💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Vows%… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:40:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2 ‎[1] [The same laws apply] whether one took the vow on his own [volition] or another person states a vow for him and he answers *Amen* or says something which like *Amen* implies that he accepts the matter. ‎[2] A person who takes an oath is not forbidden [to partake of] the entity which he forbade to himself until he makes a verbal statement to that effect and his statements must match his intent, as we explained with regard to oaths.
If, by contrast, one intended to take a nazirite vow and instead, vowed to bring a sacrifice, [intended to vow to bring] a sacrifice and instead, took a nazirite [vow], [intended to take] an oath and instead, [took] a vow, [intended to take] a vow and instead, [took] an oath, intended to say "figs" and instead, said "grapes," both are permitted to him. There is no vow. ‎[3] When a person takes a vow dependent on the intent of others, it is like he took an oath dependent on the intent of others. Similarly, if one takes a vow and retracts immediately thereafter or someone rebuked him immediately thereafter and he accepted their statement, he is permitted [to use the article mentioned]. The laws applying to all these matters with regard to vows are the same as those applying to oaths. ‎[4] [The following laws apply when] a person issued a stipulation before he made a vow, saying: "I am retracting from any vow that I will take from now until ten years in the future," "They are nullified," or other similar statements, and then took a vow: If he remembered the stipulation at the time he made the vow, the vow is effective, for by taking the vow, he nullified the stipulation. If, however, he did not remember the stipulation until after he made the vow, the vow is nullified even if [immediately after taking the vow], he brought the stipulation to mind and maintained it. Although he did not verbalize his retraction at the time [he made the vow], the retraction preceded the vow and he verbalized it beforehand. There is an authority who rules stringently and says that he must remember the stipulation immediately thereafter taking the vow. ‎[5] [The following rules apply when] one made a stipulation [similar to that mentioned above] for a year or for ten years and afterwards took a vow, remembering at the time that he took the vow that he had made a stipulation, but forgetting the subject of that stipulation or what it involved. If [when taking the vow], he said: "I am acting according to my original intention," his vow is not effective, for he has nullified it. If he does not make such a statement, he has nullified the stipulation and upheld the vow, for, at the time he took the vow, he remembered that there was a stipulation and, nevertheless, took the vow. ‎[6] There are some of the *Geonim* who maintain that all of these statements are applicable only with regard to vows and not to oaths, but there is an authority who maintains that the laws pertaining to vows and oaths are the same in this regard. Thus one may issue a stipulation nullifying an oath [beforehand] in the same manner as was stated with regard to vows. ‎[7] [When a person takes] a vow whose object is not clear, we rule stringently. If he interprets them, there is room for both leniency and stringency.
What does this imply? If one says: "Let this produce be considered as salted meat and as wine poured as a libation for me," we ask him what his intent was. If he explained himself, saying "My intent was that salted meat refers to sacrificial meat and wine poured as a libation refers to libations poured on the Temple altar," he is forbidden [to partake of the produce]. If, however, he says: "My intent was a sacrifice offered to a false deity and wine poured as a libation to it," he is permitted. If he took the vow without a specific intent, he is forbidden. ‎[8] Similar principles apply when one says: "This produce is considered as *cherem* (a dedication offering) for me." If [his intent was] a dedication offering for the upkeep of the Temple, he is forbidden [to partake of the produce]. If [his intent] was a dedication offering for the priests, he is permitted, because [these offerings] become [the priests'] personal possessions and are not forbidden [to others]. If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden. ‎[9] [If he states:] "May they be considered like the tithes for me," [we investigate his intent. If his intent was] the tithe taken from animals, [it becomes] forbidden, because these are sacrifices that he consecrates through his actions, as we explained. [If his intent was] the tithe taken from grain, it is permitted. If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden. ‎[10] [If he states:] "May they be considered like *terumah* for me," [we investigate his intent. If his intent was] the money donated for the sacrificial offerings, it is forbidden. If his intent was *terumah* [separated from] the grain heap, it is permitted. If [he took the vow] without a specific intent, he is forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. ‎[11] When does the above apply? In a place where the terms used have these two possible meanings. In a place where the term *cherem* without any further definition is used only to refer to the dedication offerings for the upkeep of the Temple, if he says: "[This produce is considered] as *cherem* for me," he is forbidden [to partake of the produce]. Similarly, if their custom was to use the term *cherem* without any further definition to refer only to dedication offerings given the priests, he is permitted. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations, for with regard to vows, we follow the connotations understood by the people in that place in that era. ‎[12] [The ensuing rules apply] in all situations analogous to those exemplified: i.e., situations when a person takes a vow which appears to everyone to involve a prohibition, but he says: "My intent was for this and this specific instance," for example, he takes a vow based on a *cherem*, but [afterwards] said: "My intent was a sea *cherem,* i.e., a fishing net," he took a vow based on an offering, but said: "My intent was an offering brought to the king," He told a colleague: "Myself is like a sacrifice for you," and then explained: "My intent was only to forbid him from [benefiting from] a bone that I set aside so that I could take a vow as a lark," he took a vow that his wife could not benefit from him and then explained that his intent was his first wife whom he had divorced.
[In all the above situations,] if the person who took the vow was a Torah scholar, he is permitted and he need not ask a sage [for the vow to be released]. If the one who took the vow is a common person, we make it appear to him that it is a vow, yet we give him an opportunity to ask for its release from another vantage point and then release the vow. Whether he is a Torah scholar or a common person, we rebuke him and teach him not to conduct himself in this manner with regard to vows and not to take vows as a lark or a caper. ‎[13] Similarly, when a person tells his wife: "You are considered as my mother to me," or he says: "Let this produce be considered as pig meat for me," the vow is not effective, as we explained. If the person who took the vow was a Torah scholar, he is permitted and he need not ask a sage [for the vow to be released]. If the one who took the vow is a common person, he must ask a sage [for the vow to be released]. We make it appear to him that his wife is forbidden to him and that the produce is forbidden, but we give him an opportunity to ask for its release from another vantage point and then release the vow in order that people not act frivolously with regard to vows. ‎[14] Although declaring property ownerless is not a vow, it resembles a vow, for the person is forbidden to retract.
What is meant by declaring property ownerless? A person says: "This property is free for everyone" to acquire. It applies to both movable property and landed property.
What is the law [applying to property] declared ownerless? Whoever comes first and acquires it, becomes the owner. He acquires it as his own and it becomes his. Even the person who declared the property ownerless has the same rights as others with regard to it. If he comes first and acquires it, it becomes his. ‎[15] When a person declares his property ownerless [so that it can be acquired by] the poor, but not by the rich, it is not ownerless. He must declare it ownerless for everyone like the produce of the Sabbatical year.
When a person declares his servants ownerless, those past majority acquire themselves. With regard to those below majority, whoever comes first and takes hold of them acquires them as is the law with regard to other movable property. ‎[16] When a person declares landed property ownerless, whoever comes first and manifests his ownership over it acquires it.
According to Scriptural Law, even when a person declares his property ownerless in the presence of one person, it becomes ownerless and one is not required to tithe its produce, as will be explained in its place. According to Rabbinic decree, however, [property] is not ownerless until one declares as such in the presence of three people so that one can acquire it and two can act as witnesses.
Should one say: "This is ownerless and this," there is an unresolved doubt whether the second entity is ownerless. If he said: "...and this is like this" or "...and also this," he has associated the second entity [with the first], and it is definitely ownerless. ‎[17] When a person declares his field ownerless and no one else acquires it, during the first three days, he may retract. After these three days, he may not retract unless he comes first and acquires it. He is like one acquiring ownerless property. [There is no difference] between him and another person. ‎[18] When a person says: "This field is declared ownerless for one day," "...for one week," "...for one month," "...for one year," or "...for one seven-year cycle," he may retract before he or another person acquires it. Once it is acquired, whether by the person himself or by someone else, he may not retract.
Why does he have the right to retract before it was acquired? Because this is an uncommon matter. [Generally,] a person will not declare [property] ownerless for a limited time. ‎[19] When a person comes and watches over ownerless property, looking at it so that another person will not take it, he does not acquire it by looking at it. Instead, he must lift it up if it were movable property or manifest ownership over it if it were landed property, as purchasers acquire property.
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