Answers to this Week’s Riddles

(For the riddles, please see back page)

1. The B’nei Yissachar explains that the difference in Moshe’s response lies in the fact that in the first episode he was speaking to a group of men who were tomei, while in Parshas Pinchas he was interacting with the daughters of Tzelafchad. Because the Mishnah (Avos 1:5) teaches that men should not talk to women any more than necessary, Moshe viewed it as excessive and unnecessary to tell them to wait while he sought a response to their claim. (R’ Ozer Alport)
2. The Madanay Asher brings eight answers to this question:
   1. The Shu”t Chasam Sofer (6:56) suggests, that the mekoshesh never desecrated Shabbos in public, and only one who desecrates Shabbos in public is considered a mumar. However, the Chasam Sofer rejects this approach as Rashi says that the mekoshesh carried the wood, “to Moshe, Aharon and the entire assembly”. Therefore, it’s clear that he violated Shabbos publicly. However, he concludes, that it depends on which melachah [forbidden activity] the mekoshesh actually did. According to the opinion that he carried wood four amos in the public domain, then he clearly desecrated Shabbos publicly. However, some learn that the aveirah was that he gathered (me’amer) or he uprooted (toilesh). According to these later opinions, it may well be that there wasn’t ten people present when he desecrated Shabbos.
   2. A second answer the Chasam Sofer brings, is that one only becomes a mumar if he violates Shabbos publicly more than once. Perhaps Tzelafchad only did it once, therefore, he wasn’t considered a mumar. However, the Chasam Sofer asks, the Medrash says: “He came in front of Moshe, then in front of Aharon, and then in front of Klal Yisroel”, and it would seem that he did in fact desecrate Shabbos more than once.
   3. The Chasam Sofer then suggests a third answer. Tosfos in Bava Basra (119b) learns that the mekoshesh acted leshem Shomayim [for the sake of Heaven]. Since he acted with good intention, perhaps he isn’t considered a mumar. However, he asks on this peshat as well, as although he may have had good intentions, we don’t find that he was saved from being killed by Beis Din, therefore, presumably it doesn’t help to avoid being considered a mumar either.
   4. A number of Achronim learn (see Shu”t Mahari, Yoreh Deah 50, Chida Pesach Einayim, Chullin 5b) that one who desecrates Shabbos publicly, is only considered a mumar in regard to the entire Torah on a rabbinic level, on a Torah level he isn’t. Perhaps the Mordechai holds like these Achronim, and since on a Torah level Tzelafchad wasn’t considered a mumar, the daughters correctly argued that their mother should be obligated to perform yibbum.
   5. The Kli Chemda offers an answer based on a chiddush from the Panim Yofois. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (41) says: They found the mekoshesh, they warned him, and he continued to transgress. The question is, what significance is it to us, that he was already desecrating Shabbos before he received a warning (hasroh)? According to the opinion that the melachah he was transgressing was carrying four amos in the reshus harabbim, the chiddush is, even though he was warned after he already carried two amos, since he hadn’t yet finished the melachah, it was still considered a valid warning. Similarly, according to the opinion that the melachah was kotzer [harvesting], there is a certain amount one must harvest (a grogeres), the chiddush is, that even though he started the melachah without any warning, since there was still more of the melachah to do, the warning was a valid warning. In short, the Panim Yofois is mechadesh that a warning given during the final part of the melachah is a valid warning. Based on this the Kli Chemda answers: In regard to chillul Shabbos a hasroh [warning] halfway through the melachah is enough, however, it doesn’t help in regard to making one a mumar, since the entire act wasn’t carried out with a hasroh. Since Tzelafchad only received hasroh halfway through the melachah he wasn’t considered a mumar.
   6. The mekoshesh did viduy and teshuvah, as when one is killed by Beis Din he says viduy. Since he did teshuvah he was no longer considered a mumar. (See Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Likutei Teshuvos siman 56, see inside for rayas that he did teshuvah)
   7. The Shu”t Ginzei Yosef (81:2) answers: The Mordechai only says a mumar doesn’t do yibbum, if the husband dies without execution from Beis Din. If, however, he is killed by Beis Din, that itself is a kaporah [atonement]. The mekoshesh was killed by Beis Din, therefore, he had a kaporah, and his wife should have had to perform yibbum.
   8. The Mordechai that says a mumar’s wife is exempt from yibbum is only if the husband rebelled against religion, left Judaism, and attached himself to another nation. The mekoshesh wasn’t like this, therefore, his wife was able to perform yibbum. (See Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Likutei Teshuvos siman 56)
3. The Dover Shalom, one of the commentaries printed in the Siddur Otzar HaTefillos, explains that most of the korbonos are brought as a result of human action, such as a person who sinned and needs atonement or one who survived a dangerous situation and wants to express thanksgiving. For this reason, they are considered to belong to the people who bring them. On the other hand, Hashem commanded us to offer the korban tomid twice daily to bring Divine blessing to the world, so it is referred to as Hashem’s offering.
4. However, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman (Ayeles HaShachar) cites a Medrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 21:21) that says that there was never a person in Yerusholayim with sin on his hands, as the korban tomid offered in the morning atoned for any sins he may have committed during the night, and the korban tomid brought in the afternoon atoned for sins that were done during the day, which implies that the korban tomid also served to bring forgiveness. He suggests that nevertheless, it was not considered as linked to atonement as the other offerings. (R’ Ozer Alport)
5. There is an unbelievable chiddush from the Radak in Yechezkel (46:13). The pasuk says: וכבש בן שנתו תמים, the pasuk only mentions about one sheep being offered up Le’osid Lovoi. The Radak extrapolates from here, that Le’osid Lovoi, there will only be one korban tomid offered up in the morning. In the afternoon there will be no korban tomid. The question is, why should this be? R’ Yonason Eibshitz (Ahavas Yonason, Haftorah to Parshas HaChodesh) writes: “Many ask, why does it not mention the afternoon tomid? It appears, the morning tomid atones for sins involving bad thoughts (Yerushalmi Yoma 8:7) and the afternoon tomid atones for mistakes made in learning at night, like we find “night was created for learning” (Eruvin 65a). Le’osid Lovoi: והיה לעת ערב יהיה אור– “Towards evening it will be light (Zechariya 14:7). I.e. there will be no night, and there will be no need for the afternoon tomid. There will only be an obligation to bring a morning tomid, to atone for the sin of looking to much at the Shechinah, as that will be the only sin in the future.” Based on the above, the Chida (Midbar Keidmois, Mareches 400, ois 3) explains why Maseches Tomid is called “Tomid” in the singular, and not “Tamidim” in the plural. “In the future we won’t bring two tamidim, rather, we will bring just one, so writes the Radak in siman 46 on the pasuk וכבש בן שנתו. HaGaon HaChosid the Ma’aseh Roke’ach writes, that for this reason Rabbeinu HaKodosh called Maseches Tomid, “Tomid”, to hint that in the third Beis HaMikdosh there will only be one korban tomid. (Otzer Pelois HaTorah)
6. The Yerushalmi (Pe’ah 7:3) says: שני תמידין שהיו מקריבין בכל יום היו מרכיבין על גבי גמל ורגליהן נוגעות בארץ – “The two tamidin that were offered up every day, came on the back of camels and their feet would reach the ground”. Tosfos in Menachos (87a, d.h. shegovan) quotes the same thing from a Medrash. The question is, a camel is a non-kosher animal, and it’s forbidden to bring non-kosher animals into the Beis HaMikdosh. If so, how were they able to bring the sheep being used for the korban tomid into the Beis HaMikdosh on the back of a camel? R’ Dov Landau shlita was asked this question and he answered: The camels didn’t enter the Beis HaMikdosh. The sheep were brought to the entrance of the Beis HaMikdosh on camels; however, they were then taken down and carried in on their own. (Otzer Pelois HaTorah)
7. The Mishnah (Taanis 4:6) records five calamities that befell our ancestors on Shiva Asar B’Tammuz, one of which was the cessation of the offering of the korban tomid, a sacrifice whose laws are recorded in Parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 28:3-8). (Parsha Challenge)