SCHEDULING A SUNDAY PIDYON HA-BEN FOR A
CHILD BORN ON SHABBAT
By Rav David Silverberg
I. Introduction
The Torah requires that the father1 of a firstborn male
symbolically "redeem" the boy by paying a sum of money to a kohen one
month after the birth.2 This mitzva is called “pidyon ha-ben,” (literally,
“redemption of the son”). The straightforward reading of the mishna3 and
Shulchan Arukh4 implies that the pidyon should take place no earlier than
the thirty-first day from the birth, with the birthday itself included. A
"day" in this context refers to a day as defined in virtually all areas of
Halakha, which begins and ends at sundown; i.e. the day follows the
night.5 Since, as stated, the thirty-one days include the day of birth, the
The author expresses his gratitude to Rav Menachem Mendlowitz for bringing this topic
to the writer’s attention and for his invaluable assistance in researching this issue.
1
The mother's exemption from this obligation emerges from the mishna (Kiddushin
29a), which includes pidyon ha-ben among the obligations towards children cast
specifically upon the father. Her exemption is codified by the Rambam (Hilkhot
Bikkurim 11:2) and Shulchan Arukh (Y.D. 305:2). Nevertheless, it would seem that her
pidyon would, be-di’avad, indeed fulfill the requirement with regard to the newborn.
Therefore, should a firstborn become orphaned, Heaven forbid, before his pidyon, the
mother performs the ritual (Rav Netanel Fried, Responsa Penei Meivin, Y.D. 226). See
Otzar Pidyon Ha-ben, p. 216 notes 9-10.
2
Bemidbar 18:15-16; Sefer Ha-chinukh 392. We will not discuss here the many
instances in which this obligation does not apply.
3
Bekhorot 49a.
4
Y.D. 305:11.
5
Chullin 83a; a notable exception, as mentioned there in the Gemara, is the area of
107
Alei Etzion vol. 12 (Shevat 5764)
first day is considered to have passed with the first sunset after the birth,
even should this occur just minutes after delivery.6 Thus, parents of a
firstborn male born anytime on Shabbat would presumably perform this
mitzva on Monday, four weeks and two days after the delivery.
However, in countries that observe Sunday as a vacation day,
parents in such a situation may prefer to conduct the ritual, which
traditionally involves festive celebration,7 on Sunday, to allow for
maximum participation of friends and relatives. This paper will explore
the various options available to parents in such a case within the
parameters of Halakha. Specifically, may, or perhaps should, they
conduct the pidyon ha-ben on Sunday or Sunday night?
To fully appreciate the issue at hand, we must first understand its
ramifications. A father who redeems his firstborn earlier than the
designated time has not fulfilled the mitzva,8 and the berakhot recited at
kodashim (sacrifices in the Temple), regarding which the night follows the day. Later
we will encounter one source imposing this system on the institution of pidyon ha-ben,
as well.
6
We will not address here the more complex case of a child born bein hashemashot, between sunset and nightfall, a period generally considered a halakhic
anomaly. We will instead assume that the delivery occurred either before sunset or after
nightfall. For discussion of the bein ha-shemashot case, see Noda Bi-Yehuda, 2nd ed.,
Y.D. 187; Pitechei Teshuva 305:17; Maharam Schick Y.D. 302; Rav Yitzchak Weiss,
Minchat Yitzchak 5:33.
7
Rema Y.D. 305:10. The author of the Sefer Ha-parnas (298) proves from the
Gemara that the pidyon ha-ben celebration attains the status of a "se'udat mitzva" (a
meal that participation therein constitutes a mitzva). The Magen Avraham (568:10)
suggests that this may depend on whether the pidyon takes place at the optimum time, in
which case participation in the festivities would constitute a mitzva, or after, since the
delay may strip the meal of its mitzva status. By contrast, the Rashba (Responsa 1:139,
cited in Beit Yosef Y.D. 305) views this meal as optional. (For this reason, presumably,
the Mechaber mentions nothing of this meal in the Shulchan Arukh.) Similarly, the
Derisha (Y.D. 305:3) records (in the name of the Maharshal) that Rav Menachem ben
Rav Pinchas Me'il-Tzedek bemoaned the standardization of the lavish meal, which
compelled the less capable to try to avoid paying the full sum required for the pidyon, in
violation of a biblical commandment.
In any event, most authorities consider the pidyon ha-ben meal a se'udat mitzva,
regardless of when it takes place. See Pidyon Ha-ben Ke-hilkhato, chap. 8, note 119.
8
Shulchan Arukh Y.D. 305:13.
108
the ritual9 de facto become "berakhot le-vatala" (blessings in vain). On
the other hand, the Shulchan Arukh emphasizes that one should perform
this mitzva "immediately" once the proper time arrives and should not
delay. (For this reason, delaying a pidyon ha-ben to the following
Sunday to allow for greater attendance is out of the question, as ruled
explicitly and unequivocally by Rav Moshe Feinstein.10) Additionally,
the importance of a large attendance at a pidyon ha-ben is well
documented in halakhic sources.11 Therefore, although parents must not
The father recites two berakhot when performing this mitzva: "asher kiddeshanu…
al pidyon ha-ben" and "she-hecheyanu." The Geonim instituted a third, lengthy
berakha recited by the kohen receiving the redemption money (Teshuvot Ha-geonim,
Sha'arei Teshuva 47), recorded by the Chinukh (392), Ramban (Hilkhot Berkhorot) and
Rashba (cited in Beit Yosef). The Rosh (Kiddushin 1:41) noted the prevalent custom in
France and Germany to omit this berakha, as it appears nowhere throughout the Mishna,
Tosefta, or Gemara and no basis seems to exists for a berakha on the part of the kohen.
Rav Pinchas Menachem Elazar Yustman (Sifetei Tzadik, Korach 68) writes that indeed
an obligation rests upon the kohen, as well, to take part in the pidyon ha-ben, perhaps
providing a basis for this berakha.
10
Iggerot Moshe, Y.D. 2:118.
11
The Maharil, in "Seder Pidyon Ha-ben," as well as one of the Tosafists, Rabbeinu
Shelomo of London (published in Sinai, Vol. 13, p.230), write that a pidyon ha-ben
must take place in the presence of a minyan. Rav Mordekhai Yehuda Leib Zaks (Shana
Be-shana, 5723, pp.106-7) offers three possible bases for this ruling:
1)
Pidyon ha-ben in this regard resembles circumcision, which requires the
presence of ten people in order to publicly express gratitude for the successful
"release" of the child from the confines of the womb (Shiltei Ha-gibborim on the
Mordekhai, Shabbat 422). After thirty days, when the child's physical stability has
been confirmed, the parents must likewise conduct a public celebration.
2)
As alluded to by the Meshekh Chokhma (Bemidbar 18:16), the five-shekel
payment to the kohen relates to the institution of arakhin (Vayikra 27:4), by which
the representative "value" of a one-month-old is assessed at five shekels. Since ten
people are required in certain instances of assessment for purposes of arakhin, the
custom developed to do the same for a pidyon ha-ben.
3)
Ten people gather at a pidyon ha-ben ceremony as a public prayer, of sorts,
beseeching the Almighty to redeem the nation of Yisra’el, His "firstborn" (Shemot
4:22), just as this father redeems his.
One practical difference arising from these varying approaches involves the value of
including even greater numbers of people for this event. It would seem that for a public
thanksgiving celebration or prayer service, we would encourage as large an attendance
as possible. By contrast, if this custom only commemorates the formal requirement of
ten estimators for purposes of arakhin, additional guests would perhaps be superfluous.
In any event, the Terumat Ha-deshen (1:268-269) encourages large crowds for a pidyon
9
109
schedule the affair any earlier than the Halakha permits, they should
conduct the ritual as soon as possible thereafter while allowing for
maximum participation of family and friends.
We may now return to our question: when may or should parents
of a firstborn male born on Shabbat schedule the pidyon ha-ben?
This issue will depend upon two distinct questions: when is the
earliest time from birth at which a father may redeem his firstborn son,
and, secondly, may one conduct this ritual at nighttime?
II. The Earliest Time for the Pidyon Ha-ben
Three general views exist as to when a firstborn becomes eligible
for a pidyon:
1) at the onset of the thirty-first day (the prevalent view);12
2) after thirty complete units of twenty-four hours (720 hours),
i.e., the pidyon cannot take place on the thirty-first day until
the same time of day at which the birth occurred thirty days
earlier (Rav Refa’el Yom-Tov Lipman Halprin in his Oneg
Yom Tov,13 and Rav David Pardo in his Shoshanim LeDavid14);
ha-ben in order to "publicize the mitzva." Apparently, the infrequency of this mitzva
warrants publicity when it does take place. In a slightly different vein, Rav Yehuda
Assad (Responsa Yehuda Ya'aleh Vol. 1, Y.D. 262) views a large attendance as
publicizing the miracle ("pirsumei nissa") of the smiting of the Egyptian firstborn,
commemorated through the ritual of pidyon ha-ben. See also Otzar Pidyon Ha-ben
18:2.
12
Straightforward reading of the Shulchan Arukh 305:11; Sefer Ha-eshkol (Hilkhot
Pidyon Ha-ben 41); Magen Avraham (339:8); Chakham Zvi (114); Arukh Ha-shulchan
(305:42), Ben Ish Chai (Rav Pe'alim Y.D. 49) and many others.
13
103. The Oneg Yom Tov essentially agrees with the third position cited, that of the
Yere'im, requiring the passage of 709 hours before the pidyon. However, he explains,
the Torah preferred not to establish a mitzva requiring complex calculation and
therefore instituted a more generic period of thirty days before the obligation sets in.
This then raised yet another concern: 709 hours have not necessarily passed by the onset
of the thirty-first day, as we will see later in our discussion. The Torah therefore
scheduled the pidyon ha-ben for thirty complete twenty-four hour units after the birth,
110
3) after twenty-nine units of twenty-four hours plus an additional
twelve hours and forty-four minutes, the Gemara's assessment
of the duration of the lunar cycle15 (Yere'im,16 Bach,17
Shakh18). (For the sake of simplicity, we will henceforth refer
to this time period as simply "709 hours.") This position
would allow a pidyon ha-ben after this time period has
elapsed, even before the thirty-first day.
We will now determine when the parents of the Shabbat-born
baby should schedule the pidyon ha-ben according to each position,
assuming, for the time being, that one may perform a pidyon both by day
and by night.
The Prevalent View:
thus ensuring the passage of the required amount of time.
14
58-59. A comment by Rav Moshe Chagiz, author of Leket Ha-kemach, may
suggest that he concurs with this view. Rav Barukh Avraham Toledano (in Seridim,
Vol. 11, p.47) cites the following passage from Rav Chagiz: "If he is born on
Wednesday night, then he is redeemed optimally on Friday, his thirtieth day, at the
moment that he becomes more than a month old." At first glance, this "moment" refers
to the point at which 720 hours have passed. However, Rav Toledano, who apparently
could snot entertain such a notion, understood this sentence as referring to the passage
of 709 hours, in line with position 3 mentioned here.
15
Rosh Ha-shana 25a. For a precise calculation, see Mishna Berura 339:27; Zokher
Ha-berit 29:3.
16
140. The Maharam Schick (Y.D. 303) and Chakham Tzvi (114) interpret the
Yere'im such that he concurs with the prevalent view (position 1). Similarly, Rav
Shemuel Eli’ezer Stern (Piskei U-minhagei Chatam Sofer Be-inyanei Pidyon Ha-ben—
Shevivei Esh 2:7) suggested that the Yere'im actually requires both the onset of the
thirty-first day and the passage of this unit of time from the birth. The Yere'im's position
thus becomes identical to one version of position 1, as we will see later. Yet another
variation of the Yere'im's position appears in the writings of the Netziv (Responsa
Meishiv Davar 2:85), who understands the Yere'im as requiring the passage of 720
hours, as does the Oneg Yom Tov (position 2).
17
On the Tur, 305; Shut Ha-bach 125.
18
305:19. However, the Shakh himself notes common practice to the contrary.
111
If we view the thirty-first day as the determining factor, then the
pidyon takes place immediately at the onset of thirty-first day, which, in
the case of a Shabbat birth, occurs at nightfall on Sunday evening.
One complication, however, arises in light of a debate among the
authorities within this position. Consider a case of a baby born just
before sundown on a late, summertime, Shabbat afternoon, around 7:00
PM. According to the principles outlined at the beginning of this paper,
even should the sun set just moments after delivery, we consider a full
day as having passed for purposes of scheduling the pidyon ha-ben.
Therefore, once night falls on Sunday four weeks later, thirty full days
have elapsed, allowing, it would seem, a pidyon ha-ben on Sunday night.
However, some authorities19 maintain that this position, prohibiting a
pidyon before the thirty-first day from birth, also requires the passage of
709 hours. In other words, this view adopts the stringencies of both 1
and 3: the pidyon ha-ben may take place on the thirty-first day only after
the point at which 709 hours have passed.20 Thus, in the case of the 7:00
19
The Peri Megadim in "Teivat Gomeh," cited in Pitechei Teshuva 305:17; Noda BiYehuda 2nd ed., Y.D. 187 (and in Dagul Me-revava, O.C. 568); Rav Refael Bardugo
(Torot Emet 305:11). Rav Avraham Sofer (Responsa Ketav Sofer Y.D. 151) relates that
both his father, the Chatam Sofer, and his maternal grandfather, Rav Akiva Eiger,
grappled with this issue and could not reach a definitive conclusion. Sure enough, Rav
Akiva Eiger writes (Responsa, 2nd ed. 22) that one should preferably ensure the passage
of 709 hours in deference to the stringent position. The Chatam Sofer expresses his
ambivalence in his Chiddushim to Shabbat (135a).
20
The basis for such a position likely involves two different aspects of the required
one-month period prior to a pidyon ha-ben. Rashi and Tosafot (Bekhorot 49a; Bava
Kama 11b) appear to argue as to whether the thirty-day period serves to ascertain the
medical stability of the child (a baby who died within his first month is considered as
never having fully developed) or constitutes a strict "gezeirat ha-katuv" (divine
ordinance whose reasoning eludes us). A position advocating a fixed period of time
from the birth likely prefers Rashi's view, that the thirty-day waiting period is meant to
confirm the baby's development. By contrast, mandating a period subject to
fluctuation—as does position 1, calling for the pidyon ha-ben at the onset of the thirtyfirst day—appears closer to Tosafot's view, that the Torah's concern does not necessarily
relate to the child's medical status. This version of position 1 likely maintains a
combination of both approaches: although the Torah's requirement of waiting thirty days
eludes our comprehension, we must also ascertain the firstborn's physical stability. (A
complete analysis of this dispute between Rashi and Tosafot lies beyond the scope of
our discussion.)
112
PM birth on Shabbat afternoon before sunset, the pidyon may be held no
earlier than 7:44 AM Monday morning, four weeks and two days later.
It turns out according to this position, that parents who wish to
conduct a Sunday evening pidyon ha-ben for their child born on Shabbat
may do so only if the birth occurred Friday night or early Shabbat
morning. For example, a 7:00 AM birth on Shabbat would allow for the
pidyon to take place at 7:44 PM Sunday night.
Other authorities,21 however, dispute this ruling. In their view,
Halakha rejects position 3 outright, leaving the thirty-first day as the sole
determining factor. Thus, if the birth occurred on Shabbat, the parents
may schedule the pidyon for anytime after dark Sunday evening (four
weeks later), regardless of the precise hour of delivery.
Further complicating matters according to this view is yet a third
possibility raised—albeit with considerable skepticism—by the Chatam
Sofer, as recorded by his son.22 The Chatam Sofer suggests that should
the time for a pidyon ha-ben arrive in the middle of the day, one must
wait until the following day to perform the ritual; the pidyon must occur
on a day that begins with the potential thereof already in place.
Therefore, should the period of 709 hours from birth conclude after the
onset of the thirty-first day, the parents must delay the pidyon until the
thirty-second day. Rav Zalman Banhad, a prominent disciple of the
Chatam Sofer, is recorded as having adopted this suggestion as
authoritative.23
Assuming this third version of the prevalent view in consideration
of our case, should the period of 709 hours terminate only after dark on
Rav Ya’akov Emden in Migdal Oz—Birkot Horai 3:9-12; Maharam Schick Y.D.
302-3; Pidyon Nefesh 2:2; Rav Avraham Ben Mordekhai Ha-levi, Ginat Veradim Y.D.
6:10, cited in Birkei Yosef Y.D. 305:14; Sedei Chemed (Ma'arekhet "Mem," 104:11;
Ma'arekhet "Pei" 39).
22
Responsa Ketav Sofer, ibid.
23
The account is reported by Rav Shemuel Eherenfeld (a grandson of the Chatam
Sofer), Chatan Sofer Vol. 2, p.49a, and by the Maharam Schick Y.D. 302.
21
113
Sunday,24 the parents must delay the affair until Monday night or
Tuesday.
The Oneg Yom Tov:
This position would allow the pidyon ha-ben on Sunday night or
Monday at the same time at which the baby was born on Shabbat four
weeks earlier. Thus, parents could schedule a Sunday night affair only if
the birth had occurred early enough on Friday night for the pidyon to take
place at the corresponding time on Sunday night. If the delivery did not
occur until late Friday night or Shabbat day, the pidyon would have to be
held on Monday (at or after the same time as the moment of birth).
The Bach and Shakh:
This view, unlike the others, could potentially allow for a daytime
Sunday affair, depending, of course, on when precisely the birth took
place. For example, if the baby was delivered 9:00 PM Friday night, then
the parents may schedule the pidyon for four weeks later on Sunday,
anytime after 9:44 AM. On the other hand, it would seem, if the birth
occurred after 10:00 AM Shabbat morning, the pidyon may not be
performed earlier than Sunday night at 10:44 PM. In such a case, this
position becomes more stringent than the prevalent view (according to
one version thereof, as mentioned earlier).
However, some later authorities25 understand this position
differently, that it views the 709 hours as offering only a leniency, not a
Rav Shemuel Eli’ezer Stern (ibid. 2:14) notes a discrepancy between the different
reports of the Chatam Sofer's query. His son, the Ketav Sofer, appears to point to
daybreak of the morning of the thirty-first as the critical moment: only if the required
period concludes anytime after dawn must the pidyon be delayed. By contrast, the
aforementioned account in the Chatan Sofer suggests that the critical point occurs at
nightfall. Thus, even if the required duration terminates already on the night of the
thirty-first day, the pidyon should not take place until the thirty-second. Rav Stern
correctly notes the difficulty in the former presentation, that, as we will see, no basis
exists—other than common custom—for refraining from performing a pidyon ha-ben at
nighttime. Daybreak thus seems totally irrelevant as far as the obligation of pidyon haben is concerned. We have therefore adopted the second formulation of the Chatam
Sofer's suggestion, that the required duration of time must end by nightfall.
24
114
stringency. That is, the father may perform the pidyon from either the
onset of the thirty-first day or after the passage of 709 hours, whichever
comes first. According to this approach, no matter when on Shabbat the
delivery occurred, the pidyon may take place immediately at nightfall on
Sunday. If the birth occurred earlier on Shabbat, then the parents could
schedule the affair during the day on Sunday, whenever the required
amount of time from the birth has passed.
The Consensus Among the Authorities
Conventional halakha has adopted position 1, viewing the thirtyfirst day as the determining factor.26 As such, parents may not schedule
the pidyon ha-ben ceremony for anytime prior to nightfall Sunday
evening. However, according to the first, stringent version of this
position noted earlier, which requires as well the passage of 709 hours
25
Pidyon Ha-ben Ke-hilkhato (6:2, note 6) cites this interpretation from the Chemed
Moshe 339:8; Arugat Ha-bosem, Y.D. 241; Sedei Chemed, Ma'arekhet “Pei” 39; and
Rav Eliyahu Gutmacher, Y.D. 103.
26
Sources explicitly opposing the position of the Oneg Yom Tov date back as early
as the fifteenth century, in the rulings of Rav Yosef Kolon (Piksei Maharik 262). Other
prominent authorities expressly rejecting this notion include Ginat Veradim, ibid.; Rav
Yaakov Emden (Migdal Oz—Birkot Horai 3:7); Rav Akiva Eiger (2nd ed., 22); the
Chatam Sofer (Y.D. 343); and Rav Yosef Sha’ul Nathanson (Responsa Sho'el Umeishiv, 2nd ed., 3:18). Additionally, Rav Akiva Eiger there convincingly demonstrates
that the Noda Bi-Yehuda likewise did not entertain such a possibility. See also Rav
Shemuel Wosner, Responsa Shevet Ha-levi (Vol. 8, 339). A detailed study of this topic
based on Talmudic sources was penned by Rav Yitzchak Chazan, though he does not
cite the Oneg Yom Tov or Shoshanim Le-David (No’am, Vol. 12, pp.15-24).
As we noted earlier, the vast majority of authorities oppose the position of the Bach and
the Shakh. Otzar Pidyon Ha-ben (15:2) provides a comprehensive list of sources to this
effect and records (in note 4) personal correspondence with Rav Shelomo Zalman
Auerbach who ruled accordingly. In Pidyon Ha-ben Ke-hilkhato (p. 379), the author
presents a letter written by Rav Shemuel Wosner prohibiting a pidyon ha-ben before the
night of the thirty-first day even if the only kohen available must leave the area
beforehand. Since normative Halakha has not accepted the ruling of the Bach and
Shakh, Rav Wosner argues, under no circumstances may one employ their leniency.
A lone voice supporting the position of the Bach and Shakh is Rav Barukh Avraham
Toledano (see above, note 14), who seeks to prove that the Shulchan Arukh follows this
view. Apparently unaware of the sources mentioned above in note 12 and many others,
Rav Toledano cites the Magen Avraham and considers his position a minority view in
opposition to the "standard" position of the Yere'im, Bach and Shakh.
115
from the birth, parents must calculate accordingly. Thus, assuming for
argument's sake that they cannot realistically schedule the affair for later
than 8:30 PM, they may host a Sunday evening pidyon only if the
delivery occurred before 7:46 AM Shabbat morning. Otherwise, they
must wait until Monday.
The third version of this position mentioned above (raised by the
Chatam Sofer) will yield a somewhat more stringent view. Unless the
709 hours ends before Sunday night, the parents must wait until Monday
night before conducting the pidyon. However, the authorities have
generally not accepted this approach.27
Regarding the two more conventional readings of this position,
the accepted ruling appears divided between the Sephardic and
Ashkenazic authorities. The Sephardim generally disregard the ruling of
the Bach and Shakh entirely, thus allowing for a pidyon ha-ben
immediately upon nightfall of the thirty-first day under all
circumstances.28 The Ashkenazim, however, prefer to perform the ritual
on the thirty-first day only after the passage of 709 hours from birth.29
27
Otzar Pidyon Ha-ben, 15:6. There in note 3 the author observes that the
aforementioned ruling of Rav Zalman Banhad marks the only source indicating an
adoption of this stringency as normative halakha. Additionally, the Maharam Schick
(Y.D. 302) questions the Chatam Sofer's own decidedness in this regard, based on his
other writings. Rav Shemuel Eli’ezer Stern (ibid. 2:13) likewise notes the novelty of the
Chatam Sofer's proposal and the very suggestive silence of the halakhic works in this
regard. However, Rav Stern later (2:14) indicates that Chatam Sofer adherents do,
indeed, follow this stringency.
28
Rav Ovadya Had'aya, Yaskil Avdi (Vol. 7, "Kuntras Acharon," p. 337b); Rav
Ovadya Yosef, Yabia Omer (Vol. 5, Y.D. 25); Meir Cohen, Mila U-Pidyon Ke-halakha
(pp.144-145).
29
Pidyon Ha-ben Ke-hilkhato 6:3; Otzar Pidyon Ha-ben 15:3; Piskei U-minhagei
Chatam Sofer Be-inyanei Pidyon Ha-ben—Shevivei Eish 2:8. Pidyon Ha-ben Kehilkhato (ibid. note 12) cites Rav Shemuel Wosner as insisting upon this passage of time
even ex post facto: if the pidyon had taken place on the thirty-first day but before this
amount of time had passed, the father must perform the ritual again. (See also Responsa
Shevet Ha-levi Vol. 8, 239.) This position opposes an earlier ruling of Rav Meir Arik
(Imrei Yosher 2:132), who prefers waiting but rules leniently when the pidyon took
place earlier. As evident in the following note, Rav Moshe Feinstein would likewise
accept a pidyon improperly performed at this point.
116
Only in extenuating circumstances would Ashkenazic authorities permit a
pidyon earlier.30
Interim Summary
In conclusion, then, the newborn delivered on Shabbat becomes
eligible for a pidyon ha-ben no earlier than nightfall Sunday evening (the
onset of the thirty-first day). Sephardim may conduct the pidyon
immediately at nightfall, while Ashkenazim must ascertain the passage of
708 hours plus forty-four minutes from birth.
However, all this assumes that parents may conduct a nighttime
pidyon, the halakhic propriety of which is assessed in the following
section.
III: The Nighttime Pidyon Ha-ben
The Shakh31 demonstrates from the Gemara that one may conduct
a pidyon ha-ben at night. In Kiddushin (29a), the Gemara requires a
textual source for a mother's exemption from this mitzva, suggesting that
it does not fall under the category of time-bound obligations, from which
women are generally excused. Necessarily, then, the Gemara sees no
distinction between night and day as regards pidyon ha-ben. Others32
suggest an even clearer source: the Gemara's explicit reference to pidyon
ha-ben as an obligation not bound by a given time period.33
30
An interesting case came before Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe Y.D. 1:196)
in which parents of a firstborn boy miscalculated the day of the pidyon and sent
invitations to the affair scheduled for the thirtieth day. In light of the embarrassment
that would result from a last minute schedule change to the following day, Rav Moshe
allowed the pidyon to take place after dark on the thirtieth day (i.e. the night of the
thirty-first). He added that even if the 709 hours will not have passed by nightfall, the
parents may nevertheless conduct the pidyon at that point, given the unique
circumstance.
31
Y.D. 305:12.
32
Rav Ovadya Yosef, Yabia Omer Vol. 8, 25, who cites Pidyon Nefesh 10a and
Minhagei Mitzrayim 9a.
33
Kiddushin 34a. Rav Yaakov Emden (Migdal Oz—Birkot Horai 3:5) provides
another basis for allowing a pidyon ha-ben at night: its function as commemorative of
the smiting of the first born, which occurred at nighttime. Later we will encounter
117
Nevertheless, as the Shakh observes, common practice evolved to
perform the ritual specifically by day.
The Noda Bi-Yehuda34
convincingly proves that by as early as the Bach’s time this was the
accepted custom.35 By and large, Sephardic communities did not adopt
this custom, following instead the view of the Ginat Veradim36, who
lauds the Egyptian practice of performing the pidyon immediately on the
night of the thirty-first day. Although one prominent Sephardic authority,
Rav Chayim Pilagi37, expresses support for the practice of waiting until
the following day, contemporary Sephardic custom dictates otherwise.38
Among Ashkenazic communities, however, this practice appears to have
become widespread.39
Thus, in our case, Sephardic parents may and should hold the
affair on Sunday night without hesitation.
Our remaining question then becomes, does the Ashkenazic
custom allow any room for conducting the pidyon ha-ben in our case on
Sunday night?
Theoretically, depending on the strength and nature of its original
acceptance, a custom may be overridden for any of the following reasons:
1) Another, competing factor takes precedence.
2) The reason prompting the custom no longer applies.
3) Due to changes in certain conditions, the interest that
originally motivated the custom will now be better served by
ignoring the practice.
sources that, ironically, reach the opposite conclusion based on this same concept.
34
2nd ed., Y.D. 187.
35
See below, note 57, that the Gaon of Vilna may have understood the Shulchan
Arukh as already having adopted this custom.
36
Y.D. 6:10, cited in Birkei Yosef 305:14. See also Sedei Chemed, Ma'arekhet
“Pei,” 39.
37
Zekhira Le-chayim Vol. 2, commentary on the Haggada.
38
Rav Ovadya Yosef, ibid.
39
See Otzar Pidyon Ha-ben 15:9 and sources cited in notes; Pidyon Ha-ben Kehilkhato 6:7 and notes.
118
Accordingly, we must ascertain both the strength of this custom
and its underlying reason in order to determine whether or not the interest
in a larger attendance can or should take precedence.
We begin with the reason for this practice. Several different
explanations have been offered, and they neatly divide into two groups:
those integrally related to the source and/or nature of pidyon ha-ben, and
those involving some external concern or consideration, not inherent to
the institution of pidyon ha-ben.
Group 1: Reasons Based on the Nature of Pidyon Ha-ben
1) The anonymous author of Seder Pidyon Ha-ben Le-echad Mechakhmei Ashkenaz40 forbids a nighttime pidyon ha-ben due to the
firstborn's status as kodashim—sacred property of the Temple—that
he retains until the redemption. Just as one may not redeem Temple
property at night, so may one not redeem his firstborn after dark. He
adds that regarding the laws of the Mikdash, Halakha reverses the
usual arrangement of time: the night follows the day. Therefore, the
night of the thirty-first becomes included in the thirtieth day, at which
point the child has yet to reach eligible age for a pidyon.41
2) The Maharsham42 bases the custom on a passage in the introduction
to Masekhet Semachot regarding the smiting of the firstborn in Egypt.
40
Printed in Moriah, Vol. 11. Interestingly enough, this anonymous work serves as
an early source of the prevalent view concerning the earliest time for a pidyon ha-ben, as
discussed in the previous section. If Halakha requires the passage of a given unit of
time, then the status of the night of the thirty-first as the night following the thirtieth
would be of no consequence. Clearly, this approach assumes that we require the arrival
of the thirtieth halakhic day, rather than the passage of a specific amount of time.
(Alternatively, this position may require both components, as does one version of the
Shakh and Bach's view mentioned above.)
41
This position acknowledges an actual halakhic status of kodashim conferred upon
the child and an identification of this "redemption" as an actual exchange of money for
sacred property. For a thorough treatment of this topic, see Rav Aharon Kahn, "Mitzvat
Pidyon Ha-ben—Ma Hi?" in Beit Yitzchak (Yeshiva University), Vol. 15, pp. 72-91.
42
Vol. 2, 43. Without citing the Maharsham, Rav Reuven Margaliyot posits the same
approach (Nefesh Chaya, O.C. 470). He employs this same theory to explain why
firstborn begin their traditional Erev Pesach fast in the morning, rather than the previous
119
Although we commonly assume that the plague took place at
midnight, as implied by the verse43, Masekhet Semachot describes its
development in two, distinct stages, the initial blow occurring at
midnight with the actual death delayed until morning.44 Pidyon haben, which commemorates this miracle, must therefore take place
specifically by day.
3) The Maharsham adds a second explanation, offered as well by Rav
Shimon Sofer.45 The Yerushalmi46 indicates that one should not give
charity at nighttime, as it possesses the quality of "saving from
death"47 and thus infringes upon the realm of the evil spirits roaming
the earth at nighttime. (Indeed, Rav Chayim Yosef David Azulai48
cites the practice of the students of the Ari to refrain from donating
charity at night.) Since pidyon ha-ben likewise saves the child from
death49, it, too, should not take place by night.
4) Rav Chayim Pilagi50 contends that the redemption of the firstborn
commemorates the Almighty's redemption of Benei Yisra’el.51 Just
as Benei Yisra’el left Egypt by day, so must a father redeem his
firstborn specifically during the daytime hours.
Group 2: Reasons Based on External Considerations
5) The most common explanation, offered by, among others, the
Sha'arei Teshuva,52 Mateh Efrayim53 and Netziv,54 points to the
night.
43
Shemot 12:29.
44
For further analysis of this two-stage process, see Responsa Chatam Sofer Vol. 1,
Y.D. 346.
45
Responsa Hitorerut Teshuva Vol. 1, 106.
46
Shekalim 5:4.
47
Mishlei 10:2,11:4.
48
Birkei Yosef, O.C. 235:1.
49
Sefer Chasidim 334.
50
See note 37.
51
See note 11, where we cite this concept from Rav Mordekhai Zaks.
52
568:8. The Sha'arei Teshuva there projects this view onto the Magen Avraham.
See, however, the glosses of the Chatam Sofer there on the Magen Avraham and Rav
Moshe Greenwald, Responsa Arugat Ha-bosem Y.D. 139, for different interpretations of
his position. See also below, note 77.
120
interest in publicizing the event as the reason behind this custom.
Communities found it easier to assemble large crowds by day than by
night, and the custom evolved accordingly.
6) Along similar lines, Rav Ya’akov Emden55 suggests that communities
preferred the daytime because people receive less enjoyment from
their food in the dark.
7) The Noda Bi-Yehuda56 attributes this practice to the concern that the
required 709 hours from birth will not have passed by nightfall after
the thirtieth day. Recall from the previous section that the Noda BiYehuda, among others, did not permit a pidyon ha-ben on the thirtyfirst day until this duration of time had passed. He thus suggests that
in order to help ensure the arrival of the proper time, Ashkenazic
communities delayed a pidyon ha-ben to the daytime of the thirty-first
day.57
53
In Elef La-mateh 581:27. The Ginat Veradim (ibid.) cites an anonymous writer to
this effect, and this is also the assumption of Rav Shemuel Rosenberg, Be'er Shemuel
73. For a strong critique of this approach, see Rav Avraham Leib Rosen, Responsa
Eitan Aryei 31, who argues that the publicity of a pidyon ha-ben does not warrant
delaying the mitzva overnight.
54
Responsa Meishiv Davar, ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
2nd ed., Y.D. 187; Dagul Me-revava O.C. 568.
57
We should note a possible eighth explanation that may emerge from an ambiguous
comment of the Gaon of Vilna (Bei'ur Ha-gra, Y.D. 305:20). The Shulchan Arukh rules
that one should not perform a pidyon ha-ben on Shabbat, but rather wait until the
following day. The Gra cryptically remarks, "as is the case regarding circumcision."
Now this association between pidyon and circumcision cannot possibly refer to the
prohibition against performing a pidyon on Shabbat, since a circumcision on the child's
eighth day in fact does override the prohibitions of Shabbat. Rav Yehuda Assad thus
explains (Yehuda Ya'aleh Vol. 1, Y.D. 262) that the Gra must refer to the Shulchan
Arukh's subtle implication that one should wait specifically until Sunday, rather than
performing the ritual on Saturday night. Just as circumcision may not take place at
night, so must pidyon ha-ben wait until daytime. If so, then the Gaon would appear to
base the custom of performing a pidyon specifically by day on an association between
this mitzva and circumcision. Needless to say, the grounds for such an association are
far from clear. One may suggest that according to the Gaon, the practice evolved out of
concern that upon witnessing a nighttime pidyon ha-ben, people may wrongly conclude
that circumcision may likewise take place at night.
Entirely different explanations of the Gaon's comment, rendering it irrelevant to the
issue of a nighttime pidyon ha-ben, are offered by Rav Avraham Leib Rosen (ibid.) and
Rav Shraga Feivish Schneebalg (Shraga Ha-me'ir Vol. 2, 2).
121
Ramifications of Group 1’s Approach
Clearly, one would encounter greater difficulty overriding this
custom should its basis integrally relate to the source and nature of the
mitzva. Therefore, the reasons in group 1 would be more difficult to
overcome in order to warrant a nighttime pidyon ha-ben than their
counterparts in group 2.
It would seem, however, that sufficient basis exists to comfortably
accept the second general approach. In his rejection of the first
explanation offered by the Maharsham (reason 2 above), Rav Ovadya
Yosef presents a convincing argument that may effectively negate the
entire first group of reasons offered: "Since it is clear from the Gemara
that the mitzva applies at night, as well, we should not rely on our own
homiletic interpretations to establish new customs contrary to that which
emerges clearly from the Gemara."58 Rav Yosef then proceeds to direct a
specific argument against the Maharsham's approach, claiming that our
commemoration of the smiting of the firstborn should presumably take
into account the first, rather than final, stage of the miracle.59 He
likewise rejects the Maharsham's second suggestion (reason 3), by
distinguishing between charity, which applies at all times and may
therefore wait until morning, and pidyon ha-ben, which takes effect at a
given moment and should thus be observed immediately. We may add
that although, as noted, the students of the Ari refrained from giving
charity at night, conventional practice has certainly not accepted this
custom, presumably because this notion is Kabbalistic, rather than purely
halakhic, in nature. It thus cannot override the important concern of not
delaying the performance of a mitzva. Furthermore, Rav Avraham Leib
Rosen60 strongly rejects this basis and interprets the aforementioned
Yerushalmi in an entirely different manner.
58
Yabia Omer, ibid.; passage translated from Hebrew by this writer.
See Responsa Eitan Aryei, ibid., for a lengthier discussion of this particular issue.
He also questions the authenticity of the passage in the introduction to Masekhet
Semachot.
60
See note 53.
59
122
In any event, as stated, any of the reasons given in category 1 call
into question the Gemara's practically explicit approval of the nighttime
pidyon ha-ben.
Additionally, even Ashkenazic authorities have
sanctioned nighttime pidyon ha-ben's in certain circumstances,61 a
leniency difficult to accept according to reasons 1-4. In light of both
these arguments and the more widespread acceptance of the reasons in
category 2, should a basis for flexibility arise from the reasons offered in
that group, parents may reasonably employ these reasons and hence
utilize the resulting leniency.
Ramifications of Group 2’s Approach
Turning our attention, then, to group 2, it appears that its first two
members may perhaps provide room for leniency. If the custom arose
originally out of concern for greater participation at the affair or the
enhancement thereof, then when this interest is better served by
conducting a nighttime celebration, such as on Sunday night, parents
may—or perhaps should—do so. In fact, for this reason specifically,
several Sephardic authorities62 reject the custom, observing the
prevalence of large, nighttime affairs in their countries. Thus, depending
on the strength of the custom (as we will soon discuss), sufficient room
for leniency appears to exist. (This argument clearly applies as well to
Rav Ya’akov Emden's approach, as electrical lighting systems have
solved the problem of dark nighttime affairs.)
However, the higher number of guests on Sunday night will not
affect the explanation offered by the Noda Bi-Yehuda. The concern
exists as much now as then that the required duration of time from birth
may not pass by the night of the thirty-first day. We should emphasize,
however, that this approach assumes that indeed this period of time must
pass before the father redeems his son. As we have seen, however,
although Ashkenazim have adopted this stringency, considerable
controversy surrounds the issue. It would seem that given the uncertainty
regarding the basis of this explanation of the custom, and that even our
61
Pidyon Ha-ben Ke-hilkhato 6:8; see also above, note 30 and later in our
discussion.
62
Ginat Veradim, ibid.; Sedei Chemed, ibid.
123
acceptance thereof would not necessarily yield this reason, parents may
comfortably rely on the first, more common approach.
Moreover, even the Noda Bi-Yehuda's approach may allow for a
Sunday night pidyon ha-ben in our case. The straightforward reading of
the Noda Bi-Yehuda implies that the concern for the necessary passage of
time prior to the pidyon prompted Ashkenazic communities to
categorically delay the ritual until the daytime. However, Rav Avraham
Leib Rosen63 claims that the Noda Bi-Yehuda would allow—and in fact
recommend—a nighttime pidyon ha-ben if the required 709 hours had
passed by the night of the thirty-first. Rav Rosen interprets the Noda BiYehuda’s view of the custom as delaying the pidyon to the daytime only
in situations in which the required duration of time had not elapsed by the
previous night.
Rav Rosen's consideration of this reading as self-evident
notwithstanding, others clearly understood the Noda Bi-Yehuda
differently. Rav Meir Schneebalg64 views the Noda Bi-Yehuda's position
as the basis for the custom among many Ashkenazim to delay the pidyon
ha-ben until late afternoon on the thirty-first day, at which point the
required duration of time has passed in all situations.65 (Rav Schneebalg
therefore rules that in situations in which the pidyon cannot take place
late in the afternoon of the thirty-first, the parents may, according to the
Noda Bi-Yehuda, just as well perform the ritual on the previous night.
Since they cannot follow the custom, which, according to the Noda BiYehuda, mandates a late-day pidyon, they may return to Torah law, by
which the pidyon should occur on the night of the thirty-first day.)
Clearly, this understanding views the Noda Bi-Yehuda's approach as
delaying the pidyon in all cases to the point at which one can rest assured
that the required period of time has elapsed.
63
Ibid.
Ibid.
65
Rav Meir Arik (ibid.) explains the custom of the late-afternoon pidyon likewise,
only without associating it with the comments of the Noda Bi-Yehuda.
64
124
In any event, it would appear that one may introduce Rav Rosen's
approach as yet another factor to allow for a Sunday night pidyon in our
case, assuming, of course, that the required duration of time had elapsed.
Thirdly, even the custom as understood by the Noda Bi-Yehuda
may perhaps give way to overriding considerations. As we noted, a
custom may potentially be overruled either by the inapplicability of its
underlying reasoning or by an opposing factor. In our case, the interest in
publicizing a pidyon ha-ben may supersede the practice of refraining
from conducting a nighttime pidyon ha-ben, even if the reason still
applies.
However, this possibility, as the well as our assumption
heretofore that we may nullify the custom once its reason no longer
applies, depends on the strength of the original acceptance of this
practice.
The Strength of the Custom
We may assess the strength of a given custom by examining the
circumstances under which halakhic authorities allow for its violation.
As for the custom to schedule a pidyon ha-ben specifically during the
daytime, we encounter in Ashkenazic halakhic literature six—possibly
seven—general attitudes towards the likelihood of its being overridden
(though they are not mutually exclusive of one another). We present
these perspectives in sequence from those signifying the weakest level of
acceptance to those implying the strongest:
1) Questioning the Validity of the Practice: Rav Yehuda Assad66
represents perhaps the only voice among Ashkenazic authorities
expressing ambivalence over the custom itself. Given the general
impropriety of delaying the performance of mitzvot, Rav Assad
strongly encourages a father to redeem his son immediately on the
night of the thirty-first day. He merely adds that should delaying
the pidyon ha-ben until morning yield greater publicity, then one
66
Responsa Yehuda Ya'aleh, ibid.
125
2)
3)
4)
5)
may do so. Generally speaking, however, Rav Assad prefers the
nighttime pidyon ha-ben.
The Custom as Non-binding: The Netziv67 concludes his remarks
on this topic by commenting, "... but if one wishes, he may redeem
[the child] at night." He approves of a nighttime pidyon ha-ben under
any circumstances, apparently viewing the custom as non-binding.
Overridden by Any Reason: Rav Ya’akov Emden68 allows
performing a pidyon ha-ben at night—at least from midnight on—if
any reason to do so arises. Unlike the Netziv, however, he
discourages deviating from common practice without reason.
Subject to the Applicability of Its Underlying Rationale: The
Noda Bi-Yehuda69 rules that when halakhic considerations prevent
the performance of a pidyon ha-ben on the thirty-first day, it should
take place on the night of the thirty-second. Recall that he bases the
custom of delaying the ritual to daytime on the concern that the
required period of time may not have passed by the night of the thirtyfirst day. Therefore, when the thirty-first day occurs on Shabbat, and
parents must choose between Saturday night—the night of the thirtysecond day—and Sunday, they should adopt the former option.70
Since the required duration of time has certainly passed by the night
of the thirty-second day from birth, the custom of avoiding
performing a pidyon ha-ben at night no longer applies.
Overriding the Custom Better Serves the Interests For Which It
Initially Emerged: Several authorities indicate that should the
interest of publicity serve as the basis for the custom, it de facto
becomes null and void when a larger affair may be conducted at
night. In his treatment of a case in which the thirty-first day occurred
on a short Friday, Rav Meir Schneebalg explicitly allows for the
pidyon ha-ben to take place on Thursday night, based in part71 on the
67
Responsa Meishiv Davar, ibid.
Migdal Oz—Birkot Horai 3:7.
69
See note 56.
70
However, Rav Moshe Greenwald (cited above, note 52) raises an unrelated issue
concerning a Saturday night pidyon ha-ben: the rabbinic ordinance prohibiting large
celebrations after Shabbat out of concern for Shabbat violation.
71
Rav Schneebalg also takes into account the position of Rav Ya’akov Emden, as
discussed, as well as his understanding of the position of the Noda Bi-Yehuda,
68
126
concern for a respectable attendance. Similarly, Rav Mordekhai
Brisk72 rules that should the thirty-first day fall on Tish’a Be-av,
parents should conduct the affair that night (after the fast), rather than
waiting until the next morning. He bases his conclusion both on the
aforementioned ruling of the Noda Bi-Yehuda and on the emergence
in his day of large, nighttime affairs, resulting in greater publicity at
an evening pidyon ha-ben than at one held by day. One contemporary
writer73 concludes that given the modern-day trend of nighttime
celebrations, parents in all cases should schedule a pidyon ha-ben
specifically in the evening.
6) Giving Way to Competing Considerations: This attitude
towards the custom, too, is clearly expressed by Rav Meir
Schneebalg in his responsum discussed above. As stated, he
allows for a Thursday night pidyon ha-ben when the thirty-first
day occurs on a short Friday in the wintertime, when few people
would attend an affair. Rav Schneebalg finds room for leniency
within several of the reasons for the practice of avoiding
nighttime pidyon ha-ben's, including that of the Noda Bi-Yehuda.
He unhesitatingly affords preference to the interest in proper
publicity of the event over the concern raised by the Noda BiYehuda.
This attitude also seems to have prompted several authorities to
override the prevalent custom when the thirty-first day occurs on a
public fast day. In such a case, three scheduling options present
themselves: the night before the fast, the night following the fast, or
conducting the actual pidyon by day and the festive meal by night.
(The middle position is that advanced by the Noda Bi-Yehuda, as
discussed earlier.) Clearly, the third option results in a significant
loss of publicity of the mitzva, as the celebration occurs several hours
after the performance of the ritual. In the interest of publicizing the
mentioned earlier.
72
Responsa Maharam Brisk 61. Importantly, however, the Maharam Brisk would
not have allowed a pidyon ha-ben on the night of the thirty-first, in deference to the
Noda Bi-Yehuda's position. He explicitly writes that because the Noda Bi-Yehuda's
reasoning no longer applies after the thirty-first day, the only remaining consideration is
that of publicity, which thus may warrant a nighttime pidyon ha-ben.
73
Rav Eliyahu Turgeman in Mi-kavtze'el, Vol. 22, p. 138.
127
occasion, the Shakh,74 Chokhmat Adam,75 and Arukh Ha-shulchan76
advocate performing the pidyon ha-ben on the night of the thirty-first
day (the night before the fast). None of these authorities explicate
their view as to the reason behind the general custom to delay the
pidyon ha-ben to the thirty-first day. If they adopt the Noda BiYehuda’s explanation of the custom, then they become important
sources for the ability of the concern for publicity to override the
custom. Alternatively, if they follow the position viewing publicity
itself as the basis for the custom of the daytime pidyon ha-ben, then
they belong to group 5 presented here. Since publicity is achieved in
this instance specifically through a nighttime affair, they prefer
conducting the pidyon at night, rather than on the following day while
delaying the celebration to the evening.
7) A possible seventh, stringent outlook on the practice may arise
from those authorities who dispute this ruling just discussed. The
Shakh notes that prevalent custom dictates splitting the pidyon
and meal when the thirty-first day coincides with a fast, rather
than conducting both on the previous night.77 Authorities
adopting this ruling include the Magen Avraham78 and Rav
Simcha Sofer.79 These authorities may have believed that the
interest in publicizing the pidyon ha-ben cannot override the
widespread practice of conducting the ritual specifically by day.
Alternatively, attendance at nighttime affairs may have been so
uncommon in their times that they saw no advantage in a pidyon
74
305:12
150:8.
76
Y.D. 305:45.
77
Rav Mordekhai Winkler (Levushei Mordekhai, 2nd. Ed., 129) addresses this issue
and remains undecided, leaving the decision to individual preference. The Magen
Avraham (568:10) goes even further, applying this ruling to a case in which the thirtyfirst day occurs on Shabbat and Sunday marks a fast day. The Magen Avraham never
considers performing the pidyon ha-ben on Saturday night, which is already the thirtysecond night. In note 52 we referred to several approaches to understanding the Magen
Avraham's position. One may simply suggest that he views the custom as too
widespread, and hence authoritative, to be overridden by other considerations.
78
Ibid.
79
Shevet Sofer 96. Rav Sofer adds, however, that one who conducts the pidyon the
previous night has not acted improperly.
75
128
ha-ben conducted in such a case on the night prior to the fast.
Thirdly, as the Chatam Sofer suggests80, these authorities may
have deemed festive celebrations on the evening before a fast day
an inappropriate infringement on the solemnity of fast days.
In any event, sources exhibiting any of the first six attitudes
documented here allow a degree of flexibility regarding the Ashkenazic
custom of performing a pidyon ha-ben specifically during the daytime, at
least when legitimate considerations warrant performing it at night.
III. Conclusion
1) Sephardim may conduct the pidyon ha-ben of a child born on Shabbat
immediately at nightfall on Sunday evening, four weeks and two days
later. They need not wait until the passage of 709 hours from birth,
nor are they bound by the Ashkenazic custom to delay a pidyon haben until the daytime.
2) Ashkenazim in this situation may not perform a pidyon ha-ben on
Sunday night unless twenty-nine units of twenty-four hours plus
an additional twelve hours and forty-four minutes have passed
from the moment of delivery. If, indeed, this period has elapsed,
then the possibility of a Sunday night affair presents itself,
depending on the reason and strength of the prevalent custom to
perform a pidyon ha-ben during the daytime. Review of the
relevant sources reveals considerable room for flexibility in this
regard when the publicity of the pidyon ha-ben is at stake. First,
Rav Yehuda Assad exhibits ambivalence as to the propriety of the
custom altogether. Secondly, both the Netziv and Rav Ya’akov
Emden allow one to conduct a nighttime pidyon ha-ben, at least
when a valid reason arises. Additionally, several indications exist
to the practice's subjection to the applicability of its underlying
reason. As several authorities understood the custom as based on
the concern for a large attendance, should a nighttime pidyon haben attract a larger crowd, there appears to be halakhic basis to
schedule it accordingly. Although the reason for the custom
posited by the Noda Bi-Yehuda still applies, Rav Schneebalg, as
80
See note 52.
129
we saw, affords preference to publicity over the concern raised by
the Noda Bi-Yehuda. Moreover, Rav Aryei Leib Rosen reads the
Noda Bi-Yehuda's view of the custom as inapplicable to
situations in which the required duration of time had elapsed
before the night of the thirty-first day. On the other hand, it
would seem that parents who, for whatever reason, choose to
conduct the ritual on Monday, in line with the traditional custom,
may certainly do so.
We conclude with the following comments of the Chatam Sofer
in an entirely different context:
The positive requirement to eat "matza shemura" [matza
“guarded” from the slightest danger of becoming leaven]
on Pesach night is the only remaining mitzva in the entire
Torah that requires eating. We have no pesach offering,
sacrifices, priest’s gifts or tithes—only one mitzva [of
eating] that applies annually. And if even this one is not
fulfilled completely, Heaven forbid… will this be pleasing
in God's eyes?81
The consumption of matza on Pesach night constitutes the only
specific biblical obligation of eating that applies nowadays. The Chatam
Sofer views this fact as reason for particular meticulousness in the
observance of this mitzva.
We should perhaps apply the same principle to the mitzva of
pidyon ha-ben, the opportunity for which presents itself at most once a
lifetime, and, more often, never at all. Parents granted such a privilege
should ensure higher standards of detailed observance regarding this
mitzva than the already strict standards applied to other mitzvot. They
must therefore make a point of scheduling their affair only after
consultation with a qualified halakhic authority.
81
Responsa Chatam Sofer, Hashmatot, C.M. 196.
130