Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If a baby who is a Bechor had his Bris delayed beyond the 31st day - should the Pidyon HaBen be pushed off until the Bris is ready to be done? On one side you do not want to delay a Mitzva in its proper time, on the other hand Bris Milah is the foundation of the Jewish people and without this covenant between Hashem and Klal Yisroel there would be no Mitzva of Pidyon Haben. (sources please)

share|improve this question
1  
Seems like it would involve the same factors as in your other question. –  Alex Jul 29 '11 at 15:55
1  
@Alex, if you copy-paste that answer here, with a few emendations, this question will have a nice answer. (I'd do it myself, but I'd have to write "Alex wrote elsewhere..." whereas you can just write the answer, which is neater.) –  msh210 Dec 20 '11 at 21:15
    
@Alex, see my comment on your answer there. I believe these are two separate questions. When both are theoretically able to be done on the same day, the first half of your answer there stands (there). When the Milah is delayed even further, however, as in this question, the second half your answer (there) stands (here). –  Seth J Jul 26 '12 at 12:58
    
I do have to ask why you would assume that just because someone hasn't "entered into the covenant" he isn't bound by the Mitzvoth. Or am I misunderstanding your assumption in the "other hand" part of your final sentence? –  Seth J May 8 '13 at 20:23
    
Yabia Omer YD 6:25 –  Double AA Jun 7 '13 at 20:47

3 Answers 3

The Rivevos Ephraim 5:538 explains it is a mistake to think that a bris has to go first.The pidyon can be done before if the baby is still not ready for a bris.

See also 6:441:13 where he brings an actual case where they did the pidyon first.

share|improve this answer

Excellent treatment of the clal 'ain maavirin al hamitzvot' http://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?ClipDate=7/16/2006 You perform the Pidyon at its proper time. A delayed Brit may follow.

Citing The Chida (Rabbi Chayim Yosef David Azulai, Israel, 1724-1806), in his work of responsa Chayim Sha'al (1:31), writes that even if an infant is sick and unable to undergo (brit Milah) circumcision, the Pidyon must not be delayed; it should be performed immediately once the obligation takes effect on the thirty-first day, even if it is before the Brit Milah.

share|improve this answer

Firstly you claim that "Bris Milah is the foundation of the Jewish people and without this covenant between Hashem and Klal Yisroel there would be no Mitzva of Pidyon Haben" without providing a source.

Secondly, the Mitzva of Pidyon HaBen is an obligation on the father - who did have a Brit. The firstborn is merely the cause of the Mitzva (and does not even have to be present). Compare it to redeeming a firstborn donkey which is also not part of the Jewish people.

So the usual rules apply: When it's time for a Mitzva then you do it ASAP.

For actual sources you can look up these:

  1. ספר נשמת אברהם שח, ב (by the חיד"א)
  2. שו"ת חיים שאל א, לא
share|improve this answer
2  
I agree with your conclusion - but not your logic. Your comparison to donkeys implies that someone who has not had a Berith Milah is not part of the Jewish People. This is false. A Jewish baby is a Jewish baby regardless of when the Berith takes place. Certain restrictions apply to a Jewish boy with no Milah, but he is part of the Jewish People. The part I agree with is that you do the Mitzvah when it's time to do the Mitzvah - because he is part of the Jewish People. Proof: There is no Mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen for a non-Jewish son, but there is for a Jewish son born to a non-Jewish father. –  Seth J Jul 26 '12 at 13:25
    
@SethJ: "Your comparison to donkeys implies that someone who has not had a Berith Milah is not part of the Jewish People. This is false." - I agree with that! but I was answering the questions which implied (actually:stated clearly) that this is true; I was essentially saying "even if it were to be true, then..." –  Danny Schoemann Jul 30 '12 at 8:32
    
Then why did you say "also"? Furthermore, nowhere in the question does he state that the baby is not part of the Jewish people. He says the baby hasn't entered into the covenant, which (at least it seems from the wording) the asker assumes means the requirement to be redeemed doesn't yet apply. –  Seth J May 8 '13 at 20:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.