OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that a person who inherits a Korban performs Semichah on the Korban and brings Nesachim. RASHI KESAV YAD (DH ha'Yoresh Somech) explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in which a person's father dedicated a Korban Olah or Korban Shelamim and died before he was able to bring the Korban.

The Mishnah does not clarify whether the heir is supposed to bring the Nesachim from his own property, or whether he brings Nesachim only if he inherited the Nesachim from his father. What is the Mishnah's intention?

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV explains that the Mishnah refers to when the heir inherits the Nesachim from his father. It seems that the Tosfos Yom Tov would agree that if the original owner of the Korban set aside no Nesachim, his son must bring Nesachim from money that he inherited from his father, and if he inherited nothing other than the animal from his father, then he would not have to buy Nesachim.

(b) The OR GADOL argues and says that a person who inherits a Korban is considered the owner of the Korban. Even if he inherits nothing else, he must bring Nesachim from his own money in order to complete the Korban. The Or Gadol proves this from the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:6) which states that if a convert dies with no heirs and leaves a Korban that needs to be brought, we bring the Korban together with the Nesachim that the convert left as well. If he left no Nesachim, then we bring Nesachim from the public funds. According to the Tosfos Yom Tov, why does that Mishnah discuss a convert who dies? The same Halachah applies to an ordinary Jew who dies! The Or Gadol proves from there that it must be that the heir of an ordinary Jew always brings Nesachim from his own money if his father provided no Nesachim. This is also the opinion of the CHAZON ISH (Zevachim 1:5).

The TIFERES YISRAEL in Shekalim apparently learns like the Tosfos Yom Tov. He explains why the Mishnah in Shekalim specifically discusses a convert. If an ordinary Jew dies and leaves a Korban without Nesachim, it is clear that the Nesachim should be brought from his estate. If a convert dies and leaves a Korban without Nesachim, it is not possible to bring Nesachim from his estate, because the property of a convert who dies without heirs is considered Hefker, ownerless. Since his property is Hefker, there is no property of the convert from which to bring Nesachim, and therefore the Nesachim are brought from the public funds.

The Or Gadol cites the KEHILOS YAKOV (on Mishnayos) who understands that this argument is based on another argument: is the lien on one's property that is created when one commits himself to a monetary obligation mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan ("Shibuda d'Oraisa" or "Shibuda Lav d'Oraisa"; see end of SHULCHAN ARUCH CM 175, and Background to the Daf to Bava Basra 175:18)? One opinion maintains that even though the convert committed himself to bring a Korban while he was alive, his commitment did not cause the monetary value of the Nesachim to become designated for Nesachim, since the lien that results from such a commitment is only mid'Rabanan. According to the opinion that maintains "Shibuda d'Oraisa," the Nesachim should be brought from the estate of the convert, because a lien mid'Oraisa was created on the convert's property for the monetary value of the Nesachim. This may be the reason why the Tosfos Yom Tov explains that the case of a convert in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which says that Nesachim are brought from his property, applies only when the convert designated the actual Nesachim before he died. According to the opinion that "Shibuda d'Oraisa," even if the convert did not designate specific Nesachim, there would be a lien mid'Oraisa on his property for the purpose of bringing Nesachim, and this lien overrides the property's new status of Hefker. According to this opinion, the Mishnah in Shekalim is clearly discussing a case in which the convert had no possessions to bequeath, and he did not designate any Nesachim before his death. In such a case, the Nesachim must be brought from public funds. In contrast, when a Jew -- who has heirs who inherit his property -- dies, those heirs must bring his Nesachim for him from their own funds.

The Or Gadol points out, however, that according to the Tosfos Yom Tov -- who explains that the heir is not considered the owner of the Korban and cannot bring his own Nesachim -- why should the Mishnah discuss specifically a convert? Why should an ordinary Jew be different? If the Jew did not designate the Nesachim before he died, why should the Nesachim be brought from the money he bequeathed to his children, when that money is no longer the property of the person who died? It must be that the heir indeed is considered an owner of the Korban, and therefore his money may be used for the Nesachim of this Korban. (See also SHOSHANIM L'DAVID, Shekalim 7:6, and MIKDASH DAVID 10:3.) (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that all private Korbanos require Semichah, with the exception of a Bechor, Ma'aser, and a Korban Pesach. The Gemara suggests that these exceptions are derived from the three extra times that the Torah mentions the word "Korbano" -- "his Korban." (RASHI KESAV YAD (DH Korbano) explains that these three extra words are written with regard to the Semichah of Shelamim, in Vayikra 3. However, only two words "Korbano" appear in that chapter with regard to Semichah, while many other occasions of that word in that chapter are written with regard to Shelamim in general.) These three extra words exclude Bechor, Ma'aser, and Pesach.

How does the word "Korbano" imply the exclusion of these three types of Korbanos from the obligation of Semichah?

(a) RASHI (DH Korbanos) explains that the word "Korbano" implies the person's attempt to bring himself closer to Hash-m voluntarily ("his Korban"). This refers specifically to a voluntary, freewill offering, and not to a Korban that one is obligated to bring such as a Bechor, Ma'aser, and Pesach.

The CHIDUSHIM HA'MEYUCHASIM LA'RASHBA asks that this explanation is not consistent with the Halachah in the case of an Asham and a Chatas. Both of these Korbanos are obligatory, and yet both require Semichah! He answers that an Asham and a Chatas "are not Kadosh before they are offered, and they are brought solely for the person's own benefit, and therefore they are called 'Korbano.'" In contrast, a Bechor is Kadosh immediately upon birth.

This answer, however, does not explain why Ma'aser and a Korban Pesach -- which are not Kadosh from birth -- are different from an Asham and Chatas.

The EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests that "Korbano" implies that there are two requirements necessary for Semichah. The first requirement is that the person who brings the Korban must be Makdish the animal (and not that it is Kadosh from birth). The second requirement is that it must be a Korban that is offered for appeasement. A Bechor becomes Kadosh at birth, while Ma'aser and Pesach are not offered for appeasement but to fulfill the special obligation to offer them. An Asham and Chatas are brought for appeasement, and therefore they require Semichah even though they are obligatory. It seems that the Rashba himself alludes to this when he writes, "And they are brought solely for the person's own benefit," referring to the appeasement attained by the Korban. This reason is not necessary for a Bechor, since the Rashba already stated that Semichah does not apply to a Bechor since it becomes Kadosh at birth and not through the owner's act of sanctifying it.

(b) The SEFAS EMES also explains that "Korbano" excludes a Bechor because a Bechor is Kadosh from birth. However, he explains that Ma'aser is similarly excluded, because whichever animal is the tenth animal becomes Kadosh, and its Kedushah is considered to take effect by itself. A Korban Pesach is excluded from "Korbano" for a different reason altogether. "Korbano," or "his Korban," refers to a Korban which is exclusively his, as opposed to a Korban that everyone is obligated to bring on the same day, such as the Korban Pesach. (Y. MONTROSE)