tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post2079080270443682661..comments2024-03-28T23:20:49.777-05:00Comments on Beis Vaad L'Chachamim: Bo, Shemos 13:15. Not a Kohen, Not a YisraelEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-63674787362574364682014-01-04T22:00:48.479-06:002014-01-04T22:00:48.479-06:00[the following brief expansion is no more than an ...[the following brief expansion is no more than an oblique prequel,<br />if that, to your now complicated technical argument, but since it<br />lies low here in the bowels of the comment section, maybe that doesn't much matter]<br /><br />using your understanding on Jan 1 at 3:16pm, of late-onset firstborn<br />status (we're not sons of Hevel, after all) -- in plague 10, the firstborn<br />animals are spared, & so soon acquire "bechor" status/sanctity;<br />but firstborns had once before been spared, during plague 5, when<br />they were still eligible for maasar (initiated at Bereishis 28:22) alongside all the other animals; the bechor can't be altogether <br />defined apart from that earlier context<br /><br />another slant: the firstborns had a limited status at plague 5,<br />one that exempted them from maasar (again assuming that practice<br />already underway); protection during that plague gave them a new lease on life, they were reborn as it were AT THE SAME TIME as the other animals, subjecting them, for a while at least, to tithing;<br />that episode became a part of the complex history/future of the firstborn<br /><br />but even without using here the maasar idea, the firstborns had once,<br />at plague 5, been spared alongside all the other Israelite animals (animals that would at a later period be subject to maasar), such that their protection at plague 10, which seems to've generated the<br />new status of "bechor", was not without precedent*; that new status was somehow colored by, it somehow carried, the context of the antecedent protection<br />*what of the Noachide catastrophe, when animals not specifiedly<br />"firstborn" ambled into the ark-- were ANY of them firstborn?<br /><br /> lila tov to readers, non-readers, & newborns everywhereAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-27837713390959303472014-01-02T10:25:26.454-06:002014-01-02T10:25:26.454-06:00געזונט און שטארק זאלט איר זיין
I agree with the c... געזונט און שטארק זאלט איר זיין<br /><br />I agree with the caps. It could takkeh be that's what the Ribono shel Olam meant in the passuk. But we're way past that.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-21859985676162393602014-01-02T10:17:57.385-06:002014-01-02T10:17:57.385-06:00WARNING: BALABATISH TORAH AHEAD
Maybe "Ani&q...WARNING: BALABATISH TORAH AHEAD<br /><br />Maybe "Ani" is being translated too narrowly and is only meant as a restatement of pasuk 12. <br /><br />Maybe we can also throw in the Malbum's chilluk between "ani" and "anochi" as support. (ani - emphasis is on the action, in this case, zoveiach lashem, "anochi" - emphasis is on the individual.)LkwdGuynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-36886091623889912882014-01-01T16:15:55.062-06:002014-01-01T16:15:55.062-06:00the status of four-legged bechor could (most likel...the status of four-legged bechor could (most likely would) here predate<br />the final plague-- the bechoros were expressly distinguished as such in<br />plague 10, while they were spared WITH all animals in plague 5<br />EVEN THOUGH firstborn: thus the inchoate formulation (behind the<br />scenes, in Hidden Chambers, in best laid plans) of a maasar classification of firstborn animals during the Egyptian exile (or sooner,<br />perhaps as far back as tohu v'bohu, when everything was up for grabs<br />& the kitchen sink in play)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-15532032766788820492014-01-01T15:16:58.880-06:002014-01-01T15:16:58.880-06:00Associating Maasar Bheima with Egypt is novel, and...Associating Maasar Bheima with Egypt is novel, and associating the protection from the mortal danger posed by previous plagues with the specific protection from plague 10 builds on that. Although most agree with your assumption that the first born's status was begun after Egypt, the Rambam says it predated that.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-46630440148962168592014-01-01T14:50:40.761-06:002014-01-01T14:50:40.761-06:00is such a twofold character of the Bechor, as both...is such a twofold character of the Bechor, as both Priestly & as Maasar B'heima, born of the following?<br />in plague 5, the bechoros of Israel were spared along with all other Israelite animals<br />(9:6), while (those same) bechoros were spared again in plague 10, but that time AS<br />firstborns--- as just one animal among many, u'mimiknei bnei Yisrael lo-meis echad<br />(9:6), a firstborn but comprised a part of general, overall property subject to tithing<br />(at the time, Bereishis 28:22(?)); when distinctively spared in the final plague, a firstborn<br />acquired its distinctive status, to be treated as priestly<br />(this would be consistent with pidyon haben, which has nothing(?) of maasar about it--<br />if such could somehow be the case --the firstborn sons of Israel had never been<br />mere members of the masses, strictly spared their lives along with all other Hebrews in some plague prior to 10; "strictly" speaking, since Egyptians did not necessarily die of the hail in plague 7)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-60629720812933184082014-01-01T02:34:50.376-06:002014-01-01T02:34:50.376-06:00yes, exactly, but I think this is not the full sol...yes, exactly, but I think this is not the full solution - as we see in Dvarim it goes even further. One aspect of the Bechor is just like Maaser Behema. On top on that rides another obligation to give it to the Kohen.<br /><br />This might be the explanation to the strange issue of Hekdesh Bechor - there is a mitzva to be makdish, but it's Kadosh anyway. So I say "Takdish" in Dvarim stems from the regular Shlamim aspect of it, and it is a Hekdesh for Korban stam, not Bechor. The Kedusha to Kohen is there regardless.This explains why Bechor is davar Hanadur.Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-20594212290377653862013-12-31T16:52:10.918-06:002013-12-31T16:52:10.918-06:00Do you mean Reb Meir Simcha here
http://hebrewbook...Do you mean Reb Meir Simcha here<br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19983&st=&pgnum=203<br />that brings the machlokes between your Tosfos and the Rambam?<br />and Reb Dovid Povarsky here<br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20003&st=&pgnum=180&hilite=<br />that the basis of the machlokes is whether the zechus of the kohen stems from the first-born status, or from this type of kedusha, and you're saying that according to the Tosfos the Torah here means that the animal inherently belongs to the owner, but part of the kedushas korbon requires that he give it away?Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-51849229002487704992013-12-31T16:35:40.574-06:002013-12-31T16:35:40.574-06:00You're right. If the Torah seems to say that t...You're right. If the Torah seems to say that the Yisrael eats it, why am I wondering why it says that he brings it for a korban. Whatever explanation we find for the former will probably help for the latter.<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by the Tosfos. Do you mean that Parshas Bo is talking about Temuras Bechor, which belongs to the owner according to Tosfos, and tizbach means that you wait till it gets a mum and you eat it like chulin?Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-1117439304824378272013-12-31T15:52:50.656-06:002013-12-31T15:52:50.656-06:00The pasuk in Bo can be interpreted as only saying ...The pasuk in Bo can be interpreted as only saying the owner is Ba'al Hakorban. This is not so radical as Tosfos Zevachim 75b (and many Achronim) learn this way from Temura 8b (כהן אינו מימר). However, in four places the Torah tells us that Bechor, like Maaser Sheini, is brought and *eaten* by the owner: see, Devarim 12:6-7, and then again 12:17-18, 14:23, 15:19-22. On the other hand, Bamidbar 18 tells us the Kohen gets it, which is of course the Halacha. <br /><br />So the obvious question is why are all Parshiot Bechor in Devarim written in such a confusing way. The usual mahalch (or at least the one I know of) is that there are two aspects of Bechor. One is just like Maaser Behema, and Maaser Sheini etc. They are all reasons to cause one to come to Yerushalayim למען תלמד ליראה את ה"א. Indeedת in Devarim it is never mentioned that Bechor has any relation to Yetziat Mitzrayim. On the other hand, Bechor is also one of Matnos Kehuna. So the owner brings it as Baal Hakorban, as if he's going to eat it לפני השם (as implied in devarim), but than gives it to the Kohen (as the Torah tells us in Korach).Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.com