POSSIBLE PIDYEN OF SECOND SON

QUESTION:

In the law of redeeming the first-born son, Scripture speaks specifically of “opening the womb.” Therefore the following question arises: Suppose the first-born child was born by Caesarean operation and is, therefore, not eligible for pidyen, not being “the opener of the womb”; then a year later a son is born in the normal way; does the second son, being “the opener of the womb” require a pidyen? (Asked by Rabbi Kenneth Segel.)

ANSWER:

THE LAW IS STATED in Scripture in Numbers 18:15 as follows: “Everything that openeth the womb . . . both of man and beast … the first-born,” etc. The law thus mentions both requirements for redemption, namely, “the opener of the womb” and “first-born.” This dual requirement in the law becomes relevant in the later discussions of the question raised here. The two qualities are mentioned, for example, by Rashi to Bechoros 19a, in which he speaks of the first-born of “Vlados,” i.e., the order of birth, and the first-born of “Rachamim,” “the opener of the womb.”

Since Scripture mentions in the same verse both the redemption of a human child and also the redemption of the first-born of cattle, the law involved in the question asked is discussed both for cattle and for humans. The Mishnah (Bechoros 2:9), speaking of cattle, discusses the situation in which one calf is taken out of its mother’s body by Caesarean and the other is born naturally from the womb. In that situation, Rabbi Tarfon thinks that there exists some doubt as to which is truly the first-born, and therefore, because of this doubt, neither may be used by the owner. Both calves must be allowed to graze until they become overaged. However, Rabbi Akiba says that neither is “first-born” (in the sense of requiring redemption). The law is according to Rabbi Akiba—namely, as the commentators explain, for the calf to require redemption it needs to have both qualities, “first-born” and “womb-opening.”

Now this question is raised in the same tractate (8:2) in the case of humans. If the first child is born by Caesarean and the second is born from the womb, Rabbi Simon has the same doubts which Rabbi Tarfon voiced with regard to calves, and thinks that each child has some qualities of “first-born.” But the anonymous Mishnah states that neither requires redemption; and that is the law. Thus, too, the law is given by Maimonides (Yad, Hilchos Bekurim 11:16), who says simply that if one child is taken from the side (i.e., by Caesarean) and the other is born normally, both of them are free from redemption; the first because he did not go forth from the womb, and the second because another child had preceded him. And so the law is given in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 305 (Y.D. 24).

Thus the law seems clear enough that the second son does not require redemption. However, there is some doubt involved in this question due to what might be called medical reasons. Both the commentator Bertinoro and Lifschitz (Tiferes Yisroel) say that this situation can only apply to twins, first of all because the analogous law with regard to the birth of the calves clearly deals with twin calves, and second for the following medical reason: Bertinoro says that the Rambam (who was, of course, a famous physician) said that in the case of a human mother, it is impossible for her to undergo a Caesarean operation and heal up sufficiently so that at a later date she can have a normal birth from the womb. Therefore, these commentators say, this law applies only in the emergency case of human twins, which evidently means that the mother will be dying of the Caesarean but before she expires the second child is born normally.

However, it is to be noted that Maimonides himself, in giving the law, does not restrict it to the birth of twins, nor does the Shulchan Aruch or any of the Codes so restrict it.

As for the statement ascribed to Maimonides by Bertinoro, Maimonides may have stated it so elsewhere, though not in his Code, as far as I can see. It is true also that the opinion ascribed to Maimonides by Bertinoro was held up to modern times by physicians. The rule was often cited as follows: once a Caesarean, always a Caesarean. But I inquired of a well-known gynecologist, who told me that medical and surgical practice has improved in recent years and that if, for example, the first Caesarean was made, not because of a narrowness of the passage but because of some infection, then it is quite possible, and, indeed, it happens, that the mother recovers from the Caesarean operation and at a later time can give birth in the normal way.

It is not an infrequent situation in the law that the law takes cognizance of changes in medical practice, and so it is clear in this case that the law is as stated. The second child, born a year or so after the Caesarean, requires no pidyen, since the two qualities mentioned in the original Scripture text, “womb” and “first-born,” do not apply to him.

ADDENDUM

It is worthwhile noting that Bertinoro (16th cent.) actually overstated the medical opinion of Maimonides (12th cent.). According to Bertinoro’s commentary (Bechoros XIII, 2), Maimonides said that it is impossible for a woman to recover from a Caesarean operation and be able to bear a child normally in the future.

The statement which Bertinoro refers to was made by Maimonides in his commentary to that Mishnah. What Maimonides actually said there (although it amounts to nearly the same thing) is the following: As to what people tell about (i.e., that a woman can recover from a Caesarean and later bear a child in a normal way), I cannot explain it; for that would be a very astonishing occurrence (davar n ifla m’ode).

The modern edition of the Mishnah commentary of Maimonides was made by Joseph David Kapach (Jerusalem, 1967), and he comments on Maimonides’ strong doubts. He says: “What was astounding in the days of our teaching [Maimonides’] is now, with the progress of medical science, an everyday occurrence.” In this way the legal literature takes note of medical progress.

At all events, while Maimonides would consider a normal child-birth after a Caesarean (except for twins) as “an astounding phenomenon,” that opinion of his would not lead him to state that if such an astounding phenomenon did occur, the second child would need redemption. Therefore in his Codes, as in all the Codes, the law is simply stated that neither child needs to be redeemed.