What are the implications of the (otherwise superfluous) word "be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"?
Bava Basra, 113b: It implies that Beis-Din may only rule on Dinei Nachlos 1 by day but not by night. 2
Oznayim la'Torah: It implies that the prohibition of giving the Cheilek Bechorah to one of the brothers is confined to when the he dies and bequeaths hos property to his children, but that, during his lifetime, he may do with it as he pleases. 3
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk ("be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav") with the Pasuk in Yisro, 18:22 "Veshaftu es ha'Am be'Chol Eis"?
Sanhedrin, 34b: The inititial Shakla ve'Tarya must take place by day, whereas Beis-Din are permitted to conclude the case by night. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 112.
What are the implications of "be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"?
Bava Basra, 122b: Implies that a father should increase the brothers' property ? to teach us that the B'chor does not receive half aof his father's property, but a portion that is equivalent to one of the portions of his brothers. 1
Bava Basra, 130a: It implies that a father has the right to bequeath all of his property to any one of his heirs. 2
What are the implications of the words "Eis asher Yih'yeh (future) lo"?
Sifri: It implies that heirs inherit what is 'Ra'uy' - what the father was owed when he died, even though he did not yet have it in his possession. 1
What are the connotations of "Lo Yuchal le'Vaker ... "?
Ramban (citing Targum Onkelos) and Targum Yonasan: It is a La'av 1 against canceling the Bechorah 2 from one's firstborn son 3 and rendering him equal to his other sons, 4 (although he may give it away in the form of a gift ? Yerushalmi Bava Basra, 8:4).
Seforno: It implies that one may not cancel the Bechorah (the double portion that a firstborn inherits) because he hates the one or loves the other. 5
B'chor Shor: It implies that one may not give extra to another son in the form of the Bechorah. 6
See Torah Temimah, note 116.
Ramban: Or against refusing to declare him one's firstborn son.
Ramban: As Targum Onkelos translates "Lo Yuchal" - 'Leis lei R'shu' - see Ramban. See also 12:17 and 17:15.
Refer to 21:16:151:1.
He may however, give it to him in the form of a Matanah. See Torh Temimah, citing the Yerushalmi Bava Basra, 8:4. and note 115.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Lo Yuchal Levaker" - instead of simply 'Lo Yevaker'?
Sifri: To teach us that if a father does give the portion of the B'chor to another son, it is not valid.
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) words "al-P'nei ben ha'Senu'ah"?
Ramban: To teach us that the La'av is confined to where the B'chor is still alive; but if he dies before his father, the La'av, with its various implications, is no longer effective. 1
Sifri: To teach us that when the head or most of the head emerges from the womb - alive, it is considered the B'chor, and disqualifies the next baby to emerge from the B'chorah.
Ramban: Despite the fact that he inherits everything in the grave to pass it on to his son, his father is permitted to distribute his property among his sons, as if there was no B'chor. See Torah Temimah, note 117, who elaborates.
In light of the current Pesukim, how could Ya'akov Avinu take the Bechorah from Reuven, and gave it to Yosef?
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim and Rosh: He did so due to Reuven's sin, and he gave it to Yosef because he financed him in Egypt. 1
Seforno (citing Bava Basra, 133b): One may transfer from a son who acts improperly, as Ya'akov did. 2
Nevertheless, one may not [remove the Bechorah from a son who sinned], but must take him to Beis Din, as the Pasuk goes on to explain.
Seforno: as the Pasuk writes in Divrei Hayamim 1, 5:1.
Why does the Torah discuss specifically Bechorah, seeing as one may not change the inheritance of any sons?
Hadar Zekenim: It says "Ki hu Reishis Ono" ? one over whom he is Doveh (he would mourns if he died), to preclude the hated wife's son. We might therefore ave thought that he does not receive a double portion. The Torah therefore teches us that he does.
Bava Basra 130b: Even according to the one who learns from "be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav" that a father can bequeath to any son he wants, he cannot give the extra portion of the firstborn to another son.
Why does the Torah write here "Asher Yih'yeh lo", and in the next Pasuk "Asher Yimatzei Lo"?
Kol Eliyahu and Divrei Eliyahu: "Asher Yihyeh lo", with reference to the property that the father bequeaths to his sons, incorporates what is Ra'uy (destined) to come to him after death, all his sons share equally. The Bechorah, on the other hand, applies to "Asher Yimatzei Lo" ? what he actually has in his possession at the time of death. 1
