R. Yossi Haglili says: Since the Torah commands you both to redeem your son and to teach him Torah, then just as if one's father has not taught him, he must teach himself, so, if his father has not redeemed him, he must redeem himself. No, this may be true of learning Torah, which countervails all (the mitzvot (commandments)h in the Torah), as opposed to redemption, which does not!—This is refuted by (the mitzvah of) circumcision, which does not countervail all, in spite of which, if his father has not circumcised him, he must circumcise himself. No, this may be true of circumcision, transgression of which is punishable by kareth, as opposed to redemption, which is not. It is, therefore, written "and every firstling of my sons efdeh." How would I derive (the same for) the other mitzvoth binding on the father vis-à-vis his son? Would you say that there is a (strategic) difference between them? I will derive it by induction from the three of them, viz.: Circumcision is not like learning Torah, and learning Torah is not like circumcision. And both are not like redemption, and redemption is not like both of them. What is common to all is that they are mitzvoth binding on the father vis-à-vis his son, and that if his father did not perform them he must do so himself, so, with all such mitzvoth.