Q&A: Vows — What Type of Commandment?
Vows — What Type of Commandment?
Question
It is clear that this commandment is not an obligatory or merely optional one, because otherwise one would be punished for not fulfilling it, and it is also written that it is better not to vow than to vow and not fulfill it. It is also not an obligatory commandment, because it does not apply at all times, but only when you have made a vow.
What remains is the option of a conditional obligation, as you mentioned in column 417.
But then it comes out that if I do not make a vow, I would be punished at a time of divine anger, as with tzitzit, because you are not supposed to relate to the service of God that way.
That does not seem relevant to a vow, and a vow is usually presented as a tool that allows a person to obligate himself in certain matters.
And logically, it does not sound like you have sinned, or even related improperly to the service of God, if you did not make a vow, as one could perhaps have said in the past regarding tzitzit.
It also follows from this that I could keep making random vows all the time that I am sure I will fulfill, and I would receive reward, which sounds absurd.
There is also a definitional positive commandment, which applies only to positive commandment 95 in Maimonides, that we were commanded to judge the laws of vows, but that does not fit positive commandment 94, that we were commanded to keep our vows, since one can also annul the vow rather than fulfill it.
Answer
I assume you mean the positive commandment of “You shall keep and perform what has come out of your lips.” With a prohibition, there is no distinction between obligatory and optional. It is clear that this is a conditional positive commandment: if you vowed, then you are obligated to keep what you vowed.
I did not understand this pilpul about someone who did not vow at a time of anger. Where did you get this nonsense from? What does this have to do with tzitzit? And that is even before taking into account the view of Tosafot (which is very logical) that even regarding tzitzit this is not true except in a case where it is customary to wear a four-cornered garment and the person avoids doing so in order not to put tzitzit on it. By your logic, there is also punishment for someone who does not eat bread at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and maybe even with afternoon tea, because then he is not reciting Grace after Meals?
As for making vows in order to receive reward for fulfilling them—that is certainly a reasonable conclusion, were it not for the fact that the Sages warned against doing so (apparently out of concern that you may not fulfill them: “Better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay”).
By that logic, perhaps it would also be worthwhile to commit many sins in order to earn reward for repentance. One might indeed have said that here too this is like the case of one who says, “I will sin and repent,” except that the Sages warned not to do this as well (out of concern that he may not be given the opportunity to repent).
Discussion on Answer
Reward is not automatic. It depends on the context, the effort, and the value of the act.
That is clear. But supposedly I fulfilled a positive commandment, and therefore I received some reward. It may very well be—and probably is—very small, but still there is supposedly some reward, which sounds absurd.
First of all, if it is absurd, then maybe you really will not receive anything. And it is also possible that you would in fact receive something for the effort invested in fulfilling a commandment.
You cannot make a vow to perform actions. You can take an oath.
I do not understand what prevents me from making a vow along the lines of “I obligate myself to breathe once,” or “to take one step,” etc., and supposedly I would receive reward for fulfilling that vow, which sounds absurd.