Answers to this Week’s Riddles
(For riddles see back page)
1) First, the pasuk says “ya’arach oiso” – “he should arrange it” (Shemos 27:21), only the cleaning and preparation of the menorah had to be done by a kohen, the actual lighting of the menorah need not be done by a kohen (Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaMikdosh 9:7). However, the very first lighting of the menorah was unique in that it had to be done by Aharon HaKohen. Second, the first time that the menorah was lit, was obviously not preceded by cleaning; however, each subsequent lighting had to be preceded by “hatava” – “cleaning”.
2) A source to this minhag is the Gemara in Shabbos (66b) which teaches: כל מנייני בשמא דאימא – “(Abaye said) My mother told me, all spells (לחישות) used for healing should be done with mentioning the mothers name” (Translation based on Rashi). (See Ponim Yofois end of Parsha, and Chasam Sofer to Gemara in Shabbos) However, what is the reason?
The Shu”t Torah Lishmah (399) writes: Generally speaking, there are more accusations (kitrugim) on a man than there is on a woman. Women are exempt from time bound mitzvos, and from the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Moreover, women don’t have the sin of keri, therefore, it’s best to use the mother’s name.
The Maharshal (Chochmas Shlomah, Shabbos 66b) writes: The reason is because people are more certain of who their mother is than who their father is. A person knows 100% who is mother is, however, one only knows who his father is based on chazakah and rov.
The Ben Yehoyodoh (Berachos 55b) vehemently argues on the above. He says, it is lack of kavod to refrain from davening using the fathers name based on the above reasoning. (However, see Sefer Me’or Yisroel, Berachos 55b, who quotes the Zohar, in Parshas Lech Lecha 81a, who says this explicitly).
3) The Bartenura on the aforementioned Mishnah explains that the reason for not interrupting somebody who is in the middle of speaking is so that he should not become confused and distracted. He writes that the source for this teaching is Hashem’s request (12:6) that Aharon and Miriam please listen to his words of rebuke for speaking negatively of Moshe. In introducing His comments in this manner, Hashem was asking them to hear Him out and not to interrupt Him. If this concept applies to Hashem, Who does not lose His focus, all the more so does it require us to hear out a human speaker in full before responding. (R’ Ozer Alport)
4) The Rayah M’Himna (Ekev, pg. 273) answers: There is rule that shlichuy mitzvah einom nizokim, those carrying out mitzvos are protected from harm. Lechem mishnah is a mitzvah, therefore, there is no concern.
The Shu”t Shem MiShimon (Orach Chaim 14) answers: On Shabbos the demons associated with zugos have no power, therefore, there is no concern.
R’ Gamilel Rabinovitch in Gam Ani Odcha (2:8) answers: The Gemara in Pesochim (110b) teaches: “Two eggs, two nuts, two cucumbers, and something else which is a halachah l’Moshe m’Sinai is a problem of zugos”. Chazal are unsure what “something else” is, therefore, they made a gezeirah [enactment] on everything. However, it’s a gezeirah derabbonon, therefore, perhaps when it comes to the mitzvah of lechem mishnah, where there are opinions that it’s de’O’rasia they never made a gezeirah.
Another answer we can suggest is: Although we use two loaves for lechem Mishnah we don’t actually eat both, therefore, there is no problem. It’s true that there are two loaves on the table, but we don’t find that having items in numbers of two on the table are a problem. If it was, it would be a problem to have two bottles of wine on the table as well.
We find such an answer by eruvin. The Gemara in Eruvin (30a) cites the opinion of R’ Yosef, that if one uses eggs when making an eruv he should use two. The Besomim Rosh (183) and Reshash ask that surely it is a problem of zugos. The Nimukei HaGriv answers, one is for the night, and one is for the day, therefore, there is no problem. We see that doing things in pairs is not a problem, unless one eats both.
(The real answer is: The Gemara in Pesochim 110b says, “On loaves of bread, there is no problem of zugois”. The Achronim which ask the above question are a bit tzorich iyun.)
