Loath To Make An Oath

Rav Gidal quoted Rav that if someone says, “I will arise early and learn this chapter or tractate, this is a great neder to Hashem.” The Ran is bothered by the Talmud’s usage of the term neder. The Gemara had already explained that there is a major difference between nedarim and shevuos, commonly translated as vows and oaths. A person can create a new prohibition on himself, forbidding the use of any object in the world, whether or not he owns it. If he intentionally uses the object after he already uttered the neder, he violates a biblical prohibition and is subject to lashes.

However, a person cannot make a neder on an action—for example, that he won’t sleep. There is no object upon which the neder can take hold. A shevuah though, can take effect on an action. A person can make an oath that he will or will not perform a certain action. So a person can make a shevuah (as opposed to a neder) that he will not sleep. If he performs that action after he forbade it with an oath, he likewise violates a Torah prohibition.

In Rav Gidal’s scenario, a person committed to learning a tractate or chapter. Learning is an action and can be regulated by shevuos and not nedarim. Why, then, did the Gemara refer to the commitment to learn as a neder? The Ran concludes that the term neder can sometimes be used interchangeably with shevuah. Although nedarim and shevuos are different (albeit related) concepts, sometimes the Gemara refers to a shevuah as a neder. The Ran explains that in Rav Gidal’s scenario, the person clearly enunciated that he was making a shevuah. Tosfos likewise conclude that the person clearly specified that he was making a shevuah.

The Maharam Padua infers from their commentaries that if the person had said he is making a “neder” that he would learn a tractate, it would have been ineffective. The Maharam Padua therefore says that in the query posed to him, likewise, the vow should have been ineffective. The person made a neder to do an action. Even though going to Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah, learning Torah is also a mitzvah. Yet, when a person uses the term “neder” to commit to learning Torah, it is an ineffective vow. So, too, when the person used the term “neder” to commit to immigrating to Eretz Yisrael, it is an ineffective vow.

Even so, the Maharam Padua notes that the Rosh disagrees with the Ran and Tosfos and holds that even a neder-vow to do an action is effective, if the action in question is a mitzvah. In fact, the Maharam Padua writes that he is frightened to rule in accordance with Tosfos and the Ran because he is afraid “the Rosh will crush my skull.” This is obviously figurative, as the Rosh passed away approximately 200 years before the responsum was written!

The Beis Yosef writes that it is possible that even the Ran agrees that one is obligated to fulfill a mitzvah vow made using the term “neder.” The obligation would not rise to the severity of a vow, but would nevertheless still be a mitzvah.

The Shulchan Aruch writes: “One who says, ‘I will learn this perek,’ it is as if he vowed to give charity.” The Shulchan Aruch holds that a charity vow is considered a vow without using any special terminology. So, too, a simple expression that one will learn a part of Torah is enough to obligate him to study that portion.

The Rema adds that the same applies to any mitzvah. They are disagreeing with the Ran (at least as understood by the Beis Yosef) and ruling that a simple statement that one will observe a mitzvah action obligates one to perform that action with the full seriousness and severity of a neder. This is the reason for the pervasive expression of “b’li neder.” Since any commitment to do a mitzvah might rise to the level of a vow, we are quick to add “b’li neder” to preclude that possibility.