Political Crossfire Forums

Jonah · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 928

I have always understood the first male born in a family to be considered the firstborn male, even if a female daughter is born prior to him.

Is this not correct? What I mean is, if a daughter is born first, is a son born after the daughter who opened the womb not considered the "firstborn son", who must be dedicated to the LORD according to the Mosaic law?

Hoping for Duchifas or Mailech to enlighten me on this one. Thanks.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Quote: Pidyon ha-Ben: Redemption of the First Born

The first and best of all things belong to G-d. This is true even of the firstborn of children. Originally, it was intended that the firstborn would serve as the priests and Temple functionaries of Israel; however, after the incident of the Golden Calf, in which the tribe of Levi did not participate, G-d chose the tribe of Levi over the firstborn for this sacred role. This is explained in Num. 8:14-18. However, even though their place has been taken by the Levites, the firstborn still retain a certain degree of sanctity, and for this reason, they must be redeemed.

The ritual of redemption is referred to as pidyon ha-ben, literally, Redemption of the Son.

A firstborn son must be redeemed after he reaches 31 days of age. Ordinarily, the ritual is performed on the 31st day (the day of birth being the first day); however, the ritual cannot be performed on Shabbat because it involves the exchange of money. The child is redeemed by paying a small sum (five silver shekels in biblical times; today, usually five silver dollars) to a kohein (preferably a pious one familiar with the procedure) and performing a brief ritual. This procedure is commanded at Num. 18:15-16.

It is important to remember that rabbis are not necessarily koheins and koheins are not necessarily rabbis. Redemption from a rabbi is not valid unless the rabbi is also a kohein. See Rabbis, Priests and Other Religious Functionaries for more information about this distinction.

The ritual of pidyon ha-ben applies to a relatively small number of Jews. It applies only to the firstborn male child if it is born by natural childbirth. Thus, if a female is the firstborn, no child in the family is subject to the ritual. If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child). If the first conception ends in miscarriage after more than 40 days' term, it does not apply to any subsequent child. It does not apply to members of the tribe of Levi, or children born to a daughter of a member of the tribe of Levi.

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Hope this helps.

Jonah · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 928

Duchifas wrote: Quote: Pidyon ha-Ben: Redemption of the First Born

The first and best of all things belong to G-d. This is true even of the firstborn of children. Originally, it was intended that the firstborn would serve as the priests and Temple functionaries of Israel; however, after the incident of the Golden Calf, in which the tribe of Levi did not participate, G-d chose the tribe of Levi over the firstborn for this sacred role. This is explained in Num. 8:14-18. However, even though their place has been taken by the Levites, the firstborn still retain a certain degree of sanctity, and for this reason, they must be redeemed.

The ritual of redemption is referred to as pidyon ha-ben, literally, Redemption of the Son.

A firstborn son must be redeemed after he reaches 31 days of age. Ordinarily, the ritual is performed on the 31st day (the day of birth being the first day); however, the ritual cannot be performed on Shabbat because it involves the exchange of money. The child is redeemed by paying a small sum (five silver shekels in biblical times; today, usually five silver dollars) to a kohein (preferably a pious one familiar with the procedure) and performing a brief ritual. This procedure is commanded at Num. 18:15-16.

It is important to remember that rabbis are not necessarily koheins and koheins are not necessarily rabbis. Redemption from a rabbi is not valid unless the rabbi is also a kohein. See Rabbis, Priests and Other Religious Functionaries for more information about this distinction.

The ritual of pidyon ha-ben applies to a relatively small number of Jews. It applies only to the firstborn male child if it is born by natural childbirth. Thus, if a female is the firstborn, no child in the family is subject to the ritual. If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child). If the first conception ends in miscarriage after more than 40 days' term, it does not apply to any subsequent child. It does not apply to members of the tribe of Levi, or children born to a daughter of a member of the tribe of Levi.

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Hope this helps.

Thanks Duchifas, that clears it up for me.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child)

I can't help but ask, because I am so curious about things, but why is this?

And it seems that apparently some sources would look at the next child as the first born, but not most.

Why is this?

Thanks. :-D

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child)

I can't help but ask, because I am so curious about things, but why is this?

And it seems that apparently some sources would look at the next child as the first born, but not most.

Why is this?

Thanks. :-D

No idea. :) Either try google, or if that doesn't help, PM Mailech. He has had a much more rounded Jewish education than me. I am just an amateur.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

OK thanks anyway.

Perhaps he will see this thread and reply.

Mailech · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 2531

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child)

I can't help but ask, because I am so curious about things, but why is this?

And it seems that apparently some sources would look at the next child as the first born, but not most.

Why is this?

Thanks. :-D

It says in the Torah "Make holy for Me every first born, The opener of every womb in man and in animal is Mine.
So I guess there is room to say that the second child, if born naturally would be the womb opener and so for G-d.
but most people would say that both clauses need to apply. The truth is, I have not actually seen anyone who says the second child would need to be redeemed.

John · Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:58 am Post subject:

Mailech wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child)

I can't help but ask, because I am so curious about things, but why is this?

And it seems that apparently some sources would look at the next child as the first born, but not most.

Why is this?

Thanks. :-D

It says in the Torah "Make holy for Me every first born, The opener of every womb in man and in animal is Mine.
So I guess there is room to say that the second child, if born naturally would be the womb opener and so for G-d.
but most people would say that both clauses need to apply. The truth is, I have not actually seen anyone who says the second child would need to be redeemed.

Well the "womb" is opened with the first child no matter how the child is delivered.

But this brings us back to Jonah's question about the first born being a female....if it invalidates the second born male who is the first male born to the couple.

Mailech · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 2531

John wrote: Well the "womb" is opened with the first child no matter how the child is delivered.

But this brings us back to Jonah's question about the first born being a female....if it invalidates the second born male who is the first male born to the couple.

It means openening it up on the way down, which let me tell you is some pretty crazy stuff. Holy cow.

Anyway, If the first born is a girl, as is the case in my family, then the first son, is just another child. There is no first born son, and that applies to all aspects of first born. My eldest brother gets no double portion of the inheritence, and he was not redeemed and he does not fast on the fast of the first born.

John · Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:17 am Post subject:

Mailech wrote: John wrote: Well the "womb" is opened with the first child no matter how the child is delivered.

But this brings us back to Jonah's question about the first born being a female....if it invalidates the second born male who is the first male born to the couple.

It means openening it up on the way down, which let me tell you is some pretty crazy stuff. Holy cow.

Anyway, If the first born is a girl, as is the case in my family, then the first son, is just another child. There is no first born son, and that applies to all aspects of first born. My eldest brother gets no double portion of the inheritence, and he was not redeemed and he does not fast on the fast of the first born.

I'm the first born son (first born and a male :wink: )....but I guess all of that stuff only applies to Jews right?

Mailech · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 2531

John wrote: Mailech wrote: John wrote: Well the "womb" is opened with the first child no matter how the child is delivered.

But this brings us back to Jonah's question about the first born being a female....if it invalidates the second born male who is the first male born to the couple.

It means openening it up on the way down, which let me tell you is some pretty crazy stuff. Holy cow.

Anyway, If the first born is a girl, as is the case in my family, then the first son, is just another child. There is no first born son, and that applies to all aspects of first born. My eldest brother gets no double portion of the inheritence, and he was not redeemed and he does not fast on the fast of the first born.

I'm the first born son (first born and a male :wink: )....but I guess all of that stuff only applies to Jews right?

Well you don't need to be redeemed, and you don't need to fast, since had you been in Egypt you'ld be dead. And I don't know what the non-Jewish inheritence laws are. But either way, good for you. :P

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Mailech wrote: Well you don't need to be redeemed, and you don't need to fast, since had you been in Egypt you'ld be dead. And I don't know what the non-Jewish inheritence laws are. But either way, good for you. :P

Well, if you and I'd go to Egypt sporting our yarmulkas, I have a feeling we too would be lynched. So I think it's best for everyone here to keep our distance from certain Middle Eastern countries. :lol:

BTW, Hag Sameach, Mailech. Good to "see" you.

John · Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:53 am Post subject:

Mailech wrote: John wrote: Mailech wrote: John wrote: Well the "womb" is opened with the first child no matter how the child is delivered.

But this brings us back to Jonah's question about the first born being a female....if it invalidates the second born male who is the first male born to the couple.

It means openening it up on the way down, which let me tell you is some pretty crazy stuff. Holy cow.

Anyway, If the first born is a girl, as is the case in my family, then the first son, is just another child. There is no first born son, and that applies to all aspects of first born. My eldest brother gets no double portion of the inheritence, and he was not redeemed and he does not fast on the fast of the first born.

I'm the first born son (first born and a male :wink: )....but I guess all of that stuff only applies to Jews right?

Well you don't need to be redeemed, and you don't need to fast, since had you been in Egypt you'ld be dead. And I don't know what the non-Jewish inheritence laws are. But either way, good for you. :P

Nah, I've got the blood better than goats over my door. :wink:

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: It means openening it up on the way down, which let me tell you is some pretty crazy stuff. Holy cow.

Zowie. Ouch.

Thanks, Mailech.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

John wrote: Nah, I've got the blood better than goats over my door. :wink:

That may just get you a citation from Texas Dept. of Health. Be careful. :)

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/hs.toc.htm

Jonah · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 928

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Nah, I've got the blood better than goats over my door. :wink:

That may just get you a citation from Texas Dept. of Health. Be careful. :)

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/hs.toc.htm

:lol:

Mailech · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 2531

Duchifas wrote: Mailech wrote: Well you don't need to be redeemed, and you don't need to fast, since had you been in Egypt you'ld be dead. And I don't know what the non-Jewish inheritence laws are. But either way, good for you. :P

Well, if you and I'd go to Egypt sporting our yarmulkas, I have a feeling we too would be lynched. So I think it's best for everyone here to keep our distance from certain Middle Eastern countries. :lol:

BTW, Hag Sameach, Mailech. Good to "see" you.

I'll keep that in mind, hope you had a wonderful Peasach