The Mishna says that a kurban chatas that the owner dies before it is offered it must be left to die.
I remember in earlier studies that kurban chatas that the owner dies, cannot be offered because the owners does not need atonement and the heirs could offer it as Ola. Here in this daf it says it must be left to die. What is your response.
Thanks
Abe Murad, Montreal, Canada
1. The Mishnah (end of Temurah 21b) states that if the owner of the Chatas dies before it is offered, then it must be left to die. I assume that the contradiction you are asking is from the Mishnah at the end of the second chapter of Maseches Kinim (which is cited in a few places in Shas, including Menachos 4b) which states that if a woman who gave birth brought her Chatas and died before she was able to bring the Olah that she is also obligated to bring, then her heirs bring the Olah. The question is: why can a Chatas not be offered after the owner died, while an Olah can?
2. We can understand the answer to this question from what Rashi writes in different places. The Mishnah in Kerisus (27b) states that if a person separated his Chatas and then died, his son cannot offer it for him. Rashi explains that this is because "Ein Kaparah l'Achar Misah" -- after a person dies he cannot gain atonement. In contrast, the Mishnah in Meilah (11a) teaches that if a Nazir set aside money for the various Korbanos he has to bring and he specified which money is for the Chatas and which money is for the Olah, and then he died, the money for the Chatas must be thrown into the Dead Sea because this is a Chatas whose owner has died. However, the money that was set aside for an Olah may be used to bring the Olah. Rashi (Meilah 11a, DH Demei Olah) writes that this is because an Olah is merely a "Doron" -- a present -- and does not come for atonement. Rashi proves this from the aforementioned Mishnah in Kinim that states that the heirs can offer the Olah of the woman who died.
3. In short, a Chatas provides atonement and therefore cannot be offered after a person died, because there is no Kaparah for the deceased. In contrast, an Olah is a "present" to the Hash-m, so to speak, and does not attain specific Kaparah for the person, and thus it can be offered after the owner died.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Kvod harav
"Ein Kaparah l'Achar Misah" works just for a chatat she'metu baalim. How about the chatat that kiperu baalim - they would still be alive?
Thank you
Shlomo Amar
The Mishnah (15a and 21b) states that Chatas she'Kipru Ba'aleha must die. The owner is still alive, but since he has already received Kaparah from the other Korban that was offered before the original Korban was found, the first Chatas must be left to die.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I understand the mishna.
Mechila but my question was since in metou baalehem the baalim cannot offer it, the kiprou baalehem are still alive and since they already received the kappara they are here and can offer it as an olah.
Thank you again,
Shlomo Amar
Concerning the case of Kipru Ba'alehem, the Mishnah in Temurah (end of 21b and beginning of 22a) states that the Chatas animal must die and one may not derive benefit from it. (This is one of the five "Chata'os ha'Mesos" which must die, as taught by a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.) This is not similar to the case of the mother who gave birth and offered her Chatas and then died, for which the Gemara (Kidushin, beginning of 13b and elsewhere) states that the heirs may offer the Olah. This is because the latter animal was originally intended to be offered as an Olah, while, in contrast, when Kipru Ba'alehem, the animal was intended to be offered as a Chatas and cannot be changed to an Olah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom