Negaim, Chapter 14, Mishnah 13. This is the closing mishnah of the perek and the closing mishnah of all of Maseches Negaim. It presents a tangled case: two metzora'im whose korbanos became mixed up with one another, one korban was already offered, and then one of the two men died. What is the surviving metzora supposed to do in order to become tahor and eat kodashim?
A preliminary note: when does the olah precede the chatas?
Before turning to the last mishnayos of the perek, one broad point about the order of korbanos deserves attention. As a rule, the chatas is brought ahead of the olah. There is a single departure from that rule. In Parshas Shelach Lecha, after the sin of the meraglim, the Torah sets down a group of halachos in korbanos, and among them is the offering brought when an entire tzibbur is drawn into avodah zarah because beis din ruled in error that the act was permitted. The pesukim there call for a par as the olah and a se'ir izim as the chatas (with the word chatas written chaser, missing the aleph). Rashi points out that although in general the chatas takes precedence, by avodah zarah the par serving as the olah is brought first.
Why should this be? The Sifsei Chachamim, and the Maharal of Prague as well in his Gur Aryeh on Chumash, explain as follows. The chatas normally leads because it brings kaparah, whereas the olah is in the nature of a present, and one does not stand before the King with a gift while his sin remains unatoned. Avodah zarah, however, carries a distinctive stringency: here HaKadosh Baruch Hu reckons the thought together with the deed, which is not so with other aveiros. Since the machshavah came first in time, and since the olah atones for the lighter items, thought among them, the olah is offered first to secure atonement for the machshavah, and the chatas that follows atones for the act itself.
The background the mishnah relies upon
Some background is needed. There are two versions of the metzora's korbanos. If he has means, he brings animals: a keves for his olah and a kivsah for his chatas, plus his asham. If he is poor, birds take the place of two of them. A pauper who nevertheless brings what a wealthy man brings has discharged his obligation, and he may even plan it that way from the outset, and tavo alav berachah, since he has given beyond what was required of him. The reverse fails entirely: a man of means who brings the pauper's version has accomplished nothing. Everything in our mishnah rests on that one halachah.
The Tiferes Yisrael's cry before this mishnah
This mishnah is renowned as the most difficult in the maseches, and the Tiferes Yisrael prefaces his commentary with a personal lament. His words run roughly thus: only through toil and perspiration did I win the bread of this thirteenth mishnah in the fourteenth perek, so daunting is it. Our teachers, who elsewhere nursed us at every place and in every hour, kept silence here, as if this fare were too tough to be set before infants; and I, small as I am, must lean upon their shoulders. He goes on: if those mighty ones, who raised us into Torah and always lifted us in their arms over every trackless road, have here left us behind like a sightless bat cast onto naked hills in the vineyard of Hashem Tzeva-os, where am I to find footing for my frail soles so as to expound this holy mishnah? He then continues for page after page. We will not follow his full analysis here, but his opening tells us how much ink this mishnah has demanded.
The words of the mishnah
The mishnah's words: "Shnei metzora'im shenis'arvu korbanoseihem," two metzora'im whose korbanos got mingled with each other. "Kareiv korbanov," a korban was brought on the mizbei'ach, "shel echad meihem," belonging to one of the pair, "umeis echad meihem," and afterwards one of the two men died.
How did the confusion arise? The Tiferes Yisrael spells it out. One might picture every animal jumbled with every other, but that cannot be, since the chataos are females and instantly recognizable as such. Rather, the animals were standing in distinct clusters: the olos in one place, the ashamim in another (both of these being male kevasim), and the chataos, the females, in a third. It was therefore perfectly clear which beast had been designated for which category of korban. The information that had been lost was ownership: nobody knew whose asham was whose, whose chatas was whose, or whose olah was whose.
"Kareiv korbanov shel echad meihem": the kohen offered one of them. A korban must be brought lesheim ba'alim, for the sake of its owner, yet the kohen need not pronounce a name. Since one of the two men is certainly the owner, he offers it for the sake of whoever that owner is, and that suffices. The Tosfos Yom Tov, citing the Rambam, points out that the korban at the center of the mishnah's difficulty is the chatas: the words "the korban of one of them was offered" mean one of the two chataos that had become intermingled.
The five chataos that must die
To follow the mishnah, one needs a halachah that appears in several places in Mishnayos, in Temurah and elsewhere in Kodashim: there are chamesh chataos meisos, five chataos that are not offered but are consigned to death. They are placed in an enclosure and left to die. They are not force-fed and not treated cruelly in any way, but their end is death rather than the mizbei'ach. The five are: a chatas whose owner died (which is precisely our case); a chatas whose owner already received his kaparah through another animal, as when the chatas was lost, a replacement was brought and offered, and then the first one turned up; the offspring of a chatas, since most chataos are female; an animal made temurah for a chatas; and a chatas that outlived its year, for instance a kivsah that is no longer within the year in which it is fit to be offered.
Why the surviving metzora is trapped
Now the difficulty. The Rav (Bartenura) frames it as a question about the second metzora, the one still living: what is to become of him, and how can he ever become tahor to eat kodashim?
Had his fellow remained alive, the mixture of korbanos would have caused no trouble at all. Each animal would simply be offered for the sake of its owner, whoever he is, and both owners are before us. Likewise, had the man died before either chatas was offered, both chataos would fall into the category of a chatas whose owner died, both would go to death because of that doubt, and the survivor would bring a fresh chatas.
But in our case one chatas has already been offered and the other is still alive. It cannot be offered, because perhaps it belongs to the man who died, in which case it is a chatas shemeisu ba'aleha and its end must be death. And the survivor cannot substitute a different chatas, because perhaps the chatas already offered was his own and his kaparah is complete; a further chatas would then be chullin ba'azarah, an unconsecrated animal slaughtered in the courtyard. Nor can he offer it conditionally as a nedavah, since a chatas never comes as a voluntary offering.
The men of Alexandria and Rebbi Yehoshua
"Zu shesha'alu anshei Aleksandriyah," this was among the matters that the community of Alexandria placed before Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya. The Gemara in Niddah preserves a long list of their queries; a number of them he brushed aside as shtuyos, foolishness, but this one he treated as a real kashya.
His reply: "Amar lahem," he told them, "yichtov nechasav le'acher," let him deed his possessions over to another person, "veyavi korban ani," and then bring the offering of a poor man. The Tiferes Yisrael notes that even a matanah al menas lehachzir, property handed over with the understanding that it will be given back to him, does the job. What matters is that at the time of the korban he qualifies as an ani.
The Rav spells out what this achieves. As a poor man he becomes eligible for the korban dalus, and his chatas is then a chatas ha'of, a bird. There is a particular halachah that a bird chatas may be brought even where the obligation is only a safeik; it is not regarded as chullin ba'azarah. That is precisely the escape this man requires. Should he instead retain his wealth and offer a bird chatas, he remains tamei, since one who has means and brings the offering assigned to the poor has not fulfilled his obligation at all.
The asham presents no problem
What about the asham? One could raise the same objection: since it is doubtful whether he still owes an asham, perhaps bringing one would render it chullin ba'azarah. Concerning this, says the Rav, there is nothing to ask, since the avodah of an asham's blood is identical to that of a shelamim. A line called the chut hasikra ran around the mizbei'ach at its midpoint. With animals, chatas blood is applied above that line, while the blood of an olah, a shelamim and an asham goes below it; and a chatas needs four matnas dam, while a shelamim or an asham needs only two. (With birds the pattern is inverted: the olas ha'of is performed above and the chatas ha'of below. Our concern here is with behemos.)
Since the asham and the shelamim are identical in the placement and number of their matanos, he can bring the animal with a stipulation: if I am obligated in an asham, let this be my asham, and if not, because my asham was already offered, let it be a shelamim. Either way the service performed is correct. This cannot be done with a chatas, whose blood requires four matanos above the chut hasikra, whereas a shelamim requires two below it; a single service cannot satisfy both possibilities.
The Kesef Mishneh's question, and why this mishnah is so hard
The Tosfos Yom Tov holds that the entire mishnah does not square with the halachah as we rule it. Our psak follows Rebbi Yehudah, for whom the asham fixes the metzora's category: if the man was wealthy when his asham was brought, he stays obligated in the offerings of a rich man even should he afterwards lose his money. Even so, the Rambam records our mishnah as halachah toward the close of Hilchos Mechusrei Kaparah without addressing the asham at all, and the Kesef Mishneh pushes the question: assuming this man was wealthy at the time his asham was offered, and the asham is the first of the metzora's korbanos, what does he gain by signing his property away now? He remains liable for animals, and a behemah chatas, unlike a bird chatas, cannot be brought where the obligation is uncertain.
The Tosfos Yom Tov answers that the mishnah reflects the view of Rebbi Shimon rather than the halachah we accept. Another approach is that the mishnah describes a situation in which the sequence went wrong: the kohen offered the chatas first and the asham had not yet been brought, so that nothing had yet fixed the man's category. This is exactly why the Ba'al Tiferes Yisrael labors so heavily on this mishnah, for one is drawn into the whole subject of a metzora whose offerings were performed shelo kahalachah, outside their proper order, and whether he is yotzei in such circumstances. Whether our mishnah is in fact discussing such a case is not entirely clear.
Concluding the maseches
With this we complete Maseches Negaim. Yasher ko'ach to all who learned along, and forgiveness is asked for any error or for anything not explained as fully as it deserved. May you go weiter and finish Shas in Mishnayos and in Gemara.
We finish during the Nine Days, and our tefillah is that we should be zocheh to the arrival of Mashiach Tzidkeinu and to the binyan of the Bayis Shelishi. A familiar question is asked: will the third Beis Hamikdash come down ready-made from Shamayim, formed miraculously by fire from above, or will it be constructed by human hands in the days of Mashiach? Rav Tukachinsky, in his Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash, suggests a combination: fire will descend from above and set the foundations and the bulk of the structure, yet people will still have a portion in completing the work, following the directions of Eliyahu HaNavi and Mashiach Tzidkeinu. May our troubles in these hard times reach their end speedily, and may there be shalom al Yisrael and shalom for all of mankind.