In this week’s parsha in perek 3 we learn of the appointment of the Levi’im (Levites) and their replacement of the B’chorim. In passuk 12 Hashem says that He has taken the Levi’im from among the b’nai yisroel, in place of every b’chor. Hashem then told Moshe to count the Levi’im and the b’chorim, in order to equally replace them. The Levi’im amounted to 22,000 and the b’chorim amounted to 22,273. This meant that there were 273 b’chorim that were unable to be replaced by a levi. Hashem then commanded that the 273 b’chorim be redeemed with money; 5 shkalim per person to be given to Aaron and his sons. (The Gimorah in B’choros 5a says that actually there were an additional 300 Levi’im amounting to 22,300, however they were b’chorim themselves and could therefore not redeem other b’chorim rather they redeemed themselves.)
The Meshech Chachma (Reb Meir Simcha) points out that the amount of b’chorim that exceeded the Levi’im is divisible by three, which is proportionate to the three kohanim the Torah designated to receive the redemption money. This allowed Aaron and his two sons, to redeem 91 b’chorim evenly.
The Gimorah in Baba Basra (143a) says when one says he will give something to a specific person and to a group of people (if we cannot clarify his intentions by asking him) we should assume he meant that the person that was singled out should receive half and the group should split the remaining half, and not that they all should divide it equally. The Gimorah learns this from the passuk by the lechem hapanim ( Vayikra 24: 9) that says Aaron and his sons are to eat from the bread, and we know that Aaron received half and his sons split the remaining half. Reb Meir Simcha assumes that we can learn from this Gimorah that whenever the Torah says something is to be given to Aaron and his sons, the intention is not for them to divide it into thirds, rather that Aaron is to receive half and his sons are to split the other half.
If we are to apply the Gimorah in Baba Basra to our parsha it would mean that the 273 b’chorim that exceeded the Levi’im would be divided into two, half to be redeemed by Aaron and the other half by his sons. Additionally the Medrash Rabba (4:10) on this parsha explains that half of the b’chorim were redeemed by Aaron and half were redeemed by his sons. Needless to say, 273 is not evenly divisible by two. Reb Meir Simcha therefore assumes that the last b’chor gave half of his redemption money (2.5 shekel) to Aaron hakohen and the other half to his sons.
With this Reb Meir Simcha explains why the Torah occasionally includes the amount that a shekel is worth (20 gairas) and other times It does not mention its value. He says in a scenario when one will have to split a shekel the Torah includes the value of the shekel. For example in the parsha of machtzis hashekel one must give exactly a half a shekel therefore the Torah writes the value of a shekel in that parsha. In the parsha of eiruchin in b’chukosai the Torah does not include the value of a shekel because there are no fractions of a shekel in that parsha, only whole numbers. Based on the Medrash and the Gimorah in Baba Basra we explained that in this redemption process it was necessary to split a shekel in half therefore the Torah includes in this parsha the value of a shekel.
The Gimorah in B’choros 51b discusses whether one may give the 5 sla’im for pidyon haben to different kohanim or all of the money must it be given to one kohen. The Gimorah quotes a Tosefta that says that one may give the pidyon haben to several different kohanim. Reb Meir Simcha suggests that the source for this halacha is derived from this parsha of the redemption of the b’chorim; as we proved earlier there was one kohen who had to give half of his redemption to Aaron hakohen and half to his sons.
The Or HaChaim asks the following question: The passuk says (3:51) that Moshe gave the redemption money to Aaron and his sons “Al pi Hashem kasher tziva Hashem es Moshe”. Once the Torah said that Moshe did it by the word of Hashem, why is it necessary to state that he did it as he was commanded?
I want to suggest that based on the Meshech Chachma we can answer the Or HaChaim’s question. According to the Meshech Chachma the Torah is teaching us something regarding the halachos of giving pidyon haben. The Gimorah in Kidushin(29b) says that the word tziva is to teach us that it applies for all generations. Therefore the passuk repeated and said that Moshe did it as he was commanded (tziva) to tell us that this halacha that one can divide his pidyon haben to be given to more than one kohen is applicable for all generations.
{R.F.}
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Ma’aser B'haimah
At the conclusion of this week’s parsha (27:32) the Torah discusses the obligation to give ma’aser (tithe) from one’s animals. The newborn cattle are put into a corral with a narrow opening big allowing for only one animal to leave at a time. As the animals leave they are counted, and every tenth one is marked as ma’aser to be given to a kohen.
The Mishnah in Bichoros( 58b) discusses a scenario where during the counting before the owner had reached number ten, one of the animals that were already counted jumped back in to the corral and he cannot distinguish between the animals. The Mishnah says that all the animals are exempt from ma’aser. The Gimorah in Baba Mitzeia (6b) explains this ruling based on a drasha from the passuk “hasiri yiheye kodesh l’Hashem”. The Gimorah explains that the Torah requires that one be certain that the tenth animal is the tenth. If there is any doubt that this animal is the tenth it is not ma’aser (asiri vadai vilo asiri safek). Additionally once an animal was counted it cannot be counted again. Since he cannot distinguish between the animals he might count the animal that was already counted, thereby making it impossible to count with certainty. Therefore all of the animals are exempt from ma’aser since we cannot ensure that any of them will be the definite tenth one out of the corral.
The shita mikubetzes in Baba Mitzeia (6b) cites a R"Ash that asks: why does the Mishnah say that since the animals cannot be counted precisely all of the animals in the corral exempt from ma’aser, why can’t we apply the rule of kal d’parish mairuba parish- if something separates from a group we can assume it belonged to the majority of the group? Since the majority of animals in the corral were not counted, as each animal separates and passes through the door of the corral we should assume that it was never counted, thus enabling the animals to be counted properly and be obligated in ma’aser.
The R"Ash answers that although the Torah allowed us to rely on a rov (majority) in most scenarios, nevertheless it remains a safek (doubt). Therefore with regard to ma’aser where the Torah requires that we know with certainty that the tenth animal is the tenth we cannot rely on a rov.
Reb Akiva Aiger (in tishuvos tinyana 108) asks the following question: An animal that is a traifa is exempt from ma’aser. The only way to know that an animal is not a traifa is to rely on the rov that most animals are healthy and not traifos. However according to the Rush that said that even though the Torah allowed us to rely on a rov it still remains a safek how can we ever have an animal that is obligated in ma’aser? We will not know with certainty that it is the tenth since possibly the first nine were traifos. And even though there is a rov that says that they were not traifos according to the Rush that is not considered knowing with certainty.
The Shev Shimaitza (2 :15) answers that there are two different types of rov; ruba dilesa kaman, and ruba dieisa kaman. A ruba dilesa kaman refers to tendencies in nature or habit. For example that most animals are healthy and not tiraifos, or that most babies born are healthy, or that most people who will shecht(slaughter) know how to do so properly. A ruba dieisa kaman refers to the majority of present chances. For example if there are ten pieces of meat of which nine are kosher and one is not and one is selected the rov says it is a kosher piece of meat.
The Shev Shimaitza says that the Rush only said that even after applying a rov it still remains a safek regarding a ruba dieisa kaman such as in the case of the animal that was counted that jumped back into the coral. Whereas regarding a rov such as the rov that most animals are not tiraifa which is a ruba dilesa kaman the Rush would agree that in applying the rov there remains no safek and one can be certain that it will be from the rov. Therefore regarding the doubt if the animals are tiraifos we can say with certainty that they are not traifos and therefore the tenth animal is with certainty the tenth and thus obligated in ma’aser.
{R.F.}
The Mishnah in Bichoros( 58b) discusses a scenario where during the counting before the owner had reached number ten, one of the animals that were already counted jumped back in to the corral and he cannot distinguish between the animals. The Mishnah says that all the animals are exempt from ma’aser. The Gimorah in Baba Mitzeia (6b) explains this ruling based on a drasha from the passuk “hasiri yiheye kodesh l’Hashem”. The Gimorah explains that the Torah requires that one be certain that the tenth animal is the tenth. If there is any doubt that this animal is the tenth it is not ma’aser (asiri vadai vilo asiri safek). Additionally once an animal was counted it cannot be counted again. Since he cannot distinguish between the animals he might count the animal that was already counted, thereby making it impossible to count with certainty. Therefore all of the animals are exempt from ma’aser since we cannot ensure that any of them will be the definite tenth one out of the corral.
The shita mikubetzes in Baba Mitzeia (6b) cites a R"Ash that asks: why does the Mishnah say that since the animals cannot be counted precisely all of the animals in the corral exempt from ma’aser, why can’t we apply the rule of kal d’parish mairuba parish- if something separates from a group we can assume it belonged to the majority of the group? Since the majority of animals in the corral were not counted, as each animal separates and passes through the door of the corral we should assume that it was never counted, thus enabling the animals to be counted properly and be obligated in ma’aser.
The R"Ash answers that although the Torah allowed us to rely on a rov (majority) in most scenarios, nevertheless it remains a safek (doubt). Therefore with regard to ma’aser where the Torah requires that we know with certainty that the tenth animal is the tenth we cannot rely on a rov.
Reb Akiva Aiger (in tishuvos tinyana 108) asks the following question: An animal that is a traifa is exempt from ma’aser. The only way to know that an animal is not a traifa is to rely on the rov that most animals are healthy and not traifos. However according to the Rush that said that even though the Torah allowed us to rely on a rov it still remains a safek how can we ever have an animal that is obligated in ma’aser? We will not know with certainty that it is the tenth since possibly the first nine were traifos. And even though there is a rov that says that they were not traifos according to the Rush that is not considered knowing with certainty.
The Shev Shimaitza (2 :15) answers that there are two different types of rov; ruba dilesa kaman, and ruba dieisa kaman. A ruba dilesa kaman refers to tendencies in nature or habit. For example that most animals are healthy and not tiraifos, or that most babies born are healthy, or that most people who will shecht(slaughter) know how to do so properly. A ruba dieisa kaman refers to the majority of present chances. For example if there are ten pieces of meat of which nine are kosher and one is not and one is selected the rov says it is a kosher piece of meat.
The Shev Shimaitza says that the Rush only said that even after applying a rov it still remains a safek regarding a ruba dieisa kaman such as in the case of the animal that was counted that jumped back into the coral. Whereas regarding a rov such as the rov that most animals are not tiraifa which is a ruba dilesa kaman the Rush would agree that in applying the rov there remains no safek and one can be certain that it will be from the rov. Therefore regarding the doubt if the animals are tiraifos we can say with certainty that they are not traifos and therefore the tenth animal is with certainty the tenth and thus obligated in ma’aser.
{R.F.}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
