Which child is obligated in Pidyon Haben?

A. Firstborn son versus firstborn daughter:

Only a firstborn son is obligated in being redeemed and not a firstborn daughter.[1] Likewise, only if the son was the firstborn child is he obligated in being redeemed. Thus, if a daughter was born first, then the firstborn son is not obligated to be redeemed.[2]

B. First born from the mother or father?[3]

The firstborn status of the son which obligates him to be redeemed, follows his mother and not his father.[4] The following is the law:

Mothers first born: A son who is the first born of his mother is obligated to be redeemed by his father irrelevant to whether the father has other children from other [i.e. previous] wives. Thus, if a father remarried after having children with his previous wife, and his new wife gave birth to her firstborn son, then the father is obligated in redeeming the son. Accordingly, it is possible for a father to perform the mitzvah many times in his lifetime.[5]

Fathers first born: If the son is the fathers first born but is not the mothers first born, then the child does not need to be redeemed. [Thus, if a mother remarried after having children, and she gave birth to her new husband’s firstborn son, then the child is not obligated in being redeemed. Accordingly, it is possible for a father to never perform the Mitzvah in his lifetime even if he has a firstborn son.]

Firstborn of female convert who had child before conversions:[6] A female convert who gave birth before her conversion, and then gave birth to a boy after her conversion, the child does not need to be redeemed.

C. Miscarriage/Stillborn prior to the first child:[7]

If the mother had a miscarriage prior to the birth of the first-born son, then whether or not this is considered like a first birth which will exempt a future firstborn son from needing a Pidyon Haben, is dependent on the week of gestation of the fetus, and to its form.[8] Practically, if one knows with certainty that the miscarriage occurred within 40 days of conception, then the miscarriage is not considered like a birth, and the firstborn son is obligated to be redeemed.[9] [Likewise, if one knows with certainty that the miscarriage took place after three months from conception, then the miscarriage is considered like a real birth, and the firstborn son is not obligated to be redeemed. If the miscarriage took place between 40 days from conception and three months from conception, then the child is to be redeemed without a blessing.[10]]

D. C-section:[11]

If the first-born son was not born naturally but through a c-section, then he does not need to be redeemed. As well, the next son born likewise does not need to be redeemed, even if the next son is born naturally.[12] [A child who was naturally born with a vacuum or with forceps is obligated to be redeemed.[13]]

E. The son of a Levi-Leviyah/Kohen-Kohenes:[14]

Kohanim and Levites are exempt from Pidyon Haben.[15] Even a Kohenes or Leviyah who is married to a Yisrael, her son is not obligated in Pidyon Haben.[16] [This applies even today when we no longer have Kohanim and Leviyim Meyuchasim and they hold their status merely due to Chazaka.[17] Thus, the obligation to redeem a first-born son only applies if both the father and mother are Israelites-Yisraeilim. If even one of the parents is a Kohen or Levi, whether the father or the mother, then the child does not need to be redeemed.]

A Kohenes who in the past had relations with a gentile [or other Pasul]:[18] If a Kohenes had relations with a gentile [or any other Pasul[19], anytime in her past], then her firstborn son is obligated in Pidyon Haben.[20] This applies even if she did not become pregnant from the gentile, and later married a Jew[21] and had a firstborn son with him, then he is obligated to redeem his son. [This is particularly applicable in cases where a Kohenes Baal Teshuvah gives birth to a first born son, in which case her firstborn son from a Jew is obligated in Pidyon Haben if in the past she had relations with a gentile.]

A Leviyah who in the past had relations with a gentile [or other Pasul]:[22] If a Leviyah had relations with a gentile [anytime in her past], nevertheless her firstborn son is exempt from Pidyon Haben due to her Levite status.

Kohen father is Chalal:[23] A Kohen who is a Challal [born from forbidden marriage of Kohen] is obligated to redeem his son who is a firstborn to the mother, and to give the money to a Kohen.

Child is a Chalal:[24] If the father is a Kohen although his child is a Chalal [i.e. a Kohen married a woman who is forbidden to Kehuna, such as a divorcee[25], and she birthed him a firstborn son] then the child needs to be redeemed. Nevertheless, the Kohen father can keep the money for himself after he separates it for the Pidyon.

Q&A If the father and mother are a Yisrael, but one of their mothers is a Kohenes or Leviyah, is the child obligated in Pidyon Haben?[26] Yes.   What is the law if one [father or mother] does not know if he is a Kohen or Levi or Yisrael?[27] Some Poskim[28] rule that the firstborn son is exempt from Pidyon Haben.[29] Other Poskim[30] rule that he is obligated in Pidyon Haben.[31] Practically, he is to be redeemed without a blessing.[32]

F. Son of gentile father:[33]

Mother is Yisraeilis-Obligated:[34] If a Yisraeilis was impregnated by a gentile, then her firstborn son is obligated in Pidyon Haben [and hence there is no difference as to whether her firstborn son was born from a Jewish or gentile father in this regard, and either way her son is obligated in Pidyon Haben]. In such a case, the Pidyon Haben is to take place when he becomes Bar Mitzvah.[35] This applies even if she is now married to a Jewish husband, nonetheless, he is exempt from redeeming her son, and the obligation falls on the son himself when he becomes Bar Mitzvah.[36]]

Mother is Leviyah-Exempt:[37] If a Leviyah was impregnated by a gentile, then her son is exempt from being redeemed [due to her Levite status, and hence there is no difference as to whether her son was born from a Jewish or gentile father in this regard, and either way her son is exempt from Pidyon Haben].[38]

Mother is Kohenes-Obligated:[39]  If a Kohenes was impregnated by a gentile, then her firstborn son is obligated in Pidyon Haben [and hence by a Kohenes there is a difference as to whether her firstborn son was born from a Jewish or gentile father in this regard].[40] [In such a case, the Pidyon Haben is to take place when he becomes Bar Mitzvah.[41] This applies even if she is now married to a Jewish husband, nonetheless, he is exempt from redeeming her son, and the obligation falls on the son himself when he becomes Bar Mitzvah.[42]]

_____________________________________________________________________

[1] Michaber Y.D. 305:1

[2] Michaber Y.D. 305:25

[3] Michaber Y.D. 305:17; Mishneh Bechoros 46a; Kiddushin 29b; Admur 470:1-2; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:1-2; Shevach Habris 1:2

[4] The reason: As the verse states “Peter Rechem,” and the Recehm is from the mother.

[5] Michaber ibid and Kiddushin ibid regarding if has many wives

^[6] Michaber Y.D. 305:21

^[7] Michaber Y.D. 305:22-23; Admur 470:2; Mishneh Bechoros 46a; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:6-16; Shevach Habris 1:8

[8] Background: If a form of a fetus came out which appears like an animal/bird which half of its face appears like that of a human, or the shilya came out, or the shapir merukam came out, then this miscarriage is considered like a birth and the first-born son does not need to be redeemed. [Michaber 305:22] If the shapir was filled with blood or water or other colors, then this miscarriage is not considered like a birth and the first-born son needs to be redeemed. [Michaber 305:23]

Fetus appears like other animal: If the fetus appeared like a fish or reptile or other shekatzim urimashim, then the first-born son needs to be redeemed. [Michaber 305:23]

Mother had stillborn:  If the mother had a still born, then if the child was only in his eight month, then the first born son needs to be redeemed. [Michaber Y.D. 305:23] If the stillborn was born through a c-section-see Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:19

[9] Michaber Y.D. 305:23; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:6 and 16

[10] Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:16; Shevach Habris ibid footnote 14

[11] Michaber Y.D. 305:24; Mishneh Bechoros 47b; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:17-19; Shevach Habris 1:7

^[12] The reason: The reason for the latter exemption is because only a first-born son which would also be considered a first born for inheritance purposes is given an obligation to be redeemed, and since in this case the latter child is not considered the first born for inheritance, therefore he does not need to be redeemed despite him being the first child born form the womb. [Taz 305:20; Tana Kama in Mishneh ibid; See Rashi ibid, Hagahos Hagri”v; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso ibid footnote 45]

[13] See Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 2:22

[14] Michaber Y.D. 305:18; Tur 305:18; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3:11-14; Shevach Habris 1:3

[15] Michaber ibid; Mishneh Bechoros 3a

The reason that even a Levi exempts: As in the desert the Levites exempted the Bechoros, and hence today as well the Levites exempt their Bechor sons. [Bechoros 4a]

[16] Michaber ibid; Rambam Bikurim 11:10; Rav Ada Bar Ahavah in Bechoros 47a; Chulin 132a; Tosafos Bechoros ibid; Rosh Bechoros 8:2

The reason: As this matter is not dependent on the father, but rather on the mother, as the verse [Shemos 13:2] states “Peter Kol Rechem Bivinei Yisrael.” [Michaber ibid]

[17] Setimas Kol Haposkim; Chasam Sofer Y.D. 291; Aruch Hashulchan 305:55; Shoshanim Ledavid O.C. 22; Likkutei Pinchas 27; Minchas Yitzchak 2:30; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3:13; See Michaber O.C. 457:2

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that today, all Kohanim and Leviyim should redeem their firstborns without a blessing. [Divrei Chamudos on Rosh Bechoros 1:9; Sheilas Yaavetz 1:155; Pishceiy Teshuvah 305:12; ]

[18] Shach 305:22; Shevach Habris 1:4

[19] Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3:17; Such as incest [i.e. brother, father, etc] or adultery [See Shach 305:23 and Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3 footnote 40] or had relations with a Mamzer

[20] The reason: As she has become a Chalal due to this relations with the gentile. [Shach ibid] Vetzaruch Iyun if this occurred between the pregnancy and birth.

[21] If the father is a Kohen, then the son is Chalal, and follows the law explained below regarding if the child is a Challal. If, however, the father is a Levi, then seemingly the son is exempt from redemption. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[22] See Michaber Y.D. 305:18

[23] See Michaber E.H. 7:12 that a Chalal has the status of a Zar

[24] Michaber Y.D. 305:19; Levush 305:19; Maharit Algazi Hilchos Bechoros on Ramban 67 in name of Rosh; Aruch Hashulchan 305:60; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3:14; Shevach Habris 1:5

[25] See Michaber E.H. 6 and 7:12

[26] Sefer Hamakneh Kiddushin 29a; Shemen Rokeiach Bechoros 47a; Shaareiy Shamayim Y.D. 45; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3 footnote 25

[27] See Otzer Pidyon Haben 5:18; Pidyon Haben Kehilchaso 3:24; Shevach Habris 1:6

[28] Tzemach Tzedek Kadmon 125; Beir Heiyitiv of Maharit 305; Pischeiy Teshuvah 305:32;

[29] The reason: As Hamotzi Michaveiro Alav Harayah, and by monetary matters we do not follow the majority status. [Poskim ibid]

[30] Yeshuos Yaakov Y.D. 305; Kuntrus Hasfeikos 6:5; Kol Aryeh 82; Bnei Tziyon Kama 103-104; Likkutei Pinchas 114

[31] The reason: As by Matanos Kehuna and Aniyim we follow majority status, and majority of people are Yisraeilim. [Poskim ibid]

[32] Halef Lecha Shlomo Y.D. 286; Levushei Mordechai Kama Y.D. 204 in name of Shaareiy Deiah

[33] See Michaber Y.D. 305:18; Shevach Habris 1:4

[34] See Michaber Y.D. 305:18 regarding a Kohenes, and there is no difference in this regarding between a Chalalah or Yisraeilis

[35] Shach 305:22 “When he becomes older”

The reason: As the mother is not obligated to redeem her son, as explained above in Michaber 305:2. [Shach ibid]

[36] Shach ibid

[37] Michaber Y.D. 305:18; Rambam Bikurim 11:11; Bechoros 47a

[38] The reason: As a Leviyah does not become desecrated from her Leviyah status by her having relations with the non-Jew.

[39] Michaber Y.D. 305:18; Rambam Bikurim 11:11; Bechoros 47a

[40] The reason: As the Kohenes has been desecrated from her Kehuna status by her having relations with the non-Jew. [Michaber ibid]

[41] Shach 305:22 “When he becomes older”

The reason: As the mother is not obligated to redeem her son, as explained above in Michaber 305:2. [Shach ibid]

[42] Shach ibid

Bookmark