Page:Keil and Delitzsch,Biblical commentary the old testament the pentateuch, trad James Martin, volume 1, 1885.djvu/1042

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

In this way the problem before us may be solved altogether independently of the question, whether the law relates to all the first-born sons on the father's side, or only to those who were first-born on both father's and mother's side, and without there having been a daughter born before. This latter view we regard as quite unfounded, as a mere subterfuge resorted to for the purpose of removing the supposed disproportion, and in support of which the expression “opening the womb” (fissura uteri, i.e., qui findit uterum) is pressed in a most unwarrantable manner. On this point, J. D. Michaelis has correctly observed, that “the etymology ought not to be too strongly pressed, inasmuch as it is not upon this, but upon usage chiefly, that the force of words depends.” It is a fact common to all languages, that in many words the original literal signification falls more and more into the background in the course, of years, and at length is gradually lost sight of altogether. Moreover, the expression “openeth the womb” is generally employed in cases in which a common term is required to designate the first-born of both man and beast (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12-15; Exo 34:19-20; Num 3:12-13; Num 8:16-17; Num 18:15; Eze 20:16); but even then, wherever the two are distinguished, the term בּכור is applied as a rule to the first-born sons, and פּטר to the first-born of animals (comp. Exo 13:13 with Exo 13:12 and Exo 13:13; and Num 34:20 with Num 34:19 and Num 34:20). On the other hand, where only first-born sons are referred to, as in Deu 21:15-17, we look in vain for the expression peter rechem, “openeth the womb.” Again, the Old Testament, like modern law, recognises only first-born sons, and does not apply the term first-born to daughters at all; and in relation to the inheritance, even in the case of two wives, both of whom had born sons to their husband, it recognises only one first-born son, so that the fact of its being the first birth on the mother's side is not taken into consideration at all (cf. Gen 46:8; Gen 49:3; Deu 21:15-17). And the established rule in relation to the birthright, - namely, that the first son of the father was called the first-born, and possessed all the rights of the first-born, independently