We continue with Maseches Maaser Sheni, chapter 4, mishnah 7. This mishnah deals with the question of the status of someone who redeems maaser sheni without stating explicitly what he is doing.
"Hapodeh maaser sheni velo kara shem":
A person set aside money for the redemption of maaser sheni, but did not say the words "this is the redemption of maaser sheni." The Tannaim disagree about his case:
Rabbi Yose says: "Dayo" - that is enough, since from the context and from the setting it is clear that the money was set aside for the purpose of redemption.
Rabbi Yehudah says: "Tzarich lefaresh" - he must state the matter explicitly with his mouth.
"Hamedaber im ha'ishah al iskei gitah vekidusheha":
The mishnah moves on to a case entirely different from maaser sheni, but which touches on the very same principle: a man is speaking with a woman about her get - her bill of divorce - or about her kiddushin, in order to make her his wife. They are discussing the giving of the get, and the get is in his possession; or they are discussing marriage, and the ring or the money is in his possession.
"Venasan lah gitah vekidusheha velo peiresh" - he gives her the get, or the money for kiddushin, but does not explicitly say "this is your get" or "you are betrothed to me." And here the Tannaim disagree in exactly the same way:
Rabbi Yose says: "Dayo" - that is enough, and this is a valid get and valid kiddushin.
Rabbi Yehudah says: "Tzarich lefaresh" - he must state the matter explicitly with his mouth.
The practical halachah:
We rule like Rabbi Yose, that the context is sufficient.
Here is a brief account of an incident that took place. At a wedding, one of the witnesses to the kiddushin could not hear the chasan say "Harei at mekudeshes li." It was evident that he was saying the words, but his voice was so faint that it was impossible to hear him. The two witnesses told him that he had to repeat the words. He repeated them, and the second witness heard them - but the first heard only part of them. They were about to ask him to repeat them a third time, but the chasan and kallah looked as though they were about to burst out laughing, so they refrained.
The mesader kiddushin turned to Rabbi Tzvi Berkovits, who was present at the wedding, to clarify whether it was valid. Rabbi Berkovits directed them to a Taz - apparently in siman 27 of Even HaEzer - which says that on the basis of this mishnah one may rely on the fact that it is clear from the context that the chasan's intent in his action was to betroth his wife. There was no doubt whatsoever about what had taken place there, and the mere fact that he could not be heard pronouncing the words themselves is no deficiency.
In summary: in this mishnah Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yehudah disagree in two parallel cases - redeeming maaser sheni without designating it by name, and giving a get or kiddushin without stating it explicitly. In Rabbi Yose's view it is enough that the context reveals the intent, and in Rabbi Yehudah's view one must state it explicitly. The halachah follows Rabbi Yose, and as we have seen this has a very real practical application in the laws of kiddushin.