Pidyon HaBen (redemption of the first-born son)

JRJ, Winter 1989, 87-88

A PIDYON HABEN

Question: What is the status of Pidyon haBen (redemption of the first born) within Reform Judaism? May it take place after the mother has had a miscarriage?

Answer: Reform Jews have only seldom practiced this ritual. As we do not recognize any special status for priests and levites (Philadelphia Conference Proceedings, CCAR Yearbook, vol. I, 1890, p. 178; W. Jacob, Pittsburgh Platform in Retrospect, p. 108), it is, therefore, not logical to demand the redemption of the first born. If it is done m Reform circles, it is a symbol of a tradition and a tie to the past. Those who want to conduct the ritual should note the following matters.

The biblical tradition informs us that the first-born sons were devoted to the service at the Temple and earlier at the Tent of Meeting. However, this special sanctity that they possess could not be redeemed (Lev. 27:1-8; Num. 18:14-16; Ex. 13:15, 34:19;eut. 15:19). It, of course, became necessary to follow such a system as soon as priests and levites were designated for service at the sanctuary.

Naturally, Priests and levites do not need to redeem their first born (Bech. 2.1). As for the rest of the Israelites, it is incumbent among traditional Jews to redeem all first-born males. The child however, is not considered first born if the mother had a miscarriage and if that fetus was more than 40 days old (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’a 305.23). Furthermore, if there is any question whether the child really is the first born or not, then no redemption is necessary (ibid., 305.22ff). We should also note that the duty of redemption falls upon the father, and, if for some reason he fails to do so, it is up to the son to redeem himself at maturity (Kid. 29a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’a 305.15). In time it became customary for some other male relative, or perhaps a beit din, to act in lieu of the father and to redeem the child.

Five shekels is the sum set by the Bible (Num. 18:16) for the redemption, and, according to tradition, it had to be presented in coinage (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’a 305.14). In some periods of Jewish history, special coins were minted for this purpose. In most periods, the money was either returned to the child’s father or distributed to the poor (Bech. 51b; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’a 305.8). The act of redemption may also be used to give money to a poor individual of priestly descent.

The ceremony itself is held on the 31st day after birth, for by that time, tradition found, the child is viable. It may occur even if, for health reasons, circumcision has not yet taken place (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’a 305.11). The ceremony involves a simple Aramaic or Hebrew formula in which the father presents his son to the priest, the priest asks whether he wishes to redeem it and the father replies, and the coins change hands. It concludes with a blessing over a cup of wine, as well as the priestly benediction ( Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’a 305.10). In some periods, special beautiful trays of silver have been fabricated for use during this ceremony.

Whether a son is actually the first born depends on the testimony of either the midwife, the mother, or the father. This question, of course, arises principally during multiple births (M. Kid. 4.2, 65d; Yev. 47a; Kid. 74a; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha’ezer). As stated at the beginning, the ceremony is not necessary but optional.

Walter Jacob, Chair CCAR Responsa Committee

RRT 266-270

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.

NARR 188-190

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

120. Pidyon Haben

QUESTION: What is the status of pidyon haben (redemption of the first-born) within Reform Judaism? May it take place after the mother has had a miscarriage? (Rabbi Cyril Stanway, Hattiesburg MS)

ANSWER: Reform Jews have only seldom practiced this ritual. As we do not recognize any special status for priests and Levites (Philadelphia Conference Proceedings Yearbook Central Conference of American Rabbis Vol I 1890 p 178; W. Jacob The Pittsburgh Platform in Retrospect p 108) it is therefore not logical to demand the redemption of the first born. If it is done in Reform circles it is a symbol of a tradition and a tie to the past. Those who want to conduct the ritual should note the following matters:

The Biblical tradition informs us that the first born sons were devoted to the service at the Temple and earlier at the tent of meeting. However, this special sanctity which they possessed could be redeemed (Ex 13.15; 34.19; Lev 27, 1-8; Nu 18, 14-16; Deut 15.19). It, of course, became necessary to follow such a system as soon as priests and Levites were designated for service at the sanctuary.

Naturally priests and Levites and their daughters who married Israelites do not need to redeem their first born (Bek 2.1). As for the rest of Israelites, it is incumbent among traditional Jews to redeem all first born males. In matters of inheritance “first born” means the first son of the father. With pidyon haben it means the first son of the mother. The child, however, is not considered first born if the mother had a miscarriage and if that fetus was more than forty days old (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.23). Furthermore, if there is any question whether the child really is the first born or not then no redemption is necessary (Ibid 305.22 ff). We should also note that the duty of redemption falls upon the father and if for some reason he fails to do so it is up to the son to redeem himself at maturity (Kid 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.15). In time it became customary for some other male relative or perhaps a bet din to act in lieu of the father and to redeem the child.

Five shekels is the sum set by the Bible (Num 18.16) for the redemption and according to tradition it had to be presented in coinage (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.14). In some periods of Jewish history special coins were minted for this purpose. In most periods the money was either returned to the child’s father or was distributed to the poor (Bek 51b; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.8). The act of redemption may also be used to give money to a poor individual of priestly descent.

The ceremony itself is held on the thirty-first day after birth for by that time tradition found that the child was viable. It may occur even if for health reasons circumcision has not yet taken place (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.11). The ceremony involves a simple Aramaic or Hebrew formula in which the father presents his son to the priest and the priest asks whether he wishes to redeem it and the father replies and the coins change hands; it concluded with a blessing over a cup of wine as well as the priestly benediction (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.10). In some periods special beautiful trays of silver have been fabricated for use during this ceremony.

Whether a male son is actually the first born depends on the testimony of either the midwife, the mother or the father. This question, of course, arises principally during multiple births (M Kid 4.2; 65d; Yeb 47a Kid 74a; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer). As stated at the beginning the ceremony is not necessary but optional.

December 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 191

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

121. A Pidyon Haben and Kohanim

QUESTION: An intermarried couple knows that their first child will be a boy. They are thinking about a pidyon haben. The mother is Jewish. Her mother’s family are kohanim. Her father’s are Israelites. What status does the child have if his father is not Jewish? (Rabbi Avi Magid, White Plains NY)ANSWER: The question essentially here is whether the status of kohen is passed through the female line. It is clear that in the first generation it is passed through both the masculine and feminine line at least as far as pidyan haben is concerned although not in other matters. So neither the son’s first born male child nor the daughter’s first born male child need to be redeemed if their father was a kohen and if both are married to Israelites (Bek 47a). On growing up, however, the children of the male are considered kohanim while those of the female are Israelites (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 305.18). In this instance we are one generation further down the line and the status of kohen does not continue; the woman is an Israelite who has married a non-Jew. If they are part of a more traditional family they would then have to consider a pidyon haben. Of course, in Reform Judaism this is somewhat incongruous as we do not provide a special status to kohanim. Nevertheless some families continue the practice simply as a tie to tradition. This may also be the initial act which begins the identification of the child.June, 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.