redeem it? We should slaughter the animal itself with intention to offer it as a Korban Olah. The Gemara answers that the Rabanan made a Gezeirah that a Korban Asham not be slaughtered l'Shem Olah, lest one think that it is permitted to slaughter an Asham as an Olah even when the owner is still alive.

The Gemara proves that the Rabanan made such a Gezeirah from a Beraisa that says explicitly that an Asham whose owner died must graze until it gets a Mum, and then it is sold and the money is used for either a Nedavah (a public Olah) according to the Tana Kama, or for a private Olah according to Rebbi Yehoshua. Why is it that we must wait until it has a Mum and then use its value as an Olah, and we cannot go ahead and slaughter the animal itself as an Olah? It must be that the Rabanan made a Gezeirah not to use the Asham itself as an Olah because one might slaughter it is an Olah even when the owner is alive.

RASHI (DH b'Damav) explains that the Gemara's question and proof is according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds that an Asham becomes a private Olah. The Gemara is saying that if the money is going to be used to bring an Olah, why can we not go ahead and use the animal itself for an Olah, before it gets a Mum and has to be sold? It must be that there is exists a Gezeirah, the Gemara asserts.

Why does Rashi explain the Gemara's proof only according to Rebbi Yehoshua? The same question and answer could be deduced from the opinion of the Tana Kama as well -- they should permit the animal itself to be used as a *public* Olah without having to sell it! (Indeed, this is the way RABEINU CHANANEL explains the Gemara.)

ANSWER: The TOSFOS RID answers that Rashi holds that a private Korban, such as an Asham, can never be turned into a public Korban. Only something that was made Kadosh as a public Korban may be used as a public Korban. In order to bring a private Korban as a public one, the animal must be sold and the money used to purchase a different animal that is then sanctified as a public Korban. Therefore, the Gemara never questioned why the Tana Kama requires that the animal (a private Korban) be sold and the money used to buy a new one to be brought as a public Korban. (The RASHASH also suggests this justification for Rashi's explanation.)

73b

QUESTION: The Gemara explains that according to Rav, who said (73a) that a Korban Asham does not need Akirah to be turned into a Korban Olah, a Korban Pesach should similarly not need Akirah to become a Shelamim; if a Korban Pesach became Pasul, it should automatically become a Shelamim.

Rav Chisda challenges this opinion from a Beraisa explaining our Mishnah (71b), which says that if one slaughtered a Korban Pesach on Shabbos and then found out that its owners had withdrawn themselves from it, he is Patur from a Chatas even though the Korban that he slaughtered is Pasul, since he had no way of knowing that the owners withdrew. If the same case occurred on a weekday, says the Beraisa, the Korban must be burned right away, like any Korban that has a Pesul ha'Guf, for it was slaughtered for people "she'Lo li'Menuyav," for people who were not originally appointed to eat from it.

We see from the Beraisa, asserts the Gemara, that the Korban Pesach needs an Akirah, and since it did not have an Akirah, it is considered a Pesach Pasul and is burned immediately. If the Korban Pesach would *not* need an Akirah, then it is not a Pesach Pasul, but it is just a *Shelamim* that was slaughtered after the Korban Tamid was offered (which is not a Pesul ha'Guf). If so, it would need Ibur Tzurah (to be left until it became Pasul with Linah) before it could be burned, because it has no intrinsic Pesul yet.

Rav Papa answers that this Korban is actually a Shelamim already, since a Pesach does not need an Akirah to become a Shelamim. It has a Pesul ha'Guf not because it is a Pesach that was slaughtered she'Lo li'Menuyav, but because it was a *Shelamim* that was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach, which is Pasul according to Rebbi Eliezer and Yosef ben Choni. That is why the Beraisa asserts that it is burned right away.

This answer is problematic. We learned that an unintentional, mistaken Akirah ("Akirah b'Ta'us") is not an Akirah (72a).. That is, if someone thinks that the animal he is slaughtering is one type of Korban, but in reality it is another type of Korban, his Machshavah is ignored and the Korban is valid. Here, the person slaughtering the Korban had no idea that the owners had withdrawn themselves from it. When he slaughtered it l'Shem Pesach, he was not thinking that it was a *Shelamim* being made into a Pesach. He thought that it actually *was a Korban Pesach*! Why, then, should his action be considered an Akirah and be Pasul, since the Akirah was completely unintended? (TZELACH)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TZELACH points out that the Amora whose question we are trying to answer is Rav Chisda, who is questioning Rav. Rav Chisda in Menachos (49a) is the one who argues with the Gemara in Pesachim 72a and asserts that a mistaken Akirah *is* an Akirah. Thus, the Gemara is just answering Rav Chisda's question according to his own opinion, that it is talking about a mistaken Akirah and the Korban is Pasul because the Akirah is valid.

(b) The SEFAS EMES suggests that perhaps there is a difference between two types of Korbanos that get mixed up and one Korban which itself was once a Pesach and now has become a Shelamim. If one is mistaken about the animal itself, thinking it was another animal, then when he slaughtered it, his Akirah was a mistaken Akirah and the Korban is not Pasul. But if one did not make a mistake about the animal itself and he knew that it was a Korban Pesach, but some *Halachic* change occurred making it a Shelamim, even though one does not know about the Halachic change, it is not considered a mistaken Akirah. In such a case, he was not completely misled, and his assumption that it was a Pesach is not completely incorrect, since it once was a Pesach and since it is indeed the same animal that he thinks it is.