Q&A: Jewish Law’s Attitude Toward Legal Acts Done with a “Wink”
Jewish Law’s Attitude Toward Legal Acts Done with a “Wink”
Question
In the passage in Ketubot 70, “for up to thirty days he may appoint a provider,” the Talmud discusses cases of “whoever does X will not lose” and whether or not this counts as giving / agency and the like. Modern law does not take such considerations very seriously (if you said, “whoever puts it out will not lose,” you have done nothing. You can say it until tomorrow. Everyone is responsible for his own actions. Likewise regarding money with a shopkeeper—if you gave him a gift, it does not matter for what purpose you gave it, and it does not matter whether someone is or is not a regular customer of his. Either you gave directly to the person, or you did not). Jewish law, by contrast, does take into account a rule that is the complete opposite: “do not place a stumbling block” before the blind. The Talmud in that passage dives into the gray area between modern law and “do not place a stumbling block”—that is, different formulations of giving / speaking / partial agency, with hints about the intention of the one giving / speaking / sending.
Has the Rabbi written in the past (or does he know of relevant sources) that analyze the broader attitude of the Sages to cases like these?
Answer
I did not understand the question. There are no acts here done with a wink, but rather statements whose meaning is embedded in them, though clear to the listener. I do not think general law ignores them, if it is indeed clear that this was the intention. It is like implied handles and substitute formulations in vows.