What are the implications of "Daber el B'nei Yisrael"?
Why does the Torah use the expression "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem", implying that Korbanos are voluntary?
Rashi and Rashbam: Because it is currently discussing Korbanos Nedavah (voluntary Korbanos). 1
As opposed to obligatory Korbanos that come to atone for a sin (Rashbam) ? which will be discussed later starting from Perek 4.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Adam"?
Rashi (citing the Pesikta): To teach us that, just as Adam ha'Rishon did not bring a Korban from Gezel, 1 so too, may one not bring a stolen animal on the Mizbe'ach. 2
Moshav Zekenim #1 (citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza): To teach us that someone who brings a Korban to atone for his sin is like Adam, who brought a bull to atone for his sin (Shabbos 28b). 3
Moshav Zekenim #2: We read this like "Edom" - one who is red from sin should bring a Korban, and become white (be purified).
Yerushalmi Shekalim, 1:4: To include Geirim in the Din of Olah. 4
Seeing as the whole world belonged to him (Rashi).
See Yeshayah, 61:8 (Sifsei Chachamim). Refer also to 1:3:1.1:2.
If so, why was this not written in Parshas Chatas? Perhaps it is because Bnei Noach offer only Olos, and also Olos atone. Refer to 1:4:3:1 & 2 - PF.
See Torah Temimah, note 6, DH 'Ach Lich'orah'.
What is the significance of the word "Adam ki Yakriv mikem"?
Seforno #1: It teaches us that a Korban only atones if the owner humbly confesses his sin 1 to Hashem.
Seforno #2 (citing Chulin, 5a) and Targum Yonasan: It implies "From you", 'and not from an apostate who worships idols'.
Sukah, 30a: It implies "Mikem", 've'Lo min ha'Gazul', since it is not yours. 2
Chulin, 5a: It disqulifies a Mumar (an apostate) 3 from bringing a Korban and confines the disqualification to a Yisrael - but the Korban of a Mumar Nochri is acceptable. 4
Seforno: As the Navi writes in Hoshe'a, 14:3. See also Tehilim, 51:19. And an Olah atones for lewd thoughts.
See Torah Temimah, note 8.
Refer to 1;2:4.1:1.
Oznayim la'Torah: The reason for this distincion is because, on the one hand, we encourage the Nochri, who was brought-up in the lap of Avodah Zarah, and who has come to the realization that there is a Master of the world, to take the next step and relinquish idolatry completely, whilst, on the other hand, we must make it clear to the Yisrael, who has come down from believing in the One G-d, to worshipping Him in partnership with another god, that serving Hashem in partnership is unacceptable.
Having written "Min ha'Behemah", why does the Torah add "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon"?
Rashi, Ramban, Seforno and Targum Yonasan: To preclude Chayos 1 from the realm of Korbanos, 2 despite the fact that the word "Beheimah" usually incorporates them.
See Devarim 14:5.
Consequently, someone who brings a Chayah as a Korban transgresses a 'La'av ha'Ba mi'Chelal Asei' - which is an Asei (Ramban).
Having written "Min ha'Bakar u'Min ha'Tzon", why does the Torah add "Min ha'Behemah"?
Chulin, 5a: To include the Korban of a person who behaves like an animal (who does not keep the Mitzvos), with the exception of a Mumar who pours wine to Avodah Zarah or who breaks Shabbos in public, whose Korban is Pasul. 1
Does "min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon" mean that an Olah must comprise both a bull and a sheep?
Menachos, 91b: The Torah writes them separately, in Pasuk 3 and 10 respectively, to teach us that this is not the case. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 15.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Min" three times in this Pasuk, and why does it add the 'Vav' in "u'Min ha'Tzon"?
Rashi: To preclude 1. a Rove'a and a Nirva (an animal that raped a woman or that was raped by a man; 2. a Ne'evad and a Muktzah (one that was worshipped, or designated for idol-worship) and 3. a Noge'ach 1 (one that killed a human-being)
Bava Kama 44b: Provided the owner was Makdish it before Beis Din sentenced it. Otherwise, Hekdesh will not take efffect .
Why does the Pasuk conclude "Takrivu es Korbanchem" (plural)?
Rashi #1 (citing Sifra and Bava Kama, 66b) and Ramban: To permit a Nidvas Tzibur (in the form of Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach ? Rashi). 1
Bava Kama, 66b: To teach us that a Korban Tzibur is brought from the same animals as a Korban Yachid. 2
Korb'nos Tzibur that are purchased with leftover money from Korbanos (Shevu'os, 12b). See Ramban, who, in disagreement with Rashi, concludes that a Tzibur - comprising the majority of Yisrael - can donate an Olas Nedavah (which, like most Korb'nos Tzibur, does not require Semichah).
Whatever is Pasul by the latter, is also Pasul by the former. See Torah Temimah, note 18.
Having begun with the word "Adam" (singular), why does the Torah switch to the plural when it writes "Takrivu"?
Why are the implications of the words "Korban la'Hashem"?
Sifra #1 (according to R. Yehudah): It implies that one must be Makdish the animal before offering it. 1
Sifra #2 (accorrding to R. Shimon) and Nedarim 10b: It implies that one must state the name of the Korban before Hashem's name. 2
Sifra #3 (according to R. Yossi): Whenever the Torah mentions Korban, it uses the Name Havayah ('Yud Kei Vov Kei'), and not Elokim], lest heretics be able to claim. 3 Ramban (citing Menachos, 110a, according to Kabalah): This is to block any possibility of ascribing the many facets of Hashem (contained in His various Names) to different Deities (Kevayachol). 4
See Torah Temimah, note 11.
In case one dies before completing one declaration. All the more so may one not say Hashem's name in vain. See Torah Temimah, note 10. Moshav Zekenim: We find "la'Hashem le'Olah" (22:18)! And since the Torah sometimes switches the order, this shows that it is not adamant about the order. -PF).
Rosh (3): If it would say Elokim, they could say that there are two Powers. See Ramban, who points out that the Name 'Elokim" does appear in various locations in connection with Korbanos, and elaborates in great detail.
Ramban: This appears to be an acknowledgement that Hashem is Master of all Deities - as hinted in "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" and in the words "Hashem Echad". And this is also contained in the phrase "Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem", that appears often by the Korbanos.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that just like Adam did not bring a stolen Korban, neither may you. But We already excluded Gezel from "Korbano" (Bava Kama 66b) and "Mikem" (Sukah 30a)?
Moshav Zekenim (citing Bechor Shor): An extra Pasuk forbids even after the owner has despaired (and the thief now owns it). 1
Rashi writes that just like Adam did not bring a stolen Korban, you may not. How can we learn from Adam, who had no one to steal from, to future generations, when theft is possible?
In Yevamos (46a), Tana'im argue as to whether or not we can learn something that is possible from something that is impossible - for example, that a man can convert without B'ris Milah, from the Imahos! 1
Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. Perhaps he asks according to the opinion that does not learn possible from impossible. (PF)
Rashi writes that one may not bring a stolen Korban. How will we reconcile this with the Gemara in Gitin, 55a, which rules that if a thief or robber is Makdish the animal tht he stole, it becomes Kadosh?
Moshav Zekenim, Riva: That is Bedi'eved. Lechatchilah he may not do so. 1
Also, Rashi did not say that one cannot be Makdish theft, only that it is Pasul for a Korban! (PF)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Behemah" excludes Rove'a and Nirva. But in Chulin (5a), it says that "Min ha'Behemah" includes people who resemble animals (sinners)?
Moshav Zekenim 1 : There it expounds the extra 'Hey'. It could have written 'Min Behe'mah or mi'Beheimah'. Therefore, we expound both.
Moshav Zekenim says that in Chulin, we exclude people who resemble animals. This is a printing mistake, or he had a different text of the Gemara (PF).
Rashi writes that we exclude Nirva, Rove'a and an animal that killed a person. Since these animals are Chayav Misah, how can one bring them as a Korban?
Riva and Moshav Zekenim (citing Bechoros 41a): The Pasuk is speaking bout a csde where the owner or only one witness testified, in which case it is not sentenced to death.
Rashi writes that we do not bring Chayos for Korbanos. Why is that?
Moshav Zekenim #1: Because Hashem did not want to burden Yisrael to bring Korbanos from animals that are difficult to obtain. 1 This demonstrates Hashem's humility - Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim and Rosh, citing the Sifra).
Moshav Zekenim #2 and Riva: Chayos were not blessed at Ma'ase Bereishis, due to the snake (which was cuesed). 2 Riva - we do not offer fish, since they do not have Cheilev. 3
This is a reason not to obligate Korbanos from Chayos. But why are they Pasul even for voluntary Korbanos? (PF)
Moshav Zekenim and Riva: The Cheilev of Chayos is permitted, since we do not offer it on the Mizbe'ach, and Hashem commanded to cover their blood, since it is not sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. (We cover the blood of birds, even though blood of some birds is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach? - PF).
We offer birds, even though they do not have Cheilev? (PF)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Bakar" excludes Ne'evad. What does this imply?
Moshav Zekenim (citing Rashi in Chulin 40a): It implies that, since the Torah needed to forbid it as a Korban, it is permitted to in the form of Chulin. We expound Ne'evad from "Min ha'Bakar", for they commonly worshipped cattle 1
Moshav Zekenim (Ibid.): As the Pasuk writes in Tehilim 106:20 "va'Yamiru es Kevodam be'Savnis Shor". There were special reasons why they made a calf (refer to Sh'mos 32:4:3:1-4). In Egypt, they worshipped the lamb (refer to Sh'mos 8:22:1:1)! Perhaps he means that Yisre'elim commonly worshipped cattle, or it was common in Eretz Yisrael. (PF)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Tzon" excludes Noge'ach. But in Temurah (28b) the Gemara excludes Muktzah from there?
Rashi said that we exclude Noge'ach due to the 'Vav' ("u'Min ha'Tzon ")! (PF)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Tzon" excludes Noge'ach. Why is this necessary - seeing as it needs to be stoned and is forbidden even to eat as Chulin?
Moshav Zekenim: The Torah is speaking where the owner or only one witness testified that it gored, in which case it is not sentenced to death.
Rashi writes that "Takrivu" teaches us that partners may bring an Olah between them. The Gemara in Menachos 73b learns from "le'Chol Nidreihem?" (22:18) that partners may offer anything together, except a Minchah! Why is a second Pasuk required for Olah? (Riva, Moshav Zekenim)
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Tzon" excludes a Muktzah. But Muktzah is forbidden only after seven years (Temurah 28b), in which case it is already Pasul because of old age (Bechoros 41a)?
Riva: If he intends to designate it for idolatry for seven years, it is forbidden even after one day of designation.
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Bakar" excludes Ne'evad, and "Min ha'Tzon" excludes a Muktzah. But if Muktzah is Pasul, how much more so Ne'evad?
Rosh: Muktzah is not forbidden until something is done to it (Temurah 29a). This is why idolatry is not forbidden through designation (until one worships it - Sanhedrin 47b).
