Question about the birthright - help me picture this, please!

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell said:

"If a man had two sons, his estate would be divided into three portions, and the older son would receive two. If there were three sons, the estate would be divided into four portions, and the oldest son would receive two."

That sounds like Holman is similar TDOT (second interpretation):

"According to some scholars, e.g., Noth, pi shenayim means “two-thirds,” i.e., the firstborn received two-thirds of the entire inheritance, and all the other sons received an equal of the other third. Noth’s reasons are: (1) the above-mentioned Mari text, which has shittīn, “two-thirds,” in a situation comparable to that described in Dt. 21:15–17; and (2) Zec. 13:8. However, this interpretation must be rejected. Actually, pi shenayim means “a portion of two, a double portion” (cf. Sir. 12:5). Thus, if there are three parties concerned, the firstborn would receive two-thirds; if there are four parties concerned, he would receive two-fourths, etc. This explanation is supported by a comparison with the pertinent texts from Mesopotamia."

I doubt there's an answer; it sounds culturally idiomatic.  It's interesting the Talmud goes into extensive detail on the double portion, even the case where gender is indeterminate (boy?, girl?).  But as far as I can see, no technical formula.  

JPS Commentary indeed is good.  On the parallel passage Gen 48:22 , it gets stranger:

"one portion … Hebrew shekhem ʾaḥad is of uncertain meaning and has generated varied interpretations. The present rendering, which is that of the Targums, Peshitta, and Vulgate, has been overwhelmingly accepted by Jewish commentators although devoid of philological support. If correct, it means that Jacob gives Joseph a double share, thus elevating him to the status of first-born. Such a tradition is indeed preserved in 1 Chronicles 5:1–2. Because Hebrew shekhem usually means “shoulder,” it has been assumed that, like its synonym katef in Numbers 34:11 and Joshua 15:8, shekhem can be used in the sense of “shoulder,” that is, “side/slope, of a mountain.” However, this usage too is not otherwise paralleled."

And of course, the Samaritan translates 'portion' as 'Shechem'.   Sounds good.

David Thomas said:

In our house, the youngest got to divide the dessert, and the oldest got to pick the first 2 pieces 

I'd bet, you're closer to the origin! In our famiiy, at the grandparents farm, the oldest got first pick of the fried chicken ... shoulder or thigh. I always got the wings.

DMB said:

JPS Commentary indeed is good.  On the parallel passage Gen 48:22 , it gets stranger:

"one portion … Hebrew shekhem ʾaḥad is of uncertain meaning and has generated varied interpretations. The present rendering, which is that of the Targums, Peshitta, and Vulgate, has been overwhelmingly accepted by Jewish commentators although devoid of philological support. If correct, it means that Jacob gives Joseph a double share, thus elevating him to the status of first-born. Such a tradition is indeed preserved in 1 Chronicles 5:1–2. Because Hebrew shekhem usually means “shoulder,” it has been assumed that, like its synonym katef in Numbers 34:11 and Joshua 15:8, shekhem can be used in the sense of “shoulder,” that is, “side/slope, of a mountain.” However, this usage too is not otherwise paralleled."

And of course, the Samaritan translates 'portion' as 'Shechem'.   Sounds good.

Just spit-balling here, but it sounds like the fundamental concept is that of a person getting to fill and carry one shoulder bag of goods, while the favored gets to carry two shoulder bags...one on each shoulder. Since each bag would have its own "mouth", that could account for that imagery, as well.

Puddin’ said:

I have been meaning to look into why God disdained Esau for selling his birthright to Jacob so much that we read about it over and over and over in His word (It’s not like it was a novel idea or the last time this was done!).

Now that Carmen has signed off, it may be safe to answer (smiling).  Regarding a product, that's sort of a quandary.  Old Testament interpretation by the ancient ones has favored allegory ... the issue is Edom vs Israel.  But then, one could read the story 'literally' and see a stupid (or starving) older brother.  Or, one could read the story devotionally.  Or read the story with micro-lessons (eg the Talmud, etc).

I assume you're wanting a resource that matches your interpretation?  Or a broader view?

Just a personal anecdote on a somewhat inverse version of this theme. As a kid of about 7-8, my grandfather had a large container with pennies in it. One day he let each of the five kids take a handful of pennies. I think I was the last one to pick. Each of the others had just grabbed a handful, coming out with a slightly bulging fistful each. I knew I could do better. I shoved my hand down into the pennies and cupped it like a backhoe and then I compressed my fingers together in a wide grip so that they put tension on my haul. When I came up, some fell loose, but I clearly had more than everyone else. There were a lot of "whoa!"s, but rather than get any praise for how I successfully tackled the problem at hand (yes, pun intended), all the adults standing by immediately started commenting about how I had an unfair advantage because I had large hands, which wasn't true then and still isn't true. It was then decided that each of the other four kids would get a second handful to make it fair. Most of them copied my method and in the end everyone else had way more than I did. One of the first but definitely not the last times my initial success was overruled and turned into a comparative failure.

Never understood the logic of that--still don't.

This probably OT, but David, your anecdote and this question regarding Esau brings to mind Gal 6.7. I think the NET translation captures best the intent of this portion of scripture. We would do well to meditate on this passage and consider well our motives for any course of action. This message is for all who would hear it.

This is indeed an interesting thread. Thank you, Carmen for posing the question.