This Week's Article

Inspecting the Korban Tamid

Erchin (2:5) | Yisrael Bankier | 21 hours ago

The Mishnah (2:5) teaches that the lichshat telaim (chamber of lambs) had no less the six lambs that were check for blemishes at any time. The Mishnah explains that this correlated to the lambs required for Shabbat followed by two days of Rosh Hashanah -- considering that the Tamid was offered in the morning and afternoon.

The Bartenura explains that the Tana in this Mishnah maintains that the korban must be checked for any blemishes four days prior to being offered on the mizbeach. The Gemara explains that this is derived (by way of a gezeirah shavaah) from the korban pesach that was offered when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, that was separated four days prior to it being offered. We shall try to understand this requirement.

One questions that is asked, is whether the law in our Mishnah is essential to the korban Tamid. In other words, if it was not performed, can the korban still be offered.

The Aruch HaShulchan (Tamidin U'Musafin 102:6) assumes that it is a mitzvah, but not me'akev (essential). He brings several proofs. The first is that there is only one source provided in the Gemara for this law as it applies to the korban Tamid. With respect to kodshim, when the law is me'akev, there is an additional source. Furthermore, he cites the Yerushalmi, the records an incident in the time when the Romans set siege on Yerushalaim. In order that they could continue to offer the Tamid, they would lower baskets of gold down the outside of the wall in exchange for lambs to be used for the korbanot. One time they were sent pigs instead. The Gemara records that miraculously they were two checked lambs that could be used in their stead. A simply understanding of the Gemara is that prior to that, they were offering the lambs that they were provided without waiting four days. The checked lambs that they miraculously found were simply clear of any blemishes.

The Aruch LaNer understands notes that the Rambam mentions this law, but not that is me'akev, implying that he also maintains this position.

R' Akiva Eiger however cites the Tosfot (Sukkah 42a, s.v. sheino mevukar) who explains that if it was not separated four days prior, then the korban Tamid could not be offered. If it was offered, then the korban would be invalid. The Tosfot continues that if such an animal was offered as the korban Tamid on Shabbat it would be a desecration of Shabbat and the kohen would be required to bring korban chatat.

The Ohr Zarua is not certain on this issue. Initially he states that it makes sense that it is not me'akev. Firstly, the Gemara records that Yerushalaim was under siege due to civil war amongst the Chashmonai kings and there was similar arrangement to supply korbanot from those outside the wall. Once again it implies that the korbanot were offered when received. Furthermore, since this law does not apply to other korbanot it would seem to make sense that, were not possible, the korban Tamid could still be offered. Nevertheless, he notes that R' Yossi cited in the Gemara (Sukkah 42a) taught that if a korban was offered without bikkur, then the kohen would be obligated to bring a chatat (for violating Shabbat) and a replacement should be brought. The Ohr Zarua continues that if R' Yossi was referring to a case where the korban was not checked for a mum and found to have a mum after it was offered, then there ruling that the korban is invalid would be obvious and nothing novel in the R' Yossi teachings. Consequently, it appears that the simple understanding of the Gemara is as the Tosfot explains it, that it is invalid because it was not separated four day prior.

That said, the Chazon Ish explains that since the Rambam did not rule that it is me'akev, it must mean that he understood that the Chachamim argue with R' Yossi and ruled accordingly. He cites the Malbim (Vayikra 23) who also understands the Rambam this way.

Download

Calendar