Q&A: Annulment of vows for legumes
Annulment of vows for legumes
Question
First of all, thank you very much for how quickly you answer 🙂
I saw that the Rabbi basically permits legumes on Passover for Ashkenazim. Does one need an annulment of vows first, or since this was a concern and not an actual decree, is that unnecessary?
I’m asking in light of Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun’s words, which surprised me:
“Legume oil is permitted from the outset, and all products that contain ingredients with legume oil in them (such as margarine, and mixtures labeled ‘kosher only for those who eat legumes’) are permitted from the outset even for Ashkenazim. One who was accustomed to forbid them out of lack of knowledge, and then discovered his mistake, should perform annulment of vows—and eat.”
— I had thought that if someone followed a stringency by mistake because he thought that was the basic law, he does not need annulment of vows..
And in light of what Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun and Rabbi Sherlo say, from which it seems that there is still something to be gained by not eating legumes, then perhaps this is a “good practice.”
(The question is not urgent; in any case, this Passover I intend to keep the custom in all its stringencies.)
With five hundred bows and so on
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3701377,00.html
http://shut.moreshet.co.il/shut2.asp?id=54396
Answer
Greetings.
On the face of it, annulment of vows too is based on an opening—that had he known, he would not have vowed. Therefore, seemingly in this case as well one needs annulment, and the sage will permit it on that basis. There is room to distinguish, but it is preferable to annul it.
And beyond all that, even if there was originally only a concern here (which has lapsed), in practice people did adopt the practice of being concerned about it, so we have not escaped the category of custom. A custom also requires annulment.
Discussion on Answer
That is not precise. Even those who treat this as forbidden do so because it is a custom, so it is not entirely a mistake. People do not think it is forbidden by strict law. True, if they knew that this was only a concern and not a custom, perhaps they would not act this way, but that is parallel to any annulment of vows.
Regarding the first sentence in the answer (“that had he known, he would not have vowed”), it is written in the Shulchan Arukh:
“Those who treat as forbidden things that are actually permitted because they think they are forbidden—it is not considered as though they accepted them upon themselves by vow. And some say that if one erred and treated as forbidden something that is permitted, he asks, and they permit it for him before three, similar to annulment of vows.”
And in Hevel Nachalato I saw that it says:
“It is explained that most halakhic decisors held that any custom that an individual practiced as a stringency or embellishment in commandments, even if there are decisors who ruled that way as law, may be released through asking a sage. But if they practiced it by mistake, thinking that this is the Jewish law, annulment is not required.”
That is, on the face of it, it seems that where there was a mistake in understanding the Jewish law, annulment is not required, contrary to what you wrote above.