1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SHECHITAH" AND "MILAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the ability of a Korban Olah to atone for sins that were committed after the animal was designated already as a Korban Olah. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that if one neglects to perform Semichah on his Korban, it is "as if he does not atone, but he does atone." The Gemara first suggests that this means that he gains atonement for sins done before the animal was designated. The Gemara responds that the Beraisa may mean that he gains atonement for neglecting to do Semichah.
Rava answers that the Beraisa cannot be referring to atonement for the lack of Semichah, because his transgression of not doing Semichah takes effect only after the Shechitah is completed when it is no longer possible to do Semichah. Therefore, the failure to do Semichah is not a sin that occurred after the animal was designated, but a sin that occurred after the Korban was brought.
The AYELES HA'SHACHAR asks that the Gemara here seems to contradict the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Milah 1:2). The Rambam writes that a person who does not perform Bris Milah transgresses a positive Mitzvah everyday, but is not liable to be punished with Kares until he dies uncircumcised. The RA'AVAD argues that he is liable for Kares the first day that he purposely abstains from performing Bris Milah. If he eventually does Milah, he rectifies his sin. (For more on this dispute, see Insights to Shabbos 132:1.)
Rava similarly says that the sin of not doing Semichah is committed only after the Shechitah, when there is no longer the opportunity to do Semichah. If this is also the logic of the Rambam in the case of one who does not perform Bris Milah, then the Rambam implies that the sin of not having a Bris Milah is committed after death. How, though, can a person be liable for sinning when he is no longer alive?
ANSWER: The AYELES HA'SHACHAR answers that there is a difference between Milah and Shechitah. Since a person knows that he is sinning by not having a Bris Milah, when he dies he retroactively becomes liable for Kares for purposely not having a Milah. In contrast, the moment at which a person decides to do or not to do Semichah occurs only in the few seconds before the Shechitah. During this time (and certainly beforehand) he is not sinning when he does not do Semichah, since he still has the opportunity to do Semichah and not transgress any sin. This is why the sin cannot take effect retroactively. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)
6b----------------------------------------6b
2) SEMICHAH: AN INDEPENDENT MITZVAH OR PART OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE KORBAN
QUESTION: The Gemara (6a) quotes a Beraisa which states that if one neglects to perform Semichah on his Korban, it is "as if he does not atone, but he does atone." The Gemara first suggests that this means that he gains atonement for sins done before the animal was designated. The Gemara responds that the Beraisa may mean that he gains atonement for neglecting to do Semichah.
Rav Huna bar Yehudah asked Rava to explain this cryptic phrase. The Gemara (6b) concludes that it means that although the person achieved atonement, "he did not achieve atonement towards Heaven." RASHI (DH Lo Kiper) explains that he did not please his Master, since he did not do the Mitzvah in the choice manner.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 3:12) writes that a person who did not perform Semichah on his Korban is viewed as though he did not achieve atonement. The AYELES HA'SHACHAR notes that the Rambam usually does not quote Gemaros that are not relevant in practice in some way. Why, then, does the Rambam record this statement of the Gemara?
ANSWER: The AYELES HA'SHACHAR quotes the Mishnah in Gitin (28a) that teaches that when one sends a Korban from overseas, the Kohanim may sacrifice it under the assumption that the sender is still alive. The Gemara asks that before the Korban may be offered, the owner must perform Semichah, but if he is overseas he cannot perform Semichah. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to a case of a Korban sent by a woman, or to a Chatas ha'Of, Korbanos which do not require Semichah.
TOSFOS there (28b, DH v'Ha) has a lengthy discussion about the requirement of Semichah. He concludes that although the lack of Semichah does not disqualify the Korban, generally a Korban is not brought if it requires Semichah and the owner cannot perform Semichah.
The AYELES HA'SHACHAR notes that although other Mitzvos should be performed in part when they cannot be performed in their entirety, the Gemara here implies that one should not offer a Korban at all when he cannot perform Semichah. Accordingly, the Rambam teaches that one should not think that Semichah is merely one of the laws that one should follow when he brings a Korban, but if he is unable to fulfill the requirement of Semichah he still should bring the Korban. Rather, Semichah is a prerequisite for proper atonement. The Rambam implies that one should not send a Korban when he cannot perform Semichah, since the Korban in such a case will not properly atone for him. The Rambam, therefore, indeed is teaching a practical law with these words. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)