Q&A: The Parameters of a Practice Repeated Three Times Becoming a Vow
The Parameters of a Practice Repeated Three Times Becoming a Vow
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask the Rabbi’s opinion about an issue that has been bothering me, and I haven’t really found orderly answers to it in the relevant sources. Regarding the Jewish law that a practice observed 3 times becomes a vow: a. What exactly counts as a practice for the purposes of this law? Does it depend on a particular intention, and does it have to be a physical act, or do speech / a certain intention in prayer and many other examples of repeated actions also count as a practice and require annulment? b. In some of the sources, the binding practice is defined as a “good practice” — in the Rabbi’s opinion, what could be a sufficiently good definition of that category? c. Assuming it is possible to define the answer to question b well, if a person adopted a positive practice and later it became an unwanted burden for him, would it be correct to say that it is not a binding practice because it makes things difficult, burdens him, and interferes with him (perhaps similar to an ordinary vow that is sometimes voided retroactively in comparable cases, of “I did not have this in mind” and the like), or is such a practice binding because it was originally adopted as something positive?
Thank you very much in advance, Sabbath peace and a happy holiday!
Answer
This is a very unclear topic. By reasoning alone, it seems that if he did not intend to accept it upon himself as a good practice, then there is no vow here. If he clearly intends (positively) that it should not be a vow, then in my opinion there is no vow even if he did not say so explicitly. Moreover, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Minchat Shlomo (Part I, sec. 91) wrote that the declaration made on the eve of Rosh HaShanah, that whatever one does is without a vow, certainly helps regarding good practices that one repeats three times, so that they do not become fixed as a vow.
If it later becomes a burden for him, a sage can cancel it through annulment. It is not canceled on its own, just as with a vow, the mere fact that it has become a burden does not cancel it without annulment by a sage.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t have a general definition.
Thank you very much. Does the Rabbi have an answer to section b of the question? That is, in the Rabbi’s opinion, is there a way to define a practice as “good”?