c. The Position of the Firstborn
According to the Law
α.
Right of Succession. According to Dt.
21:15–17, a father is forbidden to disregard the order of the birth of his sons
and to assign the privileged position of the major beneficiary of his
possessions to his favorite son who is not the firstborn. This is called “the
right of the firstborn” (mishpat
habbekhorah), which is defined as “pi
shenayim of all that he (i.e., the testator) has.” According to some
scholars, e.g., Noth, pi shenayim
means “two-thirds,” i.e., the firstborn received two-thirds of the entire
inheritance, and all the other sons received an equal of the other third.
Noth’s reasons are: (1) the above-mentioned Mari text, which has shittīn, “two-thirds,” in a situation
comparable to that described in Dt. 21:15–17; and (2) Zec. 13:8. However, this
interpretation must be rejected. Actually, pi
shenayim means “a portion of two, a double portion” (cf. Sir. 12:5). Thus,
if there are three parties concerned, the firstborn would receive two-thirds;
if there are four parties concerned, he would receive two-fourths, etc. This
explanation is supported by a comparison with the pertinent texts from
Mesopotamia. It is impossible to be sure whether it is true that the
inheritance which the law has in mind applies only to movable possessions,
while the other possessions remain in the family undivided, as de Vaux would
like to assume; but this is not likely (Dt. 25:5 and Ps. 133:1
probably do not have the normal situation in mind). Esau sold this special
portion and nothing else (Gen. 25:31–34), just as in Old Babylonia and in Nuzi
inheritances are the object of buying and selling among brothers. Esau’s rank
and position are not affected by this transaction, as chap. 27 shows quite
clearly. On the other hand, the Elijah narrative uses the language of the law (pi shenayim be) symbolically to affirm
and to defend the superiority of Elisha (2 K. 2:9) over the other prophets (vv.
3, 5, 7, and 15).
In connection with this diversity of opinion as to the size of the
inheritance of the firstborn, the alleged intention of the lawgiver to maintain
the uniformity of agricultural production as much as possible can have played
only a subordinate role at best. To the contrary, the law of the firstborn is
nothing but an expression of the exceedingly high esteem in which the first
child was held, especially if that child was male. The first is the best. reʾshith has both of these meanings, and
in the expression reʾshith ʾon, “the
first of the (procreative) strength,” the latter sense is quite clear. Thus, bekhor assumes the meaning “excellent”
(par. to ʿelyon, “highest,” Ps.
89:28[27]), and actually functions as a sign of the elative when bekhor appears in the construct with maveth, “the firstborn of death” (Job
18:13), and dallim, “the firstborn of
the poor” (Isa. 14:30).
β.
In the Cult. It is not only the best
that belongs to God, but also the first. It would be presumptuous for man to
enjoy something without first giving God his portion. The firstborn of man and
beast and the firstfruits of field and garden (see also Lev. 19:23–25) are
given to God as his portion by sacral consecration, and therefore can be set
free for secular use only by redemption (usually → פדה pādhāh), i.e., substitution or ransom (Ex. 13:13, 15; 34:20; Lev. 27:26f.;
Nu. 3:44–51; 18:15–17; Dt. 14:23–26). The firstborn of nonsacrificial animals
and the firstborn of man must be redeemed. (Ezekiel’s strange view of the
plight of the firstborn in 20:25f. can be understood only in light of the
overall context of his speech.) However, in the legislation in the book of
Numbers (P), the law concerning the redemption of the firstborn of man is
always connected with the appointment of the Levites (Nu. 3:11–13, 40f., 44f.;
8:16–18; there is a transitional law in 3:46–48). The religio-phenomenological
basis for God’s claim on the firstborn is his mighty acts in Israel’s history
(Nu. 3:13; 8:17; anticipated by Ex. 13:15): when God slew “all the firstborn in
the land of Egypt”(!), all the firstborn fell to him (cf. Ex. 12:12f., 23). It
is true that he spared the firstborn of the Israelites, but this does not mean
that he relinquishes his claim on them, but only that he changes its nature.
(M. Tsevat, “בְּכוֹר,” in TDOT 2:125-27)
