הגמרא מביאה ראיה לדין אומדנא מר"ש שזורי שבמסוכן אפילו לא אמר תנו הגט נותנים. ולכאורה תימה מאי שנא מסוכן מיוצא בשיירא והוי לגמרא להביא ראיה אף מת"ק, שמודה ת"ק ביוצא לשיירא שנותנין הגט אע"פ שלא אמר תנו, והטעם בפשטות שסמכינן אאמודנא
ומצאתי לגריש"א שתירץ דביוצא לשיירא הרי הוא חושש שאשתו תהיה עגונא ולכן פשוט לנו שאפילו בלי חידוש אומדנא יתנו הגט, דהיינו שאין כאן אפילו מקום לספק, אך במסוכן הרי הוא לפנינו ואין חשש שאשתו תתעגן אלא שרוצה להצילה מיבום וחליצה, וע"ז צריך אומדנא כיוון שלטובת תיקון נשמתו עדיף לו שתייבם או תחלוץ - דאפילו חליצה הוי תיקון- ולכן הוי רק אומדנא
2 comments:
I think that you are raising a very good question. According to what you are saying really even the tana kama agrees with um'dana, but the issue is when the um'dana is not so obvious do we still follow um'dana, and we compare r' shimon shezuri who follows um'dana even when not so obvious.
When we learned it, i thought that rashi indicated something slightly different. When one goes on a trip and says "write a gett for my wife", we interpret his words to mean "kisvu u'tnu" since that is likely what he wanted just that he didn't finish his sentence due to the "bahala". We do not refer to that as an um'dana because it is rather an interpretation of his words when he said "kisvu". R' Shimon Shezuri adds that even when a person is ill and there isn't a major "bahala" so we cannot interpret that "kisvu" means to write and give, therefore we should be concerned maybe he just want to write a gett and tease her (metzachek bah). The um'dana is that when a person is dying he doesn't play tease games, therefore even though we can't interpret the words "kisvu" to mean "write and give", we follow um'dana to evaluate his intent that he wants it to be given (since the only reason to write and not give would be to tease, which he would not want to do when he is dying).
see rashi on the bottom of 55a very carefully, i think it is very meduyak.
i like what you are saying very much,
(on one point we are still the same, because even according to you the tana kama agrees because its more obvious, this is not a דין of ידות)
Post a Comment