This Week's Article

A Doubtful Bird Sin Offering

Keritut (1:4) | Yisrael Bankier | a day ago

Certain korbanot may be brought when there is a doubt whether the person is obligated to bring that korban, whilst other korbanot may not. Those that can be offered include korbanot where one can stipulate that if they are not required to bring that korban, then it should be considered a voluntary korban. For example, an olah or shelamim. One cannot make such a stipulation in the case of a chatat (sin offering) since they cannot be brought voluntarily. The chatat therefore it is not brought in the case of doubt. We however learn that if there is a doubt regarding a bird chatat, then it can be offered, even though it may not be consumed by the kohanim. We shall try to understand why.

Why can this korban be offered in a case of doubt, when one cannot make the above stipulation, whilst it also cannot be consumed by the kohanim? Rashi (7b, s.v. ve'ein) explains that the korban cannot be consumed, because for bird offerings it is melika, and not shechita, that is performed. The kohen kills the bird with his thumbnail from the back of its neck. If melika is performed on a regular bird, it is not considered slaughtered but rather a neveilah. What about the concern of potentially bringing chulin into the azara? He explains that since it is only the blood from the chatat ha'ohf that is placed on the mizbeach and not the meat, there is no problem even if it was not a korban. In other words, placing the blood on the mizbeach is not considered "consumption" of the mizbeach as it would be with other sacrificial parts. Rashi continues by citing the Gemara in Nazir (29a) that derives the ability to bring the chatat bird offering from the pesukim.

Note that there are two problems with chulin in the azara. Shechita, the slaughter, and achila, the consumption of the mizbeach. The Gemara later (26b) discusses a case where the melika was performed in the case of a safek and it was later discovered that she did not need to bring the korban. The Gemara explains that one is not allowed to derive benefit from the korban (issur hanaah). This prohibition however is rabbinic. Rashi explains that on a biblical level it should be permitted. This is because it is shechita that is prohibited to be performed on a regular animal in the azara. Violating that would create the issur hanaah. In this case however, it was melika that was performed and not shechita.

The Shita Mekubetzet however argues that this appears to contradict the Gemara in Nazir (29a) that explains that there are two issues with performing melika and consuming the meat from a safek chatat ha'ohf. One is that if one was not obligated to offer the bird then the melika would make the bird a neveilah. The second is that it might be considered chulin that was slaughtered in the azarah. This second concern clearly contradicts the Gemara in Keritut. The shita mekubetzet suggest that perhaps that Gemara is according to the opinion that law of chulin that is slaughtered in the azara is not biblical.

The Beit HaLevi (Shut I 2:11) however explains that the Gemaras are addressing two separate concerns. The Gemara in Keritut is addressing the issur hanaah that is created for chulin that is slaughtered. Since in this case there was no shechita the issur hanaah was not created. The Gemara in Nazir however addresses the broader issue of performing an act, that resembles avodah with chullin. While melika in this case does not create an issur hanaah, it is an act that resembles avoda and is still prohibited. He cites the Gemara in Menachot that prohibits tenufa (waving) of chulin in the azara as proof.

Download

Calendar