Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sotah, 15

1) KORBANOS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE "NESACHIM"

QUESTIONS: Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa follows his approach of explicating the reason for a Mitzvah ("Doresh Ta'ama d'Kra"). He explains that certain Korbanos are not brought with Menachos and Nesachim. Really, he says, all Korbanos should have Menachos and Nesachim. The reason why a Chatas and Asham are not brought with Menachos and Nesachim is because the Torah does not want a sinner's Korban to be beautified or glorified. For this reason, the Chatas and Asham of a *Metzora* are exceptions and *are* brought with Nesachim. The Metzora's Chatas and Asham are not brought because of the person's sins (because the Tzora'as itself atoned for the sins); rather, the Korban is brought to permit the owner to eat Kodshim.

RASHI (DH v'Chi ka'Maisi) points out that there are a number of Tum'os for which the Torah prescribes that the person bring a Korban to make him completely Tahor. These are the Korbanos of a Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, Metzora (like the Gemara mentions here), and Nazir Tamei.

There are a number of difficulties understanding this Rashi.

(a) First, why does Rashi need to show us that there are other examples of Korbanos that are brought to be Metaher the person? Also, if it is true that all of these people bring Chata'os to be Metaher themselves, then those Chata'os should also be accompanied by Nesachim! Why is it that only the Chatas and Asham of a Metzora require Nesachim and not the other Korbanos that Rashi lists?

(b) Second, what does Rashi mean when he includes a Nazir Tamei in this list? It is clear from the Gemara in Nazir (60a) that the Korban of a Nazir Tamei does not serve to permit him to eat Kodshim, since he is already permitted to eat Kodshim once he has become Tahor (even before he brings the Korban). This is also evident from the Gemara in Kerisus (8b) that says that a Nazir Tamei is not included in the list of those who need a Korban ("Mechusrei Kaparah") to permit them to Kodshim.

(c) Third, the following Gemara questions the view of Rebbi Shimon and asks why does the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor not require Nesachim, since it is not brought for a sin? The Gemara answers that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar who says that a Nazir Tahor is considered a Chotei, a sinner. Why does the Gemara not ask the same question about the Korban Asham of a Nazir *Tamei*? If a Nazir is not a Chotei, like the Gemara initially assumes, then the Asham of a Nazir Tamei should also require Nesachim!

ANSWERS:

(a) Rashi brings these other examples of "Mechusrei Kaparah" to explain how the Gemara could say that an Asham Metzora is not Mechaper when the verse (Vayikra 14:11) explicitly says that the Asham of the Metzora *is* Mechaper ("l'Chaper")! Rashi explains that "l'Chaper" sometimes means "l'Taher," like the verse says with regard to a Yoledes, Zav, and Zavah who certainly did not commit a sin and yet the Torah says (Vayikra 12:7, 15:15) that they must bring a Korban to be Mechaper ("v'Chiper"). This means that the Korban makes them Tahor, even though they did not sin. The reason none of those "Mechusrei Kaparah" in Rashi's list require Nesachim with their Chata'os is because they all bring a Chatas *ha'Of* and not a Chatas Behemah, and Nesachim are never brought with a Chatas ha'Of (Nesachim are brought only with Korbanos of animals).

(b) When Rashi writes that a Nazir Tamei needs a Korban to make him completely Tahor, he does not mean that he needs a Korban to permit him to eat Kodshim, but rather that he needs a Korban in order to begin his Nezirus Taharah. (Rashi here is following the opinion of Rebbi in Nazir 18a who says that the Nezirus Taharah cannot begin until the Korban of Nazir Tamei is brought.) The reason why Rashi includes a Nazir Tamei in his list, even though a Nazir Tamei is not normally included in the list of Mechusrei Kaparah (Kerisus 8b), is because there, also, the verse says "v'Chiper" (Bamidbar 6:11) teaching that the Korban is Mechaper, even though the Gemara at this point is assuming the position that a Nazir is *not* considered a Chotei. (See HAGAHOS RAV SIMCHA MI'DESVA)

(c) The PORAS YOSEF suggests that the Gemara knew all along that a Nazir *Tamei* is a Chotei. It thought, however, that a Nazir *Tahor* is not a Chotei and therefore should bring Nesachim. It answers that even a Nazir Tahor is also a Chotei and that is why he does not bring Nesachim.

However, this answer does not conform with the words of Rashi, because Rashi includes a Nazir *Tamei* in the list of people who bring Korbanos only to make themselves Tahor and not because of their sin! According to Rashi, why does the Gemara not ask that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei should require Nesachim?

The answer to this can be found in the TOSFOS SHANTZ here and in the SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Kerisus (27:25), who explain based on the Gemara in Kerisus (end of 27a) that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei is completely extraneous. It is not serving any apparent purpose. The Taharah of a Nazir Tamei comes about through his Chatas and Olah, like the verse says (Bamidbar 6:11). The Chatas is already Metaher him, and the Asham serves no apparent purpose. The Tosfos Shantz and Shitah Mekubetzes explain that since the Korban Asham is not serving a purpose of Kaparah or of Taharah, it is not similar to any other Korbanos and thus it does not require Nesachim. (See also Rashi in Nazir 59b, DH v'Sofrin, and TOSFOS in Nazir 55b, DH Ochel, who explain that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei is not Me'akev.)

The Gemara questions Rebbi Shimon only from the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor, which *is* serving a purpose, as are all of the Korbanos of a Nazir Tahor, since any one of them can permit him to drink wine, cut his hair, and become Tamei. Therefore, they all serve a purpose and should require Nesachim. The Gemara answers that a Nazir Tahor is a Chotei and that is why his Korbanos do not require Nesachim.

15b