The Gem brings a proof that a person's "Yes" should be "yes" and his "No" should be "No".
1. Since this proof is from the word "Hin" it should only be a proof that "yes" means "yes". There is no proof for "nO' means "no".
2. Even if you want to say that this is a proof that a person should keep his word and that includes "No means No" as well; would that mean that when my children would ask me for something and I said "no"; (which they understood to mean that they should keep on nudging till the "no" became a "yes"). If at the end I did say "yes" would this deserve the curse of "mi Shepara"?
alex lebovits, Toronto, canada
Alex - Shalom Aleichem!
(1)
(a) What I think you have to say is that one learns from this Gemara that if you cannot believe a person's "yes" then you cannot believe his "no" either! What I mean to say is that a person cannot be positive all the time or negative all the time but rather he has to be balanced. So if you can believe a person when he says yes this means he is serious about his promises and this in turn means that you can also take him seriously when he tells you not to do something.
(b) After I wrote the above I found that your question is asked by the Tosfos Yom Tov at the very end of Maseches Shevi'is. He answers that even though only "yes" is written in the verse nevertheless "Michlal Hein Atah Shome'a Lav" - from the fact that the verse states "yes" this automatically means that one can also infer "no". (The principle occurs frequently - see for instance Rashi Kidushin 61a in Mishnah DH Kol.)
[I think that your answer in 2. and my answer are not actually so far away from Tosfos Yom Tov's answer, if you think about it carefully].
(2)
(a) A very important idea in Chinuch is to teach children to be honest and to take the value of a word very seriously. This can be learnt from the Gemara in Sukah 46b which states that a person should not tell a child that he is going to give him a present and then not fulfill his promise because this sort of behavior on behalf of an adult will teach the child also to lie, as Yirmiyahu 9:4 states "They taught their tongues to speak falsely". We see from here that the aim of Chinuch should be to accustom children to hear truthful speaking and this way they will learn themselves to be truthful always when they grow up. The Maharitz Chiyus on this Gemara in Sukah points out that this is the source for what the Rambam Hilchos Shevuos 12:8 writes that one should be extremely careful with young children to teach them to speak truthfully without taking oaths.
Therefore I would suggest that if one sees that at the end of the day one is going to be forced anyway to give way to the child, then one should not say "no" clearly at the beginning because this way the child will have less respect for the integrity of the adult's words. Rather, a good tactic might be to promise the child that if he is good and does such and such a good deed, then he will receive what he is hoping for. Then, when one later gives him what he wants, he will appreciate that it is as a reward for his good behavior.
(b) However one would not receive a Mi She'Para for relating to the child in this way. This is because Mi She'Para represents a much more serious stage than someone who merely does not live up to his words. In contrast Mi She'Para is given to someone who did a Kinyan of money (see Mishnah above 44a) and then retracted on the transaction. One cannot force him to buy the articles because he did not yet do the Kinyan of Meshichah but nevertheless the fact that he did a Kinyan of money makes his commitment very serious and if he retracts he receives a curse.
In contrast retracting on one's words when there was no Kinyan involved is termed "Mechusrei Amanah" - such a person is lacking trust and belief, but it is not quite as bad as if he performed a Kinyan, so one does not receive a Mi She'Para. Therefore one would not receive a Mi She'Para for not standing by one's word with the children, but nevertheless it is not good education.
KOL TUV,
Dovid Bloom
Dear Rabbi Bloom,
Rabbi Bloom thank you for clearing up the difference between "Mi Shepara" and a Mechusrei Emunah.
And the TY'T at the end of Sheviis was pleasant to see.
I always enjoy hearing answers from you.
Regarding the previous 2 kashyes that you answered around Purim time: 1) GAmal Ve'Rochbo, 2)and whether one is allowed to dig in Reshus Harabim.
Although the 2 questions don't seem to have any bearing upon each other;
I recently bought 3 new seforim called RAza Dshabsi on B"K, B"M, and B"B.
In B"B 27B he actually brings a question if it would be OK to dig in Reshus Harabim to make the ground lower rather than cutting the branches to make the tree higher! (This would entail no loss to the owner of the tree and seemingly no loss to the Reshus HArabim!)
He brings the Chikrei Lev who was asked, that since this is not an option given in the mishna, perhaps from this there is a proof that one is NOT allowed to dig in reshus harabim.
The Chikrei Lev that I looked at was quite old and unclear and I was not meayen enough to fully understand what He says there. If you will read it and if you have the time I wouldn't mind if you could explain it.
Thank you and Kol Tuv
Alex
Alex! - the feeling is mutual! I always enjoy receiving your questions!
(1) I looked up Chikrei Lev Choshen Mishpat end of part 3 (in the edition I used) #88 DH Teshuvah who cites his questioner as writing that he is inclined to think that the tree must be trimmed so that the camel and rider can pass through without having to dig in the reshus harabim. The questioner's proof for this is that the Shulchan Aruch does not mention the possibility of digging down, so this appears to indicate that one may not. However Chikrei Lev himself writes that he does not see that this is a convincing argument.
(2) Later on in the same responsa, in DH Shuv, Chikrei Lev reiterates his position and writes that we have never seen that an individual is forbidden to use and derive benefit from the public domain if this does not involve damage to the public. Chikrei Lev proves this from the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer (27b) who permits the making of a hollow beneath reshus harabim. Even the Rabanan only disagreed with him because they are concerned that sometimes this hollow might collapse. We learn therefore from this dispute that everyone agrees that the public cannot object to anything an individual does in reshus harabim, as long as it does not cause damage to them.
(3) Chikrei Lev adds that even if one makes a pit in reshus harabim the Torah does not make the digger liable if it less than 10 tefachim deep as the Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote in Choshen Mishpat #410. Chikrei Lev concludes therefore that the public could not protest if someone lowered the level of the public street to enable the horse and rider to get through, as long as this does not cause actual damage to the community.
(4) So in the end we proved from the horse and rider that you may dig in reshus harabim as long as no tangible harm is caused! (However I would point out that one could still argue that Chikrei Lev's scenario is slightly lighter because one is not actually digging an ugly - albeit safe - pit, but merely lowering the level of the street and possibly ensuring that the end result is a respectable looking pathway).
A Good Chodesh!
Dovid Bloom