Cyberdov

(Condensed from R Yitzchak EtShalom - read the whole thing here)

Ki Tisa begins with two similar yet different passages - the bring of Bikkurim (first fruits) to the temple, with its attendant declaration, and the giving away of Maaser (tithe) to the landless, with its declaration. It’s worth having a brief read of the passages themselves before continuing, in Deuteronomy 26.

The Bikkurim declaration is a historical review of God’s promise to the forefathers of the nation, beginning with the Canaanite period before the Egyptian exile. It takes place at the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Maaser declaration is concerned with the meticulous attention to detail in the rules of Maaser. It also refers to God’s promise to the forefathers.

The Mishna points out that there are people, e.g. a convert, who bring bikkurim and maaser but  without the declaration - because the references to ‘our forefathers’ do not apply. The Ramabam (based on the Yerushalmi) overrules the mishna in the case of Bikkurim - the convert is considered a descendant of Abraham - but agrees in the case of Maaser that the convert is ineligible to make the declaration. Why the difference?

Ramban on Deuteronomy 26:13 suggests that the forefathers of the Maaser declaration are actually the generation of the exodus (based on the reference to ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’, which does not appear in Genesis but is first spoken to Moses). The question arises, though - why did God make these promises about the Land of Israel to Moses, wasn’t the promise to Abraham still in effect?

There are other instances, though, of commandments with a dual nature. Shabbat occurs every seven days - but we are still commaned to sanctify it. The first-born is born holy - but we are still commanded to sanctify it. Apparently, God wishes for us to participate in these sanctifications - it is not sufficient that they exist independently. Similarly, perhaps there was an existing promise - but we were then required to participate in it, and that is the nature of the covenants of Sinai.

If so, the convert is not considered a descendent of the forefathers  of the Exodus (as opposed to his being a descendant of at least one of the patriarchs). Moreover, Bikkurim seems to be a celebration of the promise to the patriarchs, which was a one-sided grant by God. Maaser, however, stems from the bilateral covenant in which Israel is responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the Torah.  While the convert certainly assumes these obligations, he cannot say thet the Israelites of Sinai were actually his forefathers, and so is exempt from the Maaser declaration.

This idea went over well at the DJC. After discussing it at home, though, a much better analysis was advanced by Sue…so please see part II for details…

Filed under: DJC, Torah