💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Vows%… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:17:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
5 ‎[1] When Reuven tells Shimon: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering" or "You are forbidden to benefit from me," it is forbidden for Shimon to benefit from Reuven. If he transgresses and benefits from him, he is not liable for lashes, because Shimon did not say anything. Reuven is permitted to derive benefit from Shimon, because he did not forbid this to himself. ‎[2] If he tells Shimon: "You [are forbidden] to me like a dedication offering" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you," Reuven is forbidden to benefit from Shimon. If he derives benefit, he is liable for lashes, because he desecrated his word. Shimon is permitted to benefit from Reuven.
If he tells him: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering and you are [forbidden] to me" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you and you are forbidden to benefit from me," they are both forbidden to benefit from each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. ‎[3] If Reuven tells Shimon: "So-and-so's produce is forbidden to you" or "You are forbidden to benefit from so-and-so," his words are of no consequence. For a person cannot cause his colleague to be prohibited with regard to a matter that is not his unless [that person] responds *Amen*, as we explained. ‎[4] When a person tells a colleague: "This loaf [of bread] of mine is forbidden to you," it [remains] forbidden to him even if he gives it to him as a present. If he dies, and [the other person] inherits it or [it is acquired by a third party] who gives it to him as a present, he is permitted. For [the one taking the vow said] "My loaf," and now it is not his. ‎[5] If he tells him: "This produce is forbidden to you," but does not say: "My produce," even if he sold it or died and it became the property of another person, it [remains] forbidden to him. For when a person causes his property to be forbidden to a colleague, it remains forbidden unless he says: "my property," "my house," "my produce," or uses another similar term. For in those instances, he only forbade [using] the articles while they were in his possession. ‎[6] When a person tells his son: "You are forbidden to benefit from me" or he takes and oath that his son is forbidden to benefit from him, when he dies, the son may inherit his property. For this is as if he says: "My property is forbidden to you." If he forbade [the son] from benefiting from him and specified: "During my lifetime and after my death," if he dies, [the son] should not inherit his [estate]. For this is as if he said: "This property is forbidden to you." ‎[7] When a person forbids his son from benefiting from him and says: "If this son's son will be a Torah scholar, this son will acquire this property to transfer it to his son," this is permissible. The son is forbidden [to benefit] from his father's estate and the grandson is permitted to derive such benefit if he is a Torah scholar as was stipulated. ‎[8] If this son who is forbidden to benefit from his father's estate gives [the property] he inherits from his father to his brother or his sons, they are permitted to benefit from them. This also applies if he paid a debt with them or paid [the money due] his wife [by virtue of] her *ketubah*. He must tell [the recipients] that [the payment they receive] is from the estate of his father which was forbidden to him. [The rationale for this leniency is that] when a person takes an oath that a colleague will not benefit from his property, he may pay that colleague's debt, as will be explained. ‎[9] When a person was forbidden - either through a vow or an oath - to partake of a type of food, he is permitted to partake of other types of food that were cooked or mixed together with [the forbidden] food, even though it has [acquired] the flavor of the forbidden food. If he was forbidden to partake of specific produce and that produce became mixed with others, if they have the flavor of the forbidden food, [the other food] is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. ‎[10] What is implied? A person who is forbidden to partake of meat or wine may partake of soup or vegetables that were cooked with meat or wine. [This applies] even if they have the flavor of meat or wine. He is forbidden only to eat meat alone or drink wine alone. ‎[11] If, however, he forbade himself [to partake of] "this meat" or "this wine," if the vegetables have the flavor of meat or wine, they are forbidden. If not, they are permitted. For this meat or this wine become considered like the meat of *nevelot*, teeming animals, or the like. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Therefore if one says: "This meat is forbidden for me," he is forbidden to partake of it, its sauce, and the spices [cooked] with it. ‎[12] If the wine which he forbade himself became mixed with other wine, even one drop in an entire barrel, the entire quantity becomes forbidden. [The rationale is that] since he has the possibility to ask for the release of his vow, [the forbidden substance] is considered as an entity that can be permitted and hence, never becomes nullified in [a majority of permitted] substances of its own kind, as explained in *Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot*. ‎[13] When a person says: "This produce is like a sacrifice for me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for them or produce that grows from them. Needless to say, this applies to juices produced by them. ‎[14] [The following rules apply] if a person took a vow or an oath not to eat [produce] or not to taste it. If it is an entity whose seed decomposes when it is sown like wheat or barley, he is permitted [to partake of] the articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose in the earth when it is sown, like onions or garlic, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from it is forbidden. In all situations, there is a doubt [whether he is forbidden to drink] the juices they produce. Therefore, if he drinks them, he is not liable for lashes. ‎[15] Similarly, if a person tells his wife: "The work produced by your hands is like a sacrifice to me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for [her earnings] or produce that grows from her work. If he says that he will not to eat [from the work of her hands], nor taste it, if the produce [that grew from] the work of her hands is an entity whose seed decomposes, he is permitted [to partake of] articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.
Why do we not consider the original produce that is forbidden insignificant because of the [new] growth that is larger than it? Because the original produce is an entity whose prohibition can be released, which is not nullified [when mixed] with a majority [of permitted substances], as explained. ‎[16] When a person forbids his produce to a colleague, whether by vow or by an oath, there is an unresolved question if the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it [are permitted to the colleague]. Therefore the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it are forbidden to his colleague. If he transgresses and benefits, he has benefited.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC