Bava Kamma - Daf 76
- Why being makdish a stolen animal as a korban is not tantamount to selling it to be chayav ‘ד’ וה
The Mishnah on Daf 74b taught that if one stole an animal, was makdish it as a korban, and shechted it, he does not pay ד' וה'. The Gemara asks, although the shechitah does not obligate ד' וה' (because it was no longer the owner’s), he should pay ד' וה' for being makdish it: מה לי מכרו להדיוט מה לי מכרו לשמים – what difference is it to me whether he sells it to an ordinary person or sells it to Heaven? Two answers are suggested to attribute the Mishnah to a Tanna who holds the makdish retains ownership in certain cases of hekdesh, but these answers are rejected. The Gemara ultimately distinguishes between selling and being makdish: When one sells to a הדיוט, מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דשמעון – originally it was [the seller] Reuven’s cow, and now it is [the buyer] Shimon’s cow. מכרו לשמים – But if he “sells” (i.e., is makdish( it to Heaven, מעיקרא תורא דראובן והשתא תורא דראובן – it was originally Reuven’s cow, and now it is still Reuven’s cow (meaning, it is called “Reuven’s korban,” because it atones for him and is brought for his sake).
- Rebbe Shimon: liable for קדשים שחייב באחריותן, and why it is not שחיטה שאינה ראויה
In the Mishnah, Rebbe Shimon said that one pays ד' וה' for קדשים שחייב באחריותן – korbanos for which he bears responsibility. The Gemara explains that he refers to someone who stole a korban, where the Tanna Kamma holds he does not pay ד' וה', because “וגונב מבית האיש” – and it was stolen from the man’s house, implies ולא מבית הקדש – but not from the house of hekdesh. Rebbe Shimon holds that if the owner bore responsibility for the stolen korban, the thief does pay ד' וה', because it is considered stolen “from his house.” Because the owner must replace the korban if it is lost, he has a monetary interest in it, which Rebbe Shimon considers legal ownership. The Gemara asks: since when the thief shechts the korban outside the Mikdash, it is unfit for consumption, and Rebbe Shimon holds such a shechitah is not considered shechitah, why does he pay ד' וה'? In the first two answers, the Gemara explains it was shechted as a korban in the Mikdash. The owner did not receive the atonement, because (1) the blood was spilled before sprinkling, or (2) it was not shechted for his sake. Reish Lakish answers that the animal was blemished and was shechted outside the Mikdash.
- Rebbe Shimon holds כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי
Rebbe Elazar challenged the above answers: since shechitah alone does not permit a korban (in consumption), rather it is the subsequent sprinkling of the blood, the shechitah was not “fit” and should not obligate ד' וה'!? Similarly, in the last answer that he shechted a בעל מום, it is only permitted to be eaten after redemption, so the shechitah was not “fit” at the time!? The Gemara answers that Rebbe Elazar forgot Rebbe Shimon’s opinion, that כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי – any blood which stands to be thrown on the mizbeiach, is considered like it was already thrown, and is considered permitted in consumption, וכל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי - and anything which stands to be redeemed is considered like it was already redeemed.
