1) KORBANOS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE "NESACHIM"
QUESTIONS: Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa follows his approach of explaining the reasons for Mitzvos ("Doresh Ta'ama d'Kra"). He explains that although all Korbanos should be offered with Menachos and Nesachim, the reason why a Chatas and Asham are not offered with Menachos and Nesachim is that the Torah does not want a sinner's Korban to be beautified or glorified with oil and wine offerings. For this reason, the Chatas and Asham of a Metzora are exceptions and are offered with Nesachim. A Metzora offers a Chatas and Asham not because of his sins (as the Tzara'as itself atoned for his sins), but in order to enable him to become Tahor and eat Kodshim.
RASHI (DH v'Chi ka'Maisi) points out that there are several Tum'os for which the Torah requires that the person offer a Korban in order to become completely Tahor. These are the Korbanos of a Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, Metzora (as the Gemara here mentions), and Nazir Tamei.
There are a number of difficulties with the words of Rashi.
(a) Why does Rashi need to mention other examples of Korbanos which are brought to be Metaher the person?
Moreover, if these people, the Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, and Nazir Tamei, also bring Chata'os to be Metaher themselves, their Chata'os should also be accompanied by Nesachim. Why is only the Chatas and Asham of a Metzora accompanied by Nesachim, and not the other Korbanos which Rashi lists?
(b) What is Rashi's intention in including the Korban of a Nazir Tamei in his list? The Gemara in Nazir (60a) clearly states that the Korban of a Nazir Tamei does not serve to permit the Nazir to eat Kodshim, since he is already Tahor and permitted to eat Kodshim even before he brings the Korban. This is also evident from the Gemara in Kerisus (8b) which says that a Nazir Tamei is not included in the list of those who need a Korban ("Mechusrei Kaparah") to permit them to Kodshim.
(c) The following Gemara questions the view of Rebbi Shimon and asks why the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor does not require Nesachim, since it is not brought for a sin. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Shimon follows the view of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar who states that a Nazir Tahor is considered a sinner. Why does the Gemara not ask the same question about the Korban Asham of a Nazir Tamei? If a Nazir is not a sinner as the Gemara initially assumes, the Asham of a Nazir Tamei also should require Nesachim!
(a) Rashi lists these other examples of "Mechusrei Kaparah" in order to answer a question he has on the Gemara. Why does the Gemara say that an Asham Metzora does not serve to atone for a sin when the verse (Vayikra 14:11) explicitly states that the Asham of the Metzora does atone ("l'Chaper")? Rashi explains that "l'Chaper" sometimes means "l'Taher," as the verse says in the case of a Zav, Zavah, and Yoledes, who certainly committed no sin and yet the Torah requires that they bring a Korban for "Kaparah" ("v'Chiper"; Vayikra 12:7, 15:15). In those cases, the word "v'Chiper" clearly means that the Korban makes them Tahor, since they did no sin for which they need atonement. The reason why none of the Chata'os of the "Mechusrei Kaparah" in Rashi's list require Nesachim is that they all bring a Chatas ha'Of and not a Chatas Behemah, and Nesachim are never brought with a Chatas ha'Of. (Nesachim are brought only with Korbanos of animals, not birds.)
(b) When Rashi writes that a Nazir Tamei needs a Korban to make him completely Tahor, he does not mean that he needs a Korban to permit him to eat Kodshim. Rather, Rashi means that he needs a Korban in order to begin his Nezirus Taharah. (Rashi here follows the opinion of Rebbi in Nazir (18a) who rules that the Nezirus Taharah cannot begin until the Korban of Nazir Tamei has been offered.) The reason why Rashi includes a Nazir Tamei in his list even though a Nazir Tamei is not usually included in the list of "Mechusrei Kaparah" (Kerisus 8b) is that the verse also says "v'Chiper" (Bamidbar 6:11) in the case of a Nazir Tamei even though the Gemara at this stage assumes that a Nazir is not considered a sinner. (See HAGAHOS RAV SIMCHAH MI'DESVA.)
(c) The PORAS YOSEF suggests that when the Gemara asked why the Chatas of a Nazir Tahor does not require Nesachim since it is not brought for a sin, it knew that a Nazir Tamei is considered a sinner. It assumed, however, that a Nazir Tahor is not a sinner and therefore he should bring Nesachim with his Korban. The Gemara answers that even a Nazir Tahor is considered a sinner.
This answer, however, does not conform with the words of Rashi, who includes a Nazir Tamei in the list of people who bring Korbanos only to make themselves Tahor and not for atonement for any sin. According to Rashi, why does the Gemara not ask that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei should require Nesachim?
The TOSFOS SHANTZ here (and cited by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Kerisus 27:25) answers this question. He explains, based on the Gemara in Kerisus (end of 27a), that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei seems entirely extraneous and serves no apparent purpose. It does not facilitate the Nazir's Taharah, because The Taharah of a Nazir Tamei comes about through his Chatas and Olah, as the verse says (Bamidbar 6:11). The Tosfos Shantz and Shitah Mekubetzes explain that since the Korban Asham does not serve to attain Kaparah or Taharah, it is not similar to any other Korbanos and thus it does not require Nesachim. (See also Rashi to Nazir 59b, DH v'Sofrin, and TOSFOS to Nazir 55b, DH Ochel, who explain that the Asham of a Nazir Tamei is not Me'akev.)
The Gemara questions Rebbi Shimon only from the case of a Chatas of a Nazir Tahor, which does serve a purpose, as do all of the Korbanos of a Nazir Tahor, since any one of them enables him to drink wine, cut his hair, and become Tamei. Therefore, they all serve a purpose and should require Nesachim. The Gemara answers that a Nazir Tahor is considered a sinner and thus his Korbanos are not brought with Nesachim.