In the case of korban oleh v'yoreid the Torah allows a poor person to bring 2 birds, a chatas and olah, in place of animals. Sefer haChinuch (mitzvah 123) has a chiddush that if the poor peson voluntarily brings the higher priced animal korban instead of the birds, he is not yotzei. He explains that the Torah does not want a person to extend himself beyond his means, even if for a good cause. (Kal v'chomer a person should not live beyond his means and waste $ on nahrishkeit).
Achronim ask the following kashe: a metzora is chayav to bring a chatas, asham, and olah. If a person cannot afford to bring three animals, the Torah says he can subatitute bird offerings for the chatas and olah. There is a mishna mefureshes at the end of negaim (14:12) that says that a poor person who brings the regular korban of three animals instead of the birds is yotzei. If so, that should serve as the binyan av paradigm. The same din should apply to korban oleh v'yoried. Why, according to the Chinuch, is there a difference betweem these cases and the poor person is not yotzei with the higher priced korban in the case of oleh v'yoreid? (See Chasam Sofer Shabbos 132a and see my son's post from 5 years ago on this topic.)
The Imrei Emes was asked this kashe and gave a cryptic one sentence answer: oleh v'yoreid is different because the person is missing a korban. No one understood what he meant -- the poor peson brings a korban, a more expensive one than required in fact, so what is he missing? When R' Menachem Zemba heard the answer, he deciphered it. In the case of metzora, the rich person brings a chatas, olah, and asham, as does the poor person. The only difference is that the poor person substitutes birds in place of animals. In the case of oleh v'yoreid, the rich person brings one animal as a chatas; the poor person brings 2 birds, one as a chatas, one as an olah. When the poor person who is chayav chatas and an olah brings a rich person's korban of a single chatas, he is missing something -- he is missing the korban olah that goes with his chatas. True, he may have spent more money on that single animal, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he is getting off with one korban in place of two.
This is such a great answer you have to wonder why all the other achronim who were spinning their wheels trying to work out a solution didn't come up with it. There's a great explanation for that as well.
The Ohr Sameich once had a dream that he was in the yeshiva shel maalah and the giants of the past were sitting and learning and the Rashba stood up and announced in front of everyone that there is a Jew in Dvinsk who was mechavein l'amita shel Torah more than he was. The gem (Chulin 22) has a hava amina that an olas ha'of can be offered at night. Asks the Rashba: avodah is always done during the day. How can there be even a hava amina of bringing a korban at night? There must be an error in the girsa.
A bunch of years ago I posted the Meshech Chochma's brilliant answer to this Rashba. He quotes Ibn Erza who explains why it is that the poor person who brings a korban oleh v'yoreid has to being 2 birds in place of the single korban chatas. When a korban chatas animal is offered there are fats brought on the mizbeiach and meat eaten by the owner. A bird chatas ha'oef has no fat or meat that is offered. Just the blood is offered. Therefore, says Ibn Erza, the chatas bird has to be paired with an olah. The olah is offered in its entirety, with all the meat, and it therefore makes up for the missing fats that are normally part of the chatas.
Avodah cannot be done at night, but hekter chalavim, the burning of the korban fats, can be. Since the bird olah is a substitute for the fats of the animal chatas, one might therefore have a hava amina that it can be brought at night, akin of hekter chalavim, kah mashma lan.
Queue applause from the Rashba.
In light of this yesod the Imrei Emes's argument takes a hit. The reason a poor person has to bring the olah bird is because he needs to make up for the missing fats. Were he to bring an animal chatas, he is not missing anything. He doesn't need the make up korban because the animal korban is all inclusive.
Sorry, a week late for this. "In light of this yesod the Imrei Emes's argument takes a hit. "
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. The reason that the Torah required an olah for the poor person may be as the Meshech Chocmah says. But once the Torah provided for that, it became a chiyuv in its own right. To use Brisker terminology, the former is the mechayev, but the latter is a chiyuv.
Ha raya, the hava amina discussed by the Rashba is only a hava amina. The maskana is that it can only be brought by day, like any other korban. IOW, it's a chiyuv to bring a korban olah, same as any other korban olah.
So the Imre Emes is correct. The chiyuv for a poor person is a bird chatas and a bird olah. If he brings an animal chatas, he is missing an olah.