Pisqa’ 217¹

1

“Rather, he must recognize the First-born son of the rejected wife” (Dt.21:17).

Recognition implies that

[the father] should make known to others

[his son’s First-born status].

This teaches that

a person can be relied upon when he says:

Meet my First-born son!

R. Judah says:

Just as a person can be relied upon [to be truthful]

when he says:

Meet my First-born son

[who is entitled to inherit twice the sum due his brothers],

so, too, can [a Priest] be relied upon [to be truthful]

when he says:

Meet the son of the divorcee

[whom I later married]!

Or: Meet the son of my sister-in-law,

the Shoe-loosener²

[whom I later married]!³

But sages say:

He cannot be relied upon [to disadvantage his son].

2

                 “By giving him two times as much from all his property” (Dt.21:17).

Does this mean that the First-born receives

twice as much as any one share

[e.g., forty percent]?⁴

Or [does he receive] twice as much as

the sum of all property [set aside for the heirs by the estate

[e.g., fifty per cent of the whole]?⁵

Look—

You can reason it out this way.

Whereas [the First-born is either] sharing the estate

with one other heir, or sharing it with five—

since we find that,

when he shares with one heir,

he takes twice as much as that heir

[that is, forty per cent, to his brother’s twenty per cent],

so, too, when he shares with five heirs,

[namely, himself and four brothers,]

he takes twice as much property

[at fifty percent of the whole]

as any one of their shares

[each of which amounts to twenty five percent].

Perhaps we can try another approach?

Whereas the First-born is [either] sharing the estate

with one other heir, or with five other heirs—

since we find that,

when he shares with one heir,

he takes twice as much property as any one of them,

[forty percent as opposed to twenty percent,]

so, too, when he shares with five heirs,

he should take twice as much property as all of them

[fifty percent as opposed to twenty percent].

3

The Teaching states:

“So when the day comes to bequeath to his sons” (Dt.21:16)—

this includes the release of the heirs’ inheritance

[of the assets of the estate].

Now that we have learned to

include the sons’ inheritance [in the total estate],

[it is clear that] all you need do

is follow the reasoning of the first argument:

Whereas [the first-born] can share

the inheritance with one heir,

or he can share it with five heirs—

just as we have found that,

when he shares with one heir,

he takes twice as much property as this one,

so, too, when he shares the inheritance with five,

he takes twice as much property as any one of them.

4

And, similarly, he [Jacob] says [to Joseph]:

“And I have given you a single portion more than your brothers” (Gn.48:22)—

[this is the right of the First-born, transferred from Reuben].

And He says [of Reuben and Joseph]:

“And my son, Reuben, first-born of Israel! He is, indeed, the First-born! Yet, for desecrating his father’s couch, his right of the First-born was given to the sons of

Joseph b. Israel, so he is no longer mentioned as the First-born” (1Chron.5:1-2).

And He says:

“For Judah dominated his brothers, and royalty proceeded from his line,

but the right of the First-born went to Joseph” (1Chron.5:2).

Since we have found that

the right of the First-born passed to Joseph,

and the right of the First-born is for all generations—

just as the right of the First-born given to Joseph

was a double share of any one of them,

so, too, the right of the First-born for all generations

is a double share of any one of them.

“From all his property” (Dt.21:17)—

this teaches that the First-born

does not take from the estate’s anticipated income

as freely as he does from its current holdings.⁶

5

“For this son is the first sign of his vitality” (Dt.21:17)—

but not the first sign of a woman’s vitality.

“His is the right (mishpat) of the First-born” (Dt.21:17)—

this teaches that

the right of the First-born is administered by judges.

1. H:228-229; JN2:120-121.
2. On levirat marriage and the rite of khalitzah, see Dt. 25:5-11. Cf. Pisqa’ot 288-291.
3. A son sired by a Priest and a divorcee, or a Shoe-loosener, is disqualified from serving in the sacrificial service. The priest is assumed to be truthful in such a grave genealogical matter. I follow RH ad loc. Cf. Rashi, B. Qid. 78b, s.v., l’a mib`ay’a ‘eihu
4. Assuming a case where the estate is divided into five equal shares of twenty percent each.
5. Assuming a case where the whole is first divided in half, with one half going to the First-bornand the other half being divided into four shares among the other heirs. H:228 and JN2:120 calculate the ratio as “two-thirds” based on variant readings in mss and early printed editions (see the critical apparatus in F:250, l. 4).
6. Cf. M. Bech. 8:9 and Pisqa’ 216.1