לקוטי שיחות חלק י״א - בא ב

Parshas Bo^*

1. From the verse "וכל בכור אדם בבניך תפדה" ("And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem") in our parsha¹, the Yerushalmi² derives (in addition to the basic obligation of the father to redeem his firstborn son³) that if the father did not redeem his son, the son is obligated to redeem himself⁴ (when he grows up⁵). The Bavli⁶, however, derives this law from the verse "פדה תפדה גו'" ("You shall surely redeem…")⁷, stated in Parshas Korach⁸.

This needs to be understood: a) What is the practical difference between them — from which verse we derive that if his father did not redeem him, he is obligated to redeem himself? b) What is the reason that in the Bavli it is derived from the verse "You shall surely redeem," while in the Yerushalmi it is derived from the verse in our parsha?

2. Now, there is a difference, in content and in substance, between the command of Pidyon HaBen stated in our parsha and the one stated in Parshas Korach: a) In our parsha it says, "And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem," and "וכל בכור בני אפדה" ("and every firstborn of my sons I redeem")⁹ — it is stated explicitly that it is the father who must redeem his firstborn son; whereas in Parshas Korach it says without qualification: "אך פדה תפדה את בכור האדם" ("But you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man"). b) In our parsha the command comes in continuation of the subject of the Exodus from Egypt, which is the reason for this command: "ויהי כי הקשה פרעה לשלחנו ויהרג ה' כל בכור בארץ מצרים . . על כן . . כל בכור בני אפדה" ("And it came to pass, when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, that the L‑rd killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt . . therefore . . every firstborn of my sons I redeem"); whereas in Parshas Korach, Pidyon HaBen is stated within the section of the priestly gifts (with additional details: "מבן חודש" ("from a month old"), "חמשת שקלים" ("five shekels")¹⁰).

Based on this, one can explain the reason for the difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi regarding the source of the law that if his father did not redeem him, the son is obligated to redeem himself. But first we must preface an explanation and elucidation of the conclusion of Tractate Pesachim, which concerns Pidyon HaBen.

3. At the end of Tractate Pesachim it is stated: "Rabbi Simlai happened to come to a Pidyon HaBen. They asked him: It is obvious that the blessing 'אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על פדיון הבן' ('Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of the son') is recited by the father of the son. 'ברוך שהחיינו וקיימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה' ('Blessed… Who has granted us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time') — does the Kohen recite it, or does the father of the son recite it? Does the Kohen recite it, since benefit comes into his hands, or does the father of the son recite it, since he performs a mitzvah^10*? He did not have the answer at hand. He went and asked in the study hall, and they told him: The father of the son recites both. And the halachah is: the father of the son recites both."

This needs to be understood: the question "does the Kohen recite it or does the father of the son recite it" concerns only the blessing of Shehecheyanu — so what place is there for the preface (and one that is obvious): "It is obvious — the blessing 'concerning the redemption of the son etc.' is recited by the father of the son"?

Indeed, this question is raised by the Tzlach, and he answers that the intent here is to emphasize that the question regarding the blessing of Shehecheyanu arises from a precise reading of the wording of the blessing over Pidyon HaBen¹¹ — and he explains this in two ways: a) From the fact that one blesses "על פדיון הבן" ("concerning the redemption of the son"), and not "לפדות" ("to redeem"), it is evident that one can also redeem through an agent¹²; and since that is so, the question arises who recites the blessing of Shehecheyanu. The father of the son recites it — even though as a result this blessing will sometimes be lost, namely when he appoints an agent to redeem his son¹³ — nevertheless the father recites it, because "he performs a mitzvah." Or does this reason, the loss of the blessing when the redemption is done through an agent, tip the scales to institute that the Kohen recites it, for then it is recited at every redemption, since "benefit comes into his hands" every time? b) The wording "על" ("concerning" the redemption of the son) proves that the mitzvah of redemption is not performed and completed by the father of the son alone, but with the assistance of the Kohen who receives the redemption¹⁴; therefore he is in doubt who recites Shehecheyanu, since the mitzvah is accomplished by both of them, and the Kohen (also) receives benefit into his hands.

But the basis of this explanation — that the doubt of "they asked him" stems only from the precise wording "concerning the redemption of the son" — does not fit so well with the style and flow of the passage in the Gemara:

a) From the contrast — "It is obvious etc.; 'Blessed… etc.' — does the Kohen recite it or the father of the son etc." — it is implied that the obviousness concerns the same subject as the question (the one who recites the blessing).

b) If the main emphasis were (not on the fact that it is obvious that the father is the one who recites the blessing over the redemption, but) on the wording of the blessing, then it should have been said in reverse order: "It is obvious (that) the father of the son recites (the wording) 'concerning the redemption of the son'," and not as we have it before us, "It is obvious — 'concerning the redemption of the son etc.' — the father of the son (is the one who) recites it," which implies that they did not set out to be precise about the blessing, but about who is the one who recites it¹⁵.

c) It should have said, more briefly: since one blesses "concerning the redemption of the son" — "Blessed… Who has granted us life etc." — does the Kohen recite it etc.

If so, the question returns to its place: what is the reason for the preface that the father of the son recites the blessing "concerning the redemption of the son"?

Similarly, one can also ask about the end of the passage — what they told Rabbi Simlai in the study hall, that "the father of the son recites both," and also the conclusion in the Gemara, "And the halachah is: the father of the son recites both": did they come to teach us a count? The question was not about two blessings, but only about one (Shehecheyanu), so they should have said only, "the father of the son recites Shehecheyanu."

4. It also needs to be understood: what is the connection of the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen and its blessing (such that it was placed at the conclusion) to Tractate Pesachim?

In the commentary of the Rashbam it is explained: "Because our Mishnah speaks of two kinds of blessings by one person and for one act, which depend on each other — such as the Pesach offering and the [Chagigah] offering, for the Chagigah comes together with the Pesach — therefore it also cites this incident, that the father of the son recites two."

However, this works well with regard to the Gemara; but it requires investigation with regard to the Rif and the Rosh, who also cited this halachah in Tractate Pesachim — and their way is "to gather the halachic rulings from the Talmud into the tractate that deals with that law" (so they should have cited it only in Tractate Bechoros)¹⁶. Rather, it must be that the above law of Pidyon HaBen has a special connection to Tractate Pesachim.

5. The explanation of all this: The mitzvah of redemption is carried out through three participants: the father of the son, who redeems his son; the son, who is redeemed; and the Kohen, who receives the redemption money.

Now, the participation of the Kohen, in receiving the redemption money (through which the firstborn is redeemed), does not mean that the obligation to redeem a Jewish firstborn was placed upon him; rather, he is a part, or a condition, of the mitzvah of redemption: the redemption takes effect only through giving the money to the Kohen¹⁷.

As for the father who redeems and his son who is redeemed, it can be said in two ways:

a) The mitzvah of redemption is upon the son; but since he cannot redeem himself in his infancy¹⁸, at the time the mitzvah takes effect, the Torah placed the mitzvah upon the father to redeem his son, and he enters in the son's place in this obligation.

b) By the essential law, the obligation of redemption is upon the father — the mitzvah of redemption is the father's mitzvah¹⁹.

Among the practical legal differences between the two approaches: if his father did not redeem him in his infancy, until the son grew up — upon which of them is the obligation of redemption placed? If we say according to the first reasoning, that the mitzvah of redemption is essentially the son's obligation, then in this case, where the son has grown up and is already fit — and therefore also obligated — to redeem himself, the father's obligation (and consequently also his privilege) to redeem his firstborn son lapses²⁰. But if we say that the obligation is originally upon the father, then even after the son has grown up and has not been redeemed, the father still remains in his obligation and his privilege²⁰; only that there is a special derivation that if his father did not redeem him, he is obligated to redeem himself, as mentioned above.

With this one can explain the distinction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi regarding the Scriptural source of this halachah:

According to the discussion of the Yerushalmi, this law too — that if his father did not redeem him he is obligated to redeem himself — is derived from the same verse, "And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem," from which we derive that the father is obligated to redeem his son. That is, in the very first source of the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen in Scripture, both obligations (of the father and of the son) were included together²¹. It is therefore reasonable that the mitzvah is essentially the son's obligation, and from it stems also the father's obligation that is explicit in the Torah: since the mitzvah is to redeem him in his infancy, when he cannot redeem himself, the Torah therefore said that the father should redeem his son (in place of the son).

Whereas according to the discussion of the Bavli, this halachah (that the son is obligated to redeem himself if his father did not redeem him) is derived from a different verse (stated as one detail within the section of the priestly gifts)²², and not from the same verse in the section of Pidyon HaBen in which the law of redemption upon the father is stated²³. This proves that the son's obligation has no place in, or connection to, the verse's obligations upon the father; rather, it is an additional teaching elsewhere in the Torah²⁴ that the son too can redeem himself when he grows up. That is to say, the essence of the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen is the obligation of the father, and not of the son; but after the son has grown up (it is not that something lapses through this — in our case, the father's obligation and privilege, for why should it? — rather) the son becomes obligated in all the mitzvos, among them also this: that if (the father did not redeem him, and all the more so if) the father does not want²⁵ to redeem the son, the Torah placed this obligation upon the son²⁶.

6. With this, the above-mentioned puzzle regarding the conclusion of Tractate Pesachim will also be resolved — the reason for the preface, "It is obvious . . 'Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of the son' is recited by the father of the son" — for only after this preface is the question of who recites Shehecheyanu understood:

The precise point is: since it is "obvious" (without any conditions) that the father recites "concerning the redemption of the son" — that is, always, even after the son has grown up (and in the wording that the father says: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us"²⁷).

That is to say: if the father would not recite this blessing (when the son has grown up), but rather the son would — namely, because the mitzvah is the son's obligation (only that the Torah brought the father into this obligation when it is impossible for the son) — then they would not have asked who recites Shehecheyanu (at a redemption in the son's infancy), for it would be obvious that the Kohen recites it, since his blessing would be over the benefit that comes into his hands. There would be no reason to say that the father of the son should recite it, since it is not his mitzvah by the essential law, but he is only performing his son's mitzvah²⁸ (and similarly, one who performs a mitzvah for others does not recite Shehecheyanu²⁹).

But since it is "obvious" that the blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of the son" is recited by the father of the son (always) — which proves that Pidyon HaBen is the father's mitzvah — the question then arises for us who recites Shehecheyanu, the father or the Kohen, since seemingly both have an equal share in it: the father should recite it since "he performs a mitzvah," for the Holy One, blessed be He, has granted him the merit of this mitzvah (which comes from time to time³⁰); or the Kohen should recite it since "benefit comes into his hands," and "for any gladness of heart that comes to a person etc., he is obligated to bless over it"³¹.

[And if you ask: if so, let both of them recite Shehecheyanu — the father of the son (over the giving) on account of the merit of the mitzvah, and the Kohen (over the receiving) because "benefit comes into his hands"? It can be said: since we hold that one does not recite Shehecheyanu over every benefit that comes to a person, but only over the benefit of something important and special (which is why one recites it only when buying a new house or a new garment, etc.)³² — therefore, in our case, the Kohen should not recite Shehecheyanu on account of his benefit from receiving the five sela'im alone, but because this benefit comes to him from the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen³³, and it is the mitzvah (even though it is performed by another — the father) that renders significant³⁴ the benefit³⁵. Accordingly, if the father recites Shehecheyanu, meaning that he blesses over the mitzvah itself, there is no room for the Kohen to recite Shehecheyanu in connection with what is secondary to it (that which "renders the benefit significant"), for then the blessing would be over the benefit alone³⁶.]

According to the above explanation, one will also understand the precise wording (after he "asked in the study hall"), "They told him: The father of the son recites both," and not (merely resolving the question alone) that "the father of the son recites Shehecheyanu": to emphasize that the reason is one and the same in both — that the essential mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen is his (and not that he comes in place of the son; and therefore he recites "concerning the redemption of the son" even when there is room for an obligation upon the son); and the essential blessing of Shehecheyanu is his (and therefore he recites it even though benefit comes into the hands of the Kohen, analogous to the obligation of the son, as mentioned above).

Had it said, "the father of the son recites Shehecheyanu," we would not have known the reason for the matter, and one could have said that this is because the benefit that comes into the hands of the Kohen is not sufficient for him to recite Shehecheyanu over it³⁷ (just as one recites it only when buying a new house etc.; and similar to how the Kohen does not bless over all the priestly gifts³⁸, and the like).

7. Based on this, one can explain the connection of the subject of Pidyon HaBen to Tractate Pesachim: Just as the (principal) mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen ("And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem") was stated in the Written Torah in continuation of the reason and cause of the command — "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, that the L‑rd killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt"³⁹, and He saved "בני בכורי ישראל" ("My son, My firstborn, Israel")³⁹, and therefore every Jewish father is obligated to redeem his firstborn son — so too is the order and subject (in the Oral Torah) in Tractate Pesachim: the essence and content of Pesach is "אשר פסח על בתי בני ישראל במצרים בנגפו את מצרים ואת בתינו הציל" ("Who passed over the houses of the Children of Israel in Egypt when He struck Egypt (with the plague of the firstborn), and saved our (firstborn in our) houses")⁴⁰ — and this itself is the reason for the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen; therefore it is the outcome and the conclusion of Tractate Pesachim.

And in the connection of this conclusion to Tractate Pesachim, the above reason why the father recites Shehecheyanu is also alluded to: since the saving of "My son, My firstborn, Israel" (the reason for the command) was through "ופסח הוי'" ("the L‑rd passed over")⁴¹, and after that "הוציא הוי'" ("the L‑rd brought out")⁴² — the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself redeemed His firstborn son from the land of Egypt — it is understood from this that in the outcome as well, in the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen⁴³, the mitzvah is upon the father to redeem his firstborn son.

8. In light of all the above, one can explain the conclusion of Tractate Pesachim in the inner dimension of matters — the conclusion and completion of the redemption of "My son, My firstborn, Israel" (from exile, namely this last exile).

For "His statutes and His judgments to Israel etc. — He does (Himself)"^43*, and certainly the Holy One, blessed be He, will fulfill the mitzvah of Pidyon HaBen⁴⁴ — to redeem His firstborn son (from exile).

And the beginning of the conclusion⁴⁵: "Rabbi Simlai" — who is the author of the teaching and ruling⁴⁶: "לעולם יסדר אדם שבחו של הקב"ה ואח"כ יתפלל" ("A person should always first set forth⁴⁵ the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, and afterward pray"). The general setting forth of the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, is in two ways: in the revealed and in the hidden, as in the wording of the blessings⁴⁷, "Blessed are You etc. Who has sanctified us": "You" (in the second person) — in the revealed (memalei kol almin, "Who fills all worlds" — the order of hishtalshelus, the chain of descent); and "has sanctified us" — in the hidden (sovev kol almin, "Who encompasses all worlds" — above hishtalshelus).

Now, the setting forth of praise must take place several times every day. And it is a fundamental matter — "לאהבה את ה' אלקיכם ולעבדו בכל לבבכם" ("to love the L‑rd your G‑d and to serve Him with all your heart")⁴⁸; "What is the service that is in the heart? You must say, this is prayer"⁴⁹. It is understood that Rabbi Simlai was constantly engaged in this subject. Therefore, when he "happened to come to a Pidyon HaBen," there also came to his hands a discussion that pertains also to our matter — analogous to the Pidyon HaBen of the incident in the Talmud — regarding the redemption of "My son, My firstborn, Israel": the redemption of the entire Jewish people in these generations of ours, which are the "heels of Moshiach" (as is evident from all the signs at the conclusion of Tractate Sotah), the time when "he happened to come to a Pidyon HaBen," when the Holy One, blessed be He, stands ready to redeem His firstborn son from exile.

And he continues, at the conclusion (of the exile), saying: "It is obvious that 'Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of the son' is recited by the father of the son," and the question is who recites Shehecheyanu — does the Kohen recite it, or does the father of the son recite it:

For the distinction between the level of "Father" and the level of "Kohen" is that the level of "Father" is the Ohr Ein Sof (the Infinite Light), blessed be He, which is above hishtalshelus⁵⁰ (as is known, "Father" is the level of Chochmah⁵¹, which is the concept of "two thousand years the Torah preceded the world" — the level of "אאלפך חכמה" ("I will teach you wisdom")⁵²); whereas "Kohen," who is the man of kindness⁵³, is the level of the light that comes within hishtalshelus.

And this is: "It is obvious that 'concerning the redemption of the son' is recited by the father of the son" — "blessing" (berachah) being a term for drawing down⁵⁴ — that the drawing down of the Redemption itself will be from the level of "Father," which is above the order of hishtalshelus.

So it was in the first redemption of the Jewish people — from the land of Egypt — when the Holy One, blessed be He, in His glory and in His own Being, redeemed them⁵⁵, even though, from the standpoint of the order of hishtalshelus, there was room for the claim, "These are idol-worshippers etc., and these are idol-worshippers etc."⁵⁶.

All the more so in the complete Redemption from this last exile of ours: it is a simple matter that our deliverance and our Redemption will be through our Father in Heaven, in His glory and in His own Being — which is above the order of hishtalshelus.

But the question concerns the blessing "Who has granted us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time" — that is, not regarding the source and root of the drawing down of the essence of the Redemption, but regarding the manner and quality of its drawing down in time (and place) below. In this there is a question who recites the blessing: the Kohen, since benefit comes into his hands, or the father of the son, since he performs a mitzvah:

"The Kohen recites it": the blessing and drawing down of the Redemption will be through the Kohen, the man of kindness. That is to say, although its root is from above the order of hishtalshelus, nevertheless its drawing down "at this time" will be through the attribute of kindness, by way of the order of hishtalshelus.

And the reason for this: "since benefit comes into his hands" — for "the Shechinah is in exile": the level of G‑dliness (memalei kol almin) is, as it were, in exile, as our Sages, of blessed memory, say⁵⁷: "They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah is with them"; (and regarding the Redemption it says) "ושב ה' אלקיך את שבותך" ("The L‑rd your G‑d will return your captivity")⁵⁸ — "It does not say 'will bring back,' but 'will return,' teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, returns with them etc."⁵⁹. Thus benefit comes into His hands — for "your G‑d is a Kohen"⁶⁰.

It can also be said that the Redemption is (also) a "benefit" (as a reward⁶¹) that comes through the redemption of the Jewish people; therefore it is possible that the Redemption will pass through the garments of nature etc., since in this manner too "benefit comes" — there is the benefit of the Redemption.

On the other hand, there is the reasoning that "the father of the son recites it": that the drawing down and the effect of the Redemption "at this time" will also be through the "Father" — our Father in Heaven.

And the reason: "since he performs a mitzvah." That is, the Redemption is not only the "benefit" that comes through it; rather, the very essence (and manner) of the Redemption is primary⁶², for it is the mitzvah of the Holy One, blessed be He⁶³. Therefore the Father Himself blesses and draws down the Redemption as it is above hishtalshelus, within the bounds of "this time (and place)," so that the manner of the Redemption too will be entirely above nature⁶⁴.

And this question was resolved when they said, "The father of the son recites both": since the redemption of His firstborn son is the mitzvah of our Father in Heaven, then just as the beginning of the drawing down of the Redemption (the first blessing) is above the order of hishtalshelus, so too the manner of its drawing down and its arrival below will be through "the Father" — it will not pass through the orders of nature etc., but rather "in one moment and one instant"⁶⁵, with kindness and mercy, to the point that it will be expressed also in the feeling of joy and delight of the body, in its plain sense⁶⁶.

This is also alluded to in the connection of Pidyon HaBen to Tractate Pesachim (in addition to what was explained above, that the subject of Tractate Pesachim is that the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself redeemed "My son, My firstborn, Israel" at the Exodus from Egypt, there is in this also an allusion to the future Redemption): "Pesach" is also a term of "חוס" ("having pity")⁶⁷ (the Holy One, blessed be He, has pity on us), which is the language of the Targum. And so Onkelos translated the verse "ופסחתי" ("and I will pass over") as "ואיחוס" ("and I will have pity"), and "ופסח הוי'" ("and the L‑rd will pass over") as "ויחוס ה'" ("and the L‑rd will have pity"). This means that the redemption of His firstborn son will be drawn down also into "Targum" (into the language and garments of the world⁶⁸)⁶⁹, in a manner of abundant mercy⁷⁰ and great compassion.

At first they said this in the study hall, that is, within the four cubits of Torah; and afterward he concludes, "And the halachah is: the father of the son recites both" — that the matter is drawn down also into halichos olam, "the ways of the world"⁷¹ — that "the father of the son recites both": both the essence of the redemption and its drawing down below ten handbreadths will be from above the order of hishtalshelus, in a manner of leaping (which is also among the interpretations of "ופסח ה'"⁷²), with visible and revealed good, very soon.

(From the sichos of 11 Nissan, 5722)

Notes

*) And the conclusion of Tractate Pesachim.

1) 13:13.

2) Kiddushin 1:7.

3) So it is also in Koheles Rabbah 9:9. But in the Bavli (Kiddushin 29a) they derived that the father is obligated to redeem his son from the verse (Ki Sisa 34:20) "כל בכור בניך תפדה" ("every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem") (and see Torah Shleimah, Parshas Bo there, §178). And see below, end of note 19.

4) "For 'Adam' is superfluous; read into it…" [OCR unclear — the rest of this note is missing from the source.]

5) [OCR unclear — note text missing from the source.]

6) [OCR unclear — note text missing from the source.]

7) [OCR unclear — note text missing from the source.]

8) [OCR unclear — note text missing from the source.]

9) 13:15.

10) 18:15.

10*) From this it is implied that the Kohen does not "perform a mitzvah" — and see below, from the Tzlach, the Rosh, etc.

11) See similarly in Responsa Chasam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah §294.

12) Based on the Rosh (in the name of the Riva), Pesachim, chapter [OCR: פ"ק], §10. Ran there.

13) But see Drishah there, §305, subsection 3. Responsa Chasam Sofer there, §[OCR unclear: רצצ].

14) Responsa of the Rivash, §131. It can be said that the explanation is: "וצונו לפדות" ("and commanded us to redeem") emphasizes that there is one matter here (and the redemption is only his own action); "וצונו על פדיון הבן" ("and commanded us concerning the redemption of the son") emphasizes that there are two separate matters here, and this person was commanded concerning the second (similar to "to warn the adults concerning the minors"). And based on this (that redemption and the like, whose blessing is worded with "על," is a matter separate from the person who was commanded concerning it) — it is permitted even through an agent; it is more applicable when the father redeems his son, unlike when the son redeems himself (see below, note 18); the blessing over the essential mitzvah of tefillin (a mitzvah upon one's body) is "להניח תפלין" ("to put on tefillin"), and the additional one is "על מצות תפלין" ("concerning the mitzvah of tefillin"). This is not the place to elaborate. And see the Talmudic Encyclopedia, entry "Birkas HaMitzvos," and the sources cited there.

15) And this is even more precise in the wording of the Rosh ([OCR unclear]): "על פדיון הבן ודאי האב מברך" ("Over the redemption of the son, the father certainly recites the blessing").

16) As the Korban Nesanel asked there.

17) And even if we say that the giving to the Kohen is part of the very essence of the redemption [and not that the giving to the Kohen is only a kind of condition (see Rashi, Bechoros 51a, s.v. "Yihyeh lecha"; and see at length R. Yom Tov Algazi, Hilchos Bechoros there, §67 and §82; and see Beis Yosef §305)], this means only that the redemption is accomplished through him and that he assists in the mitzvah (see the wording of the Rivash cited above, section 3, in the words of the Tzlach). But "the Kohen does not perform a mitzvah" (the Rosh on Bechoros, cited below in note 38).

18) The Rivash in the responsum there, cited in the Beis Yosef and in the Drishah there. In the Rivash there [it is stated] that this is the reason of the Rambam, who writes (Hilchos Bechoros there, halachah 5) that one who redeems his son blesses "concerning the redemption of the son," while one who redeems himself blesses "to redeem," since the essential mitzvah is upon himself, only that in his infancy it is impossible. And according to what is explained below in the text and at the end of note 19, it can be said that this is why the Rambam did not cite (there, at the beginning of chapter 11, nor in his Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 80) a verse in which a command is stated to the father to redeem his son (neither "every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem," cited in the Bavli, nor "every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem," in the Yerushalmi), but rather the verse in Parshas Korach, "But you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man," in which no command is stated to the father to redeem his son (unlike the verse "בכור בניך תתן לי" ("the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me"), which he cites in Sefer HaMitzvos there).

19) These two approaches can seemingly be said regarding several of the mitzvos in which the father is obligated toward his minor son (Kiddushin there). But even if we say that circumcision* is the son's mitzvah, as in the first approach in the text (see the commentary on Rav Saadia Gaon's Sefer HaMitzvos by R. Y. F. Perla, mitzvos 31–32), there is still room to say regarding Pidyon HaBen that it is the father's mitzvah, as in the second approach**. For regarding circumcision there is no explicit command that the father must circumcise his son, and the derivation (that the father must circumcise his son) is either from "וימל אברהם את יצחק בנו" ("And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak") (Kiddushin there), or from "ביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו" ("On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised") (Yerushalmi there). Whereas in Pidyon HaBen, the obligation upon the father to redeem his son is explicit in the Torah, both according to the Bavli (above, note 3) and according to the Yerushalmi (and see below, note 26).

*) Regarding Torah study, see the wording of the Alter Rebbe (Hilchos Talmud Torah, at the beginning): "But Torah study is a positive commandment from the Torah upon the father, to teach his minor son Torah, even though the minor is not obligated etc." (and it can be said that this is what he teaches us with this addition, "even though etc."). And see Piskei Dinim of the Tzemach Tzedek (novellae on the Rambam, at the beginning [339b]), explaining the wording of the Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:3), "One whose father did not teach him is obligated to teach himself when he becomes aware": "Since in Torah study the father is obligated by Torah law to teach his son . . then perhaps the minor too has a Torah obligation." And the reason we do not say so also regarding Pidyon HaBen and circumcision (that the son would become obligated when he becomes aware — even before he grows up) can be explained as follows: In Torah study, the Torah obligation is that the father should study with (and together with) his son (that is, that the son himself becomes aware and studies Torah); moreover, the study is in a manner that the son "accustoms himself to read the Torah" (Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there — from the Rema, §245:8). This is unlike Pidyon HaBen and circumcision, in which the entire act of the redemption and of the circumcision is on the part of the father, and only the mitzvah is fulfilled in (the body of) the son. Consider this carefully. (In addition, it can be said along the lines of what is explained in Responsa Zichron Yosef (cited in Pischei Teshuvah to Yoreh De'ah §305, subsection 25), that in Pidyon HaBen and circumcision, if he fulfills it now, he will not be able to fulfill it when he grows up, unlike Torah study.)

**) But according to what the Rivash writes as the reason of the Rambam, that one who redeems his son blesses "concerning etc." (see note 18), the opposite is evident; for regarding circumcision the Rambam writes (beginning of chapter 3 of Hilchos Milah): "And if he circumcises his son, he blesses 'to circumcise the son'." But according to this, the words of the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah etc. require investigation; see below, end of note 26.

20) See Chinuch, mitzvah 392, at its end: "It appears that the father is always obligated to redeem his son, and even after the son has grown up the mitzvah rests upon the father, as the verse says, 'And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem' — thus it placed the mitzvah upon the father; and so it appears in Kiddushin." And see Responsa of the Rashba, vol. 2, §321 (cited in the Beis Yosef and the Bach, Yoreh De'ah §305), and so it is implied in the Levush there.

21) See Korban HaEdah there (cited above in note 4).

22) See the sources cited above in note 7.

23) Based on this, one can add an explanation (in addition to what is explained in the Minchas Chinuch) of the concluding words of the Chinuch (cited above in note 20), "and so it appears in Kiddushin."

24) See Responsa Chasam Sofer there, §293: "Rather, the essential mitzvah is upon a person to redeem his son, and this is 'every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem'; and were it not for the inclusion derived from 'תפדה,' the adult would not be able to redeem himself at all — but the Torah included it." And see at length Tziyunim LaTorah (by R. Y. Engel), principle 37, that the father's obligation to redeem his son is an intrinsic obligation, while redeeming oneself (when one grows up) is only a supplementary obligation; see there. And see Tzafnas Pa'neach (second edition, 47d; supplement, p. 46; cited in Mefa'ne'ach Tzefunos, pp. 123–124).

25) See the wording of the Chinuch there: "If the father transgressed and did not want to redeem him etc."

26) It can be said that the same applies to circumcision: according to the view of the Yerushalmi, it is the son's mitzvah, because the father's obligation to circumcise his son is derived in the Yerushalmi from the verse "On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised," in which no (command) is mentioned that the father should circumcise his son ("ימול" — in its plain meaning, by himself); only it is understood that on the eighth day it is impossible for him (the infant) to circumcise himself (see Korban HaEdah there). Whereas according to the Bavli (Kiddushin there), where it is derived from the verse "And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak," it can be said that it is the father's mitzvah (but see above, note 19). And based on this it can be said that this is the practical difference when the son grows up — whether the obligation still rests upon the father; see the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, end of chapter [OCR: ט] of Tractate Shabbos: "When the child grows up and reaches the time of obligation in mitzvos, every person is exempt from his circumcision etc." And see Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 2.

27) For seemingly all this is superfluous here, and it should have said, "concerning the redemption of the son is recited by the father of the son" (similar to the wording of the Rosh and the Rif).

28) See Responsa Chasam Sofer there, §293, at the beginning (what R. Sh. wrote to the Chasam Sofer): "But in his infancy he cannot redeem himself, so the Torah made the father an agent for the son; therefore, when he grows up and can redeem himself, the father's agency ceases."

29) Rambam, Hilchos Berachos 1:10. But see the sources cited above in note 13.

30) See Tosafos, s.v. "Le'achar," Bechoros 49a. Meiri, end of Pesachim. Ran, Sukkah, chapter 4.

31) Seder Birkas HaNehenin of the Alter Rebbe, beginning of chapter 12. And see Rambam, Hilchos Berachos 10:7.

32) Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim §222; Birkas HaNehenin there, sections 2 and 5.

33) It can be said that this is the precision in the wording of the Rashba, who writes (Responsa of the Rashba, vol. 1, §338): "And whoever asks it (whether the Kohen recites Shehecheyanu or the father) — because there is a blessing of Shehecheyanu in this mitzvah, we are in doubt which of them recites it." And the reason we do not find this reasoning regarding the other priestly gifts can be explained according to what the Rivash writes (there, at the end of the responsum): that in the other priestly gifts the Kohen does nothing except acquire the gifts from the Heavenly table; but in the redemption, although he does not perform a mitzvah . . nevertheless he acquires the son and gives him to the father in his redemption.

34) And even according to Rashi and the Rosh, who hold that the essence of the redemption is through the setting aside, while the giving to the Kohen is only a kind of condition (see R. Yom Tov Algazi, cited in note 17), it is nevertheless appropriate to say that the mitzvah renders the benefit significant, for "the mitzvah is not completed until the redemption reaches the hand of the Kohen" (Beis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah §305); and therefore he blesses before giving the redemption to the Kohen, since over all mitzvos one blesses before performing them (Beis Yosef there).

35) Similar to "the prohibition renders it significant" — Bechoros 10a; Rashi, s.v. "Challah" (Beitzah 27b). And seemingly, according to this, if it is a doubtful firstborn, in which case the father cannot bless, the Kohen too cannot recite Shehecheyanu; but it can be said that even a doubtful mitzvah renders the benefit significant, and he blesses. And see Responsa Chasam Sofer there, §299.

36) From what is explained in the text, and from the responsum of the Rashba (cited in note 33), it is understood that one cannot explain the question as it is explained in the book Chut HaMeshulash, in the Hadran on Tractate Pesachim.

37) And there is a practical difference between the two reasons — in a doubtful firstborn etc., according to the view of the Chasam Sofer — mentioned above in note 35.

38) Responsa of the Rashba (vol. 1, §338). And see Meiri, end of Arvei Pesachim, for another reason why the Kohen does not recite Shehecheyanu over the priestly gifts (and see the Rosh, Bechoros, chapter 8, §8 (cited in the Tur there), regarding the Kohen's blessing at a Pidyon HaBen: the Kohen does not recite any blessing, and so it stands to reason, for the Kohen does not perform a mitzvah, but rather receives priestly gifts).

39) Shemos 13:22 [as read in the OCR; doubtful].

40) Our parsha, 12:27.

41) There, verse 23.

42) See similarly in Responsa Chasam Sofer there, end of §293, regarding Pidyon HaBen through an agent.

43) Shemos Rabbah 30:9.

43*) See Bamidbar Rabbah 19:17.

44) Also in the inner dimension of matters explained below in the text — for the study of the laws of Pidyon HaBen and redemption is itself a matter of redemption and deliverance, as our Sages, of blessed memory, say: "Whoever engages in the Torah of the olah offering etc." (end of Menachos; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, first edition, §1, section 11; second edition there, section 9).

45) Berachos 32a.

46) Based on this one will understand (in the inner dimension of matters) why in their question they mentioned "the Kohen recites it" before "the father of the son recites it," even though regarding the blessing "concerning the redemption of the son" it was obvious to them that the father of the son recites it: for in setting forth the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, the order is "You" in the revealed — the Kohen, who is on the level of hishtalshelus (as explained at length in the text), and afterward "has sanctified us" in the hidden — "the father of the son," who is above hishtalshelus.

47) See on this Zohar III, 289a; Rashba in Ein Yaakov, Berachos 40b; Abudraham, in the order of weekday prayers (Birkas HaShachar, p. 33), in the name of the Riva; Likkutei Torah, Masei (91, end of col. b; 92c); and elsewhere.

48) Eikev 11:13.

49) Taanis, at the beginning.

50) See Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim 13b: when the Ohr Ein Sof is drawn down to become enclothed in [OCR unclear: חי"ע], it is called "our Father." Peirush HaMilos of the Tzemach Tzedek (Derech Mitzvosecha, vol. 2), 209a.

51) Tanya, chapter 3, and in many places.

52) See Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 272 ff., and the sources cited there.

53) See Zohar III, 145b; Tanya, beginning of chapter 3, and in many places. And see Iggeres HaKodesh, §[OCR unclear: ב] (118a).

54) See Likkutei Torah, Eikev 15b; Derech Mitzvosecha, p. 295; and elsewhere.

55) The Pesach Haggadah.

56) Mechilta, Shemos 14:29; Zohar II, 170b; Yalkut Reuveni, Shemos 14:27.

57) Sifri, Masei 35:34. And see Iggeres HaKodesh, §25 (140, beginning of col. a).

58) Nitzavim 30:3.

59) Megillah 29a; Rashi, Nitzavim there.

60) Sanhedrin 39a, end.

61) See Responsa Chasam Sofer there, §356.

62) See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, chapter 10.

63) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 5 (p. 244 ff.), that the revelation of the Essence in the future (gratification for the created being) is not merely a reward for the present service of Torah and mitzvos, but pertains to the very fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos and to the drawing down of the Essence accomplished through them (gratification for the Creator); see there.

64) According to what is explained in Likkutei Levi Yitzchak (Likkutim on sayings of our Sages, p. 114 ff.), that Rabbi Simlai pertains essentially to the revealed part of the Torah, for "Simlai" means like "simlah," a garment, and reaches the level of Z"A and Nukva (and therefore Rabbi Yochanan did not want to study Sefer Yuchasin with him — aggadah, which reaches Chochmah and Binah), one will understand why Rabbi Simlai himself "did not have it at hand": he could not reach the point that Pidyon HaBen is through the Father — the level of Chochmah (which is above hishtalshelus).

65) In accordance with the ruling of the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 7:5): "The Torah has already assured that Israel will ultimately do teshuvah at the end of their exile, and they will immediately be redeemed."

66) For only then does one recite Shehecheyanu. See the sources cited in Likkutei Sichos, vol. 10, p. 47, note 30. And regarding Pidyon HaBen, see Tosafos, s.v. "Le'achar," Bechoros 49a, and the Rosh there, §8 (cited in the Kesef Mishneh there), that it can be said that one does not recite Shehecheyanu (also) when it recalls his sorrow.

67) Mechilta on the verse "ופסחתי עליכם" ("and I will pass over you") (our parsha, 12:13); and see there on the verse "ופסח הוי'" ("and the L‑rd will pass over") (there, 12:23).

68) And see also Rashi: "וחמלתי" ("and I will have compassion"), "וחמל" ("and He had compassion").

69) See Torah Or, Parshas Mishpatim.

70) Which pertain especially to "Father," as it is written, "כרחם אב" ("as a father has compassion"). And see Pesikta deRav Kahana (on "אנכי אנכי הוא מנחמכם" ("I, I am He Who comforts you")): the way of a father is to have compassion etc. And see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 4 (p. 1081), that "Father" denotes the revelation of compassion that completely fills the deficiency; see there. And see Peirush HaMilos of the Mitteler Rebbe, [OCR unclear: סק"א].

71) End of Niddah.

72) Rashi. And see also the Mechilta and Rashi on the verse "and I will pass over you."

Key Lesson

The Gemara's ruling that "the father of the son recites both" shows that Pidyon HaBen is essentially the father's mitzvah, just as at the Exodus the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself redeemed "My son, My firstborn, Israel." In the same way, the final Redemption will come from our Father in Heaven Himself: both its essence and the way it is drawn down into this world will be above nature, in one instant, with visible and revealed good.