[Avodah] Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal

[Zev Sero]

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> Are you referring to the machlokes in Menachot 58a?  If so, the gemara
>> there says that the only difference between them is the flesh of chatat
>> ha'of.  Neither of them bans honey that is not burnt as part of a korban,
>> or as a korban.  And the Rambam explicitly paskens that honey can be
>> brought up, even to be burnt, if it's not intended as a korban.  Clearly
>> nesachim, which are not burnt at all, are excluded from this prohibition.
>> Issurei Mizbeach 5:1-2.

> The Rambam (Ma'aseh HaKarbanos 2:1) says that nesachim which come "im 
> hakorban" are poured, not burnt, on the altar.  He says (Issurei Mizbeah 
> 5:1) that you are hayyav on seor and dvash if you offer them (hiktiram) 
> "im hakorban o l'shem korban".

No.  "Lehaktir" means to *burn*, not to offer.


> It's clear then, that if "hiktiram" 
> means "bringing them onto the altar as part of a korban" then you are 
> hayyav.  You maintain, on the contrary, that "hiktiram" means burning.

Yes, that's what the word means.  You can't get away from that.

  
> But the sugya in Menahos demonstrates that that can't be because, as you 
> correctly point out, hatas haof isn't burnt.

And the machlokes is over what happens if you *did* burn it.  Look at
the gemara: "Rami bar Chama asked R Chisda, what if one brought the
flesh of chatat ha'of up on the altar?"   That is what this piece of
gemera is about, and that is what the machloket tana'im is about.

This sugya has nothing to do with se'or and devash; it's about the
prohibition of bringing up the leftovers of anything that is "mimenu
isheh" or that is a "korban", depending on how you darshen it.  Look
on the previous page: the prohibition applies (lechol hade'ot) to the
flesh of chatat, asham, kodshei kodshim, kodshei kalim, the leftovers
of the omer, shtei halechem, lechem hapanim, or menachot.  These are
all *both* "mimenu isheh" and "korban".  But chatat ha'of and the oil
of a metzora are both "korban" but not "mimenu isheh", and so the
machloket concerns them.  Se'or and devash are really irrelevant to
this whole discussion; they're only mentioned in passing while
quoting the pasuk.



> The law in 5:3 that you 
> cite says that things that are brought "l'sheim eitzim" are not 
> considered to be brought "im hakorban", but that can't apply to nesachim 
> since the Rambam specifically says that nesachim are offered "im hakorban".

But they are not burnt "im hakorban".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher