5. The law if the father did not redeem his son:[1]

If the father did not redeem his son, then when the child reaches Bar Mitzvah he is obligated to redeem himself. [He should not redeem himself prior to reaching the age of Bar Mitzvah.[2]]

Yasom/Orphan:[3] A firstborn son who is orphaned from his father is required to redeem himself upon him becoming an adult, which is at the age of Bar Mitzvah. [He should not redeem himself prior to reaching the age of Bar Mitzvah.[4] However, it is disputed  as to whether a child who was not redeemed by his father should be redeemed by the Jewish court while he is still a child, and practically he should be redeemed on condition while still a child, and then upon becoming an adult he should repeat the redemption, as explained below.] 

Wearing an unredeemed necklace until the redemption:[5] Some Poskim[6] rule that a silver necklace with an engraving of “not redeemed” or “Ben Kohen” is placed on the neck of a child who has yet to be redeemed, such as if he is an orphan from his father, in order so he know to redeem himself when he reaches the age.

Beis Din redeeming the Yasom child:[7] Some Poskim[8] rule that a child who was not redeemed by his father, including if this is due to the death of the father [i.e. a Yasom], then the child should be redeemed by the Jewish court while he is still a child. Other Poskim[9], however, rule that a child who was not redeemed by his father, especially if he is an orphan and his father is no longer alive, cannot be redeemed by the Jewish court and he is rather to redeem himself when he becomes an adult. Practically he should be redeemed by the Jewish court on condition while still a child, and then upon becoming an adult he should repeat the redemption.[10] [This is done as follows: The Jewish court redeems him without a blessing while he is still a child using the money of the orphan or money that is acquired to the child for this purpose. This money is given to the Kohen as a present on condition to return.[11] Alternatively, it is given with the following stipulation “if when he becomes an adult he does not remember that he is a firstborn and does not redeem himself then the money will belong to the Kohen for the sake of the redemption. If, however, he does know that he is a firstborn and redeems himself then the money is given to the Kohen as a present.”[12] In addition, a silver necklace should be hung on the neck of the child with the words “Safek Paduiy.” When he becomes an adult he should then repeat the redemption.[13]]

Having another person do the redemption on behalf of the father: Some Poskim[14] rule that any individual can decide on his own accord to give the money to the Kohen on behalf of the firstborn child even without the father’s consent, and the child is considered redeemed, as he is considered the Shliach of the father. See the previous Halacha for the full details of this matter!

[1] Michaber 305:15; Rambam Bikurim 11:2; Kiddushin 29a; See Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:7, 10-14; 1:7; 25-29

What Mitzvah is fulfilled when the son redeems himself? Regarding if the main Mitzvah is on the father to redeem his son, and it is just that if the father did not do so, then the obligation falls on the son. Or, if the main mitzvah is for the child to be redeemed, and it is just that the child cannot do so when he is young and is hence placed onto the father’s list of responsibilities to perform: See Chinuch ibid; Kiddushin 29a; Chasam Sofer Y.D. 296; Tziyunim Letorah Kelal 37; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:10 footnote 16 and 25 and Miluim 1 in length; Likkutei Sichos 11 Parshas Bo p. 42, printed in Shulchan Menachem 5 p. 237

Is the Mitzvah upon the father to redeem his son even after his son becomes Bar Mitzvah? This matter is debated amongst the Poskim and is dependent on the above debate. See Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:13; Likkutei Sichos 11 Parshas Bo p. 42, printed in Shulchan Menachem 5 p. 237

[2] Zichron Yosef Y.D. 26; See Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:11-12

The reason: As if he redeems himself while still a child, then he will only be unable to do so upon reaching adulthood, and hence we do not say that due to the command of Chinuch he should already redeem himself while a child, as this will prevent him from being able to do the true Mitzvah upon becoming an adult. [Zichron Yosef ibid]

[3] Shevach Habris 1:9; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:25-28

[4] Zichron Yosef Y.D. 26; See Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:11-12

The reason: As if he redeems himself while still a child, then he will only be unable to do so upon reaching adulthood, and hence we do not say that due to the command of Chinuch he should already redeem himself while a child, as this will prevent him from being able to do the true Mitzvah upon becoming an adult. [Zichron Yosef ibid]

^[5] See Rama 305:15; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:10

[6] Opinion in Rama 305:15; Maharil Hilchos Pidyon Haben; Taz 305:11; Levush 305:15

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that this advice is not good, as in most cases the necklace gets lost and hence it is best to have the Jewish court redeem him while still young. [Shach 305:20]

[7] See Otzer Pidyon Haben 8:4-6; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:21-24 [by non-Yasom]; 25-26 [by Yason]

Background: This law is a replica of the law explained in the previous Halacha regarding if another person can redeem the child on behalf of the father, however, in this Halacha the main focus is when this is done not with consent of the parent and especially if the father is dead. The main focus of the previous Halacha is the general concept of another person redeeming the child on behalf of the father, even with the consent of the father. In general, there are three sets of opinions on this subject: 1) An emissary or court can never perform the redemption on behalf of the father with or without his consent. [Rama] 2) An emissary or court can perform the redemption on behalf of the father with or without his consent so long as the father is alive. [Taz] 3) An emissary or court can perform the redemption on behalf of the father even if the father is dead. [Shach]

[8] Tzeida Laderech Parshas Bo, brought in Taz 305:11; Taz 305:11 regarding only if father is alive; Shach 305:11, in his own personal opinion, and that so agreed with him many of the Gedolei Haposkim including the Maharal of Prague; Shach 305:20 and Nekudos Hakesef concludes that it is best to have the Jewish court redeem him while still young, as in most cases the necklace gets lost. Shach 305:11 in negation of Divrei Chamudos and Nekudos Hakesef ibid in negation of Taz ibid that this applies even if father passed away

[9] Rama 305:10 and 15 and Levush 305:15 and Rivash 131 regarding even if father is alive; Maharil Hilchos Pidyon Haben; Taz 305:11 and Divrei Chamudos Bechoros 8:17 regarding if father not alive; Tzemach Tzedek Y.D. 222

[10] Chasam Sofer 295; Chemdas Shlomo 31; Pischeiy Teshuvah 305:16

[11] Chasam Sofer ibid

[12] Chemdas Shlomo 31; Pischeiy Teshuvah 305:16

[13] Chasam Sofer ibid

[14] Taz 305:11; Beir Heiytiv 305:11; See Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 1:21 footnote 63