Answers to this Week’s Riddles

Answers to this Week’s Riddles

(For riddles see back page)

1. The Chasam Sofer (Shu”t Even HaEzer 2:22) maintains that Yitzhar in fact erred in naming his son after the wicked Korach, and this contributed to his downfall.
   The Pardes Yosef answers that the prohibition against naming a child after a wicked person only applies after the giving of the Torah, but Korach was born in Egypt prior to the giving of the Torah.
   The M’rafsin Igri cites the opinion of the Tosefos Yeshanim that this prohibition does not apply to a name that is given to a baby by Hashem, and the Zohar HaKadosh teaches that Hashem gave Korach his name. Alternatively, he quotes the P’nei Yehoshua, who writes that the prohibition only applies to names in which the name itself inherently connotes the individual’s wickedness, which is not the case with the name Korach. Finally, he suggests that the prohibition only applies to the names of evil Jews, but not to names of wicked non-Jews such as Korach. (R’ Ozer Alport, Parsha Potpourri)
2. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (110a) teaches that Yosef hid three collections of treasures in Egypt, one of which was found by Korach, which gave him one-third of all the Egyptian wealth that Yosef gathered. However, a different Gemara in Pesochim (119a) disagrees and says that the Jewish people collectively took all of Yosef’s accumulated possessions with them when they left Egypt. They brought it to Eretz Yisroel, where it remained until the reign of King Rechavam, at which point the Egyptian king Shishak took it all away (Melochim 1 14:25-26), in which case Yosef’s treasures could not have been the source of Korach’s riches.
   A sefer called Einei HaEidah quotes a Medrash that says that Pharaoh initially ordered everyone to work for one day to show how many bricks they were capable of making. Korach recognized Pharaoh’s true intentions, so he worked the entire day but said that his goal was to produce beautiful bricks fit for Pharaoh, and as a result, he only managed to make one brick. When Pharaoh subsequently decreed that every Jewish slave had to double his original daily production, Korach was exempted, since his new quota would be a meager two bricks. Nevertheless, he continued to privately make bricks, and with the aid of his family, he amassed a tremendous quantity. When Pharaoh later punished the Jews by requiring them to maintain their production levels even though they would no longer be supplied with straw (Shemos 5:18), they approached Korach to buy bricks from him so that they could fulfill Pharaoh’s orders. As demand for Korach’s bricks increased, he continued to raise the price, and because the Jewish slaves had no choice but to pay, he succeeded in accumulating massive wealth. (R’ Ozer Alport, Parsha Potpourri)
3. The sefer Likutei Chover Ben Chaim (Vol. 4, pg. 12) brings that a non-Jewish doctor once asked this question to the Rebbe of the Chasam Sofer.
   The Chasam Sofer answered, that there is a big difference between what happened to Korach, and what happens by a regular earthquake. The Ramban (16:30) explains the pasuk (16:33): ותכס עליהם הארץ – “the land covered them”, that normally after an earthquake happens the land stays slightly open, by the story of Korach, however, it didn’t. It swallowed Korach and then closed completely, like one who opens his mouth to swallow food. This was proof that it was a special miracle and not just a regular earthquake. The Chasam Sofer answered the doctor based on this Ramban.
   The Chasam Sofer (cited in Toras Moshe) writes that apikorsim [heretics] say, that Moshe Rabbeinu made tunnels under the ground and placed dynamite there, and when it blew up the ground opened up under Korach. Again, the Chasam Sofer cites the Ramban which says that the ground completely closed up after swallowing Korach. If it was done with dynamite this would never have happened, therefore, we see how floored the argument the apikorsim like to make is.
   There is a big chiddush brought down by the Pesikta Zutrasa (16:33). The Pesikta Zutrasa writes, that the land opened up separately for each one of the 250 people that was swallowed, and the size of each person’s hole was different depending on the size of the person that was being swallowed. Based on the Pesikta Zutrasa we can suggest another answer to the non-Jewish doctor. If it was a simple earthquake there wouldn’t have been 250 individual wholes, tailor made for each individual. Therefore, it must be it was something miraculous.(Otzer Palois HaTorah)
4. The Shevet Mussar (37:22) cites a Medrash that says that fighting and discord is such a severe sin that on the day of Korach's rebellion the mon did not fall, whereas on the day of the sin of the eigel hazahav [golden calf], which was presumably a greater sin, the mon did fall because there was peace and unity among the people. This explains why Moshe was unable to demonstrate Korach's true spiritual status based on the location of his mon.
   As far as what the people ate on that day, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman in Ayeles HaShachar (Shemos 16:4) suggests that they had to purchase food from nomadic merchants in the area.
   Alternatively, R’ Chaim Kanievsky answers: It could be that mon fell on that day, however, Korach held that what he was doing was so correct, and he felt that the reason his mon fell far away that day, was because he wasn’t fighting enough.
5. The Har Tzvi (Al HaTorah, quoting HaRav Razin) asks why the Mishnah needs to say “In three places the Kohanim would guard the Beis HaMikdosh”, from the fact that the Mishnah proceeds to list only three places which were guarded we already know that they only guarded three places?
   He answers, the Mishnah is teaching that they were only allowed to guard the Beis HaMikdosh in three places, and if they would guard it in more than three places there would be a prohibition of ba’al tosif.
   However, the Har Tzvi argues vehemently and say there is no prohibition of ba’al tosif. The reason the Mishnah mentions three is because it is coming to teach that the Beis HaMikdosh must be guarded in at least three places, however, if Kohanim would want to guard it in more than three places they would be allowed to.
   The Har Tzvi points out, if the number three would be specific and teach than one could only do three, it would come out that one isn’t allowed to eat more than three meals on Shabbos, and doing so would be in violation of ba’al tosif.
   The Har Tzvi then offers a number of reasons for why there is no problem of ba’al tosif:
   i) Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 28b) says, although the Gemara in Succah (6b) teaches that when it comes to building a succah, two walls and a third wall the size of a tefech is kosher, if one makes four walls the succah is still kosher. Tosfos asks: Why is it not ba’al tosif to make four walls? Tosfos answers: “Making four wall is better as it makes the succah more suitable for dwelling in”. If so, we can make the same argument by the Beis HaMikdosh. Since the purpose of guarding it was for kavod haMikdosh, the more shemirah [protection] there is the better, therefore, there is no problem of ba’al tosif.
   Ii) Tosfos in Rosh Hashanah (16b) writes that there is no ba’al tosif when one does the same mitzvah twice. If the Kohanim guard the Beis HaMikdosh in more than three places, they are simply doing the same mitzvah a second time, therefore, there is no prohibition of ba’al tosif.
   iii) There is no ba’al tosif when two people perform the mitzvah.
6. The Gemara in Gittin (31a) teaches that terumah may be separated במחשבה. Rashi explains that this is done by looking at one side of the food and declaring it to be terumah while eating from the other side. Although one is not required to actually perform the action of separating terumah, Rashi maintains that it must still be verbally pronounced in order be effective. Tosfos (Bechoros 59a) disagrees, as the Mishnah (Terumos 1:6) rules that if a mute person separates terumah, it takes effect. Tosfos points out that since the mute person obviously cannot make any verbal declarations, it must be that mental intent to separate it is sufficient. The Chavatzeles HaSharon resolves Rashi’s opinion by suggesting that he only requires a verbal pronouncement in a case where the person is not doing any other act of separating terumah, in which case mental intent is insufficient. However, Rashi would agree that if someone actually separates terumah, a mental declaration is then sufficient, which would explain how a mute person could separate terumah.