Baba Kama 110 - Kohen Appointing Shliach to Eat Kodshim

The gemara questions what is the case where a zaken or choleh appoints someone else to do the avoda and eat the korbanos for him. If he is unable to do the avodah and eat, how can he appoint a shliach. The gemara concludes that he is able to do avoda and eat b'dochek, therefore avoda b'dochek which qualifies as avoda he can appoint a shliach for, but eating b'dochek which qualifies as over eating which is assur by kodshim he can't appoint a shliach for. The gemara seems to assume that the kohen who belongs to the mishmar must appoint a shliach to eat kodshim for him. The maharatz chiyus associates this with the gemara in nazir 12a that says that one must be able to do something himself in order to have the authority to appoint a shliach to do it for him. Based on this the Maharatz chiyus asks, the mitzvah of eating kodshim is not a mitzvah on the "gavra" rather it is a mitzvah that the "cheftzah" must be consumed (the chasam sofer and beis halevi discuss this issue in contrast to korban pesach). This is clear even from the gemara's assumption that the elderly kohen of the mishmar can appoint another kohen as his shliach to eat the kodshim for him, which certainly cannot be done by the mitzvah to eat matza because this mitzvah is not an obligation on the individual. But since it is just a mitzvah on the cheftzah that kodshim should be eaten, why is shlichus necessary to allow another kohen to eat from the korban?

It seems to me that this sugya is not at all connected to the inyan of shlichus. The term shlichus over here doesn't refer to the concept of appointing another kohen to stand in his place, rather it refers to the ownership of the rights to eat and the ability to pass on those rights to someone else. The gemara is not using the rule of nazir 12a that one must be able to do it himself in order to appoint a shliach, it is instead using the obvious rationale that one cannot gift to someone else something that he doesn't own. The ownership of the mishmar in kodshim is only when the individual is able to participate in that activity, whether it is avoda or eating, in which case he can offer those rights to someone else. But when he is unable to do avoda or eat, he is not considered someone who has ba'alus over that activity and therefore cannot pass it on to anyone else. Therefore, the gemara concludes that the case must be that he can do avoda b'dochek, so he can gift that right to a friend who is a kohen and not in that mishmar, but since his eating b'dochek would not make him eligible to eat kodshim, he doesn't own that right and cannot pass it on.

Kiddushin 23b - Appointing a messenger for something you can't do yourself

We mentioned this issue in nazir 12 - see there http://hearos.blogspot.com/search?q=nazir+12a

The gemara asks whether an eved can appoint a shliach to receive his gett, according to the opinion that he cannot receive his own gett since he is still owned by his master. The gemara concludes that although one cannot typically appoint a messenger to do something that they cannot do themselves, nevertheless an eved my appoint a messenger to receive his gett since he is included in the concept of receiving a gett - he can receive a gett for his friend who is an eved from his master. The mitzpeh eisan explains rashi, who explains the logic of the gemara. The primary issue is whether the inability of the eved to receive his own gett from his master is a weakness in the eved's ability to receive a gett, in which case he should not be able to appoint a messenger either. Or is it merely a technicality that the gett has to leave the master's reshus which we learn from teh gezeira shava from isha. The fact that an eved can receive a gett from another eved is evidence that it is not a lack in his ability, rather a technicality. So, the requirement of "only able to appoint a shliach for something you can do yourself" = one can only appoint a shliach for something that they have the power to do themselves (if not for a technicality that makes them unable to do it by himself).

Nazir 12a - Appointing a Messenger to do something I myself cannot do now

Sorry for the long post, but i think it is interesting.

On Sunday I wrote a gett that was written properly, and after it was written and signed it was given over by the husband to me (shliach) to deliver it to his wife, but we realized that for whatever reason (not worth addressing now) there was a concern that one of the eidei chasima may not have signed it lishma (he forgot to speak out that he is signing l'ishmo u'lishmah). R' Nota Greenblatt who was mesader the gett paskened that I had to rewrite the gett from scratch, which would be a "nechpaz laleches" (husband in a hurry to leave town) type gett, because the husband didn't have patience to wait around. Meaning that, the rewritten gett will not be written in the presence of the husband [the Rama writes (E.H. 154 seder haget 33) that this method is only b'sha'as had'chak. But the pischei teushuva points out that we don't see any indication from the gemara that this method is only sha'as had'chak]. He explained that there is a significant advantage to the gett being written in the presence of the husband because we are then able to write in the gett the place where the husband is standing at the time it is being written, i.e. העומד היום בפאלא אלטא מתא דיתבא על כיף ימא דמתקרי סאן פראנציסקא בעי. The advantage to this is that according to R' Moshe (Igros Moshe E.H. 1:125) identifying the husband in the gett as the person standing in that particular city and differentiating him from the many others out there in the world who may have the same name (and same wife), is an essential (although not me'akev) aspect of the gett. Nevertheless, R' Nota felt that it is worthwhile to do a "nechpaz laleches" style gett, which leaves out the place where the husband is standing, rather than use the first gett on which the signing could be considered shelo lishma and is therefore a chashash of mezuyaf mitocho (Tosafos Gittin 4a, Shulchan Aruch 131:6).

In light of the Tosafos on today's daf there is another majorly significant advantage of writing the gett in the presence of the husband and not using the "nechpaz laleches" method, which is likely the issue that the Rama was referring to (since from the language of the Rama the kepeida seems to be on the giving over of the gett to the ba'al after it is written rather than the concern being the nusach that is written in the gett). The gemara says that something i cannot do right now because it is mechusar ma'aseh, i cannot appoint a shliach to do i.e. one cannot appoint a shliach to be mekadesh an isha that is married at the time of the appointment, since it is mechusar the ma'aseh gett. Tosafos explains that even in a situation where i myself can do the ma'aseh now which would enable me to do the process now, i still cannot appoint a shliach on that process, since the ma'aseh has not yet been done. With this Tosafos explains that the gemara (yevamos 52a) has a tzad that a yavam cannot appoint a shliach to write a gett for a shomeres yaveim, even though yibum can be done against her will and it is totally in the control of the yavam, since it is mechusar ma'aseh and he can't divorce her now, he cannot appoint a shliach to divorce her. Based on this R' Akiva Eiger (Teshuvos 141), Noda B'yehuda (drashos), Machaneh Efraim (Gittin perek 15) question, how can one appoint a shliach to write and deliver a gett to his wife, since he himself cannot deliver the gett until it is written so it is mechusar ma'aseh and he should not be able to even appoint a shliach to deliver it until after the gett is actually written. Based on this concern there is a significant advantage to writing the gett in the presence of the husband so that the husband can appoint the shliach to deliver the gett after it has been written to avoid this problem.

However, the Chasam Sofer (back of gemara) explains that the concern of Tosafos only applies if there is a "panim chadashos" created by the missing action, such as the chalos created from yibum, or the chiyuv challah created by kneading dough. But when there is an action that is missing such as the writing of a gett, since there is no chalos or chiyuv created by the gett being written, it is not considered mechusar ma'aseh and therefore the shliach to deliver the gett may be appointed even before the gett is written.

Therefore, it is still not so clear why the Rama is makpid to only use the Nechpas Laleches method for a sha'as had'chak. It seems to be because we want to be makpid that the husband hand over the finished product of the gett to the shliach, using the formal methods of "nesina" as it would be given to the woman herself (as the Rama writes in seder haget 98 - that the shliach l'holacha should receive it from the husband using the same chumros that the woman herself would).