[Avodah] Being Matir Neder

[Zev Sero]

On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
> 
>> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to
>> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an
>> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the
>> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would
>> not be required.


> I totally don't understand this!  Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214?
> 
> YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or 
> refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this 
> almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?  The whole 
> idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but 
> refrains from it anyway.  That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, 
> isn't it?

This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often 
tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the 
author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up 
the original source.  As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his 
teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?".

RMF's words in the original are crystal clear:

                  ==========  b e g i n  ==========
But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when 
people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact 
that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good 
deed.  For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are 
permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that 
this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot 
derive it from "they treated it as forbidden".

And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they 
treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath 
cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to 
institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that 
they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the 
prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when 
"they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is 
possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term 
"vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when 
he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an 
effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting 
oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had 
accepted it on himself with the term "vow".

So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as 
tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos 
and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the 
form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a 
thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a 
mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not 
applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be 
considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly 
accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
zev at sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper