Q&A: Mistaken Oath
Mistaken Oath
Question
Hello Rabbi, if I swore not to say a certain word, but when I took the oath I meant that I was swearing not to say it to one specific person and simply didn’t state that, what is the law?
Answer
Meiri on Kiddushin 49b writes in one of his answers that matters kept in one’s heart are not legally significant only when this affects other people. For the person himself, if it is clear to him what was in his heart, then they are significant. He brings an oath as an example. However, Ritva on Kiddushin 50a wrote that they are not significant even in the case of an oath.
Beyond that, when the intention in one’s heart does not contradict what one said aloud, we do not apply the rule that matters kept in one’s heart are not legally significant.
Beyond that, I assume the context in which you swore indicates your intention anyway (after all, there was some reason why you took the oath). In such a situation, matters kept in one’s heart are significant.
In my opinion, these three points can be combined to permit you to say the word in other contexts. If you want to play it safe, go to a sage who can release you from the oath.
Discussion on Answer
That is exactly the passage in which the medieval and later authorities formulate this very rule itself (that when there is no contradiction, matters kept in one’s heart are significant). You have to examine the different cases there and the distinctions between them.
At first glance, in the case of selling his property with the intention of going up to the Land of Israel, if he did not say so, that implies that he is selling his property in the ordinary way (without qualification). Therefore, when he says that he wants to cancel because he did not go up to the Land of Israel, that is a thought that contradicts his words. But when a person forbids himself from saying a word, and in his mind he means only certain contexts of that word, that is not a direct contradiction; the thought merely interprets the speech.
It may also depend on the fact that a sale is done מול another person, and therefore there, if you did not spell it out, it is as though there is no qualification on the sale. An oath is between a person and himself. I brought this consideration in my words above as a separate point, but logically it is also connected to this distinction.
Thank you very much, Rabbi! And more power to you for all the effort.
Regarding this: “Beyond that, when the intention in one’s heart does not contradict what one said aloud, we do not apply the rule that matters kept in one’s heart are not legally significant.”
But usually there is no direct contradiction between what is in the heart and what is said verbally. What is in the heart usually only qualifies what was said verbally to certain cases. Here, for example, is the source in the Talmud:
In the Talmud, in tractate Kiddushin[1], a case is brought where a man living outside the Land of Israel sold his property because he intended to immigrate to the Land of Israel, but at the time of the sale he did not say so. Later circumstances arose and he was prevented from going up[2], and now he wants to cancel the sale on the claim that since he sold his property in reliance on his move, and that move did not take place, this was a mistaken sale and it should therefore be voided. About this case Rava said that it is “matters kept in one’s heart,” and matters kept in one’s heart are not legally significant — his intention at the time of the sale has no halakhic significance because “matters kept in one’s heart are not legally significant,” and he cannot demand that the sale be canceled.
How is that different from this case with respect to the contradiction between the heart and the mouth?