Wednesday, October 31, 2007

devarim sheb'lev ainam devarim

A person sold his home planning to make aliya and unfortunately didn’t make it. Can he now demand the sale be rescinded? No, says the gemara (Kid 49b), because “devarim sheb’lev ainam devarim” – what you might have been thinking when you signed the contract carries no weight.

R’ Naftali Trop’s chakira: are “devarim sheb’lev” meaningless because we have no way of knowing what a person is thinking, or “devarim sheb’lev” are meaningless because even if we know what a person is thinking only words or deeds, not thought, carry legal weight?

6 comments:

  1. "devarim sheb’lev ainam devarim"

    This is why beliefs are uninportant, except insofar as what practical, tangible effects they have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I should delete it, but I'm leaving the above comment up as a testimony to the degree of distortion possible by taking ideas out of context.

    If you want to drive yourself crazy the rest of the day you can work on the following klutz kashe: how can we pasken devarim sheb'lev einam devarim but simultaneously hold that mitzvos tzerichos kavanah?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A kavana doesn't have to be phrased using words; interpersonal transactions or prayer do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tal Benschar4:24 PM

    On the original question, doesn't an umdena de mukhakh override the concept of devarim she ba lev einam devarim?

    And if so, does that not prove one side of R. Naftoli Tropp's chakira?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tal Benschar4:26 PM

    XGH said...

    This is why beliefs are uninportant, except insofar as what practical, tangible effects they have.

    Chaim B. said...
    I should delete it, but I'm leaving the above comment up as a testimony to the degree of distortion possible by taking ideas out of context.

    This reminds me of the famous story of R. Chaim and the brick at sheva berachos. Perhaps some really think that a brick on the table can function as "panim chadashos."

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>>doesn't an umdena de mukhakh override the concept of devarim she ba lev einam devarim? And if so, does that not prove one side of R. Naftoli Tropp's chakira?

    I don't follow. An umdena is that 'anan sahadei' even without the person's input. The chakira is where the person's input is required, why are thoughts excluded?

    ReplyDelete