1) Sefer Vayikra talks all about korbonos, unfortunately, we no longer have the Beis HaMikdosh, and we can’t bring korbonos today, as there is no mizbayach to offer them on. In Al HaMichya we daven: רחם (נא) ה' אלקינו על ישראל עמך ועל ירושלים עירך ... ועל מזבחך ועל היכלך ובנה ירושלים עיר הקדש במהרה בימינו – ‘Please have mercy Hashem our G-d, on Yisroel Your people, and on Yerusholayim Your city … and on the mizbayach, and on the heichel, and rebuild the holy city of Yerusholayim speedily in our days.’ Why do we only daven for the mizbayach in Al HaMichya and not in Birchas HaMazon?
Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomah, Moadim Vol. 2 Chapter 17 footnote 20) quotes Rav Moshe Leib Shachor who says that the taste of fruit depends on the misbayach, like the Mishnah in Sotah (48a) teaches, that fruits lost their taste when the Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed. Since the taste of fruit is affected by the presence of the mizbayach, it is appropriate to add a prayer for it in Al HaMichya which is the berachah recited after eating fruit.
Rav Shamai Gross shlita answers based on a Gemara in Chagigah (27a). The Gemara teaches: ‘When the Beis HaMikdosh existed, the mizbayach atoned for people’s sins, now that the Beis HaMikdosh has been destroyed, the table of a person atones for him’. Rashi explains: ‘When a person eats a meal with bread and invites guests and fulfills the mitzvah of hachnosas orchim, then his table atones.’ Therefore, in Birchas HaMazon there is no need to mention the mizbayach, as a person’s table atones for him, however, when it comes to Al HaMichya, which is said on mezonas, then one has to mention the mizbayach, as people don’t generally have guests when eating mezonas, therefore, the table doesn’t atone, and a special mention of the mizbayach is needed.
2) The Medrash teaches (Vayikra Rabbah 7:3) that in the absence of the Beis HaMikdosh, a person who recites and learns the halachos of the korbonos is considered in Hashem’s eyes as if he actually offered them. Does this principle mean that learning the halachos of any mitzvah is considered tantamount to fulfilling it, or is this concept unique to learning the halachos of korbonos?
Even though none of the halachos of korbonos were applicable in their era, Rashi (Bava Metzia 114b) writes that some of the Amoraim were not as familiar with the halachos of Zeraim and Taharos as they were with Kodshim. He attributes this to the fact that a person who learns the halachos of Kodshim is considered to have fulfilled them, implying that this concept does not apply to other mitzvos. The Chofetz Chaim adds that for this reason, there are Masechtos of Gemara expounding upon the order of Kodshim but not on the sections of Zeraim and Taharos. The Kiryat Sefer (Hakdomah 7:2) and Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh (26:3) disagree and maintain that this principle applies to all mitzvos, which one is considered to have fulfilled by studying their pertinent laws. (R’ Ozer Alport)
3) The Torah commands (5:23): והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל, that a thief return the item that he stole. If somebody stole an esrog and returned it after Succos, does he fulfill the mitzvah of returning the stolen object?
The Gemara in Bava Kamma (66a) rules that if a person steals chometz before Pesach, he may fulfill his obligation to return the stolen object by giving it back to the owner after Pesach. Even though it originally had monetary value but is now worthless since it is forbidden to benefit from chometz that belonged to a Jew during Pesach, the Gemara explains that this type of damage is not clearly recognizable, since the chometz looks the same as when it was stolen, and the Torah does not hold a thief responsible for such indiscernible damage. The Pri Megodim (Orach Chaim 656) maintains that this law also applies to a thief returning a stolen esrog after Succos. Even though the esrog is almost worthless after Succos, the thief can nevertheless fulfill his obligation to return the stolen object, since the damage to its value is not readily apparent. The Pischei Teshuvah (Choshen Mishpot 363:1) disagrees and differentiates between the two cases. He suggests that the thief may return the chometz after Pesach because it appears identical to other chometz that did not belong to a Jew during Pesach and from which it is permissible to benefit. The only difference between the two types of chometz – the ability to use them – cannot readily be discerned by the naked eye. On the other hand, everybody knows that the value of an esrog decreases sharply after Succos, so this is considered a form of damage that is clearly recognizable, in which case the thief cannot fulfill his obligation by returning the esrog but would instead need to reimburse its owner for the monetary value that it had at the time of the theft. (R’ Ozer Alport)
4) If one steals money, is he allowed to return it on Shabbos?
The Hisororus Teshuvah (Orach Chaim 1:157) discusses the above shailah. He first mentions that the issur to move money on Shabbos is derabonon because of mukzteh, whereas the chiyuv of והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל – ‘to return the stolen item’ is de’O’raisa. So we should say that a mitzvah de’O’raisa overrides an issur derabonon.
Then he says if one moves the money in an abnormal manner (כלאחר יד) then it’s a שבות דשבות לצורך מצוה – ‘a double derabonon for the purpose of a mitzvah’, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 307:5) is lenient in such a case. Although the poskim say, that we are only lenient if the mitzvah needs to be done specifically on Shabbos, and the mitzvah of, והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל, doesn’t need to be done specifically on Shabbos, there is still room to be lenient, as we are also lenient with a double derabonon when there is a loss involved. If the thief waits until after Shabbos he may change his mind, as the longer he waits the stronger the yetzer horah becomes and the owner may never get his money back, therefore, it is considered a case of a loss. Therefore, concludes the Hisororus Teshuvah, if the thief returns it in an abnormal manner, he is allowed to do it on Shabbos.
5) If one accidentally swaps his hat or coat in yeshiva or in shul is he allowed to wear the other person’s hat or coat? Similarly, if one sees that someone else took his hat or coat, is he allowed to wear the other persons hat or coat?
The Aruch HaShulchan (Choshen Mishpot 136:2) writes: ‘Any place where there are lots of people and it is normal to leave rubbers (to cover the shoes) there, and they accidentally get swapped, we are not particular about it, and people may use each other’s until the original one’s are returned, and there is no concern of stealing.’
According to the Aruch HaShulchan perhaps we could say the same thing with hat’s and coats. However, it’s not so simple, as normally people are more particular about another person using his hat and coat, then they are when it comes to people using their rubbers.
The Shevet HaLevi (6:38) was asked about bochurim getting hats mixed up in yeshiva, and he paskened that if one’s hat gets swapped, he may use the other person’s hat, until his is returned. If it never does, he may use the other person’s hat forever, and he cites the aforementioned Aruch HaShulchan as a rayah. It seems that he holds that there is no difference between shoe rubbers and hats.
The Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim 5:9) was asked about using someone else’s coat, and he writes, although from the Aruch HaShulchan it would seem that it is allowed, the Aruch HaShulchan only applies if that it is the accepted custom, if however, it is not the custom then one can’t.
The Igros Moshe concludes, it’s a good idea to hang up a sign in shuls and yeshivas, saying that if hats and coats get mixed up, people may use each other’s.
6) The pasuk (5:4) says, that if one is poor and he can’t afford a sheep, he should bring two birds instead, one as a chatos and one as an olah. The Chinuch (123) writes, if a poor man brings a korban fit for a rich person he doesn’t fulfill his duty. The Chinuch explains: ‘Hashem had mercy on him and exempted him, therefore, it is incorrect that he should force himself to do more. From this people should learn, that one shouldn’t spend on something more money than he can afford…’. The Achronim all ask, however, that there is a Mishnah in Negoim (14:12) which seems to say the exact opposite, and that a poor person is able to bring the korban of a rich person. The Mishnah says: ‘A poor metzorah that brought the korban of a rich person fulfills his obligation, however, a rich person who brings the korban of a poor person, doesn’t fulfill his obligation’. The Bartenura writes, that a poor person can even bring the korban of the rich person lechatchila, how can we reconcile this with the Chinuch?
R’ Moshe Sternbuch in Mo’adim U’Zemanim (8:336) writes: ‘Because of my love for the topic, I will bring something I heard about the kaporah [atonement] of korbonos, which I heard from a talmid chocham who was present at a mesibah which took place, which R’ Avrohom Mordechai Alter of Ger attended. He said something amazing in regard to the korbonos of a korban oshir and korban oni. I will bring the story how I heard it. At the mesibah there were many gedolim, R’ Menachem Zemba, and many others.
R’ Menachem Zemba brought the Chinuch (Mitzvah 123) which says that if a poor person brings a korban fit for a rich person, he doesn’t fulfill his duty. He then brought the meforshim which ask from the Mishnah in Negoim which says clearly that if a poor person brings a korban fit for a rich person, he fulfills his duty, and he proceeded to answer the Chinuch with a pilpul and charifus [long and sharp answer], and the other Geonim present handled the topic for a long time, trying to answer the question. The Gerrer Rebbe sat there silently the entire time, and didn’t get involved, then just before he left, he said: ‘I don’t understand, the Yid will be missing a korban’.
‘After a few minutes R’ Menachem Zemba understood what the Gerrer Rebbe meant. And he explained that he was saying a very simple answer. The Chinuch is talking about a korban that is being brought for tumas mikdosh u’kedoshov, where the halachah is, a rich person brings a sheep as a chatos, and a poor person brings a pair of birds, one for an olah and one for a chatos. In such a case, if the poor person brings the korban of a rich person, he will be bringing one item instead of two. Therefore, in such a case the Chinuch says he doesn’t fulfill his duty. The Mishnah in Negoim, however, is talking about a metzorah, where both a poor person and rich person bring three korbonos (a rich person brings, three animals, one for a chatos, one for an osham and one for olah and a poor person one animal and two birds, a sheep for an osham and two birds one for chatos and one for olah). Since they both bring three animals, if a poor person brings the korban for a rich person, he has still brought the correct number of korbonos, therefore, he is yoitza. R’ Menachem Zemba was amazed, how he said a shtikel Torah for an entire hour, and the Gerrer Rebbe just listened patiently. We see from here kavod haTorah.’