I have some trouble understanding the source of requiring yadyaim mochichos. The gemara says that rava learns from a pasuk that by nezirus you need yadayim mochichos just as you need by actual nezirus. The problem is yadayim mochichos seems to be a very general issue that is not limited to nezirus or even nedarim, it applies to kiddushin and gittin as well. It seems to be a din in language, meaning whether a chalos can take effect based on an ambiguous language (unless it is compensated for by the context of the situation i.e. ein adam megaresh eishes chaveiro or nazir passing in front). Why then does rava need a specific source by yados of nezirus that it must be mochichos?
Another point, regarding gittin where abaye says that there is a special requirement of yadayim mochichos because it says "krisus" - the Rosh seems to understand that since we need to do something very strong called "krisus" to break the relationship, it could be that all agree that you need yadayim mochichos to do that, but the commentary in the place of rashi seems to explain that it defines the language needed i.e. a language that is clear to be koreis.
1 comment:
on your first point, the bircas avrohom goes to town on this.
the ran explains that we learn from nazir that ידיים have a special requirement of מוכיחות so he asks, where is this learned out, the pasuk is already telling us the din of yad, further what is the question from גיטין there there is no pasuk and he asks more questions. he doesn't answer. he does point out that the rosh here and tosfos in a blatt seem to argue with the ran. they hold that ידיים don't have an EXTRA requirement, bu the gemara thought that since ידיים work perhaps they need LESS then regular lashon and will work without מוכיחות on that the gemara says that it is EQUAL to regual lashon.
he then explains the machlokes amoraim, see there because i have to look it over. point is he was mamash bothered by your question which is an important one!
Post a Comment