Answer: The Gemara (Kiddushin
29a) writes that if one failed to redeem his son when he was a child, then his
son should do so himself. Thus, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 305:15) writes that one who
wasn’t redeemed should redeem themselves when they grow up. The Pischei Teshuva
(YD 305:25) quotes the Zichron Yosef (YD 26) who stresses that this must wait
until he is bar mitzva.
There is a machlokes among the rishonim, however, as to
whether the father is still obligated to redeem his son, or whether his grown
up son should perform it himself. The Rashba (Shut 2:321) argues that the
father’s obligation does not disappear with time. Similarly, the Sefer
Hachinuch (392) writes that while the father should ideally perform this
mitzva when the baby is thirty days old, the obligation remains even after
one’s son has grown up. Thus, the Minchas Chinuch (392:1) writes that as the mitzva
belongs primarily to the father, if his son performed it himself, he could be
fined ten zehuvim (See Shulchan Aruch CM 382:1).
The Rivash (131), however, writes that once the son turns bar
mitzva it becomes his primary obligation, rather than his father’s. As he
couldn’t have redeemed himself as a baby, it was then his father’s obligation,
but now that he can do so himself, he should.
While R’ Ephraim Greenblatt (Rivevos Ephraim 3:518) writes
that we follow the Rashba, R’ Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:370) writes that the Shulchan
Aruch implies that we follow the Rivash, and the son should now redeem himself.
Nonetheless, he suggests that it is possible for them to both perform the mitzva.
The father should give his son the money while his son performs the actual pidyon.
In conclusion, both the
father and his grown son are obligated to perform the pidyon haben. As
there is a machlokes as to whose obligation is paramount, it is ideal to
do the pidyon in a manner that involves them both, so that they can both
perform the mitzva.
No comments:
Post a Comment