More Discussions for this daf
1. Rashi 2. אשם לעולה

Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander asked:

Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,

Re: Temurah 09b: Rashi dh Venitak Leola

Rashi says: d'asham shanitak leola - stamei lshem olat nidvat tsibur kai, dhaynu 'min hamotarot'...

Why does Rashi say this?

(1) After all if it is a korban [olat nidvat] tsibur - nobody can make a temura from it, what is the question? Surely it is in no way a korban tsibur, but only resembles a olat nidvat tsibur because it is not a regular korban?

(2) Besides, an olat nidvat tsibur is optional, but the scrifice of an asham shanitak leola is not optional, but compulsory!

Hag Sameah - [every day has a different korban mussaf, so is a different Hag]

Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander

The Kollel replies:

(1) Your question on RASHI TEMURAH 9b DH VE'NITAK is asked by MAR'EH KOHEN (printed at back of Gemara immediately after YAFEH EINAYIM, after P. 80). Mareh Kohen writes that there is a printer's error in Rashi and instead of reading "An Asham whose owners had received atonement presumably stands to be offered as an 'Olas Nidvas Tzibur'" it should read, "as an Olas Nidvas Yachid". Mar'eh Kohen writes that the reason this amendment must be made is because the Gemara below, 13b and 20a, states that according to the opinion that "Mosaros" go to become a Korban Tzibur, it follows that they cannot make Temurah (as Mishnah 13a states that the Tzibur does not make Temurah). The conclusion of Gemara 13b is that R. Abin asked his question according to R. Eliezer who maintains that the extra Korbanos go to become private Korbanos and therefore according to R. Eliezer they should make Temurah. Therefore Mar'eh Kohen concludes that one must correct our text in Rashi to read that one can assume that the Oshom whose owners had already received atonement becomes a private Olah and therefore it can make Temurah.

(2) The owners already received atonement with another Korbon so the Asham is now optional, not compulsory.


D. Bloom