Deuteronômio 21:16 Comentário: Chizkuni, Da'at Zekenim, Ramban & Ibn Ezra

את אשר יהיה לו, “whatever he shall own.” From this formulation we learn that a son is entitled to inherit also what is owed to his father at the time of his death as well as what is on hand.

לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה, “he must not favour the son of his beloved wife, (over the son of the wife he has grown to hate,” (by treating him as his first born) Yaakov having treated Joseph as his firstborn is somewhat different as he had never meant to marry Leah, and when he did so in order not to shame her, she subsequently felt hated (having been guilty of deceiving him.). Yaakov “hated her” as she had deprived him of Joseph becoming the true first born from the wife he had worked for, for seven years. Yaakov should have brought Reuven to trial, if he had been guilty of a sin against him instead of depriving him of his rights as a firstborn.

LO YUCHAL’ [literally: “he could not” but rendered: HE MAY NOT] DECLARE THE SON OF THE BELOVED FIRSTBORN. This is an admonition⁸²Since Rambam did not enumerate it in his Sefer Hamitzvoth as a separate negative commandment, because he included it as part of the specific laws relating to the commandment of inheritance, Ramban points out that, in his opinion, it is to be considered as a separate prohibition. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 336, Commandment 12. In the following two cases Rambam also admits that they are to be counted as separate commandments. against doing so. Likewise are all such verses as: ‘Lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) eat within thy gates etc.;⁸³Above, 12:17. Literally: “thou couldst not.” So also in the following verse. ‘lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) put a foreigner over thee.⁸⁴Ibid., 17:15. And in all these cases, Onkelos translates “you have no right” [which proves that the verse before us, too, constitutes an admonition], and the purport of these expressions is, “you could not allow yourself the possibility of doing so,” emphasizing the importance of the admonitions. Similarly, But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion⁸⁵Verse 17. constitutes a positive commandment that he bequeath a double portion to the firstborn. Thus he who equalizes the firstborn with his brothers [i.e., he assigns him a share equal to theirs] violates both a negative commandment and a positive commandment, even though his words are not legally valid. He surely violates both [commandments] if, knowing he [the son of the hated one] is the firstborn, and did not wish to make it known that he is the firstborn and claimed that he is an ordinary son and caused him to inherit like any one of his sons. Now, these are newly-declared commandments. And from that which Scripture states [he may not declare the son of the beloved firstborn] in the face of the firstborn, the son of the hated it would appear to me that this commandment and this law are binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn. But, if the firstborn died during the life of his father, even though he [the deceased son] inherits his share as the firstborn in the grave and bequeathes it by law to his children, yet if the father wished [to deviate] and said, “My sons shall inherit such-and-such of my belongings, and the children of my [late] son, the firstborn, shall take such-and-such of my belongings,” his instructions are valid just as they would be valid in a case where there is no firstborn son. Similarly, the father would not be violating this negative commandment if he did not acknowledge the firstborn son only after his death, for I have never found the expression ‘al pnei’ (in the face of) except with reference to the living, such as: ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) Aaron their father;⁸⁶Numbers 3:4. ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) his father Terah,⁸⁷Genesis 11:28. and similarly all such expressions. [Therefore, in this case, since it states that the father may not do it ‘al pnei’ the firstborn of the hated, it follows that the prohibition is binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn and that the father had acknowledged him as such.].