1) THE NECESSITY FOR TWO VERSES TO TEACH THAT A NOCHRI MAY OFFER A KORBAN
QUESTION: The Gemara derives from the verse, "... from the hands of a Nochri you shall not bring... from all of these" (Vayikra 22:25), that we may not accept a blemished Korban from a Nochri. This implies that we generally accept Korbanos from Nochrim.
TOSFOS (DH umi'Yad) asks that if this verse teaches that a Nochri may offer a Korban, then why does the Gemara earlier (2b) learn the same Halachah from a different verse? The Gemara there derives from the verse, "Anyone (Ish Ish)... who will bring his offering for any of his vows, or for any of his voluntary offerings, which they will offer to Hash-m as a burnt offering" (Vayikra 22:18), that a Nochri may offer a Korban. Why are two verses needed to teach the same Halachah?
(a) TOSFOS in Chulin (13b, DH Aval) answers that had the Torah taught only the verse of "from the hands of a Nochri" (Vayikra 22:25), one would not have inferred that a Nochri may offer an unblemished animal as a Korban. One would have understood that the verse means that the severity of a Lav applies to bringing a blemished animal of a Nochri as a Korban, but even when the animal is not a Ba'al Mum it is forbidden to accept it (it just does not have the severity of a Lav). The verse of "Ish Ish" teaches that it is entirely permitted to bring the Korban of a Nochri in the Beis ha'Mikdash as long as it is not a Ba'al Mum.
(b) In his second answer, Tosfos there quotes the Toras Kohanim which derives from the verse, "from the hands of a Nochri," that a Nochri may not donate Shekalim towards the communal Korbanos. Presumably, the reason why a Nochri may not donate money towards public Korbanos is that a Nochri cannot have a portion in a Korban. Accordingly, one might have assumed that he certainly cannot bring his own, individual Korban. The verse of "Ish Ish" reveals that a Nochri's private Korban is accepted, and the Toras Kohanim does not mean that a Nochri cannot have a portion of a Korban, but merely that he cannot be called part of the Tzibur.
(c) TOSFOS here in Temurah answers that the verse of "Ish Ish" is needed to teach what type of Korban a Nochri may bring. This is apparent from the dispute between Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva in Menachos (73b). Each Tana learns from the verses (beginning with the verse, "Ish Ish") the types of Korban that a Nochri may offer. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili learns that a Nochri may offer almost any type of Korban that is brought as a Neder or Nedavah, with the exception of a Korban Nazir. Rebbi Akiva learns that a Nochri may offer only an Olah. The verse introduces the topic with "Ish Ish" not to teach that a Nochri may offer a Korban, but to teach that the following words in the verse teach exactly what Korbanos a Nochri may offer. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) ONE WHO SANCTIFIES AN UNBLEMISHED ANIMAL FOR "BEDEK HA'BAYIS"
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that a person transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh when he sanctifies an unblemished animal for Bedek ha'Bayis. The Gemara adds that he also transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh since the verse says, "Leimor" (in "va'Yedaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor" -- "Hash-m said to Moshe, saying"), which can be read "Lav Emor" ("a Lo Sa'aseh is being said").
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Erchin 5:6) rules that one who sanctifies an unblemished animal for Bedek ha'Bayis transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh. Why does the Rambam make no mention of the conclusion of the Gemara here, which says that one also transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh? (KESEF MISHNEH)
ANSWER: The MISHNEH L'MELECH cites a Sifri that states that it is only Rebbi Yehudah who maintains that one transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh when he sanctifies an unblemished animal for Bedek ha'Bayis. The Chachamim argue and maintain that one transgresses only a Mitzvas Aseh (see also Pesachim 41b). The Rambam's ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Chachamim.
3) "LEIMOR" MEANS "LAV EMOR"
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that a person transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh when he sanctifies an unblemished animal for Bedek ha'Bayis. The Gemara adds that he also transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh since the verse says, "Leimor" (in "va'Yedaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor"), which can be read "Lav Emor" ("a Lo Sa'aseh is being said").
If the word "Leimor" can mean "Lav Emor," then why is almost every Mitzvas Aseh in the Torah also not a Lo Sa'aseh, since the word "Leimor" is used to introduce most Mitzvos?
(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#6) answers that only when another La Sa'aseh is written in the same Parshah as the Aseh does the word "Leimor" teach that everything else in the Parshah is also a Lo Sa'aseh.
(b) TOSFOS in Pesachim (42a, DH Leimor) and the RA'AVAD (quoted by the Shitah Mekubetzes) answer that according to Rebbi Yehudah, when the Torah says "Leimor" at the beginning of a Parshah, a person will receive Malkus for transgressing a Lav only when the Mitzvah in that Parshah is a "Lav ha'Ba Michlal Aseh," a negative prohibition that is expressed as a Mitzvas Aseh.
(c) RABEINU CHANANEL in Pesachim (42a) says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, whenever the Torah says "Leimor" it indeed makes all of the Mitzvos in that Parshah into Lavim.
The LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Erchin 5:6) explains that "Leimor" is only an "Asmachta" for a Lo Sa'aseh. Accordingly, Malkus mid'Oraisa will not be administered for the transgression of an Aseh even according to Rebbi Yehudah. Perhaps Rabeinu Chananel agrees that it is only an "Asmachta."
4) THE RIGHT OF THE KOHEN TO A "KORBAN BECHOR"
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Kohen cannot make a Temurah with a Chatas, Asham, or Bechor. RASHI (DH Lo b'Chatas) explains that a Kohen cannot make a Temurah using a Chatas or Asham that a Yisrael gave to him to offer on his behalf. Rashi explains further that the reason why the Temurah does not take effect is that the Kohen does not own the Korban. Rashi implies that when the Yisrael gives his Korban to a Kohen to offer, his act of giving the Korban transfers some degree of ownership of the Korban, such that the Mishnah must teach that the Kohen does not have enough ownership of the Korban to make a Temurah with it.
Rashi's words are problematic. When a Yisrael gives his Korban to a Kohen, nothing of significance is accomplished; the Kohen acquires nothing. The members of the Mishmar serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash at that time collectively have the right to offer the Korban; no specific Kohen has that right. Why does Rashi say that the Kohen cannot make a Temurah with the Korban because it belongs to the Yisrael? The reason why the Kohen cannot make a Temurah with the Korban is that it belongs to the entire Mishmar, and not to him!
(a) The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Gezeilah 8:12) answers that Rashi means that a Kohen indeed acquires the rights to bring a Yisrael's Korban when the Yisrael gives him that Korban to offer on his behalf. Even if the Yisrael gives his Korban to a specific Kohen at the end of that Kohen's Mishmar, the Kohen is allowed to offer the Korban during the next Mishmar. The Gemara (Bava Metzia 109b) derives this from the verse, "v'Ish Es Kodashav Lo Yiheyu" -- "the holy objects of a man shall be for him; that which a man gives to the Kohen shall be for him" (Bamidbar 5:10).
The CHIDUSHEI HA'GRIZ has difficulty with the approach of the Mishneh l'Melech. The verse of "v'Ish Es Kodashav" teaches only that a Kohen may offer his own, private Korbanos even during a different Mishmar. It does not teach that a Kohen may offer a Yisrael's Korban during a different Mishmar!
(b) The Chidushei ha'Griz explains that Rashi does not mean to say that a Yisrael may give his Korban to a specific Kohen. Rather, Rashi means that all of the members of the Mishmar to which the Kohen belongs automatically acquire the rights to the Korban once it is given to any one of them to offer upon the Mizbe'ach (see Bava Kama 111a). The Mishmar may bring the Korban even during the rotation of the next Mishmar. Since the Korban belongs to the Mishmar, no specific Kohen may make it a Temurah. (Y. MONTROSE)