Pshat in the Bach on 2nd Tosofos in Ish Mekadesh

Question

The Mishna in Kedushin 41A discusses being mekadesh a woman via shaliach.

האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו האשה מתקדשת בה ובשלוחה האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה בו ובשלוחו

The Gemara asks what the "bo" is for if "bshlucho" teaches that "bo" works by a kol sh'kain. The first girsa of the Gemara is that the "bo" is coming to teach a halacha of R Yosef that it is a bigger mitzvah to do something yourself than via shaliach. The ika d'amri suggests that actually the "bo" is coming to teach a halacha said by R Yehuda amar Rav that it is assur to be mekadesh a woman you haven't seen.

Tosofos asks:

אי איתמר דרב יוסף אסיפא איתמר - ולהכי לא מוקי ארישא וכגון שמכירה משום דהא מנ"ל דלמא מתני' מיירי בין מכירה ובין אין מכירה ואפי' איסורא איכא ומלתא דרב יוסף לא נדע

I'm trying to understand pshat in the Tosofos, in particular according to the Bach on the Tur:

וכתבו התוספות הא דלא מוקמינן לדרב יוסף ארישא וכגון שמכירה משום דא"כ קשה מנ"ל לרב יוסף דבמכירה איכא מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו דילמא ליכא אפילו מצוה והא דקתני בו ובשלוחו משום דמתניתין מיירי בין מכירה ובין אינה מכירה ותני בו היכא דאין מכירה דאיכא איסורא וקתני בשלוחו היכא דמכירה דליכא אפילו מצוה

Specifically, why does Tosofos say dilma afilu issur ika, and why does the Bach interpolate that perhaps "u'b'shlucho" is coming in a case of makira to teach "afilu mitzvah leika"? What lesser chiddush we comparing these suggestions to that it should use the word afilu to refer to them?

Answer 1

R. Yosef is saying that there is a general preference to do things yourself, rather than through an agent. Tosafot’s point is that you can’t prove that from the first clause of the Mishnah, because the Mishnah may mean that there is not (merely) a preference to do it yourself here, it is actually forbidden to use an agent (because of R. Yehuda’s concern).

The Bach is merely elaborating on how to allocate this among the cases of prior recognition of the woman and not prior recognition. In a case where he does already know what she looks like there is no preference at all between marrying her yourself or via an agent. The reason why the Mishnah specifies that he can do it himself is to tell us that in a case where he has not previously seen her, it is not merely a preference — it is outright forbidden to do it any other way. And the reason why the Mishnah specifies an agent is precisely to tell is that if he has already seen her there is not even a preference.

When Tosofos says "afilu issur ika", and the Bach says "afilu mitzvah leika", these “afilu”s are contrasting the ends of the spectrum. There are three options: 1. You must do it yourself (שמא תתגנה) 2. it is preferable to do it yourself 3. There is no preference at all. The point of “afilu” is to skip the second option: not only is it not required to do it yourself, it’s not even preferable. And the reverse: not only is it not neutral, it’s actually forbidden to use a shaliach.

Answer 2

Without the אפילו one may have thought that though it is not a mitzvah, it would still be a הידור to act oneself, by using the word אפילו Tosfos\Bach is stressing that it makes absolutely no difference whether בו or whether בשלוחו

Answer 3

The יעב"ץ on that Tosfos explains that he means to say that from the Reisha we would have said that there is even an issur (even if he knows the girl beforehand) to appoint a shliach and not do it yourself, not only just not having a mitzvah. The only reason the Mishna would of mentioned a shliach is to tell us that in the event that a person did appoint a shliach, even though it was assur, it would still be considered a good kiddushin.

Knowing this, perhaps, that is what the Bach is trying to argue with. He holds, only in a case where he did not know her would there be an issur (of R' Yehuda) and in a case where he did know her it would be lacking a mitzvah but not assur.