FROM THE DAF

John F. Kennedy and the CIA did not get along – and it all started by the Bay of Pigs.

In 1960, the CIA was worried about the young communist leader in Cuba, Fidel Castro. Working clandestinely, they financed and supported military groups attempting a coup to depose Castro. The problem: While the rebels initially showed success, they began to lose over time and it was obvious that they would fail without additional U.S support. JFK, much to the chagrin of the CIA leadership, declined to offer that support.

Botched missions are not limited to espionage. They come up in halacha too, including in the first Mishnah in Zevachim.

The Botched Korban

As enumerated in Sefer Vayikra, we have many different types of korbanos, including:

• A korban olah, that’s fully burned.
• A korban shelamim, that’s partially eaten by the owner with a portion given to Kohanim.
• Korban chatas and korban asham, which both atone for sins.

The mishnah (Zevachim 2a) says that if someone slaughtered a korban without having the proper korban in mind (eg. an olah was brought with the intent of a shelamim), the korban remains valid unless it’s a korban chatas or a korban pesa ch. Therefore, its blood can be sprinkled and its meat can be eaten.

However, the improper intent does have ramifications: It prevents the korban’s owner from satisfying any existing obligations. If he needed to bring an olah, he must still bring another olah. The botched korban won’t satisfy his obligation, despite the fact that it can be eaten.

Shouldn’t Botched Intent Do More?

Technically, a non-Kohen may slaughter a korban (see Berachos 31b). However, the default case remains that korbanos are generally brought and slaughtered by Kohanim. This leads the Sefer Hamakneh (Kedushin 23b) to ask a powerful question.

When a Kohen slaughters a korban on behalf of its owner, the Kohen acts as an agent for the owner.

This is based on the concept of shlichus (agency) – that someone can enlist an agent to perform an action on his behalf.

However, shlichus only works if the messenger performs the sender’s will. If the agent deviates from the sender’s will, the shlichus is void.

In our case, since the owner wanted a korban olah and the messenger instead slaughtered it as a shelamim, the agency should be ruined! Shouldn’t that render the korban unfit and prevent it from being eaten at all?

Answer #1 – The Thought May Not Count

The Sefer Hamakneh answers that since the messenger did the proper act of slaughtering the animal, he’s considered to have carried out the will of the sender. It’s true that his intent was wrong and that may cause halachic issues with the korban (namely, that the owner won’t satisfy his olah obligation). However, the improper intent is an external issue to his core shlichus and it doesn’t have the capacity to invalidate the shlichus.

A shlichus is only invalidated when the shliach performs a different action than the core action requested by the sender.

Answer #2 – What Would You Rather?

The Olas Shlomo answers that an agent deviating from his charge doesn’t automatically invalidate the shlichus – it only gives the sender the option to say his wishes were not fulfilled and thereby invalidate the shlichus.

In our case, it’s true that the messenger botched his mission. However, would the owner prefer to ruin the shlichus and have the entire korban be invalid? Or, would he prefer to keep the shlichus intact and just be obligated to bring another korban? Surely the latter! Since the owner will want to keep the shlichus intact, the korban will be valid and the only problem is that it won’t satisfy the owner’s olah obligation.

The Premise of the Sefer Hamakneh – Is It Really True?

The question of the Sefer Hamakneh is based on the premise that a Kohen is the messenger of the korban’s owner.

However, the Olas Shlomo asks that this can’t always be true, based on a Mishnah in Menachos.

The Mishnah (93b) says that a deaf-mute, shotah or minor can’t bring a korban because they are unable to perform semicha (leaning on the korban).

Why doesn’t the Mishnah say a different reason – that a deaf-mute, a shotah and minor don’t have the capacity to be a shliach?

The Olas Shlomo explains that when slaughtering a korban, shlichus is only needed if the owner has a legal right in the korban. In a korban shelamim, the owner has a right to the meat. In a korban oleh, chatas or shelamim, the owner receives an atonement.

When a deaf-mute or minor bring a korban, they don’t have full ownership over the korban – thus, they have no legal rights in it. Therefore, shlichus isn’t required when a Kohen (or anyone else) slaughters a korban on their behalf and the only reason why they can’t bring a korban is the inability to perform semicha.