לזכות אבי מורי ואמי מורתי
לזכות ידיד נפשי ר' שמואל צבי בן ר' דוד עקיבא וכל ב"ב לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם!!
Says the Rambam [Ishus 3-15]:
When an agent is appointed to receive kiddushin, he must be appointed in the presence of two witnesses. When, by contrast, a man appoints an agent to consecrate a woman, there is no need for the appointment to be made in the presence of witnesses. For the only purpose witnesses would serve with regard to the agency of the man is to make known the truth of the matter. Therefore, if the agent and the principal acknowledge the appointment, there is no need for witnesses, [as in parallel cases, such as] an agent appointed to bring a get or an agent appointed to separate terumah. In all matters, a principal's agent is regarded as the principal himself, and there is no need to appoint witnesses.
The Raavad objects:
Don't compare קידושין and גיטין!! With respect to גיטין the possession of the גט verifies the שליחות whereas by קידושין it does not. Terumah is also no source because it never requires witnesses. But with regard to קידושין, the admission of the interested parties [the agent and the sender] is meaningless.
So according to the Rambam, one doesn't need witnesses for the appointment of a שליח להולכה while according to the Raavad witnesses are required.
Explains Rabbeinu [The Rogochover]:
We learn about the concept of שליחות in various contexts [see Kiddushin 41, Bava Metzia 71b, Chagiga 10] with regard to Kiddushin, Gittin, Terumah and Meilah.
"אך נ"מ אם זה אח"כ נחלק לפרטים, בכל דין פרט שליח, או נשאר כלל".
In other words, is the שליח for קידושין a דין and detail in קידושין [and the same question applies to Gittin etc. etc.] or does the concept of שליחות remain a general principal that is applied in different frameworks?
The Nafka Minah would be if the appointment of a שליח for קידושין requires witnesses. If it is a detail and law in קידושין then witnesses would be required because the שליחות is also subsumed under the category of דבר שבערוה thus necessitating witnesses. If it is a דין כללי - a general law, then no witnesses would be required, just as in general we usually don't require witnesses.
The Rambam maintains that שליחות is a general principal and thus no witnesses are required while the Raavad maintains that שליחות for קידושין is a detail subsumed under the general category of קידושין and thus witnesses are required.
So why does the Rambam then hold that witnesses are required for the appointment of a שליח לקבלה for the woman??
There are two aspects to קידושין: One, the קנין that she is קנויה לו. Two, the איסור that she is forbidden to the whole world. The GIVING of the קידושין activates the קנין while her RECEIVING activates the איסור. Therefore, her receiving is the primary דבר שבערוה [because it involves a sexual prohibition] and thus requires witnesses for the appointment of a שליח.
Also, the chidush of the Torah that she can make a שליח לקבלה is that this שליח is like an extension of her hand. That is a חלות that requires two witnesses.
[Looking for sponsors for a forthcoming book on Toras Ha-Rogochover]
[Looking for sponsors for a forthcoming book on Toras Ha-Rogochover]
