Could I please get some help to better understand this drasha? This is the best way I could explain it, but it seems to be circular reasoning.
What seems circular is that I am using the distinction between the two types of vowed offerings as a proof that it is only one type of offering being discussed by the passuk. If I didn't already have that distinction, would I learn the distinction from the passuk?
Also, how does the concept of kapara apply to voluntary offerings? Unless it were to deal with the guilt of not fulfilling a vow, or not fulfilling it in a timely fashion, I don't understand how kapara fits in.
In our recent parsha we have the discussion of a woman and her guilt or her husband or father's guilt if her vow is anulled.? Perhaps there is a certain amount of guilt if a person makes a vow on a nedava offering and it dies, or is lost or stolen, and he then fails to fulfill the offering?? Is this how kapara applies to an exemption to a nedava?
My interest in this particular drasha is as part of all gemara drashos on parshas vayikra, that the Torah Temima quotes it on passuk 1:4.
The Gemara distinguishes between two types of vow offerings, a neder and a nedava.? A neder is a vow on the person himself that he will bring a sacrifice.? A nedava is a vow on the animal that it will be sacrificed. We learn out the difference is if the animal dies or is stolen or is lost. In the case of a neder, the person still has his personal obligation to bring an offering, and will have to substitute another animal. In the case of a nedava, the person is considered to no longer have any responsibility, and does not have to replace it. Our source for this through Rabi Shimon??(tm)s explanation is Vayikra 1:4, on the word ???alav?? that what??(tm)s ??on him? he is responsible for. In our passuk ??alav? is ??To atone for him.? That means that he gains atonement only when his sacrifice is offered. This refers to a korban obligation that is phrased as on him as opposed to on a particular animal. Thus our verse refers only to a neder, not to a nedava.
Note: this reasoning seems a bit circular... more information is needed...
The Gemara was aware of the fact that there area two ways of making oneself obligated to bring a Karban. The Gemara is looking for a source that there is a Halachic difference between the two cases. The Gemara brings a Drashah to demonstrate that in a case where the person obligated himself with a duty to bring a Karban ("Alav"), as opposed to where the person was Makdish an animal, but did not place any obligation on himself as to the bringing of the Karban.
Olah is m'Chapeir for Aseih (Zevachim 7) and for Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseih (Rashi va'Yikra 1:5 from Toras Kohanim 4:8). Va'Yikra Raba says that Olah is m'Chapeir for Hirhurei Aveirah.
Dov Freedman