Does the Kohein need to pour the nesachim l'shem the baalim of the korban?
-
Ah are you specifically asking about the wine part not the mincha part?– Double AA ♦Commented Jan 26, 2021 at 0:36
-
interesting i would think there is a difference between נסכים הבאים עם הזבח that those are a קיום בקרבן and נסכים הבאים בפני עצמם– Daniel WolfCommented Jan 26, 2021 at 20:21
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
The Yerushalmi (Pesachim 5:2 / 32a) might imply that at least the ones accompanying a metzora's offering do, since it says
וכי חטאתו של מצורע לא לחידושה יצאת שתהא טעונה נסכים לשם בעלים ודבר שיצא לחידושו אין למידין ממנו
"Wasn't a metzora's chatas-offering singled out for a novel rule, that it requires nesachim for the sake of the owner? And we can't derive other examples from something singled out for a novel rule."
Korban Haeidah there explains the Yerushalmi exactly that way - that it's attempting to use the fact that the nesachim of a metzora have to be לשם בעלים as a paradigm for other nesachim, which the Gemara then rejects. On the other hand, Pnei Moshe there seems to be saying that the novelty of the metzora's chatas is that it requires nesachim at all; according to him, לשם בעלים might refer to the chatas itself, not to its nesachim.
R. Mordechai Ilan, in Toras Hakodesh, argues that since nesachim are a requirement of the korban rather than of the person bringing it, they shouldn't need to be brought לשם בעלים. He mentions the above Yerushalmi and leaves it as צריך עיון, though perhaps the Pnei Moshe's explanation of this Yerushalmi could make it work (if in fact my understanding of him is correct).
