What are the implications of the word "Olah"?
Rashi (in Sh'mos 18:12): It is called "Olah" because it is entirely burned (It all goes up to Hashem).
Why does the Torah begin the Parshah of Korbanos with the Korban Olah?
Oznayim la'Torah (based on the Rambam, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos, 3:2 - that a Nochri can only bring an Olah): Because it is the only Korban that applies to Nochrim as well.
Seeing as the Torah is speaking about an Olah, why does it need to repeat "Im Olah Korbano"?
Sifra: "Im Olah", to incorporate an Olas Chovah and a Temuras Olah 1 and "Korbano", a Shelamim 2 - in the Pesulim that pertain to an Olas Nedavah,
Bava Kama, 66b: "Korbano" comes to disqualify a stolen animal ? even after 'Yi'ush' (the owner has despaired of retrieving his animal). 3
If the word "Zachar" comes to preclude a female animal from the realm of Olah, why does the Torah repeat it (in Pasuk 10)?
Rashi: It comes to preclude also a Tumtum 1 (whose sexual organs are covered) and an Androginus (an animal that is bi-sexual).
Gur Aryeh: Tumtum was taught without need (because it is normally taught with Androginus). It is a Safek male. The verse need not exclude a Safek! (Perhaps it teaches that it Vadai did not become Kadosh, or disqualifies even if after Shechitah it was found to be male! - PF)
What are the connotations of "Tamim"?
Rashi: It means without a blemish.
Seeing as the Torah specifically precludes a Ba'al-Mum in Emor, why does it insert "Tamim" here?
Sifra: To teach us that a Korban with any of the other Pesulim will also not be accepted le'Ratzon before Hashem.
What are the ramifications of "el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Yakrivenu"?
Rashi: It implies that the owner remains responsible for the animal 1 until it reaches the Azarah.
To replace it should it get lost or die.
Why does the Torah repeat the phrase "Yakriv oso"?
Rashi: To teach us a. that, if Reuven's Korban became mixed up with Shimon's, the Kohen brings each animal in the name of its owner, 1 and b. that if his Korban became mixed up with Chulin, one sells the Chulin to someone who needs an Olah, and follows the same procedure.
Da'as Zekenim, Rosh, and Moshav Zekenim: One should not tell a Kohen 'buy an animal and offer it.' This is not respectful to Hashem! Rather, the owner buys a Korban, and brings it in front of the king. 2
Even though he does not know which animal belongs to which owner.
There were boxes in the Mikdash in which people would leave coins, and Kohanim would buy and offer Korbanos with the money (Shekalim 6:5)! Perhaps that was for people who could not bring animals themselves. Or, those were for birds, or Mosaros (which are offered as Olos), perhaps they are unlike one who volunteers Olas Behemah. (PF)
Why does the Torah add the suffix "nu" to the word "Yakriv"?
Rashi: Even though, if Korbanos of different people became mixed-up, we offer each one for its owner, one may not do so if it became mixed-up with a Pasul animal or with a different kind of Korban. 1
Moshav Zekenim: If, for example, the bloods became mixed. (This enables doubt about all mixtures. If the animals became mixed, often it is clear which is the Pasul, e.g. a Ba'al Mum or Tereifah. However, below Rashi learns about blood that became mixed from "ha'Dam" and "Damo"! Refer to 1:5:4:1, 1:5:5:1, - PF)
What are the implications of "li'Retzono"?
Rashi: It implies that the owner must offer it willingly.
Rashbam: It implies that if the owner brings an unblemished male animal to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, his Korban will be accepted with goodwill ? but not one that is sick or blemished. 1
Erchin, 21a: It implies that an Olah only atones after the owner has appeased Hashem.
Erchin 21a: It implies that the owner must know about the Olah ? even if someone else designates it on his behalf , in orfder to be effective. 2
As the Navi writes in Mal'achi, 1:8 "If you were to bring it (a blemished animal) to your prince, would he accept it ... ?"
See Torah Temimah, note 28.
How do we reconcile "Yakriv oso" (implying that Beis-Din force him to bring it - even against the owner's will) with the word "li'Retzono"?
Rashi: By combining the two statements - by forcing the owner (even physically if necessary) until he acquiesces.
Seeing as the Din of Ratzon pertains to all Korbanos, why does the Torah insert the word "li'Retzono" only by Olah and by Shelamim (in Kedoshim, 19:5)?
Oznayim la'Torah: Based on the Gemara in Erchin, 21, that, as opposed to Chata'os and Ashamos, whose owners bring willingly and from whom one does not therefore take collatoral, regardeing Olos and Shelamim, Beis-Din do take collateral, the Torah inserts "li'Retzono", specifically in connection with Olos and Shelamim, to remind Beis-Din to make sure that they are are nevertheless brought willingly.
Why does the Torah add the words "Lifnei Hashem"?
Refer to 1:4:0.1:1 & 2.
Oznayim la'Torah #1: Because, when a person brings his Korban to the Mishkan, of the three conditions laid out by the Torah, 'Zachar' and 'Tamim' can be examined by the Kohanim, whereas that of 'li'Retzono', it is only Hashem who knows whether the the owner truly brought it willingly or not.
Oznayim la'Torah #2: The Torah writes "Lifnei Hashem" (and not simply Tzafonah) both by the Shechitah and by the Semichah of Kodshei Kodshim to atone for the Chutzpah of having sinned against Hashem who is in front of him. 1
Thereby contravening the Pasuk in Tehilim "Shivisi Hashem le'Negdi Tamid". See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Yakriv oso... ' who elaborates at length.
Having stated "min ha'Bakar" in the previous Pasuk, why does the Torah repeat it here?
Rashi (on Pasuk 2): To preclude a T'reifah. 1
Moshav Zekenim (in Pasuk 2): Where a lion or other [venomous] Chayah was Toref (scratched) it - rendering it Tereifah, but not a Ba'al Mum. Alternatively, it fell from the roof, or most of its ribs were broken (Chulin 42a - PF).
Why is "li'Retzono" written only regarding a bull?
Moshav Zekenim: Because, since one must spend a lot of money for it, it requires an extra warning to make ir acceptable, ssince it has great reward. 1
And it is for the same reason that the Torah wites, "Lifnei Hashem" twice regarding a bull.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Min ha'Bakar" excludes a T'reifah But it is forbidden to a Yisrael from the Pasuk in Yechezkel 45:15 "Mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", thereby disqualifying it from beiing a Korban?
Moshav Zekenim and Riva (both on Pasuk 2): The current Pasuk is referring to where the animal became a T'reifah after it was already sanctified.
Rashi writes that "Zachar" (in Pasuk 10) excludes also a Tumtum and an Androginus. But the Gemara in Nidah, 40a precludes them from the word "Zachar"?
R. Chaim Paltiel: Only when the Torah writes both "Zachar" and "Nekevah" do they come to exclude Tumtum and Androginus.
