First-born

I should not think it necessary to detain the reader with any thing by way of explanation to these terms, being in themselves sufficiently obvious, but only when applied to the person of Christ, considered with an eye to him, they merit attention. We are told by the apostle to the Colossians, first chapter, and eighteenth verse, that he who is the Head of his body the church, and who is the beginning, was also the first - born from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre - eminence.’’ It is astonishing to what minutecircumstances every thing in the church of the Old Testament had a reference, by way of typifying the Lord Jesus Christ in this pre - eminency of character, as the first, and first - born, and first - fruits, and the firstlings of the flock, and of the herd. As if (and which in reality is the case), JEHOVAH would have every thing shadow forth and bring forward somewhat either by allusion, or by direct type, concerning him who is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and sum and substance of all things, in the ordinance of Godfor salvation. We find this beginning even in the patriarchal age. So that Jacob, when a - dying, though he set aside Reuben from the right of primogeniture, for his particular offence against his father, yet still speaks of the dignity of it. Reuben (saith he) thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength; the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power." Then follows the sentence of degradation, "Thou shalt not excel; that is, thou shalt not retain the right of heirship. (Gen. xlix. 4.) And at the formationof the church, at the Exodus by Moses, while the first - born of the Egyptians, both of man and beast, were all killed, the Lord declared, that all the first - born of Israel, both of man and beast, should be consecrated to him. (Exod. xii; 29; 13. 2.)

I do not presume to speak with any confidence upon the subject; but I would very humbly ask, Is there not somewhat wonderfully striking in this appointment of the Lord? The Passover that was then observed, we have authority to say, was altogether typical of Christ; for God the Holy Ghost declared by Paul the apostle, that Christ, "our passover, was sacrificed for us." (1 Cor. v. 7.) And as this Passover, in the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb of the first year, without blemish, and without spot, on the houses of the Israelites, become the only cause of safety, to make all the difference between the first - born of Israel and the first - born of Egypt; are we not taught herefrom, that the year of Christ’s redeemed is no less the day of Christ’s vengance? (Isa. l13. 4.) God will have a sacrifice of judgment in the firstlings of his enemies, as well as of mercy in the firstlings of his people. So much will JEHOVAH in all things honour his dear Son, as the first, and first - born, and only begotten of his Father, that at the forming of the church there shall be adestruction in the first - born of those that hate him. I do not presume to speak decidedly on this point; but I cannot but conceive, that there is somewhat very striking on this ground is the difference here shewn between Israel and Egypt. (Exod. xi. 17.) And if the reader will pursue the subject through the Bible, in the several types by which Christ the first - born is set forth, he will, I am persuaded, be wonderfully struck, as he passeth through the sacred volume, with the vast attention manifested on the occasion.

The first - born among the children of Israel had a precedency and birthright, which certainly pointed to Jesus. The right of priesthood was with the elder son, and a double portion among his brethren. (Gen. xlix. 8.) And if a man had many wives, still the first - born of every one of them was to be consecrated to the Lord.

And under this view I must not forget to observe, that the offering appointed for every male that opened the womb, (see Exod. 13. 2. with Exod. 34. 19, 20. Lev. x2: 6. Luke 2: 21 - 24.) had a direct reference to Christ. Yea, some have thought (and it is a point worthy the most serious consideration, ) whether this direction concerning the opening of the womb had respect to any other. For strictly and properly speaking, none but the Lord Jesus ever did open the womb. By the miraculous impregnation of the Virgin, from theovershadowing power of the Holy Ghost, the opening of womb was specially and peculiarly only effected at the birth of Christ; whereas, in every other instance, from the creation of the world, as anatomists well know, it is accomplished at the time of conception. And if this be the case in the instance of Christ, and this appointment of dedication to the Lord of the first - born, that openeth the womb had respect only to Christ; what an eye to this one birth, all along through the whole Levitical dispensation, was manifested bythis right of the Lord, both in the first - born of men and of beast, to typify Christ! I beg the reader on this occasion, as in many others, to observe, that I presume not to speak with any positiveness upon the subject; I only state it. Certain it is, that in all things, and by every way, it was and is JEHOVAH’S will, Jesus should have the pre - eminency. It is blessed, therefore, upon all occasions to discover it.

The redemption of the first - born among the children of Israel, was usually observed with great ceremony. The parents brought their son to the priest, together with the appointed offering for redemption, (See Num. 18: 15, 16.) and the priest received the child from his mother’s hands, with the solemn assurance, that it was her firstborn. The priest then claiming the child in right of the Lord, accepts at the parents’ hands the appointed offering, and return the infant; and the day concludes in holy rejoicing. It forms an additionaltestimony, that all this was with an eye to Christ, in that among the first - born of the Levites, the redemption of the first - born was not appointed. (Num. i. 47. 3: 12, 13.) And, wherefore, among the Levites this exemption, for it is evident our Lord sprang out of Judah? The whole of Israel is said to be unto JEHOVAH a kingdom of priests." (Exod. xix. 6.) And therefore, in every thing, and by every way, both in a single tribe and in the whole people, as the Lord’s chosen, as shall be typical of the Lord Jesus Christ. In aword, JEHOVAH’S great design all along, and from one eternity to another, is to glorify his dear Son. In all things and by all things, he shall have the pre - eminence. "Every knee shall bow before him, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Amen, I will detain the reader no longer than just to remark, that the offering of the first fruits had an eye to the Lord Jesus, similar to what hath been shewn respecting the first - born. For the waving the first fruits towards heaven, and the lambthatwas to be offered with it for a burnt offering, very plainly testified, that this also was typical. (See in confirmation Lev. 23i. 10 - 14.)

The first-born, who was the object of special affection to his parents, was denominated by way of eminence, רחם פסר , the opening of the womb. In case a man married with a widow, who by a previous marriage had become the mother of children, the first-born as respected the second husband was the eldest child by the second marriage. Before the time of Moses, the father might, if he chose, transfer the right of primogeniture to a younger child, but the practice occasioned much contention, Gen 25:31-32; and a law was enacted, overruling it, Deu 21:15-17. The first-born inherited peculiar rights and privileges.

(1.) He received a double portion of the estate. Jacob, in the case of Reuben, his first-born, bestowed his additional portion upon Joseph, by adopting his two sons, Gen 48:5-8; Deu 21:17. This was done as a reprimand, and a punishment of his incestuous conduct, Gen 35:22; but Reuben, notwithstanding, was enrolled as the first- born in the genealogical registers, 1Ch 5:1.

(2.) The first-born was the priest of the whole family. The honour of exercising the priesthood was transferred, by the command of God communicated through Moses, from the tribe of Reuben, to whom it belonged by right of primogeniture, to that of Levi, Num 3:12-18

Num 8:18. In consequence of God having taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the first-born to serve him as priests, the first-born of the other tribes were to be redeemed, at a valuation made by the priest not exceeding five shekels, from serving God in that capacity, Num 18:15-16, Luk 2:22, &c.

(3.) The first-born enjoyed an authority over those that were younger, similar to that possessed by a father, Gen 25:23, &c; 2Ch 21:3; Gen 27:29: Exo 12:29: which was transferred in the case of Reuben by Jacob their father to Judah, Gen 49:8-10. The tribe of Judah, accordingly, even before it gave kings to the Hebrews, was every where distinguished from the other tribes. In consequence of the authority which was thus attached to the first-born, he was also made the successor in the kingdom. There was an exception to this rule in the case of Solomon, who, though a younger brother, was made his successor by David at the special appointment of God. It is very easy to see in view of these facts, how the word “first-born” came to express sometimes a great, and sometimes the highest, dignity.

2. First-born is not always to be understood literally; it is sometimes taken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of any thing. “The first- born of the poor,” Isa 14:30, signifies the most miserable of the poor; and “the first-born of death,” Job 18:13, the most terrible of deaths.

3. God ordained that all the Jewish first-born, both of men and beasts, for service, should be consecrated to him. The male children only were subject to this law. If a woman’s first child were a girl, the father was not obliged to offer any thing for her, or for the children after her, though they were males. If a man had many wives, he was obliged to offer the first-born of each of them to the Lord. The first-born were offered in the temple, and were redeemed for the sum of five shekels. The firstling of a clean beast was offered at the temple, not to be redeemed, but to be killed. An unclean beast, a horse, an ass, or a camel, was either redeemed or exchanged. An ass was redeemed by a lamb, or five shekels; if not redeemed, it was killed.

The privileges of the first born son, among the Hebrews, are indicated under Birthright.

(בְּכוֹרָח בְּכוֹר, בְּכַירָה, from בָּכִר, to ripen early; Sept., and N T. πρωτότοκος,Vulg. prsimogenitus), applied equally to animals and human beings. Among the Hebrews the first-born son had many privileges, to be entitled to which it was not only required that a man should be the first child of his mother, but that he should be, at the same time,-the first son of his father (Deu 21:15-17). The eldest son received a double portion of the father’s inheritance (Deu 21:17), but not of the mother’s (Mishna, Bekoroth, viii; 9)-. If the father had married two wives, of whom he preferred one to the’ other, he was forbidden to give precedence to the son of the one if the child of the other were the first-born (Deu 21:15-16). ’In the case of levirate marriage, the son’ of the next brother succeeded to his uncle’s vacant inheritance (Deu 25:5-6). Under the monarchy, the eldest son usually, but not always, s-appears in the case of Solomon, succeeded his father in the kingdom (1Ki 1:30; 1Ki 2:22). That some rights of primogeniture existed in very early times is plain, but it is not so clear in what they consisted. They have been classed as

(a.) authority over the rest of the family

(b.) priesthood;

(c.) a double portion of the inheritance.

The birthright of Esau and of Reuben, set aside by authority or forfeited by misconduct, prove a general privilege as. well as quasisacredness of primogeniture (Gen 25:23; Gen 25:31; Gen 25:34; Gen 49:3; 1Ch 5:1; Heb 12:16), and a precedence which obviously existed, and is alluded to in various passages (as Psa 89:27; Job 18:13; Roam. 8:29; Col 1:15; Heb 12:23); but the story of Esau’s rejection tends to show the supreme. and sacred authority of the parent irrevocable even by himself, rather than inherent right existing in the eldest son, which was evidently not inalienable (Gen 27:29; Gen 27:03; Gen 27:36; Grotius,. Calmet, Patrick, Knobel, on Genesis 25). See Hottinger, Deprimagenilis (Marb. 1711); Schreder, De vett. Hebrm. etprissogeasitis (Msarb. 1741); ’Fabricius, Bibliogr. Antiq. p. 892; Gerdes, De variis locs ismb quibus primogenitorum mentio occurrit (Duisb. 1730); Frischmnuth, De prinmogens-tura (Jan. 1649). SEE BIRTHRIGHT.

The expression "first-born" is not always to be understood literally’ it is sometimes taken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of things. Thus "’Jesus Christ” is "the first-born of every creature, the first- begotten, or first--born from the dead;" begotten of the Father before any creature was produced; the first who rose from the dead by his own power (see Jour. Sac. Lit. Apr. 1861). Wisdom, says that she came out of the mouth of the Most High before he had produced any’creature (Pro 8:22; Sir 24:3; Ina. 14:390). "The first-born of the poor." signifies the most miserable of the poor (Job 18:13). "the first-born of death," the most terrible of deaths (see Wemyss, Symbol. Dict.). The "Church of the firstborn" (Heb 12:23) signifies the Church of the redeemed-those who have become peculiarly the Lord’s, and through the blood of the everlasting covenant, applied to their consciences, are consecrated to his for evermore, in accordance with the custom of consecration described below (see Schottgen, Hoas. Hebr..i, 922).

DESTRUCTION OF THE FIRST-BORN. This was the tenth and last plague inflicted on the Egyptians (Exo 11:1-8; Exo 12:29-30). ’We learn from Herodotus (ii, 85) that it was the custom of the Egyptians to rush from the house into the street, to bewail the dead with loud and bitter outcries; and every member of the family united in these expressions of sorrow. How great must their terror and grief have been when A’ at - midnight Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt.", Hemmgstenberg remarks (Egypt and the Books of Moses) that the phrase ’sall the first-born’ must’ not be pressed too far. The whole tenor of the narrative is opposed to such a proceeding, and particularly the declaration, ’There was no house where there was not as dead; since in every house there was not a first-born. It must not be inferred that none of the first- born remained alive in the land, or that none besides the first-born died. That the Egyptians were swept off by an epidemic is indeed probable,’ and much more than probable, from Exo 9:15. What the Lord there says he had long been able to do, that he now really dies; since the reasons here given in Exo 9:16, which until now have prevented him from proceeding to this last resource, have now ceased; since, in short, he has by a series of acts sufficiently unfolded his omnipotence and grace." SEE PLAGUES OF EGYPT.

FIRST-BORN, SANCTIFICATION AND REDEMPTION OF.(קְדוּשִׁת בְּכוֹר, פַּדְיוֹן הִבֵּן). Males of human beings and animals were strictly enjoined to perpetuate the remembrance of the death. of Egypt’s first-born, whereby the liberty of the Israelites was secured, and of the preservation of Israel’s first-born. Compare Exo 12:2; Exo 12:11-15.

1. Sanctification of the First-born, its signification, etc. - The fact that the first-born of Egypt were selected to be smitten down for the hard- heartedness of Pharaoh, and that their death was regarded as the greatest calamity, shows of itself that a peculiar sanctity had already been attached to the first-born of both man and cattle. The cause of this is easily traced in the Scriptures. The power of procreation was declared by God himself to be a special blessing (Gen 1:22; Gen 1:28; Gen 9:1; Gen 17:16; Gen 29:31), and was granted as a reward to those who were well pleasing in his sight (Gen 15:4; Psa 128:4). This was fully appreciated by the Jews; for the possession of children, especially of the male sex, was esteemed the climax of social happiness (Gen 16:2; Gen 29:31; Deu 7:13-14; Psa 128:3-4), and the absence of them was considered a reproach (חֶרְפָּה), since it implied divine displeasure (Gen 30:23), and no other earthly blessing could compensate for it (Gen 16:1-5). Moreover, the first-born of newly-married young people (הִנְּעוּרִים בְּנֵי, Psa 127:4) were believed to represent the prime of human vigor (אוֹן

רֵאשַׁית), being born before the strength of the father began to diminish (Genesis 43; Deu 21:17; Psa 78:51; Psa 105:36). It was therefore natural that the first instalment of God’s blessing, and the prime of man’s strength, should be regarded with peculiar affection, and have special sanctity attached to him, and that by virtue of the claim which God has to what is most loved and held sacred by us, and gratitude on the part of man, the first-born males, both of man and animals, should be consecrated to the Giver of all good things; the one as a priest, representing the family to which he belonged (Exo 19:22; Exo 19:24), and the other as a sacrifice (Gen 4:4), just as the fat of sacrifices was devoted to God because it was regarded as the prime part of the animal. SEE FAT. This explains the fact why the plague of the first-born of the Egyptians was so terribly felt; it was the destruction of the objects most dear and sacred to them, whilst the first-born of the Hebrews, i.e. their priests and sacrifices, were spared. Moreover, it shows the import of the consecration enjoined in Exo 13:1. Hitherto it was optional with the Hebrews whether they would devote the first-born to the Lord, but now God, by virtue of having so signally interposed for their deliverance, claims the public consecration of the first-born of man as his priests, and of the first-born of animals as sacrifices.

2. Origin of the Redemption of the First-born.-This devotion of the first- born was believed to indicate a priesthood belonging to the eldest sons of families, -which being set aside in the case of Reuben, was transferred to the tribe of Levi. This priesthood is said to have lasted till the completion of the tabernacle (Jahn, Bibl. Arch. 10:§ 165, 387; Selden, De Syn. c. 16; Mishna, Zebachins, 14:4, vol. v, 58; comp. Eze 24:5). After the building of the tabernacle and the introduction of the extensive sacrificial service, which required a special priestly order, as well as a separate staff of servants, who could exclusively devote themselves to the ministry of the sanctuary, the offices of the firstborn were superseded by those of the Levites (Numbers iii, 11-13); and it was ordained that the first-born of the other tribes, as well as the first-born of the animals which could not be sacrificed, should henceforth be redeemed (ib. 18:15).

3. Redemption of the First-born of Man.-The redemption of a child is to take place when it is a month old, when the father is to give to the priest five silver shekels of the sanctuary, i.e. about three dollars as the maximum. If it died before the expiration of 30 days, the Jewish doctors held the father excused, but liable to the payment if it outlived that time (Exo 13:12-15; Exo 22:29; Num 8:17; Lev 27:6; Lightfoot, Hor. - Hebr. on Luk 2:22; Philo, De Pr. Sacerd. i, i, 233; Mangey). If the child was sickly, or appeared otherwise to be inferior to children generally, the priest could estimate it at less than this sum (Num 3:46, etc.; 18:16). The priest had to come to the house of the infant, as the mother could not appear with it in the Temple because her days of purification, according to the law (Lev 12:2; Lev 12:4), were not as yet accomplished. No bargaining was allowed, but if the priest saw that the parents were poor, he could, if he chose, return the money when the ceremony was over. When the mother’s days of purification were accomplished, and she could appear in the Temple, she then brought the child to the priest to be presented publicly to the Lord (Luk 2:22). The Jews still observe this law of redemption. When the first-born male is thirty days old, the parents invite to their house their friends and a priest (כֹּהֵן) to a meal for the following day. The priest, having invoked God’s blessing upon the repast, and offered some introductory prayers, etc., looks at the child and the price of redemption presented before him, and asks the father which he would rather have, the money or the firstborn child. Upon the father’s reply that he would rather pay the price of redemption, the priest takes the money, swings it round the head of the infant in token of his vicarious authority, saying, "This is for the firstborn, this is in lieu of it, this redeems it; and let this son be spared for life, for the law of God, and for the fear of Heaven. May it please Thee, that, as he was spared for redemption, so he may be spared for the Law, for matrimony, and for good works. Amen." The priest lays his hand upon the child’s head and blesses it, as follows: " The Lord make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh!" etc. It is to this that the apostle Peter refers when he says, "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold," etc. (1Pe 1:18). When the first-born son is thirteen years of age, he fasts the day before the feast of Passover, in commemoration of the sparing of the first-born of the Hebrews in Egypt. SEE FAST. 4. Redemption of the First-born of clean Animals. The male first-born of animals ( פֶּטֶר רֶחֶםSept. διανοῖγον μήτραν; Vulg. quod aperit vulvam) was also devoted to God (Exo 13:2; Exo 13:12-13; Exo 22:29; Exo 34:19-20; Philo, . c., and quis rerum div. hceres. 24, i, 489, Mang.). The first-born of every clean animal (i.e., ox, sheep, goat, etc.), from eight days to twelve months old, had to be taken to Jerusalem every year (Deu 12:6, etc.), and delivered to the priest, who offered it as a sacrifice to Jehovah, sprinkled its blood upon the altar, burned the fat, and ate the flesh (Exo 13:13; Exo 22:30; Exo 34:20; Num 18:15-17; Neh 10:6). In the mean time the animal was not to be used for any work, for it belonged to the Lord (Deu 15:19); but if it had any blemish it was not to be sacrificed, but eaten up at home (ib. 15:21, 22). Various refinements on the subject of blemishes are to be found in Mishna, Bekoroth. (See Mal 1:8. By "firstlings," Deu 14:23, compared with Num 18:17, are meant tithe animals: see Reland, Antiq. iii, 10, p. 327.; Jahn, Bibl. Arch. § 387). If, however, the man whose cattle had first-born lived at too great a distance from Jerusalem to carry them thither, he was commanded to sell them, and take the money to the sanctuary :(Deu 14:24-25).

5. Redemption of the First-born of unclean Animals --.The first-born of unclean animals, not being allowed to be offered as sacrifices, were either to be redeemed according to the valuation of the priest, with the addition of one fifth of the value, and then remain with their owner, or be’ sold, and the price given to the priests (Lev 27:11-13; Lev 27:27). The first-born of an ass was to be redeemed with a lamb, or, if not redeemed, put to death- (Exo 13:13; Exo 34:20; Num 18:15). Commentators hold that them first-born of dogs were killed, because they ere unclean; and that nothing was given for them to the priests, because there was no trade or commerce in them. See Deu 23:18.

6. Literature.-Josephus, Ast. 4:4, 4; Mishna, Bekoaoth; Maimonides, Mishusa Tora, iii, 241; Hilchoth Bechoroth; Ibn Ezra’s comments as- the passages cited in this article; Calmet, on Numbers 18 The Hebrew Prayer- Book, by Knopflmacher (Vienna, 1859), entitled Derech Ha-Chajim, p. 407; Der Israelitische Volksleher, 7:41. sq.; 9:138 sq., 212 sq., 248 sq.

See PRIMOGENITURE (; the first-born, ):

In the Old Testament as well as in the rabbinical legislation a distinction is made between the first-born of inheritance () and the first-born of redemption (; comp. Bek. viii. 1, 46a).

Primogeniture of Inheritance.

The primogeniture of inheritance refers to the first-born son on the side of the father by any of his wives (if he lived in polygamy). The law of such primogeniture is found in Deut. xxi. 16 et seq., according to which the first-born is to receive a double portion of the inheritance. The passage referred to, however, did not introduce this right, for the preference of the first-born, as the issue of the "first strength" () of the father, existed in patriarchal times (comp. Gen. xxv. 31, xxvii. 29, xlviii. 13, xlix. 3). It is generally assumed that the prerogatives of the first-born consisted in a kind of potestas over the family; in a double share of inheritance (comp. I Chron. v. 1); and in the right to the priesthood (comp. Targ. Onḳ. and Yer. to Gen. xlix. 3). From Gen. xxv. 31 (comp. xxvii. 36) it appears also that God's promises to the Patriarchs were considered as attached to the line of the first-born. But, as the cases of Esau and Reuben (and Ishmael, Gen. xxi.) show, it was possible for the father to deprive the first-born of his right; and the lawgiver in Deuteronomy prohibits the misuse of parental power in favor of a younger son by a favorite wife. In the succession to the throne primogeniture was generally taken into consideration (comp. II Chron. xxi. 3), though it was not always decisive, as appears in the case of Solomon (I Kings i. 30, ii. 22) and of Abijah (II Chron. xi. 22; and comp. Junior Right).

In the Rabbinical Writings.

Rabbinical law further specifies and qualifies the right of primogeniture. Only the first-born—not the eldest surviving son who has been preceded by another child that has died—and only such a one as, by a normal birth and not by a surgical operation, came into the world in the lifetime of his father is entitled to the double share (Bek. 46a, 47b; B. B. 142b). Furthermore, the first-born of a first-born does not receive a double portion of the inheritance of the grandfather who dies before the father (Bek. 51b; B. B. 124a). On the other hand, if the first-born dies before his father his right passes over to his children, even to daughters (B. B. 122b). Neither the inheritance left by the mother nor posthumous improvements () of and accessions () to the inheritance left by the father are subject to the right of primogeniture (Bek. 51a; B. B. 122b, 124a). The double share of the first-born is not one-half of the property, but double the share of each of the other brothers. If there are, for instance, four brothers, the property is divided into five parts, the first-born receiving two-fifths and the others each one-fifth. But the portion of the first-born is affected by either the death or the birth of another brother after the demise of the father (B. B. 123a, 142b). As the double share of the inheritance entails a double share in the obligations on the part of the first-born, both may be waived by him (B. B. 124a).

It is apparent from the preceding regulations that both in the Old Testament and in the rabbinical law the prerogative of primogeniture was not conceived as an inalienable right inherent in the first-born, but rather as a gift by the Law, prompted by economic considerations. The eldest son, who was to take the father's position, was to be placed economically in a condition to be able to preside with dignity over the family—something like the right of majorat. It is, moreover, probable that the first-born had the obligation of maintaining the female members of the family who remained in the household. For the Talmudic regulation of the status and maintenance of the unmarried daughters after the father's death see Ket. 68a, b.

Primogeniture of Redemption.

The primogeniture of redemption refers to the male first-born on the mother's side and applies to both man and beast: "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine"(Ex. xiii. 2). In the manner of the sanctification of these first-born the following distinctions are drawn:

1. The first-born of a clean animal had to be brought to the sanctuary within a year from the eighth day of its birth (Ex. xxii. 30). If without a blemish it was treated as a sacrifice; i.e., the blood was sprinkled and the fat burned on the altar. As regards the disposal of the flesh there is a difference between the laws in Deuteronomy and those in Numbers. According to the former (Deut. xv. 19 et seq.; comp. xii. 6 et seq., 17 et seq.; xiv. 23) the flesh is eaten by the owner in a sacrificial meal, like that of the "shelamim," while according to the latter (Num. xviii. 17 et seq.; comp. Ex. xxii. 29) it fell to the priest. The latter practise prevailed in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 37) and Josephus (Josephus, "Ant." iv. 4, § 4). Had the animal a blemish, it was treated like any other common food (Deut. xv. 21-23).

2. The first-born of an unclean animal had to be redeemed, when a month old, according to the estimation of the priest, with the addition of one-fifth (Lev. xxvii. 27; Num. xviii. 15 et seq.). The first-born of an ass was either ransomed by a sheep or killed, its neck being broken (Ex. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20). In Josephus' time (l.c.) all unclean animals were redeemed with one and a half shekels.

3. The first-born of man was, at the age of one month, redeemed with five shekels (Ex. xiii. 13, xxii. 28, xxxiv. 20; Num. xviii. 15 et seq.; comp. iii. 44 et seq.; Neh. x. 37).

In the Talmud the fact that the first-born in this case must be a is emphasized. Thus a first-born son whose birth has been preceded by a miscarriage, or by a still-birth, or by the birth of a monstrosity, or one who was himself brought forth by a surgical operation, is not due to the priesthood. On the other hand, if two wives of the same man both bear sons as first-born children, each must be redeemed (Bek. viii. 1, 2, 46a, 47b).

Origin and Significance.

In Ex. xiii. 11-15 and Num. iii. 12 et seq. (comp. ib. 40 et seq. and viii. 15-18) the dedication of the first-born to Yhwh is connected with the slaying of the first-born of Egypt and the consecration of the Levites to the service of the sanctuary. By destroying the first-born of Egypt and sparing those of Israel, Yhwh acquired an especial ownership over the latter. But as it was not feasible to select the first-born of the entire nation and thus disturb the family organization, the Levites were substituted for them; and, indeed, rabbinical tradition assigns the priesthood to the first-born until the completion of the Tabernacle (Zeb. 112b, 115b; comp. Targ. to Ex. xxiv. 5 and Rashi and Ibn Ezra to Ex. xix. 22, 24). The view implied in the passages quoted seems to be that the Levites took the place of only those first-born which Yhwh actually spared in Egypt, and that while the Levites continued to serve at the sanctuary, all the first-born after the Exodus were nevertheless the property of Yhwh, and therefore had to be redeemed, just as the 273 first-born who surpassed the number of the Levites at Sinai had to be redeemed each with five shekels (Num. iii. 45-51). Doubtless there is here also the adaptation of an ancient custom (comp. Gen. iv. 4). The dedication of the first-born of man is the extension and application by analogy of the custom of consecrating to God the first-fruits of the soil and the firstlings of animals (comp. Ex. xxii. 28 et seq.), a custom found also among other peoples. In Israel this dedication had the significance of an acknowledgment that it was Yhwh's "heritage," that it owed to Him all which it had and was.

The interpretation of the custom of redeeming the first-born as a modification of an older custom of sacrificing the first-born sons in connection with the Passover feast (Baudissin, in Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." 2d ed., x. 176; comp. also Frazer, "The Golden Bough," 2d ed., ii. 48), has no foundation in history. There are instances in later times attesting not only the custom of sacrificing children, but also the fact that at times the first-born was preferred as a victim (II Kings iii. 27; Micah vi. 7; Ezek. xx. 26); but there is nowhere a trace of the demand of such a "blood-tax" on the part of the Deity or Lawgiver from the people, and its existence is unknown even among the Canaanites (comp. Wellhausen, "Prolegomena," 2d ed., p. 91; Robertson Smith, "Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 464; and Toy on Ezek. xx. 26 in "S. B. O. T.").

In Modern Times.

Since the destruction of the Temple and cessation of sacrifices the dedication of the first-born of clean animals is limited to their being kept inviolate and exempt from any use (comp. Deut. xv. 19), unless they have or receive some blemish, in which case they may be slaughtered for food. The redemption of the first-born of an ass and of man is still carried out according to the Biblical ordinances, and the redemption of the first-born son () is a festive occasion. From such redemption are exempt not only priests and Levites, but also their children (Bek. 4a, 47a). Adult first-born on either side are also obliged to fast on the eve of Passover, unless they are released from the obligation by some festive celebration, such as the completion of the study of a tract of the Talmud ("siyyum"; comp. "Yad," Bekorot, xi. 17; Yoreh De'ah, §§ 300, 305, 321).

Bibliography:

Philo, De Prœmiis Sacerdotum, § 1 (ed. Mangey. ii. 233);

idem, De Caritate, § 10 (ii. 391):

J. H. H. Hottinger, De Primogenitis, Marburg. 1711;

D Gerdes, De Variis S. S. Locis, in Quibus Primogenitorum Mentio Occurrit, Duisburg, 1730;

J. J. Schröder, De Veterum Hebrœorum Primogenitis et Eorum Prœrogativis, Marburg, 1741;

Lundius, Die Alten Jüdischen Heiligthümer, iii., ch. 44;

Saalschütz, Das Mosaishe Recht, 2d ed., pp. 96, 124, 348, 820;

Haneberg, Die Religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel, pp.569-571, Munich, 1869:

Hirsch B. Fassel, Das Mosaisch-Rabbinische Civilrecht, i., 2, p. 370;

Leopold Löw, Die Lebensalter in der Jüdischen Literatur, pp. 110-118;

Rafael Kirsch, Der Erstgeborene nach Mosaïsch-Talmudischem Recht: i., Die Stellung, Rechte und Pflichten des Erstgeborenen, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1901;

M. Bloch, Das Mosaisch-Talmudische Erbrecht, 1890.

A title which indicates the special value attached to the first male offspring, both human and animal. In the Bible the first-born males belonged to the Lord (Exodus 13). In instances, however, both the firstling of the flocks and herds, as well as the first-born son, could be redeemed. The rights of primogeniture were highly regarded; for they affected inheritance, authority, etc., in the family.

The word, though casually taken in Holy Writ in a metaphorical sense, is most generally used by the sacred writers to designate the first male child in a family. The first-cast male animal is, in the English Bibles, termed "firstling". The firstlings, both human and animal, being considered as the best representatives of the race, because its blood flows purest and strongest in them, were commonly believed, among the early nomad Semitic tribes, to belong to God in a special way. Hence, very likely, the custom of sacrificing the first-cast animals; hence also the prerogatives of the first-born son; hence, possibly, even some of the superstitious practices which mar a few pages of the history of Israel.Among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges. Besides having a greater share in the paternal affection, he had everywhere the first place after his father (Genesis 43:33) and a kind of directive authority over his younger brothers (Genesis 37:21-22, 30, etc.); a special blessing was reserved to him at his father’s death, and he succeeded him as the head of the family, receiving a double portion among his brothers (Deuteronomy 21:17). Moreover, the first-birthright, up to the time of the promulgation of the Law, included a right to the priesthood. Of course this latter privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house.When God chose unto Himself the tribe of Levi to discharge the office of priesthood in Israel, He wished that His rights over the first-born should not thereby be forfeited. He enacted therefore that every first-born be redeemed, one month after his birth, for five sicles (Numbers 3:47; 18:15-16). This redemption tax, calculated also to remind the Israelites of the death inflicted upon the first-born of the Egyptians in punishment of Pharaoh’s stubbornness (Exodus 13:15-16), went to the endowment-fund of the clergy. No law, however, stated that the first-born should be presented to the Temple. It seems, however, that after the Restoration parents usually took advantage of the mother’s visit to the sanctuary to bring the child thither. This circumstance is recorded in St. Luke’s Gospel, in reference to Christ (ii, 22-38). It might be noted here that St. Paul refers the title primogenitus to Christ (Hebrews 1:6), the "first-born" of the Father. The Messianic sacrifice was the first-fruits of the Atonement offered to God for man’s redemption. It must be remembered, however, contrary to what is too often asserted and seems, indeed, intimated by the liturgical texts, that the "pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons" mentioned in this connexion, were offered for the purification of the mother, and not for the child. Nothing was especially prescribed with regard to the latter.As polygamy was, at least in early times, in vogue among the Israelites, precise regulations were enacted to define who, among the children, should enjoy the legal right of primogeniture, and who were to be redeemed. The right of primogeniture belonged to the first male child born in the family, either of wife or concubine; the first child of any woman having a legal status in the family (wife or concubine) was to be redeemed, provided that child were a boy.As the first-born, so were the firstlings of the Egyptians smitten by the sword of the destroying angel, whereas those of the Hebrews were spared. As a token of recognition, God declared that all firstlings belonged to Him (Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:3). They accordingly should be immolated. In case of clean animals, as a calf, a lamb, or a kid (Numbers 18:15-18), they were, when one year old, brought to the sanctuary and offered in sacrifice; the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, the fat burned, and the flesh belonged to the priests. Unclean animals, however, which could not be immolated to the Lord, were redeemed with money. Exception was made in the case of the firstling of the ass, which was to be redeemed with a sheep (Exodus 34:20) or its own price (Josephus, Ant. Jud., IV, iv, 4), or else to be slain (Exodus 13:13; 34:20) and buried in the ground. Firstlings sacrificed in the temple should be without blemish; such as were "lame or blind, or in any part disfigured or feeble", were to be eaten unconditionally within the gates of the owner’s home-city.-----------------------------------CHARLES L. SOUVAY Transcribed by Sean Hyland The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VICopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York