What are the implications of "Kadesh Li Kol Bechor"?
Ramban: It implies that the Mitzvah to sanctify the firstborn 1 came into immediate effect, (and that they sanctified the firstborn in the desert - Bechoros 4b).
Seforno: It implies that every Bechor Adam needs to be redeemed - like other forms of Hekdesh. Otherwise, he is prohibited from performing any mundane actitivities. 2
This Parshah ("Kadesh Li") goes on to list a number of other Mitzvos that applied from that time on (See Ramban). See Torah Temimah, note 1.
Seforno: As the Torah writes in connection with a firstborn animal in Devarim 15:19. The commentaries query this, however, inasmuch as there is no source for forbidding a firstborn who has not been redeemed from working.
What if the firstborn is a girl?
Bechoros 19a: In Parshas Re'eh, we learn from the verse, "Kol ha'Bechor... ha'Zachar, Takdish" (Devarim 15:19), that a female is not considered a Bechor. 1
Also see 13:2:1.2:1.
What is the meaning of the term "Peter ... Rechem"?
Rashi and all the commentaries: It means 'that which opens the womb.'
What are the implications of the word "Kol [Bechor]"?
Bechoros 3a: It implies that it is only a firstborn animal belonging entirely to a Yisrael that is subject to the Kedushah of a Bechor - to preclude one in which a Nochri owns a part. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 2.
Having said "Bechor," why does the Torah add the words "Peter Kol Rechem"?
Bechoros 19a: Because we learn in Devarim 15:19 that the Din of Bechor is restricted to a male, our Pasuk adds "Peter Kol Rechem" to exclude the first male to be born after a firstborn female. 1
Bechoros 47b #1: To exclude a Yotzei Dofen (a baby that is born by Caesarian section) from the Din of Bechor.
Bechoros 47a #2: To teach us that the firstborn son of a Bas Levi is not subject to the Din of Bechor, even if she is married to a Yisrael.
See Torah Temimah, note 3.
If the verse will say "Peter Kol Rechem," why does it need to insert the word "Bechor"?
Bechoros 19a: To exclude the first baby that is born naturally after a Yotzei Dofen (a baby that is born by Caesarean section) - even though it is the first baby to be born from the womb. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 3.
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) words, "bi'Venei Yisrael"?
Bechoros 13a: To teach us that the firstborn fetus of a calf that one purchases from a Nochri, one belonging to a Yisrael that one sells (illegally 1 ) to a Nochri, that which one shares with a Nochri, or that one receives from him or gives to him in a business deal, 2 does not have the Din of a Bechor when it is born. 3
What is the significance of the Torah's comparison of "Behemah" to "Adam" regarding the Bechorah?
Mechilta #1: It teaches us that animals belonging to a Levi, like the Levi himself, are not subject to the Bechorah.
Mechilta #2: It teaches us that, just as one is obligated to look after one's firstborn baby for thirty days and then to give him to the Kohen in any location, 1 so too, is the Din regarding one's firstborn animals. Additionally, a firstborn animal that is born after a Nefel, like a firstborn baby, is not considered a Bechor. 2
"Peter Rechem" - Does this imply that it was only the firstborn of the mothers who died in the plague of Makas Bechoros?
Rashi and Ramban #1 (above, in 12:30): Despite the inference, all the Egyptian firstborn died, whether of their father or of their mother. In the event that there was no living firstborn in the family, then even the oldest person in the house died. 1
Ramban (ibid.) #2: It was indeed only the firstborn of the mother who died during Makas Bechoros, as the Pasuk indicates here.
Our Pasuk defines a Bechor as "the one that [first] opens the womb"- i.e., a firstborn to its mother. But according to Rashi (to 12:30), Makas Bechoros included even the firstborns to a father, or the oldest in the house in the absence of a Bechor! Why then is the Mitzvah to sanctify a Bechor, limited to the maternal firstborn?
Ramban to 12:30: A mother's firstborn will be verifiable, 1 which is not the case regarding the firstborn of the father (especially regarding animals). 2 Tehilim 78:51 supports this opinion.
Gur Aryeh (to 12:30) #1: At Makas Bechoros as well, the primary Makah stuck the maternal firstborn (as among such people, paternity cannot be clearly ascribed). Nevertheless, the Makah then extended to include anyone who could at all be referred to as a "Bechor." Refer to 12:30:2.2:1.
Gur Aryeh (to 12:30) #2: Conceptually, the sanctity of a Bechor stems from its being first to emerge into existence. 3 Paternity does not (immediately) bring something new into the world. Refer to 12:30:2.2:2 and its notes.
Compare Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 140) - The Mitzvah to commemorate Makas Bechoros applies only to those firstborn who were verifiably included in the Makah - the mothers' firstborn. Refer to 12:30:2.2:1*.
See also Oznayim la'Torah DH 'Peter Kol Rechem.'
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 38, p. 143): An extension of the fact that Hashem is the beginning for all existence. Also see Maharal (Gur Aryeh to 4:22; Gevuros Hashem Ch. 29, p. 113) - Refer to 12:30:2.2:2* at length; and to 13:13:1.01:1.
What are the implications of "Li Hu"?
Mechilta: In spite of the Pasuk in Re'eh, "Takdish La'Hashem Elokecha" (Devarim 15:19), implying that one is obligated to declare one's firstborn animal a Bechor, it is Kadosh even if one does not do so. 1
Oznayim la'Torah #1: The Bechoros belong to Hashem with regard to performing the Avodah in the Mishkan, and inasmuch as they either need to be redeemed (Bechor Adam) or brought on the Mizbe'ach (Bechor Behemah).
Oznayim la'Torah #2: It is to console Yisrael, not to worry about having to dedicate their firstborn to the service of Hashem, since they (indeed the whole world) belong to Hashem anyway.
Because Moshe declared them Hekdesh until the end of time - as implied by the current Pesukim (13:1-2). See Oznayim la'Torah.
Seeing as a firstborn animal is automatically Kadosh, why does the Torah write in Parshas Re'eh, "Kol ha'Bechor ... Takdish La'Hashem Elokecha" (Devarim 15:19)?
Mechilta: Even though it is not crucial, it is a Mitzvah to declare one's firstborn animal Hekdesh and one will receive reward for doing so. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 13.
Both this section ("Kadesh" - 13:1-10), and the following one ("v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha" - 13:11-16), discuss the sanctity of the Bechor. Why do these comprise two distinct Parshiyos?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 38, p. 143): Makas Bechoros will be mentioned explicitly only in the second Parshah (in 13:15). In general, in the first Parshah (Kadesh), the Mitzvah is to sanctify our firstborn - in order to remember to the salvation of the Jewish firstborn in Egypt. 1 The next Parshah (v'Hayah) tells us to then redeem our firstborn (and to offer up our firstborn animals) - to remember to the smiting of the Egyptian firstborn.
Maharal (ibid.): That is why only "Kadesh" mentions the Mitzvos of Chametz, Matzah, and Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim. Those Mitzvos commemorate the Redemption - which was primarily the salvation of Yisrael, more so than the smiting of the Mitzrim.