QUESTIONS: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah later (102b) that teaches that one who pledges to bring a Machavas offering but brings instead a Marcheshes offering, or vice versa, does not fulfill his Neder, but his offering is valid. Rebbi Shimon says that he even fulfills his Neder, because the type of utensil in which the Minchah offering is prepared is inconsequential.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, why does the person fulfill his Neder? He pledged to bring one type of Minchah offering, and by bringing a different type he fails to fulfill his pledge. He still should be obligated to fulfill his Neder. Why is this case different from a case in which one accepts upon himself to bring a Korban Olah and he brings a Korban Shelamim instead? He certainly remains obligated to fulfill his Neder to bring a Korban Olah. (MINCHAS AVRAHAM)

(b) The Mishnah later (102b) says that if one pledges to bring a black animal as a Korban Olah but he brings a white animal instead, he does not fulfill his Neder. Why is the law in the case of one who brings a different Minchah offering from the one he pledged not the same as the law in the case of the Mishnah there? (Ibid.)

(a) The answer to the first question is that a Minchas Machavas and a Minchas Marcheshes are both types of fried Menachos. They both fall into the category of fried Menachos, in contrast to the categories of baked Menachos (Ma'afeh Tanur) and Menachos offered as plain flour (Minchas Soles). Although these two types of fried Menachos are considered two separate types with regard to Shinuy Kodesh (as is evident from the fact that when one brings a Minchas Machavas with intent that it is a Minchas Marcheshes, it is considered a Shinuy Kodesh (2a; see Insights there), or, according to Rebbi Shimon (2b), from the fact that he needs to give a special reason ("Ma'aseha Mochichin Aleha") for why there is no Shinuy Kodesh), with regard to one's Neder they are considered one type of Minchah (i.e. a fried Minchah). Rebbi Shimon maintains that one cannot obligate himself to bring specifically a Minchas Machavas or a Minchas Marcheshes; his Neder is to bring a fried Minchah, regardless of whether he said that he would bring a "Minchas Machavas" or a "Minchas Marcheshes," and his Neder can be fulfilled by bringing either type. The difference is merely the type of utensil that will be used for the Minchah, and it is not an intrinsic difference in the Minchah itself. After the Minchah is placed in one of the two different types of utensils, the sub-division is established and it no longer can be changed (see SHITAH MEKUBETZES #15), but until that time, the title of the Korban remains the same, whether he pledged to bring a Machavas or a Marcheshes.

(b) In order to answer the second question, it is necessary to analyze the Mishnah later (102b). Every Neder to bring a Korban includes two parts. The first part is which type of Korban the person wants to bring. He may bring an Olah, Shelamim, Todah, or one of the Minchos Nedavah. The second part is which type of animal, or even what color pot, will be used for his Korban. He may bring a white animal or a black animal for his Zevach, or a white pot or a black pot for his Minchah.

Rebbi Shimon's ruling that one fulfills his Neder when he brings a Minchas Machavas, even though he said in his Neder that he would bring a Minchas Marcheshes, refers to the first part of the Neder. With regard to the name of this Korban, there is no difference between a Machavas and a Marcheshes, as explained above; the Neder is that he must bring a fried Minchah offering, and thus he fulfills that element of his Neder with either type.

The Mishnah (102b), on the other hand, refers to the second part of the Neder, in which the person establishes what type of animal he wants to bring. He may obligate himself to bring whatever type he wants. It does not matter that both a black animal and a white animal are the same type of Korban with the same title, because when the person specified that he would bring a black or white animal, he was not referring to the title of the Korban. He was referring merely to what type of animal he would use for the Korban.

Accordingly, one who says that he will bring a Minchas Machavas and he brings instead a Marcheshes should be considered the same as one who says that he will bring a black animal and he brings a white one. Why, then, does one fulfill his Neder, according to Rebbi Shimon, when he brings a different type of Minchah?

The answer is that when the person said that he would bring a Minchas Machavas, it is assumed that he was referring to the title of the Korban, and not to the type of item that he wanted to bring as the Korban. He does not have intention to bring specifically a deep-fried or shallow-fried Minchah offering; he merely wants to bring the type of Korban called a Minchas Machavas. Since there is no primary category of Korban called a Minchas Machavas (since the primary category is a fried Minchah, regardless of how it is prepared), he fulfills his Neder with whatever type of fried Minchah that he brings. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTIONS: The Gemara quotes Rava who says that when a Korban Chatas is slaughtered with intent that it serve as a Chatas for a different sin that the owner committed, the Chatas remains valid. Rav Acha brei d'Rava maintains that if the Chatas was slaughtered with intent that it serve as a Chatas for a different sin, then it is Pasul. He derives this from the verse, "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" -- "he shall slaughter it for a Chatas" (Vayikra 4:33), which teaches that it is a valid Chatas only when slaughtered with intent that it serve as the Chatas for which it was designated.

The ruling of Rav Acha applies only when a Chatas Chelev (a Chatas brought as atonement for the sin of eating Chelev) is slaughtered with intent that it be a Chatas Dam (a Chatas for the sin of eating blood). Rav Acha does not disqualify a Chatas Chelev which was designated for a sin of Chelev committed yesterday but which was slaughtered for the sake of a sin of Chelev committed today. This is not considered a Shinuy Kodesh, since the sins for which both Korbanos are brought are identical (see Zevachim 9b).

The Acharonim point out that the Gemara here seems to refute the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shegagos 3:3), who rules like Rav Acha that when one brings a Chatas that was designated for a sin of eating Chelev with intent that it serve as a Chatas for a sin of Shabbos desecration or for eating blood, the Korban is Pasul. He writes that the source for this is the verse, "[v'Chiper Alav ha'Kohen] Al Chataso Asher Chata" -- "[The Kohen will provide atonement for him] for his sin which he transgressed" (4:35), which implies that the Chatas is valid only when the Korban is brought for the sin for which it was designated, and not for a different sin. The Rambam adds that one may not even bring a Chatas designated for one transgression of eating Chelev for a different transgression of eating Chelev, but, b'Di'eved, the Chatas is valid and atones for the second transgression.

(a) Why does the Rambam quote a different verse as the source for this law? The Gemara says that the source is the verse, "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" (Vayikra 4:33), while the Rambam quotes the verse, "Al Chataso" (Vayikra 4:35).

(b) Why does the Rambam rule that one may not bring a Chatas that was designated for one sin for the sake of another, identical sin? The Gemara says only that one may not change the Chatas from one type of sin (e.g. Chelev) to another type of sin (e.g. Dam). What is the Rambam's source for this ruling?

ANSWER: RAV SHACH zt'l (in AVI EZRI) answers as follows. The Gemara is discussing the issue of what constitutes a Shinuy Kodesh, such that when the Kohen slaughters the Korban with intent that it serve as a different Korban, the owner does not attain atonement from the Korban. With regard to Shinuy Kodesh, the difference between a Chatas brought for one type of sin and a Chatas brought for another type of sin is significant. In contrast, the difference between a Chatas brought for one incident of a sin and a Chatas brought for a separate incident of the same sin is not significant with regard to Shinuy Kodesh. In the latter case, the Kedushah of the Korban is exactly the same and it is not considered a Shinuy Kodesh, and thus the owner attains atonement. The Gemara derives from "v'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" that only when the Chatas is slaughtered for the sake of a different type of Chatas (such as a Chatas Dam instead of a Chatas Chelev) is it considered a Shinuy Kodesh and cannot serve its purpose.

The Rambam is discussing a different issue. The Rambam is discussing the question of whether a Chatas designed for one sin may be changed to atone for a different sin. Perhaps since the title of the Korban -- "Chatas" -- remains the same, the sin for which it was designated is not important. As long as it is slaughtered for the sake of a Chatas, it does not matter whether the sin for which it is now being slaughtered (e.g. Dam) is the same as the sin for which it was initially designated (e.g. Chelev). A different verse teaches that the Chatas nevertheless is Pasul. The verse of "Al Chataso" teaches that the designation for a specific sin becomes part of the essence of the Korban. Hence, a Chatas Chelev cannot be changed to a Chatas Dam. This explains why the Rambam does not quote the verse which the Gemara quotes; the verse he quotes teaches that two Chata'os for two different types of sins are not interchangeable.

This approach also answers the second question. It is obvious that a Shinuy Kodesh occurs only when the sins are different (Chelev and Dam). When the sins are different, the Kedushah of their Korbanos is different. In contrast, to change the designation of the Korban -- and have it atone for a sin other than the sin for which it was initially designated -- is problematic even when the second sin is identical to the first sin but was merely committed at a different time. Hence, one may not change a Korban designated for a sin of Chelev that was committed yesterday for a sin of Chelev that was committed today.

(The reason why the Rambam says that one attains atonement b'Di'eved when he changes the Chatas to serve as the Korban for the second sin of Chelev is based on a Sugya in Kerisus, as the Lechem Mishneh discusses.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)