Okay... there seems to be some discrepancy between the order of things in the chumash and the actual crhonologcial order the kohen gadol did things on Yom Kipur. (And a dispute amongst rishonim as to what the discrepancy is exactly.) is there a reason the Torah didn't put the events in chronological order? Any conjectures, or anyone know?
@Alex that makes sense. The torah sometimes describes things out of order and sometimes it's for thematic groupings, though probably not always. But that's a good place to start.
@msh210 There's the fact that the Torah mentions Terach's (and Yitzchak's) deaths long before they actually happened, because it's finishing up with them and then going on to the next generation
@msh210 According to Rashi, yes, because he says that this led to Adam getting back together with Chava and fathering Sheis. But I don't think everyone agrees to that; it might well have been some other time during the thousand-plus years until the flood.
@Alex oh, I didn't realize that. Though I know the lifespans overlapped way more than my instinct says and I'm often surprised by who was contemporary.
And while we're off on the tangent, is it Shim'on ben Shetach or ben Shatach? or ben Shetach except pausally and then Shatach? I've seen all three, I think (or at least the latter two)
@jake, welcome to the parsha chat, or whatever it's become. Sorry, I didn't see you walk in.
If we want to go back to the parsha (at least as a starting point): One thing that struck me reading this week (though it's all over the place, really): why do we get "speak to Aharon (and his sons) and all b'nei Yisrael"? Isn't that redundant? What is this repetition meant to teach us?
@MonicaCellio I'm pretty sure Rashi says, somewhere (@Alex?), that Moshe taught the mitzvos to Aharon, then the two of them to his sons and other leaders, and then all of them taught all the Jews. Or something like that: don't quote me on that exactly.
I was wondering this week, actually, in relation to the arayos. We paskin that kiddushin is tofes only for chiyuvei kares, right? Doesn't this mean that between a Jew and a non-Jew, kiddushin does take affect, since it's only a lav?
@MonicaCellio With the beginning of ch. 19, Rashi mentions that Moshe was to speak publicly to everyone at once (bypassing the normal order, I guess). Dunno about other cases.
@MonicaCellio Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Maybe the kohanim particularly need to be warned to not let their friends convince them to offer their korbanos anywhere.
@jake A relationship between a Jew and a non-Jew is indeed subject to kares, although only midivrei kabbalah (based on a verse in Nach rather than in the Torah)
It's derived from "Lo Sitchaten Bam" - There isn't a concept of marriage (According to R' Shimon) or from ואחר כן תבוא אליה ובעלתה (According to R' Yehuda) - After one does the process of Yefes Toar there is a concept of marriage, but beforehand there is no marriage.
Speaking of things out of order, and of forbidden relations: how come the Torah puts ch. 19 (with its massive number of mitzvos, both interpersonal and between us and Hashem) between chs. 18 and 20, both of which talk about forbidden relations?
@MonicaCellio As is the ordering within that chapter: respect parents, keep Shabbos, stay away from idols (so far three of the Ten Commandments, but out of order), rules for sacrifices, harvest gifts for the poor... and that's just the first ten verses or so!
@MonicaCellio Well, that's what leads Rashi to say that it was said at a public gathering, "because most of the fundamentals of Torah are included in it."
@Alex ah. I was wondering if it meant "hey all, this is really important, women and kids too -- listen up". Versus just relying on the men to manage/teach?
@MonicaCellio Well, a public gathering may well include women and kids, but it means all the jews directly rather than Aharon first, etc., as described above. According to Rashi, anyway.
@msh210 Which is interesting, then, because when it says "bnei Aharon" it's often explained to mean "but not the daughters," but that doesn't seem to be the case with (most) mentions of "bnei Yisrael."
@msh210 His introduction to the commentary on Vayikra (which is a supercommentary on Sifra, mostly). He lists there 613 rules of Hebrew grammar, syntax, use of extra words, etc., and how those are used by Chazal to derive halachos
@msh210 @MonicaCellio Okay, one thing I see he says is that עדה means some kind of Sanhedrin (even just a local one), whereas עדת ישראל means the national Sanhedrin
@MonicaCellio Right, he says that that's the difference between kahal and edah: a kahal is just a gathering of people, an edah is a gathering at a specific time and with a specific agenda
@msh210 Dunno, but maybe because this was the first time they were going to be doing it?
I think I'm going to have to take off from our "edah" here for now, and get back to work. Thanks, @msh210, @MonicaCellio, @jake and @ShmuelBrin for an interetsting discussion, as always!
