Answers to this Week’s Riddles
(For the riddles, please see back page)
1)
i) The Medrash Tanchumah (8) already asks this question and answers: The reason korbanos can only be brought from animals and birds is: בשביל שהם בשר ודם כמו אדם ויוצאים מבטן אמם כמו האדם לכך מכפרים על האדם אבל דגים ביצים הם ויוצאים מהם חיים – “Because they are blood and flesh like a person, and come out from the stomach of the mother like a person does – therefore, they can atone for a person, however, fish come out as eggs, and from the eggs comes life.”
The above seems very difficult, as if that is the case, birds should also be no good for korbanos, as birds also come from eggs?
R’ Dovid Kaviat in his sefer Succos Dovid explains: “Although birds also come from eggs, however, they also come from blood and flesh – similar to a person which comes from blood and flesh, as the mother bird sits on the eggs and heats them up, therefore, they are considered to come from the mother. Fish, however, grow by themselves and break out of the egg without any help from their mother. Similarly, later on in life as well, the mother continues to look after the children (whereas fish grow up on their own), and the children feel and are connected to the mother that they came from.”
ii) R’ Zalman Sorotskin in Oznayim L’Torah offers another reason. R’ Yitzchok tells us that the reason Hashem chose the dove, and turtle dove out of all the birds to be korbanos is because they are the most chased after birds, and yet they themselves don’t chase others. We see that being chased after is an advantage. Therefore, fish which are the very opposite, as they live life based on robbery and murder, and the big ones swallow the small ones etc., therefore, Hashem doesn’t like them, and they are no good for korbanos.
iii) They bring from the Chiddushei HaRim that it says, נפש כי יקריב – “You shall offer your soul”, that the idea behind the korban is that the nefesh of the korban atones for the nefesh of the sinner, however, fish have no nefesh, therefore, they can’t be brought as a korban.
iv) The Ben L’Ashri – Berachah Meshuleshes (the Tzaddik of Ranana) suggests: It seems that because Chazal say (Shabbos 108a) that fish have a very bad smell, and it says in Toras Kohanim that we don’t bring korbanos which smell (even animals), as it is not respectful, therefore, we don’t bring korbanos from fish.”
Why Do Fish Smell?
The Ran in Shabbos (108a) writes, that after the sin of Chavah and the snake all creations had a bad smell, however, at Matan Torah this smell went away. However, only the creations which were present by Matan Torah merited to have their smell go away, and since fish weren’t by Matan Torah, they still have this bad smell, and for this reason some say their skin can’t be used for parchment of a Sefer Torah.
Can A Fish Have the Status of a “Fish HaMuad”?
If an ox, or any animal causes damage three times it has the din of a shor hamuad, an ox that is destined to gore. Does this apply to a fish?
The Kli Chemdah (Yisro, ois 6) writes that fish can’t have the status of a “fish hamuad”, and he writes that they don’t have any of the dinim of regular animals. He then explains that the reason for this is based on the Ran, that they weren’t at Matan Torah. Since they weren’t by Har Sinai when the Torah was given, they never received the dinim that other animals have.
Perhaps based on this, we can say suggest another reason for why we don’t bring korbanos from fish. Since they weren’t by Har Sinai and they don’t have any connection to mitzvos, we don’t bring korbanos from them either. (Pikudecha Dorashti)
2)
i) R’ Aharon Leib Steinman (Ayalas HaShachar) writes that the Chofetz Chaim in Ahavas Chesed says that if one has a fixed job or a business venture which gives him enough sustenance for the entire week and a bit more, than he may give more than a fifth to tzedokah. In the story in the Medrash, the poor person hunted four birds every single day, and perhaps that was considered a fix income (see inside for what he writes about Hillel HaZakein who would spend half of his money every day to come to the Beis HaMedrash).
ii) Perhaps we can also answer, that the poor man believed very strongly, that without the korbanos who wouldn’t get the bounty that he received every day. Like the Eished HaNacholim writes on the Medrash: “The Medrash brings this story, to show how strong emunah in korbanos was, and they really believed – that this was the source of parnosah.” If so, the korbanos the poor man brought every day wasn’t a donation to the Beis HaMikdosh, rather, it was more like a business deal with Hashem. He believed that every day he needs to offer up two birds, and in this merit he receives another two birds. It’s clear that if one gives more than a fifth of his money as an investment it’s not a problem, therefore, the poor man was able to give half his income as it was an investment with Hashem, and he believed that this was the only way he would continue to catch more birds. (Pikudecha Dorashti)
3)
The Bnei Yissachar (Maamori Rosh Chodesh, Maamer 2 s.k. 3) quotes the Rema MiPano who says: In the future we will have to make up all the tamidim and mussafin that weren’t offered up whilst we were in galus.
The Shu”t Nefesh Chayah (R’ Reuven Margoliyos 286:3) writes: Since we rule, עבר זמנו בטל קרבנו, there will be no obligation to make up for the korbanos that were never brought.
He concludes, however, the according to the Mishnah LeMelech (Tamidim U’Mussafin 1:7) that we don’t say, עבר זמנו בטל קרבנו, in a case oinus, then there would in fact be an obligation to make up for all the korbanos we couldn’t bring.
The Shu”t Minchas Soles (Vol.2 siman 9 at the end) also writes that the Rema MiPano goes like the Mishnah LeMelech.
4)
R’ Aharon Leib Steniman says: His words don’t make a difference, as surely, he is also doing it for the sake of the mitzvah of making matzos and guarding them from becoming chometz, and it’s not contradictory to also be doing it to make money. Especially as the main aspect of lishmah needed by matzos is to guard them from becoming chometz which we learn from ושמרתם את המצות.
R’ Elchonon discusses a similar shailah by a sofer [scribe], who writes tefillin with intention of making money, and if it takes away from the lishmah.
For a lengthier discussion see Ayalas HaShachar on Zevochim 2b. R’ Aharon Leib adds in a line: “In truth we all have intention for the money, the only difference is this person verbalized what everyone else keeps quiet in their mind.”
5)
The Gemara in Pesachim (58a) teaches that they would divide the lechem hapanim on erev Pesach that fell on Shabbos. The Avnei Nezer (Shu”t 380) writes that because of חביבה מצוה בש עתה – the special love of fulfilling a mitzvah at the required time, it was a mitzvah to eat the lechem hapanim that day, and it pushed aside the prohibition against eating matzah on erev Pesach.
The Meshech Chochmah also writes (Parshas Emor) that the lechem hapanim was eaten on erev Pesach that fell on Shabbos, and he says either because it was matzah ashirah, or because of חביבה מצוה בשעתה.
In the times of the second Beis HaMikdosh the kohanim only received a small amount of the lechem hapanim to eat, a portion the size of a bean (see Yoma 39a). Tosfos Yeshonim writes: Since they only received such a small amount, there was no mitzvas achilah on it, therefore, the pious kohanim never ate it. See the Pri Megodim (471, M.Z.1) who points out that according to the Rambam that the prohibition of eating matzah on erev Pesach includes even less than a kezayis, it’s difficult to understand how the kohanim could eat lechem hapanim on erev Pesach, as there is a prohibition to eat matzah on erev Pesach, and since they never ate a kezayis there was no mitzvah of eating lechem hapanim?
Perhaps what we have to say is, the Tosfos Yeshonim which says there was no mitzvah, doesn’t mean there was no mitzvah at all, rather, he means it wasn’t the optimum mitzvah. If we say there was still a mitzvah, then it makes sense to say it pushed aside the prohibition of eating chometz on erev Pesach.
