1) IS THERE A MINIMUM VALUE FOR A KORBAN CHATAS?
OPINIONS: The Gemara teaches that the verse which requires that an Asham Me'ilos be worth at least two Sela'im (which applies to an Asham Taluy as well) is not extended to other Korbanos in general. The Torah needs to teach specifically that an Asham Taluy must be worth at least two Sela'im, because had the Torah not taught this, one would have applied a simple Kal va'Chomer: If a Chatas, which is brought to atone for a sin that was definitely committed (inadvertently), may be worth just a Bas Danka (which, RASHI explains, is one sixth of a Dinar), then certainly an Asham Taluy, which is brought to atone for a doubtful sin may be worth a Bas Danka. The Torah therefore needs to teach that an Asham Taluy must be more expensive than a Chatas. (The RAMBAN on the verse comments that the Torah is teaching that a person should be serious about the possibility that he sinned, and not think that his doubtful sin needs no Korban.)
When the Gemara says that a Chatas must be worth one sixth of a Dinar, does this mean that it literally must be worth at least one sixth of a Dinar, or is this just a way of illustrating that a Chatas may be bought for any amount of money, even less than one sixth of a Dinar?
(a) RASHI (DH Danka) writes that the amount of one sixth of a Dinar is not literal. The Gemara means that a Chatas has no minimum value. TOSFOS (DH v'Chatas) cites support for Rashi's position from the Gemara in Kerisus (27a) which asks that a Chatas should have a minimum value; the Gemara's question clearly implies that a Chatas has no minimum value. Tosfos points out that a different Gemara in Kerisus (10b) implies that a Chatas must be worth at least a Sela. However, Tosfos concludes that the Gemara there is expressing merely a "Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar" (the choicest way of performing the Mitzvah).
(b) TOSFOS in Menachos (107b, DH Keves) concludes that the Gemara in Kerisus is teaching merely what generous people should give for their Chatas; the Torah gives no actual minimum value for the Chatas. One who is not generous may bring a Chatas worth even a sixth of a Dinar. Tosfos agrees that if the price of sheep decreases significantly, then even a generous person may bring an animal worth less than a Danka, l'Chatchilah, as long as the animal is robust and healthy.
(c) TOSFOS in Kerisus (10b, DH Michlal) gives a slightly different explanation. Tosfos there says that the amount of a Sela is the amount which the Rabanan institute that a person should spend on a Chatas l'Chatchilah. Tosfos in Bava Basra (166b, DH Riv'asayim) writes that this is based on the verse which describes one's Korban as "Mivchar Nidreichem" -- "the choicest of your pledges" (Devarim 12:11). This phrase teaches that a person should always choose the "Meyuchad sheb'Edro" -- "the choicest of the flock" for his Korban. The Chachamim assessed that the choicest sheep normally costs a Sela. (Y. MONTROSE)
48b----------------------------------------48b
2) DERIVING LAWS OF "KORBAN HA'OF" FROM THE LAWS OF "KORBAN BEHEMAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether the laws of a Korban ha'Of (bird offering) may be derived from the laws of a Korban Behemah (animal offering). At one point, the Gemara interjects that the laws of a Korban ha'Of cannot be derived from the laws of a Korban Behemah, since a Korban Behemah is unique in that it requires that Shechitah be done with a Kli (whereas a Korban ha'Of requires only Melikah with one's fingers).
TOSFOS (DH Mah l'Ben Tzon) asks that the Gemara in Kidushin (36b) does derive a Halachah of Korban ha'Of from Korban Behemah. The Gemara there says that if, in the case of a Korban Behemah, the Torah does not require that a Kohen perform the Shechitah but it does require that a Kohen perform the Zerikah, then certainly, in the case of Korban ha'Of, for which the Torah does require that a Kohen perform the Melikah, a Kohen is required to perform the Haza'ah. Why does the Gemara there not respond that the laws of a Korban ha'Of cannot be derived from a Korban Behemah because of the unique law that a Korban Behemah requires Shechitah with a Kli?
ANSWERS:
(a) Tosfos answers that the teaching of the Gemara in Kidushin involves only one aspect of the Korban ha'Of and Korban Behemah; it is discussing certain Avodos that must be done by a Kohen. When only one aspect of the laws are being compared, a dissimilarity in a different aspect does not suffice to disrupt the comparison. In contrast, the Gemara here involves two aspects of the Korban ha'Of and Korban Behemah; it is discussing certain Avodos that must be done by a Kohen, and the Avodos which must be done in the north of the Azarah. Accordingly, a difference in any aspect of the Korbanos suffices to create a dissimilarity and disrupt the comparison between the two types of Korbanos.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Kidushin is deriving laws of Zerikah (and Haza'ah), not Shechitah. A dissimilarity between the two types of Korbanos in the laws of Shechitah is irrelevant. (Y. MONTROSE)