Parashas Mishpatim
ESSAY #35 : To give, or to redeem?
THE TEXT
The Torah commands us to give our first-born sons to Hashem; it then gives us the minimum age of an animal that can be presented to Hashem as a korban.
(כב:כח) בכור בניך תתן לי.
(כב:כט) כן תעשה לשורך לצאנך שבעת ימים היהי עם עמו ביום השמיני תתנו לי
(22:28) The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.
(22:29) So you shall do for your ox and your flocks; seven days [the newborn] shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you can give it to Me [as a korban].
RASHI
We will focus on Rashi’s comments about the mitzva of giving the firstborn to Hashem.
בכור בניך תתן לי: לפדותו בחמש סלעים מן הכהן. והלא כבר צוה עליו במקום אחר, אלא כדי לסמוך לו "כן תעשה לשורך", מה בכור אדם לאחר שלושים יום פודהו שנאמר (במדבר יח:טז) "ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה", אף בכור בהמה דקה מטפל בו שלשים יום ואחר כך נותנו לכהן.
The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me: [This means] to redeem him for five sela coins from the Kohen. But didn’t the Torah already command this about him in a different place?! But [it is repeated here] in order to juxtapose it [to what is written in the next verse] “So you shall do with your ox,” [to teach us] just as a firstborn human child you redeem him thirty days after birth, as it says (Bemidbar 18:16) “His redemption you will redeem from when he is one month old,” so too the firstborn of a small animal [such as a sheep or goat] you must care for it for thirty days and afterward you give it to the Kohen.
According to Rashi, the Torah juxtaposed a verse about Pidyon Haben--the redemption of a firstborn human child (Verse 28)--to a verse about the redemption of a firstborn animal (Verse 29) in order to teach us that both mitzvos are to be performed on the thirtieth day of the newborn’s life.
QUESTION
A question on Rashi’s question
Rashi questions our verse’s commandment to redeem a firstborn child since this mitzva is stated in another verse in the Torah. A footnote in the Toras Chaim edition of Rashi identifies the other verse as Bemidbar 19:16, a verse which Rashi himself mentions near the end of his comment. If that verse is the basis for Rashi’s question, then we must ask: Why does Rashi break his usual rule and ask a question based on a later verse? Usually, Rashi will wait until he arrives at the second verse in order to raise the question that it repeats or contradicts a previous verse.
ANSWERS
A simple correction
Rashi questions why the mitzva of Pidyon Haben is repeated in our verse in Parashas Mishpatim. Until now, we have assumed--based on a footnote in the Toras Chaim edition--that the other mention of this mitzva is in a later verse, Bemidbar 19:16. This created a problem: Why is Rashi asking about the repetition of a mitzva in a verse that we have not yet learned?
A simple solution to this would be to reject this footnote. The verse in Bemidbar cited by the footnote is not the only other mention of this mitzva. The mitzva has been mentioned in a previous verse in the Torah in Parashas Bo (Shemos 13:13):
And every firstborn human child amongst your children you shall redeem...
If we will say that this verse is the source of Rashi’s question, then Rashi is following his usual practice of discussing the repetition of an idea when he comments on the verse where it is repeated.
A more profound approach
A more profound approach to answering our question is to say that Rashi is not primarily concerned with the repetition of this mitzva, and that it is irrelevant whether that repetition occurs in a later verse or an earlier verse. Rather, Rashi’s primary concern is to define the mitzva that is expressed in the words, “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.”
The simple translation of these words indicates that a person must literally give his first-born child to Hashem. In fact, some commentators explain the verse this way; Sforno, for example, writes:
The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me, for all holy service, for the service of the Beis Hamikdash and for the study of Torah, similar to the way it was later with the Kohanim, as Scripture says (Malachi 2:7) “For the lips of the Kohen will preserve knowledge, and Torah they will seek from his mouth.”1
Rashi, however, in the first few words of his comment on this verse, rejects this interpretation; instead, Rashi says that giving the first-born to Hashem is accomplished by redeeming him for five sela coins from the Kohen. One reason why Rashi may have rejected Sforno’s approach is because there are a number of verses in the Torah which mention redeeming a first-born son, but this is the only verse that mentions actually giving the first-born to Hashem2. Rashi resolved this contradiction by saying that even this verse really means that we should redeem, rather than give, the first-born.
Rashi further supports his approach--and refutes Sforno’s interpretation--by quoting a question and answer that he found in the words of the Sages3. The Sages ask about our verse, “Isn’t this mitzva stated elsewhere?” and they answer that our verse is coming to tell us a halachic detail about the mitzva of redeeming a first-born son. Both their question and their answer support Rashi’s interpretation that this verse is not saying that we should actually give our first-born to the service of Hashem, but rather that we should redeem him. The Sages’ question supports Rashi, because if this verse were saying that we should give our first-born to Hashem, then they would not have asked that this verse seems superfluous, because (as mentioned above) there is no other verse that says that the first-born should be given to Hashem. It must be that the Sages understood--like Rashi--that this verse really means that we should redeem the first-born. The Sages’ answer--that this verse is teaching us a specific halacha about the mitvza of redeeming the first-born--obviously supports Rashi’s interpretation.
An additional question
According to Rashi, our verse is referring to the mitzva of Pidyon Haben, a mitzva that we still perform today. According to Sforno, however, the verse is telling us to dedicate our first-born sons to the service of Hashem in the Beis Hamikdash and the study of Torah, “similar to the way it was later with the Kohanim.” It seems, then, that this mitzva was only observed during a very short time in history, following Matan Torah, because forty days later the first-born participated in the sin of the Golden Calf and their sacred tasks were taken over by Aharon and his descendants. Is it possible that a mitzva of the Torah should have such a temporary life?
Netziv, who explains similarly to Sforno, answers this question by adding that our verse is not only a commandment but also an eternal promise from Hashem that, barring inappropriate behavior, one’s firstborn son will become dedicated to Hashem, a leader in Israel and a person of importance.c
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
Scientific studies have shown that first-born children tend to perform better on cognitive tests and eventually earn more money than their younger siblings4. In what ways is the promise mentioned by Netziv similar to these findings, and in what ways is it different?
See also Netziv.
2 Although B’midbar 18:16 says that we must “present to Hashem” the first-born of every woman, it immediately clarifies that this is accomplished by redeeming the first-born by giving five shekel coins to a Kohen.
3 Bechoros 26b.
4 For example, see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-first-born-children-may-have-greater-
success/.
No comments:
Post a Comment