Answers to this Weeks Riddles

Answers to this Week’s Riddles

1. The Kesef HaKodshim (Hago’as, Choshen Mishpot, siman 9) writes: “That which it is customary to wait for the Raavad [Rav of the community] before starting chazoras hashatz, even if the one going to Beis Din is an avel and is davening for the amud, and he waits for the Raavad who is the dayan, it’s not a problem, since whoever was davening for the amud would have to wait. Additionally, מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו – the purpose of mitzvos is not for deriving benefit.”
2. There are several different answers:
   i) Since the king has a haircut every single day, it causes his hair to grow back quicker than that of a regular person, therefore, even on the same day it already starts to grow back. (Chasukei Chemed, Sanhedrin 22b)
   ii) The king didn’t cut all his hair off every time, rather, every single day for reasons of beauty he had a little bit of hair, cut off, therefore, he was able to have a haircut every single day. (Chasukei Chemed, Sanhedrin 22b)
   iii) Based on the Elyah Rabbah and Machatzis HaShekel, that there is no issur involved as the hair grows by itself, rather the problem is that it’s a lack of kavod, that one has a haircut in honor of Shabbos and on Shabbos itself the hair starts growing back. Perhaps we can say, that really hair grows a little bit every day, however, it is only recognizable after three days. Therefore, a king has a haircut every single day as a little bit grows every day, however, only after three days is it really recognizable. Therefore, one shouldn’t have a haircut on Thursday, as by Shabbos it will be recognizable that his hair is regrowing, and that is a lack of kavod Shabbos (Sefer Masoh Bnei Kehos, al HaRambam, Hilchos Melochim 2:5).
3. i) The simple answer would be that the king can wear fancy socks or fancy non-leather shoes, however, the Ma’aseh Rokeach (Hilchos Shevisas Osar, Perek 3) asks that according to the Bach, that the main obligation on Yom Kippur is to walk around barefoot, not like what we do today, then we can’t answer what we said, yet, we don’t find in the Mishnah or poskim a heter for a king to wear shoes?
   ii) According to the Bach, we have to say, the main beauty that the pasuk is referring to is of the face. (Ma’aseh Rokeach)
   iii) Alternatively, we can answer that he could simply wear long royal garments that cover his feet.
4. The Mishneh Lemelech (Hilchos Sotah, Perek 2) says, that R’ Yosi only holds one goes back home if he didn’t do teshuvah, however, if he did teshuvah he goes out to fight. See inside for his proof.
   As to why Beis Din don’t instruct them to do teshuvah there are a number of answers:
   i) We are talking about someone who when he sinned, said that he would sin again (אחטא ואשוב) and about such a person, we find in the Mishnah in Yoma (85b) that Hashem doesn’t allow such people to do teshuvah. (R’ Shamai Gross)
   ii) We are worried that the sinner won’t have thoughts of teshuvah, in order to avoid needing to go out to fight. However, in the case of kiddushin, the man wants to get married, therefore, we are more worried he is sincere. (R’ Shamai Gross)
   iii) The Yalkut HaMeiri is medayak [makes an implication] from the fact that R’ Yosi says עבירות שבידו – “sins in his hand” that we are referring to aveiros such as theft and onah [overcharging], and about such aveiros the Gemara (Berachos 19a) says, teshuvah doesn’t work until the money is returned. Based on this we can understand why hirhuray teshuvah doesn’t help here. (R’ Yosef Deutsch)
   [However, this answer is difficult as the Gemara (Sotah 44b) says that even for the sin of talking between the putting on of Tefillin Shal Yad and Shel Rosh one goes back home.]
   iv) We are talking about someone who did teshuvah, however, he is still scared, and about such a person we tell him to go back. (Madanay Asher)
5. The Ramban (20:8) writes: “The Yerushalmi says that everyone (all cases of people who are exempt) needs to bring proof to their words. Meaning: They need to bring witnesses that they have a new house, new vineyard or new wife in front of the army general and only then did they receive permission to return home. And according to R’ Yosi they needed to bring proof that they had committed aveiros. As without this everyone would lie and go home. However, according to R’ Akiva that even if they were simply scared of the sword they could go home, no proof was needed, as wanting to go home itself was proof.
6. In this week’s parsha we learn about the process of eglah arufah. One of the things that happened was that the elders would announce: “Our hands never spilt the blood, and we never saw anyone do it”. The Mishnah (Sotah 45b) says: “Do you really think that the elders of Beis Din spilt blood? Rather, they are coming to say,שלא בא על ידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזון, ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לוייה – “We never saw anyone come to the town and then leave without food, or escort.”
   The Rambam paskens (Hilchos Avel 14:3): “We force people to escort out guests, just like we force people to give tzedokah. Beis Din would appoint messengers to accompany people traveling from place to place, and if they are lax with this it is considered as if they spilt blood.”
   So why are people not careful about this today?
   i) The Be’er Sheva (Sotah 46b) writes that this is because of the great danger of our ways, which exempts a person from the mitzvah of providing an escort. As one doesn’t have to give up his life to save the life of another.
   ii) The Aruch HaShulchan (427:2) writes: Since today people don’t travel by foot, but go in wagons, they are not alone.
   iii) The Chofetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed (Chelek 3, Perek 2, in a hagoah) expresses his amazement that people are lax with the obligation to accompany guests. He suggests that perhaps the full mitzvah does not apply where there are marked roads which prevent danger to the guests. However, he adds, there is also a non-physical component to the protection that a person receives by means of the escort and therefore, even if one can justify not accompanying the entire distance mentioned in the Gemara, one must accompany a bit. He adds, “It is only through escorting guests that one thoroughly completes the mitzvah of hospitality to guests.”. He attributes a fire that broke out in the home of a person who was scrupulous in hosting guests to the fact that he was not careful to accompany his guests. He says, that אשל is roshei teives forאכילה, שתיה, לינה and this person only did אכילה and שתיה, therefore, he was effected by אש – fire.