Hilchot Nedarim: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Benefiting His Wife
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) (→One Who Prohibits Himself From Another: Quotation marks) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
# One who wishes to fast on [[Erev Rosh Chodesh]], during [[Shovavim]], or during [[Yamim Noraim]] should verbally stipulate before he begins to that he does not wish to accept this good practice as a Neder but rather to do it when he wishes and not when he doesn't. Each time he does wish to fast, he should accept the fast the day before. If he began without this stipulation and now wants to discontinue his lofty optional practice, for example, because it's too difficult, he must first perform [[Hatarat Nedarim]]. He should not regret all the Mitzvot he did until now, but rather regret accepting the practice as a Neder passively and not preceding it by saying "Bli Neder."<ref>Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Shniah, Re'eh 17)</ref> | # One who wishes to fast on [[Erev Rosh Chodesh]], during [[Shovavim]], or during [[Yamim Noraim]] should verbally stipulate before he begins to that he does not wish to accept this good practice as a Neder but rather to do it when he wishes and not when he doesn't. Each time he does wish to fast, he should accept the fast the day before. If he began without this stipulation and now wants to discontinue his lofty optional practice, for example, because it's too difficult, he must first perform [[Hatarat Nedarim]]. He should not regret all the Mitzvot he did until now, but rather regret accepting the practice as a Neder passively and not preceding it by saying "Bli Neder."<ref>Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Shniah, Re'eh 17)</ref> | ||
# Refraining from performing actions which are permitted because one incorrectly thinks they're prohibited is considered a mistaken Neder and does not require Hatarat Nedarim to permit.<ref>See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 214) at length</ref> Even if one thought it was a grave sin and then discovers it's merely a stringency, it is not considered a Neder<ref>Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Shniah, Re'eh 17)</ref> | # Refraining from performing actions which are permitted because one incorrectly thinks they're prohibited is considered a mistaken Neder and does not require Hatarat Nedarim to permit.<ref>See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 214) at length</ref> Even if one thought it was a grave sin and then discovers it's merely a stringency, it is not considered a Neder<ref>Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Shniah, Re'eh 17)</ref> | ||
# A person who took upon himself to learn daf yomi and wants to stop needs to do hatarat nedarim. But if he wants to switch to learn halacha instead of daf yomi, some hold that he does not need hatarat nedarim.<ref>Yechava Daat 6:52</ref> | |||
===Nidrei Issur=== | ===Nidrei Issur=== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
# Additionally, we follow the understood intention of the one taking the Neder than solely following his words, when he takes a Neder relevant solely to himself.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 218:1. See commentaries at length.</ref> | # Additionally, we follow the understood intention of the one taking the Neder than solely following his words, when he takes a Neder relevant solely to himself.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 218:1. See commentaries at length.</ref> | ||
=== Ikar HaNeder & Hatfasah BaDavar HaNadur === | === Ikar HaNeder & Hatfasah BaDavar HaNadur === | ||
# The essential form of a Neder entails declaring that a permitted object be prohibited and be associated with an object which itself is the product of a previous vow (Davar HaNadur). For example, "This loaf of bread should be prohibited to me like a Korban," because a Korban is an inherently permitted animal that is sanctified via a Neder. <ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 204:1</ref> | # The essential form of a Neder entails declaring that a permitted object be prohibited and be associated with an object which itself is the product of a previous vow (Davar HaNadur). For example, "This loaf of bread should be prohibited to me like a Korban," because a Korban is an inherently permitted animal that is sanctified via a Neder.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 204:1</ref> | ||
# Similarly, if one already prohibited an object upon himself, he can then subsequently prohibit another object by associating it with this one. For example, "This loaf of bread should be prohibited to me like that one (which he already prohibited via a Neder)." <ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 204:1, Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Shniah 8). Language based on ArtScroll commentary to Nedarim 14a</ref> | # Similarly, if one already prohibited an object upon himself, he can then subsequently prohibit another object by associating it with this one. For example, "This loaf of bread should be prohibited to me like that one (which he already prohibited via a Neder)." <ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 204:1, Ben Ish Chai (Shanah Shniah 8). Language based on ArtScroll commentary to Nedarim 14a</ref> | ||
# The associated object need not be a Korban, but, rather, it can be anything that is sanctified with one's speech.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 204:2</ref> | # The associated object need not be a Korban, but, rather, it can be anything that is sanctified with one's speech.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 204:2</ref> | ||
| Line 69: | Line 70: | ||
=== Kinui Nedarim === | === Kinui Nedarim === | ||
# The Torah's mandate enabling one to take upon himself a Neder, Korban, Shevua, or Nezirut is not limited to the perfect pronunciation of the keywords (Neder, Korban, Shevua, and Nazir). Even a mispronunciation would take effect, given it's common to pronounce the word that way by some people in the place one is taking the Neder. For example, "Konam" could legitimately substitute for "Korban" in the time and communities of the Talmud. Gross mispronunciations (Kinuiyei Kinuiyim), however, are not effective. <ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 207:1. See Beit Yosef and Rabbi Akiva Eiger ad loc.</ref> | # The Torah's mandate enabling one to take upon himself a Neder, Korban, Shevua, or Nezirut is not limited to the perfect pronunciation of the keywords (Neder, Korban, Shevua, and Nazir). Even a mispronunciation would take effect, given it's common to pronounce the word that way by some people in the place one is taking the Neder. For example, "Konam" could legitimately substitute for "Korban" in the time and communities of the Talmud. Gross mispronunciations (Kinuiyei Kinuiyim), however, are not effective.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 207:1. See Beit Yosef and Rabbi Akiva Eiger ad loc.</ref> | ||
# The effectiveness of usage of the above keywords also depends on one's own understanding of them. If he doesn't understand what he's saying, his statement is invalid.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 207:1</ref> | # The effectiveness of usage of the above keywords also depends on one's own understanding of them. If he doesn't understand what he's saying, his statement is invalid.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 207:1</ref> | ||
| Line 98: | Line 99: | ||
# Everything that a woman gains possession of becomes her husband's possession, unless certain stipulations are made. One who prohibited himself to his son-in-law may give his daughter money for her own personal use, as long as he stipulates to her that it's a gift that her husband has no control over ''and'' she can do whatever general or specific action she pleases with the money. If he does not say both, even if he stipulates that the husband should have no control, his stipulation is ineffective and he causes his son-in-law to gain possession of the gift and violate the Neder.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 222:1</ref> Ashkenazim are stringent if the stipulation was general and not a specific action for her to do with the money.<ref>Taz Yoreh Deah 222:3, Shach Yoreh Deah 222:3</ref> | # Everything that a woman gains possession of becomes her husband's possession, unless certain stipulations are made. One who prohibited himself to his son-in-law may give his daughter money for her own personal use, as long as he stipulates to her that it's a gift that her husband has no control over ''and'' she can do whatever general or specific action she pleases with the money. If he does not say both, even if he stipulates that the husband should have no control, his stipulation is ineffective and he causes his son-in-law to gain possession of the gift and violate the Neder.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 222:1</ref> Ashkenazim are stringent if the stipulation was general and not a specific action for her to do with the money.<ref>Taz Yoreh Deah 222:3, Shach Yoreh Deah 222:3</ref> | ||
# If the gift is transferred in a permissible way, then the husband may benefit from it.<ref>Taz Yoreh Deah 222:1</ref> | # If the gift is transferred in a permissible way, then the husband may benefit from it.<ref>Taz Yoreh Deah 222:1</ref> | ||
# Giving one's daughter food, not money, does not require any explicit | # Giving one's daughter food, not money, does not require any explicit stipulation.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 221:2, Beit Yosef, Taz, Shach Yoreh Deah 222:1</ref> | ||
== Miscellaneous == | == Miscellaneous == | ||
