[Avodah] Geirut

[Arie Folger]

On Friday, 22. August 2008 12.10:17 Chana Luntz wrote:
> Not necessarily.  I agree in many cases that would indeed be the
> situation, and of course then he could not swear.  In the same way that
> we have to deal with the fact that those who inherit their father's
> property, even as gedolim, also often do not know what happened to the
> property and are not in a position to swear.  But if an apitropos has
> been appointed to a minor since he was a small baby, and has acted on
> his behalf and dealt with the property for - say 10 years, he may well
> be fully in command of all of the facts.  As I understand it, there is a
> blanket prohibition on swearing by the minor or an apitropos on his
> behalf, regardless of whether he is or is not fully informed of the
> facts.  However, once the minor hits majority, the rules change, despite
> the fact that such minor is no more informed of the facts the day after
> his barmitzvah than he was the day before.

1: the apotropos can still not swear regarding issues that came about before 
he became apotropos. Being 10 years in service does not enable you to know 
first hand what happened before the onset of service. Hence, he can only 
swear about hearsay, which isn't what swearing is about.
2: as is evident from the sugya you quoted, there is a great dislike of 
swearing, and indeed, taqanot were enacted, such as the one by Rabban Gamliel 
hazaqen freeing a widow from swearing, allowing her to make a vow, instead. 
As the Talmud Bavli explains ad loc., even a very small component of 
inexactitude can count as the violation of an oath, and 'Hazal wanted to 
protect the minor orphans from such puraniyot.

KT, GS,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com