Vows

asked 5 years ago

Peace and blessings!
The Mishlam (1 Kings 10:7) is satisfied with whether the oath was valid even before the giving of the Torah and is inclined to say that it was. What is the reason that it was not? So why did God, blessed be He, swear to us when it did not yet have any significance in terms of the laws of the Torah?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

The laws of oaths were renewed with the giving of the Torah as part of the halakha. Therefore, he is satisfied with whether it had validity before. What he answers is that it is the very fact that we mentioned shavuot before. And the Avan’Z Yo’d Si’ Sho (who cites this passage) explained that this is not meant in the regular shavuot laws from the Torah, but rather that there are oath laws that are based on the Sabra (that a person must keep his shavuots), so how can we base our commitment to the Torah on an oath when an oath is part of the laws of the Torah itself?! I have extended this in several places regarding a written oath (which is the subject of the Avanz there) and a small oath. See, for example, in my article on interpretations. God is not a witness to anything. He is not obligated to give the Torah and his oaths are not within the framework of Halacha.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

יאיר replied 5 years ago

Is there a place to see a vow as something that requires explanation and therefore also has validity before the giving of the Torah?
[Although the Avanetz claims that the explanation of an oath is because there is a commitment to another, which does not belong in vows) but was it given to a seller who finds your lips will guard, and the need to be truthful (which also belongs in a vow) indeed sufficient to bind even before the giving of the Torah or not?
According to this, I thought to explain the methods of some of the early ones who claim that there is a difference between a vow with a precept, where there is a chalot, and a vow without a precept, which is only a commitment (the famous and comprehensive answer of the Chief Rabbi in the laws of evasion). After all, where do there appear to be two paths in the Torah itself? In the Torah itself, there is apparently one path, and then what is your mind? If you work without a precept, then there is a chalot, and if the Torah intended without a precept, then there is a chalot in this too?
But it is worth noting that the Torah did indeed conspire to be grasped and there it renewed that there were also chalots, but it did not abolish the status that existed among the Noahide people, which was an obligation (and there is no need to grasp because they do not attract holiness), and therefore it also works.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

Definitely possible.