1) Which of the korbanos offered in the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdosh had to be eaten by the Kohen who offered it?
2) In this week’s parsha we learn that a Kohen was required to bring a korban mincha on the first day he served in the Beis HaMikdosh (6:12-16). In an addition to this, we learn in Horiyos (12b) that the Kohen Gadol would offer a korban mincha every single day. The Abarbanel offers nine reasons for this, how many can you come up with?
1) The Kohen Gadol brings a daily flour offering to atone for the Kohanim who may have eaten from the korbanos for their own benefit, rather than for the sake of Heaven. 2) The Kohen Gadol’s mincha is a reminder of the daily communal korban tamid, but as an individual offering. 3) It is an expression of thanksgiving for all the matnas kehunah [priestly gifts] that Hashem gave to the Kohanim. 4) The Kohanim scooped a handful of flour from others’ flour offerings to offer on the mizbayach, so we are concerned that they may unintentionally offer less than they are supposed to, thereby depriving the mizbayach. The Kohen Gadol atones for this by bringing a daily flour offering that is completely burned on the mizbayach. 5) The Kohen Gadol’s mincha is a daily reminder of the importance of serving Hashem with purity and dedication. 6) The daily mincha offering is a sign of humility and subservience to Hashem. 7) It serves as a protection for the Kohanim and the Beis HaMikdosh. 8) It is a merit for the entire Jewish people. 9) It is a fulfillment of Hashem’s will for a daily individual offering.
3) In this week’s parsha we learn: וכלי חרש אשר תבשל בו ישבר - “An earthenware vessel in which a korban has been cooked in must be broken”(6:21). Rashi explains that this is because particles from the korban become embedded in the walls of the earthenware. After the passage of one day and one night, the taste of those particles, which would enter any offering subsequently cooked inside of the vessel, legally becomes “nosar” and is forbidden. Tosfos (Avodah Zorah 76a) notes that this explanation is difficult to understand, as Rashi maintains that after the passage of one night, the taste of food absorbed in a utensil goes bad and is Biblically permitted to be eaten. If so, why does the Torah require the earthenware vessels to be broken? Can you think of an answer to explain Rashi?
Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson answers this question based on a Mishnah in Avos (5:5). The Mishnah relates that one of the ten miracles that occurred in the Beis HaMikdash was that the meat of the korbanos never spoiled. As a result, the particles that remained overnight in the walls of the earthenware vessel became “nosar,” and their consumption was prohibited. Because the Mishnah teaches that the taste was miraculously retained without spoiling, it caused anything cooked inside to become Biblically forbidden, and there was no choice but to break it.
4) Is it fitting for a shochet to also be a chazon? Can you find a remez [hint] in this week’s parsha that it is ok?
The Sefer Imrei Pinchas (Shaar Seder HaYom, ois 64) brings that R’ Pinchos MiKoritz was very particular that a shochet shouldn’t be a chazon. He would say: The job of a chazon is to bring neshomas close, and to bring life into the neshomas, whereas the job of the shochet is the exact opposite – he takes out life from neshomas, therefore, it is not fitting for a shochet to serve as a chazon.
The Shu”t HaDar (siman 29, ois 200) brings that HaRav HaKadosh Rebbi Uri MiStrelisk was very particular that a shochet wouldn’t be a chazon, as there is a certain chamber in Shomayim which the tefillos of a shochet can’t go through.
The Sdei Chemed (Mareches Rosh Hashanah, siman 3, ois 11) brings this and he writes that this is not the minhag, and a shochet can even be the chazon for Yomim Noraim, everyone does it and no one has ever made a fuss.
R’ Sholam Perlow in his he’oras on the sefer Medrash Pinchos (he’orah 44) also writes: What R’ Pinchos MiKoritz says is wondersome, I have never seen anyone worry about this, and it’s very common to take a shochet as a chazon.
From the Rema (Orach Chaim 53:25) it also seems that it’s ok to have a shochet as a chazon, as the Rema writes: “A shliach tzibbur who is a shochet or bodek [checks that the shechita was ok] shouldn’t daven with dirty and smelly clothes.” Clearly implied is, that if his clothes are clean then he may be the chazon.
The Pardes Yosef brings an incredible remez to the widespread minhag that it’s ok for a shochet to be a chazon. In this week’s parsha we have the word וישחט and the trop is a shalsheles. He writes:ו ישחט הטע ם שלשלת ואומרים העול ם שמכאן רמז ששוחט הוא גם כן חזן – “The cantillation on the word “vayishchot” is a shalsheles, the world says that this is a hint that a shochet can also be a chazon”. In order to do shalsheles properly one has to be a bit of chazon, and since it is on the word וישחט, we see a shochet can be a chazon.
5) How can there be a case, where a ba’al habayis and a guest eat matzah on Seder night, they both eat the from the same matzos, the same amount, in the same manner, at the same time and the ba’al habayis doesn’t fulfil the mitzvah and the guest does?
i) The Shu”t Torah Lishmah (126) discusses a case, of a guest who ate somewhere for Seder night and the baal habayis and the guest ate the same very mehudar matzos. Then the guest finds out that the baal habayis stole the matzos from another Yid just before Pesach, and the other Yid hasn’t been meyayesh [given up hope of getting them back]. The halachah is (Orach Chaim 454:4) that one can’t fulfil the mitzvah of matzah with stolen matzos. The baal habayis who knows that they were stolen certainly doesn’t fulfil the mitzvah as it’s a mitzvah haboh baveirah [mitzvah that comes about through the means of an aveirah]. However, perhaps the guest, who never knew they were stolen, and had no reason to assume they were (as he may assume his host has a chezkas kashrus), does fulfil the mitzvah, as he wasn’t aware he was doing an aveirah when eating the matzah. (See Shu”t Maharam Shik, 1:295, Shu”t Chemdas Shlomah, Orach Chaim 29, and Shu”t Maharsham 6:50 who all agree to this.)
ii) It’s clear from the Mishnah Berurah (461:18) that bedieved one can use matzah soaked in water, however, for someone old or ill who finds it difficult to eat dry matzah, they can even lechatchilah soak their matzah in water. When it comes to dipping matzah in fruit juice or soup, however, there is a machlokes haposkim, some say fruit juice takes away the taste of the matzah, and some say, only cooking it does. Therefore, for an old person or ill person who can’t eat matzah soaked in water, they can soak it in wine or other juices, however, a regular person can’t (he can bedieved use water, but not other juices), if a regular person does soak his matzah in other juices, he doesn’t fulfil his obligation, and he must eat matzah again. So, if both the baal habayis and the guest dip their matzah in wine or other juices, and the baal habayis is healthy and well and the guest is not, the baal habayis doesn’t fulfil the mitzvah of matzah, and the guest does.
iii) If the baal habayis suffers from a certain illness, and he has been warned by doctors not to eat any matzah as it is dangerous for him, yet, he goes out his way and does, (he acts like a chasid shoteh), some say he doesn’t fulfill the mitzvah. To the extent, some poskim say, if later on during the night he would recover from his illness, and would be able to eat matzah, he would need to eat again, as his original eating was done at a time when he was exempt (see Shu”t Oneg Yom Tov 41, and Shu”t Mahari Asad, ach Chaim 160).
