web analytics
July 28, 2015 / 12 Av, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Pidyon Haben: Debt Or Mitzvah?

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

This column is dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

In this week’s parshah the Torah tells us that Hashem told Aharon to redeem every firstborn child. This is known as pidyon haben. The Rema, in Yoreh De’ah 305:10, rules in the name of the Rivash that one may not appoint a shaliach to perform pidyon haben. Many Acharonim argue with this ruling and posit that one can appoint a shaliach to perform pidyon haben.

The Vilna Gaon, in Yoreh De’ah there, states on the opinion of the Rema that not only should one be allowed to appoint a shaliach to perform pidyon haben, but one should also be able to perform pidyon haben for another person even if he wasn’t appointed. Pidyon haben should not be different than ma’aser sheini, about which the Rambam says in the fourth perek of Hilchos Ma’aser Sheini that one can redeem ma’aser sheni from another without even having been appointed to do so. The Ritva, in Pesachim 7b, says that the berachah we recite on pidyon haben is “al pidyon haben” – not “lifdos haben.” This is because others can perform it – even without the father’s knowledge.

The Vilna Gaon then says that there is even more reason by pidyon haben as to why one should be able to appoint a shaliach. This is because the mitzvah of pidyon haben is essentially repaying a debt. The Gemara, in Bechoros 48, says that a kohen may collect the money of pidyon haben from the father’s property. After all, one is surely allowed to repay another person’s debt. The Vilna Gaon concludes that the only reason why one should not use a shaliach is because it is always better for one to perform his own mitzvah than to have someone else perform it.

The Machaneh Efraim (Hilchos Zechia 7) agrees that pidyon haben is only repaying a debt. Therefore, he rules that it may be performed without the father’s knowledge.

Another proof that pidyon haben is a debt that is owed to a kohen is from Tosfos in Bechoros 49a. It says there that after the firstborn son is 30 days old the money is owed to the kohen. Even if the boy dies, rachmanah litzlan, after that but before he was redeemed, the father still owes the money. Question: if the money of pidyon haben was only a mitzvah, then what mitzvah applies when the child is no longer alive? Answer: he is being redeemed. We see from here that the mitzvah of pidyon haben creates a debt to the kohen.

The Minchas Chinuch asks the following: if pidyon haben is a debt, why can’t a kohen forgive the money? The Minchas Chinuch concludes from this that indeed there is a mitzvah to give – similar to that of terumah – which cannot be forgiven.

One could ask this: to which kohen is there a debt, that his forgiveness should obliterate the debt? Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Shiurim 187) says that perhaps the case could be one of makerai kahunah. Makerai kahunah is when a person consistently gives all of his matanos kahunah to one kohen. This concept, which the Gemara says creates some sort of priority to that kohen, applies when we are unsure to whom the owner gave the present. The Tosfos HaRush, in Baba Metzia 49b, says that when one has a kohen to whom he always gives his matanos kahunah, and if he is planning to give him the next gift, it is considered as if the kohen already owns it. Perhaps in this situation a kohen who has makerai kahunah would be able to forgive the debt of pidyon haben. But the Minchas Chinuch says that we don’t find that any kohen can forgive a debt of pidyon haben.

The Maharsha, in Kesubos, does in fact put forward that a kohen could forgive the debt of pidyon haben. This would be in line with those who believe that pidyon haben is only a monetary debt, not a mitzvah to give the money. We can assume that the scenario to which the Maharsha is referring, that a kohen can forgive the debt of pidyon haben, is one of makerai kahunah.

The discussion of whether a kohen can forgive the debt of pidyon haben may be dependent on another point. How do we view the forgiving (mechilah) of a debt? One option is that when one says that the debtor doesn’t have to pay the debt, the debt is off. The other option is that when one says, “you don’t have to pay me,” we view it as if he has already received the money.

If forgiving a debt is only a means of removing the debt, one can argue that it should not work by pidyon haben. This is because the money is not owed to only one person, but rather to the entire sheivet of kohanim; one kohen should not be able to remove a debt that is owed to the entire sheivet. However, if forgiving a debt is considered as if he has received the money, one kohen can forgive the money. This is because it is no different than if he had actually received the money – in which case the debt is off.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Pidyon Haben: Debt Or Mitzvah?”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
British Prime Minister David Cameron
Britain Warns Citizens Against Travel to Turkey, Fearing ISIS Attacks
Latest Judaism Stories
Torat-Hakehillah-logo-NEW

Before going in, I had told R’ Nachum all of the things we were doing in Philly, and how it was very important to receive a good bracha on behalf of our newest venture, a Russian Kollel.

Q-A-Klass-logo

Question: When a stranger approaches a congregant in shul asking for tzedakah, should the congregant verify that the person’s need is genuine? Furthermore, what constitutes tzedakah? Is a donation to a synagogue, yeshiva, or hospital considered tzedakah?

Zvi Kirschner
(Via E-Mail)

Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem

(JNi.media) Tisha B’Av (Heb: 9th of the month of Av) is a fast day according to rabbinic law and tradition, commemorating the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE by the army of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 CE by the Roman army led […]

Rabbi Avi Weiss

Devarim often parallels the stories in Bereishit but in reverse & can be considered as a corrective

‘Older’ By A Month
‘…Until The Beginning Of Adar’
(Nedarim 63a)

We realize how much we miss something only after it’s gone.

Because the words of Torah gladden the heart, studying Torah is forbidden when Tisha B’Av is on a weekday, except for passages in Scripture that deal with the destruction of the Temple and other calamities.

On Super Bowl Sunday itself, life seems to stop. Over one hundred million people watch the game. About half of the households in the country show it in their living rooms and dens.

Moses begins Sefer Devarim reviewing much of the 40 years in the desert & why he can’t enter Israel

While they are definitely special occurrences, why are they cause for a new holiday?

Torah wasn’t given to be kept in Sinai; Brooklyn or Beverly Hills-It was meant to be kept in Israel!

“When a king dies his power ends; when a prophet dies his influence begins” & their words echo today

In addition to the restrictions of Tisha B’Av, there are several restrictions that one may not perform during the week that Tisha B’Av falls in.

The word “shavat” in the first kina of Tisha B’Av morning indicates a sudden suspension and cessation of time that accompanied the Temple’s destruction.

The two decided to approach Rabbi Dayan. “What is the halachic status of conquered territory?” asked Shalom.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

In addition to the restrictions of Tisha B’Av, there are several restrictions that one may not perform during the week that Tisha B’Av falls in.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

We do not find that Pinchas was chastised for what he did; on the contrary he was greatly rewarded.

The Shulchan Aruch in the very first siman states that one should rise in the morning like a lion, implying that simply rising form bed requires strength of a lion, in line with the Midrash.

Tosafos answers that nevertheless the sprinkling is a part of his taharah process.

Performing ketores outside the Beis Hamikdash, and at the wrong time is an aveirah.

Ten of the twelve spies returned with a negative report, stating that this would be impossible.

The flavor of the mon was not artificial; the mon would now consist of the actual flavors from the desired food.

Tosafos suggests several answers as to how a minor can own an item, m’d’Oraisa.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/pidyon-haben-debt-or-mitzvah/2013/06/06/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: