Vows To Fulfill a Mitzvah, Names in a Get
Yoreh De’ah 203, Vows To Fulfill a Mitzvah, Even HaEzer 129, Names in a Get
Nedarim 8a raises the question of an oath to observe a pre-existing mitzvah, recorded by AH in Yoreh De’ah 203; 13. Although a Jew cannot add an oath to an oath (this is true of prohibitions in general, a completely similar prohibition cannot be added to a pre-existing one), and all Jews are mushba ve-omed me-har Sinai, were already sworn at Sinai to fulfill the Torah, David HaMelech tells us he swore to observe God’s laws, and will fulfill the oath, Tehillim 119;106.
[I pause over mushba ve-omed, the idea each of us comes into this world committed to a set of rules and requirements. We have our childhoods to grow into them, but as Jews, we are supposed to know we are born with significant guidance/restrictions as to who we can turn out to be. Jewish history, and the current Orthodox world, show there is yet much freedom for personal development and input, but I worry the point is often lost or overlooked. We are mushba ve-omed me-har Sinai, bound by oath from Sinai.]
Rosh thinks the Gemara means to tell us such an oath is acceptable, we need not worry problems will arise in its fulfillment, although he also holds it is not valid, that the Gemara considered it a good way to spur oneself to greater alacrity. Halachically, this person has no more of an oath than before s/he took it, in Rosh’s view. Ran added another piece, the Gemara expects even those who avoid oath-taking to opt for this form of self-encouragement.
Oaths About Torah Study
Se’if fourteen takes up what might seem only a specific instance of the idea, when someone swears to study a particular section of the Torah. The Gemara calls it a neder gadol lElokei Yisrael, a great oath (Ran points out it’s really a shevu’ah, a vow, and says the Gemara frequently interchanges the two) to the God of Israel. Rosh indeed dismissed this as the same point, this is like a vow to give charity, despite the existing obligation.
AH thought Rosh could have thought the vow had no real affect, since Jews are required to learn all of Torah [a claim he discusses/debates in the next se’if, so his comment should surprise us; R. Moshe Feinstein said much the same, male Jews are really obligated to learn all of Torah, and AH himself tried to codify all halachah]. The value of such a neder lies in directing oneself more specifically.
Still, the Jew is mushba ve-omed, asked and answered. What is new here?
This Torah, Not That
The Gemara’s reply deepens our understanding of the obligation of Torah study. We could exempt ourselves by reciting Shema morning and evening (as another Talmudic passage says), so this oath takes full effect, this Jew now has an oath-obligation to study that section of Torah. AH says earlier authorities noted the commitment at Sinai did not specify what to learn, making this oath legally enforceable.
He also agreed with earlier writers who rejected the Gemara’s literal phrasing, since the recitation of Shema doesn’t obviously constitute Torah study. They say the Gemara intended to say the Jew could get away with some symbolic minimal piece of learning (such as the passages we say before birchot haShachar, the morning blessings that kick off communal prayer), with the same result, the vow to learn x creates a real vow.
AH is not satisfied, because there still is a pre-existing mitzvah to learn all of Torah, even if we are not told what to study when. He prefers an answer Ran gave in his commentary to Nedarim, the idea Jews must know all of Torah is inferred in Kiddushin 30a. The Torah writes ve-shinantam levanecha, and the Gemara took it to indicate we are to be fluent in all of Torah.
Oaths can take effect on what is inferred from Torah, said Ran, just not what is explicit.
Bringing Friends Along to Torah Study
Another kind of vow to study Torah can happen when one Jew says to another, let’s wake up early to learn together. The person who suggested the idea must be there first, said Nimmukei Yosef, even if he’s the teacher (and would ordinarily have the right to the respect of the students being sure to precede him), even if the whole point was for the student to learn to rise earlier.
Nor need the other agree, Rambam says, the person who said to wake early must do so, even if s/he did not use the language of a vow or oath, because any time one commits to a mitzvah, it becomes a sort of neder, a sort of vow. The laws of vows only come into play for devar ha-reshut, what the Torah left completely up to us.
To close, AH quotes SA, if a Jew has already committed to learning some piece of Torah and fears the commitment will not suffice to push him/her to do it, s/he may take a vow. AH says the same is true for other mitzvot, if we do not trust our observance as is, we can and should take oaths to enhance the seriousness of the issue in our own minds.
To close the siman, AH reminds us how personal an oath is, that a Jew cannot appoint a messenger to take an oath (just like someone else cannot shake a lulav for us). We take oaths, need to do so with great care, some of what AH taught us in Yoreh De’ah 203.
Starting Even HaEzer 129
This siman is huge, one hundred and thirty-two paragraphs, I think an indication that it dealt with topics relevant throughout halachic history. [R. Moshe Lichtenstein once astutely pointed out that lived halachah generates more literature than theoretical, because—in my memory of what he said—as we live it, we see its weak spots, where it needs more insight and/or explanation, and it builds on itself.]
We do not have the space---and I, sadly, do not have the patience—to see it all. I will try to capture highlights, a tiny bit now and more to come. First step: the Torah requires a get, a bill of divorce, to name the man and woman. Should a man give a woman a document, in front of witnesses, and the document says “I divorce you, you are now free to marry other men,” it has no impact, because there are no names in the get. (They’re still fully married, he still has to provide her the usual financial support, and if she, God forbid, marries someone else, sincerely thinking she’s divorced, the children are mamzerim, will not be able to marry regular Jews).
This stems from the Torah calling the get a sefer keritut, a book of sundering, and such a book must articulate what happened between them, for which they must be named. Rambam included this in the ten essential parts of a get, a bill of divorce.
Although we do follow the view of R. Eliezer, edei mesirah kartei, the important witnesses are those who see a document handed from one party to the other, se’if two says everyone agrees the document itself must have their names, to be valid.
Father’s Names
More significant debate arose regarding either spouse’s father’s name. Rosh validated a get lacking one or both of the father’s names, as Tur and SA recorded. For one practical application, should a convert or someone who does not know the identity of their father get divorced, we just write the individual’s name in the get, no father.
Just a first name doesn’t give a lot of identification (a main reason for names), and people sometimes were known by different names in different places. Knesset HaGedolah reported Radvaz’ view, the scribe would write the name where the person lives. Others, including Noda Bi-Yehuda, thought we today always write the name used where the get was given to the woman, also making her father’s name more important to include.
Getting the Name Wrong
The importance of the name means, AH says in se’if seven, any change ruins the get, even if the scribe wrote “and any other name he or she has.” AH’s examples are of changes we might think inconsequential, such as Avram to Avraham or the reverse. Including a wrong name negates the get. This is true also of fathers’ names, even for those authorities who accepted gittin without the father’s name. Sometimes nothing is better than something; the wrong name is worse, because it gives wrong information.
Unless this person is commonly known by the wrong name, a circumstance AH tells us he will discuss in se’if 88. As will we, somewhere down this long road. Time for a break, to be picked up, God willing, next week.
