The rabbis discuss the importance of specificity when it comes to the language of vows. They use the example of the phrase "I am avowed from you" in contrast with the phrase "I am avowed to you". At first it seems relatively clear: "I am avowed from you" indicates that neither person can benefit from the other. "I am avowed to you" regards a specific way that each is forbidden to the other. However, after defining what those terms mean, other possible definitions are suggested as well. We learn some other possible meanings.
Shmuel suggests that "I am avowed from you" means that I am not speaking with you, "I am separated from you" means that I will not do business with you, and "I am distanced from you" means that I will not stand within four cubits of you. The rabbis use these interpretations to determine that Shmuel concurs with Rabbi Yehuda: ambiguous intimations are not intimations. The Gemara connects this statement with other questions about intimations. Rabbi Yehuda stated that a get, a bill of divorce, must state that the husband is in fact divorcing his wife. The specific words used in the get are significant, just like the specific words used by a nazirite are significant. Bottom line: we cannot just assume that a vow is a vow, regardless of the words used.
Our daf ends with the rabbis beginning to question other contracts that require specific intimations.
Words are so very important. We cannot assume that we know what people mean unless we hear them say what they mean. Such a wonderful lesson for today.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment