Parshas Toldos 5787
בכורות נ.
"פדיון הבן - שליחות"
The Gemara relates that ר' אשי sent 17 זוזים to ר' אחא (who was a kohen) in order to be פודה his בכור. The רי"ט אלגזי points out that this is not in line with the רמ"א who brings in the name of the "אין האב יכול לפדות על ידי שליח" :[יו"ד ש"ה,סי'י] ריב"ש. A father may not be פודה his son through a שליח. The ש"ך says this רמ"א is תמוה because we pasken, "שלוחו של אדם כמותו", so why should פדיון הבן be any different? This is also מבואר from the [פסחים ג] ר"ן when discussing the נוסח of ברכות, he says regarding מצות that are a person’s obligation, but may be performed for him by others, if a שליח is doing it for him he would use the word "על" in the bracha. For example, ביעור חמץ, מילה, פדיון הבן. The שליח performing this מצוה for the משלח would say "על". We see clearly the ר"ן lists פדיון הבן as a חיוב that may be done through a שליח. The [שם] ט"ז brings many poskim that hold not like the רמ"א and hold that a שליח may be used.
The פתחי תשובה brings the [שו"ת יו"ד רצז] חת"ם סופר who explains this שאלה of שליחות by פדיון הבן as follows: The דין is (in contrast to קידושין where the man must say "הרי את"), by פדיון הבן the father doesn’t need to say anything. As long as the כהן receives the 5 סלעים from him and is informed that it’s for the פדיון, he is יוצא ידי חובתו. Consequently, the sending of the money is only a מעשה קוף. So certainly the sending of the money to the כהן may be done by a שליח and therefore can’t be what the רמ"א is referring to when he says a שליח may not be used. The רמ"א and the questioner to the ריב"ש are referring to a case where the שליח uses his own money to be פודה someone else’s son for him and is not מזכה his money to the father, but wants to be פודה on behalf of the father. It is this case where the שאלה of שליחות comes up. The חת"ם סופר continues (even according to those that hold we may rely on שלוחו של אדם כמותו), still, "אין רגילים" to be פודה with a שליח, because it’s ראוי to do it זכר לבכורי מצרים and there it says, "אני ולא שליח". So, it’s more fitting for the father to do it himself.
[שם בגליון] רע"א seems to argue on the חת"ם סופר and holds that the מעשה הפדייה is the אמירה of the father to the כהן that this money is for the פדיון. Therefore, when the רמ"א says שליחות doesn’t work, he must be referring to a case where the שליח does the מעשה הפדיון by saying to the כהן, with this money the father’s son should be redeemed. But all would agree that the father may send the money with a שליח, as long as he is the one that says my son should be redeemed with the money you receive.
The above רי"ט אלגזי who says our Gemara is against the רמ"א, doesn’t learn like רע"א or the חת"ם סופר. He must learn that the רמ"א holds that the father may not even send the money with a שליח, that’s why he says our Gemara is shver because ר' אשי sent it with a שליח.