1) ARE "NESACHIM" OFFERED WITH A NOCHRI'S "KORBAN OLAH"?
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses various laws of a Korban donated by a Nochri. One law is that the Nochri does not have to bring Nesachim with his Korban. A different Beraisa derives this from the verse which places the requirement of Nesachim on an "Ezrach" -- "citizen" (Bamidbar 15:13), meaning a member of the Jewish people. The Beraisa continues that one may have assumed that the Korban Olah of a Nochri needs no Nesachim at all, and therefore the verse says "Kachah" -- "so it should be" (ibid.), to teach that although the Nesachim do not have to be brought by the Nochri, his Korban should be offered with Nesachim. Who supplies the Nesachim that are offered with the Korban of a Nochri?
(a) RASHI (DH Talmud Lomar) writes that although the Nochri does not have to bring Nesachim, if he sends the money for the Nesachim along with his Korban, that money may be used to purchase wine for Nesachim. If he chooses not to provide money for the Nesachim, public funds are used to purchase the Nesachim.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 3:5) writes, "The Olos of Nochrim do not have Nesachim brought from them.... However, their Nesachim are brought from the public." The Rambam implies that a Nochri cannot send Nesachim at all, and if he does, they are not accepted.
Many Acharonim have difficulty with the ruling of the Rambam. Rashi quotes the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:6) which states that if a Nochri sends money for Nesachim, those Nesachim are offered with his Korban. The Gemara in Menachos (73b) also seems to conclude that a Nochri may send his Nesachim along with his Korban, according to Rebbi Akiva. Why does the Rambam rule otherwise?
1. The MAHARI KURKUS answers that the Rambam's ruling is based on his Girsa of the Mishnah and Gemara in Temurah (3a). Rashi himself in Temurah (3a, DH Talmud Lomar) quotes two texts, and he cites both of the above explanations. Although the explanation of Rashi here in Zevachim is consistent with the Mishnah in Shekalim and with one version of the text in Temurah (and therefore seems to be the correct explanation), the Mahari Kurkus suggests that the Rambam must have conclusive evidence (in his opinion) that the other text is correct. Despite the fact that the Gemara in Menachos (73a) concludes that Rebbi Akiva maintains that a Nochri may send Nesachim along with his Korban, an alternate explanation of the Gemara understands that Rebbi Akiva does not maintain that a Nochri may send Nesachim. Although the Gemara there rejects this explanation, the Rambam apparently maintains that the Gemara in Temurah does not reject that approach. Once the Rambam bases himself on the explanation of Rebbi Akiva, the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:6) is not relevant, due to the principle of "Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva me'Chaveiro" -- the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva over his colleague. This is why the Rambam rules that a Nochri may not send Nesachim with his Korban.
The LECHEM MISHNEH rejects the answer of the Mahari Kurkus based on an explicit ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Shekalim (4:3). The Rambam there writes that "[when] a Nochri sends an Olah from a different country and does not send money for Nesachim, they should bring the Nesachim from the Terumas ha'Lishkah." According to the Mahari Kurkus, the Rambam contradicts himself!
2. The Lechem Mishneh therefore explains that the Rambam indeed maintains that a Nochri may send money for Nesachim. In Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos, the Rambam means merely that a Nochri is not required to send Nesachim, but not that he cannot send Nesachim if he wants to do so (as the Rambam mentions in Hilchos Shekalim).
This explanation seems quite straightforward. Why does the Mahari Kurkus not give this explanation?
The MEKOROS V'TZIYUNIM (of the FRANKEL edition of the RAMBAM, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 3:5) points out that most Acharonim, including the Mahari Kurkus, have a different text of the Rambam in Hilchos Shekalim which read, "One who sends...," and not, "A Nochri who sends...." They therefore understand that the Rambam in Hilchos Shekalim refers to a Jew, not to a Nochri, in which case the Rambam's terminology in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos implies that a Nochri may not send Nesachim at all.
2) THE "TAMEI" BLOOD OF A NOCHRI'S KORBAN
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the Halachah in the case of blood of a Korban which was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach even thought it had become Tamei. If this occurred with the blood of an individual's Korban, the Zerikah is valid, as long as it was done without knowledge that the blood was Tamei. If the Zerikah was intentionally done with Tamei blood, then the Zerikah is not valid.
RASHI (DH b'Mezid) explains that the Gemara is not discussing the issue of whether or not the owner has fulfilled his obligation to bring a Korban, because, mid'Oraisa, the Tzitz atones for Zerikah with Tamei blood even when the Zerikah was done intentionally. The question is whether or not the Korban may be eaten. The Chachamim ruled that when the Zerikah was intentionally done with Tamei blood, the meat of the Korban may not be eaten, as a penalty.
The Gemara continues and says that if the Korban was a public Korban, the meat may be eaten even if the Zerikah was intentionally done with Tamei blood.
If, however, the Korban was that of a Nochri, the Tzitz does not atone for its Zerikah, even to make the Korban itself valid. The Gemara gives various reasons for this, and it concludes with the verse quoted by Rav Ashi which describes this aspect of the Tzitz, "l'Ratzon Lahem" -- "for appeasement for them" (Shemos 28:38). This implies that the Tzitz is an appeasement for them, the Jewish people, and not for Nochrim.
Despite the dispute about the source of the Halachah, all of the opinions here clearly maintain that the Halachah is that Zerikah done with Tamei blood invalidates the Korban of a Nochri.
The Acharonim are bothered by the fact that this Halachah is not recorded by the RAMBAM. Why does the Rambam omit this Halachah?
(a) The KEREN ORAH answers that the Rambam maintains that the blood of Kodshim in general can never become Tamei. He bases this ruling on other sources. According to the Rambam, the Halachah that the Tzitz atones for Korbanos which became Tamei applies to the Kemitzah flour of a Minchah which became Tamei. Since a Nochri cannot bring a Korban Minchah, the Ritzuy ha'Tzitz is not relevant to a Nochri.
The YAD BINYAMIN asks that the Halachah still should be relevant to meat of a Korban of a Nochri which became Tamei before the Zerikah. In such a case, the Kohen would not be able to do the Zerikah, since there is no Korban for which to do the Zerikah, since the Korban has become Tamei. This is relevant even according to the Rambam, and therefore the question remains: why does the Rambam omit this Halachah?
(b) The EVEN HA'AZEL and CHIDUSHEI HA'GRIZ explain that when the Gemara says that the Tzitz is not "l'Ratzon" -- "for appeasement" for the Nochri, it means that the part of the Korban which is normally the "appeasement" of the Korban -- the blood -- is not subject to appeasement by the Tzitz for the Nochri. This means that if the blood becomes Tamei, the Korban has the status that it has before the Zerikah is done, and thus the limbs may not be placed on the Mizbe'ach. However, if the limbs of the Korban become Tamei, the Zerikah may be done, since the burning of the limbs would be valid b'Di'eved. Why would the burning be valid, if the meat is irrevocably Tamei? The Even ha'Azel explains that since there is no issue of the burning of the Eimurin being an appeasement for the Nochri (since the Haktaras Eimurin is not the main "appeasement" of the Korban), the meat of the Korban is like any other Tamei limbs that were placed on the Mizbe'ach (which, b'Di'eved, are valid).
The Even ha'Azel addresses another interesting aspect of the Rambam's omission of this Halachah. The Rambam should record this Halachah because of another practical consequence: if the Zerikah is not valid, the Nochri must be informed that he must bring another Korban. The Even ha'Azel suggests that when a Nochri pledges to bring a Korban, his only obligation is that he must literally bring a Korban to the Beis ha'Mikdash, and not that it should necessarily atone for him. The Rambam therefore does not write that the Nochri must be informed, because the Nochri has no obligation to bring another Korban; he has already fulfilled his pledge. (Y. MONTROSE)