I had two questions on this piece of the Gemara:
1) The Gemara states that before ye'ush, the source for the disqaulification of a stolen korban is from the word "mikem" in the verse (Vayikra 1:2). Although, Tosafos (d"h ki) states that the real source is from "korbano", and the Gemara just cites this verse as an alternative, borrowed source for this law, my queston is why was a source even required to be stated? Why can't we just derive the fact that the stolen animal cannot be used as a korban before ye'ush from the principle of "Mitzvah Habah BeAveriah", as we say by an stolen animal after ye'ush? Why do I need a Passuk in the Torah to teach me this disqualification if it is self-evident?
2) Second, Rashi to Vayikra 1:2 states that the fact that a stolen animal is disqualified from being used as a korban is from the word "Adam" in that verse! Why doesn't Tosafot note this contradiction as they do with "korbano", and what is the true source for this law if it is fact derived from "korbano"?
Thank you Rav
Elisha Yagudayev, United States
1) Tosfos DH Mishum asks your question with respect to Lulav ha'Gazul, but not with respect to Korban ha'Gazul before Yi'ush. The reason, as explained in Tosfos DH Ki, is that everyone agrees that before Yi'ush a Ganav lacks sufficient Ba'alus to be able to be Makdish or Makneh the object he stole. From mi'Kem (Tosfos says that the actual source is the Gemara in Bava Kama 68b) we see that the problem is not that it's a Korban ha'Gazul; the problem is that it's not a Korban.
2) Rashi on the Torah often chooses a Chazal that fits with the plain Pshat of the Chumash and he is not necessarily going according to the way he holds l'Ma'aseh. In this case his source is a Medrash in Vayikra Rabah, not usually a source for Halachah.
Avraham Phillips