Firstborn more valuable in certain cultures, eras

Factual Questions
1

I know there is mention in the BIble about how the firstborn has a special blessing, and (I hope I remember this all correctly) and so, Jacob the twin brother to Esau grabbed his twin brothers heel coming down the birth canal in an attempt to be the firstborn

Why is the firstborn in these cultures the most special and how much of that extends to present day society?

I admit there does seem to be something special about the first of anything, first kiss, first job, first time such and such, and of course first child…

Im wondering what types of special privileges have been extended to the firstborn in Bible times and if any of these have been carried into present day society.

2

It entirely depends on culture. The term you are looking for is primogeniture (which can be further classified down to male-primogeniture in some cultures). Yes, the story of Jacob and Esau demonstrates how it was important in biblical times, but I tend to recall that primogeniture was exceedingly prevalent in the far east and European countries.

The Roman society had no primogeniture in place, all power and inheritances were designated either ahead of time, or in a will. In the event of no will or designation, all of a deceased assets were split equally among their survivors.

3

Consider that the firstborn is the oldest child and therefore has had the most resources invested in him, so he embodies greater sunk costs than his little brother. Dead big bro is a bigger loss than dead little bro, so he gets prime treatment.

In a place where children die frequently, the oldest kid has already survived more of his most vulnerable years than his younger siblings. A 6 year old has a better chance of living to take care of you in your old age than a 3 year old, because he has lived through more diseases and such.

4

Just FYI, there is no indication in the Bible of infant Jacob’s “intent” with grabbing Esau’s heel. It just states that Jacob came out grasping Esau’s heel.

5

A lot of it has to do with inheritance. Back in the day when people were not as mobile, maintaining power and wealth in the family was a Big Deal. When the parents died, the firstborn was expected to inherit everything (status, money, land, property, assuming the parents had anything to give).

This does not seem very fair, but look at the alternative. If you divide your inheritance equally among all your children, then your holdings get divided over and over until each family ends up with a pittance. Then they experience social strife when previously wealthy families are reduced to poverty.

So although equal division of the inheritance is “Fair” it is also not very smart in the long term. This is why the first son inherited everything and the second son got squat. They were expected to make their own way in the world and often wound up as soldiers, priests, or academics. They were basically “spares” in case the firstborn suffered some mishap.

Now, here’s the part that actually applies to your question:

If you only had the resources to train and educate one of your sons, which would it be? Would you educate the one that stood to inherit everything and would be responsible for carrying on the family line? Or would you educate the spare son who probably would not? Most folks would obviously agree that the first son should be given the best of everything, since he is the son responsible for carrying on the family line and administrating its property.

6

Solosam makes the point best.
From Kings on down, it was better to hand the whole inheritance /kingdom/dukedom/ whatever to one person. (If you ruled a town, how would you split it up?) Even farms - at a certain point dividing the farm means the result is 2 or more farms too small to support a family.

Considering that people kept having children and died young, the oldest was probably much better positioned and ready to take over than the younger children. Particularly, children died more easily (of diseases) than their elders, and an older child was more likely to survive. Way back, IIRC, the stat was that half of children died before the age of 5. (There are some cultures, IIRC, that don’t name a child until it has lived for several days…)

Males, because (a) men are pigs and (b) women were property, and so went to live with the family of their husband rather than take over the farm/kingdom © the leader in some situations also had to be a war leader (and in some exceptional situations, women did take that role) (d) men seem to take a special pride in their own male offspring…

(Recall that another historical trivia was that invaders overrunning a land would kill all the males including children, and make the women their own. Even back then, the concept of Y-Chromosome inheritance seemed to be innately understood in male brains.

Go to Google Earth and look at the farms along the shore of the St. Lawrence River northeast of Montreal. I have heard 2 explanations for that appearance - the farmers of New France all got riverfront property in the days before roads, and farms were divided among sons over the years until every field was a sliver of land. (Not sure how true the last bit is…)

7

Did some cultures place more importance on whichever twin was born first?

8

Tollhouse:

Actually, according to the Midrashic interpretations, the reason he grabbed Esau’s heel was so that he could be born at all. Supposedly, Esau hated Jacob in utero, and attempted to damage his mother’s womb after he emerged in order that Jacob couldn’t come out, but Jacob grabbed his heel so he couldn’t be sealed inside should Esau do such a thing.

In Jewish inheritance law, the firstborn receives twice as much of the estate as his younger brothers. For example, if a man has four sons, the firstborn receives 40% of the estate, and the other three get 20% each. This comes directly from the Bible.

In synagogue ritual, before the Priestly Blessing on holidays (and in Israel, every day), a Levite will wash the Priests’ hands. If there is no Levite in the congregation, then a firstborn gets that privilege instead.

Also, on the day before Passover, firstborns are expected to fast, although this fast is considered a less binding custom than other fasts on the Jewish calendar, and it has become traditional to circumvent by attending a celebration of religious significance (such as the completion of a certain unit of Torah learning) at which food is served.

In Jewish law, the male firstborn of a cow, sheep or goat must be offered on the altar in Jerusalem if in perfect condition or given to a Priest if its body is blemished (in modern times, when the laws requiring ritual purity cannot be practiced, these firstborn animals are left untouched to live out their lives and die of natural causes). Using them for work or shearing them for their wool is forbidden. A male firstborn donkey is also holy, and it can be redeemed giving a Priest a sheep or goat as an exchange for it. And firstborn male people must be redeemed by giving five silver coins to a Priest.

First fruits of trees are also considered holy.

It’s considered the most special because the first product of one’s efforts gives the producer a special sense of satisfaction that is not matched by subsequent iterations. It is therefore considered especially praiseworthy to overcome the sense of personal accomplishment of that occasion and instead acknowledge G-d’s hands in the success of the endeavor.

I think a lot of this attitude extends to present day society, even if as far as human beings go, attitudes have become more meritocratic. Many business owners will frame the first dollar they made, for example.

9

Ill see about the passage of Esau and Jacob. Im pretty sure he grabbed esaus heel in attempt to be the firstborn, at least I think that was part of %t. Even tho twins are born only seconds apart, it was a big deal which twin was born first

10

It’s been argued that the Islamic tradition of equal division of inheritance created political instability. It certainly appeared to during Mughal rule in India.

11

If you find it in the Bible, you’ll get a free cookie.

12

I know it’s a plot point in William Thackeray’s “The Virginians” (the 20-minutes-older twin is in line to inherit his parents’ estate when he goes missing, presumed dead).

13

FWIW, some cultures place additional obligations on the first son.

I’ll use Korea as an example (just because it’s the one I know best). In traditional culture (its fading in the modern age), the eldest son had a responsibility to take care of his elderly parents. He would continue to live in the family home rather than seeking an independent household. The wife of the eldest son would basically be a servant of the mother-in-law until she became matriarch of the house. As in Western cultures, the number two son was a spare.

This arrangement has two major implications:

  1. Be careful if you want to marry an eldest son. Your life is going to suck until his mother dies.

  2. Take care of your eldest son, because he will be the one who wipes your butt when you are old and senile.

14

Looks more like medieval style strip farming to me.

15

It’s for river access:
Seigneurial system of New France

The change from the seigneurial system to square plots was one of the grievances of the Metis in the North-West Rebellion (Riel Rebellion).