Kiddushin, Daf Mem Gimmel, Part 4
Introduction
Today s sugya is about whether an agent can become a witness concerning the issue which he was an agent for, such as betrothing a woman.
איתמר רב אמר שליח נעשה עד דבי רבי שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד
It was stated: Rav said: An agent can be a witness. The school of R. Shila said: An agent cannot become a witness.
Whether an agent can become a witness is an amoraic dispute.
מ"ט דבי רבי שילא אילימא משום דלא א"ל הוי לי עד אלא מעתה קידש אשה בפני שנים ולא אמר להם אתם עדיי ה"נ דלא הוו קידושי
What is the reason of the school of R. Shila? If we say, because he does not [explicitly] tell him, Be a witness for me ? If so, if he betroths a woman in the presence of two, and does not instruct them, You are my witnesses, is this also not kiddushin?
The Talmud first offers a reason that does not explain why R. Shila holds that an agent cannot be a witness. The betrother did not say to him, be a witness for me.
The problem with this explanation is that the man betrothing a woman does not have to say to his witnesses, you are my witnesses.
אלא רב אמר שליח נעשה עד אלומי קא מאלימנא למילתיה
דבי רבי שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד כיון דאמר מר שלוחו של אדם כמותו הוה ליה כגופיה
Rather [the reasons are thus:] Rav said: An agent can be a witness, for we strengthen his words.
The school of R. Shila holds: An agent cannot become a witness; since the master said: A man’s agent is as himself, it is as if it is he himself.
Rav holds that the agent can be a witness. If we trust him as an agent all the more since he is the one carrying out the matter. In other words, since we trust him to be the agent and betroth the woman to the man, we must also trust him to testify that she agreed.
R. Shila s school holds that since we consider the agent to be like the sender himself, he cannot testify about matters related to himself.
מיתיבי אמר לשלשה צאו וקדשו לי האשה אחד שליח ושנים עדים דברי ב"ש וב"ה אומרים כולם שלוחין הן ואין שליח נעשה עד
עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בשלשה אבל בשנים דברי הכל לא
They objected: If one says to three, Go out and betroth the woman on my behalf, one is an agent and the other two are witnesses, the words of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: They are all his agents, and an agent cannot be a witness.
And they only disagree about three, but as for two, all agree that they cannot [be witnesses]!
In this dispute both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree only about a case where one tells three to be his agent for betrothal. But they would both agree that if the betrother tells two to be his agents, neither can serve as a witness. The difficulty is that Rav seems to agree with neither house.
הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים שליח ועד אחד וב"ה אומרים שליח ושני עדים
ורב כבית שמאי איפוך
He [Rav] holds like the following Tanna. As it was taught: R. Natan said: Beth Shammai holds: An agent and one witness [can testify]; but Beth Hillel says: An agent and two witnesses [are required].
Does then Rav rule according to Beth Shammai?
Reverse [the opinions in the baraita].
Rav can find support in the following baraita. According to Bet Shammai, when an agent betroths a woman he may also serve as a witness. Bet Hillel says two separate witnesses are required. The agent cannot be a witness.
The problem with this is that it means that Rav rules like Bet Shammai. As we know, you re not supposed to rule like Bet Shammai. You re supposed to rule like Bet Hillel. The solution is to reverse the opinions in the baraita. Yes, the Talmud does do this from time to time.
ורב אחא בריה דרבא מתני איפכא רב אמר אין שליח נעשה עד דבי ר’ שילא אמרי שליח נעשה עד והילכתא שליח נעשה עד
R. Aha son of Rava taught it reversed: Rav said: An agent cannot be a witness; The school of R. Shila ruled: An agent can be a witness.
And the law is that an agent can be a witness.
R. Aha son of Rava reversed the amoraic opinions and not the tannaitic opinions. Now Rav would hold like Bet Hillel, who says that an agent cannot be a witness.
In the end, the halakhic rule is that an agent can be a witness.