Next year in Uman/Yerushalayim? Is it about time we brought up Reb Nachman’s Kever to Eretz Yisroel?

Would like to submit answer to last weeks riddle
Mishnah is Yevamos (61A) says that a Kohein Hedyot engaged or married to an almanah does not have to divorce her if he becomes Kohein Gadol. From here we learn that if a man who already has too many horses or wives and is coronated king he does not have to divorce his wives or get rid of his horses before or after the coronation.

Dear Reb Dovid,

Riddle #1: Its not clear from the gemara, but there might be some precedent to determine. The Gemara in yevamos 59a distinguishes between a kohen gadol who did kiddushin with a ketana and then she became a bogeres where we say he cannot do nisuin with her, vs someone who does kiddushin with an almana and then becomes a kohein gadol where we say he could do nisuin with her. In both cases, there is an extra word that could potentially be used for a derasha to say that its permitted, yet we only apply it in the latter case. Explains the gemara because in the former case, the woman herself changed (בגרה), therefore there could be a חלות of a new issur. But in the latter case, she never changed when he became a kohen gadol. Therefore, I would say, even if one tried to make a drasha from the pesukim of לו ירבה לו סוסים וגו׳ based on extra words, I would say that using the gemaras logic, we should say that since the horses dont change when their owners become king, so there is no new issur to be chal on the horses.

By contrast, the issurim of בל יראה ובל ימצא apply to one who owned chametz before pesach and now it became pesach (proof is that rambam says there just isnt malkus), because as the acharonim explain those issurim are there to back up the mitzva of תשביתו (see also minchas chinuch mitzva 9). But here i think the pashtus is you need a kum vieseh (see minchas chinuch 498 that one who is oiver on this gets malkus at the time of purchase)

Riddle #2: A similar question is addressed by Tosafos Yeshanim to top of kesubos 40a. there the gemara says that mifateh who is otherwise assur to her seducer with a lav cannot marry him bc we dont say aseh docheh lo sasey since she can choose to not marry him. So Tosafos yeshanim ask, why do we need a passuk in yevamos to teach that kibud av isnt docheh shabbos, there too the father could choose not to have you violate shabbos. He gives two answers:

1) although the father could choose to not have you violate, the moment he chooses to ask you, you are obligated with kibbud av. I understand his answer to refer to the question about mitzva kiyumos doche lo sa’asey. Reb Chaim in stencils in the first shtikel in yevamos seems to address it and says (according to one opinion) that mitzva kiyumos is not doche lo sa’asey, presumably since its a voluntary mitzva and not required. (see, however, Tosafos Kiddushin 34a maakeh, yesh miforshim clearly disagrees). So tosafos yishonim is maybe saying that marrying a mefateh is also a voluntary mitzva since even can choose to not marry and pay the fine. Now, this would also answer your question regarding dayanim talmidey chachamim, because once they demand their kavoid, you have no right to turn them down, its a mitzva chiyuvis, so its docheh the requirement to stand. (thats why its called mechila and, for example by mammom, the nesivus holds that mechila makes it as if the money was paid, but doesnt negate the fact that there is an obligation)

2) The mefateh doesnt have the mitzva to marry her seducer and she still has the lav, so for her its a problem. However, the father doesnt have a mitzva to have his honor upheld, but is not the one violating shabbos anyways! This can perhaps answer the gemara in shavuos as well, since -possibly- the talmud chacham also has a Mitzva to be mechabeid his own Torah (so long as hes not mochel), so even by him there is an esah dochech lo saasay.

(according to tosafos pesachim 4a vichi and elsewhere there are times when one can violate a lo sa’asey that is nidcheh by another persons asey, even if the asey doesnt apply to the one who is violating himself). Thanks for your engaging podcasts!