YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions
- Jewish Laws and Thoughts
- Jewish Laws and Customs
- Swears and Oaths
Answer: Let me strengthen this insightful question. We find sources that positive minhagim are more identifiable than minhagim of refraining. The gemara (Pesachim 55a) deals with the possibility that refraining, for religious purposes, from something in front of others who believe it is permitted is yohara (haughtiness). The gemara says, though, that when one whose minhag is to not work on Tisha B’Av refrains from work in front of those who do, no one takes offense because onlookers will say that he is idle because he happens to not have work to do. Similarly, when one, for example, refrains from eating a certain food due to kashrut concerns, the "non-act" of not eating is not like a clear, noticeable, countable religious practice. Can one count three occurrences of not doing something?
Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions (651)
Rabbi Daniel Mann
341 - Extended Purim Seuda
342 - When Does a Negative Practice Become Binding?
343 - Alerting People to Stand
Load More
Your reference to three times is arguably a popularly held mistake. The classical Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 214:1) do not mention a need for three times to be binding. On the other hand, besides mention of the text of Hatarat Nedarim, many Acharonim mention three times. The standard way of dealing with the apparent contradiction is as follows. If one intends the practice to be binding, it becomes so even after one time. If he did not have clear intention as to whether or not it be permanent, then three occurrences make it the norm, and therefore automatically binding (Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chayim 468:17; Kaf Hachayim, OC 417:25).
Now to get to your question – how does doing an inaction (whether three times or once) become binding? I did not find this question discussed where one might expect it. We must determine what this dearth of sources means here (see Living the Halachic Process, V, G-1). Apparently, refraining from something for religious reasons does not need special requirements to be halachically significant. Let us consider that a neder is a matter between a person and Hashem and that since Halacha extends it to occurring without verbalization, it does not need to be clear to others what he was thinking. So if one was in a situation that he would have done X and he did not do so for a religious reason, this is equivalent in our context to actually performing a mitzva.
This same concept is behind the fulfillment of negative commandments in general. Every moment one does not sin is not a mitzva of refraining for which he receives reward but is neutral. However, if he is tempted to do an aveira (e.g., eat non-kosher food, drive somewhere on Shabbat.) but is refraining because of the mitzva to do so, he does receive reward (Kiddushin 39b). In such a case, refraining, beyond the letter of the law, from something one wants, creates a neder.
What is a little trickier is the following. Sometimes a person refrains from something, not out of a full decision, but because of "why not?" Let’s say that when he goes to a store and there is chalav Yisrael milk and regular milk, he purposely picks the chalav Yisrael. If he thought that he will henceforth only have chalav Yisrael, this should be binding. But it could also be that if he were in a place that the only milk is regular, he would buy that as well. Is that considered refraining from something? While it is hard to know where to draw the line, there might be a difference between three positive acts and three acts of refraining that are not necessarily indicative of his future plans.
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Chukat "HOW ENTEBBE STOLE THE BICENTENNIAL
The Difference Between Historic & Eternal"
As we approach America's 250th birthday, it's worth remembering her 200th Bicentennial birthday, on Jul. 4th 1976, when Israel "stole the show" by shocking the world & miraculously saving 101 hostages in a foreign continent. As Pres. As Pres. Trump decides which countries get priority in his new Middle-East, it's worth reminding him of the difference between historic events and eternally historic ones. This obviously connects with this week's parsha, as well!
Kuzari -Rabbi Ari Shvat Kuzari class 6 - The Parable of the King of India
The advantages of testimony over circumstantial evidence or philosophical speculation.
Kuzari -Rabbi Ari Shvat Kuzari class 5- "Proofs of G-d"
This may be the most important class of the entire book, where we finally get to the Jewish proof of the existence of G-d and truth of the Torah. We should follow His own direction where He tells us how to get to Him: through the Nation of Israel: Jewish history, Jewish prophets (and today, prophecies fulfilled), and national reward & punishment towards Am Yisrael.
Ein Aya One Humanity, One Creator, One Jerusalem
Rav Kook innovatively and beautifully explains this aggadeta where our sages say that after Jerusalem was destroyed her cinnamon fragrance is only found locked in a particular kingdom's treasury.
Shlach Lecha "Why So Many Don't Make Aliya?" - Parshat Shlach
This short article deals with the weird phenomena that every single time Am Yisrael is meant to enter the Land of Israel, throughout the Tanach, 2nd Temple and until today, they "chicken out" and look for excuses. What's the problem with this mitzvah that proves so challenging. The article, based on sources, suggests that the difficulties of Eretz Yisrael is precisely her secret and beauty!
Kuzari -Rabbi Ari Shvat Kuzari class 4
The class deals with Islam and how the Muslim tries convincing the King of the Khazars, and why he was also rejected.
Beha'alotcha JEWISH STATE= GUIDE TO G-DLINESS & SELFLESSNESS
A Jewish State not only is a good idea, but educates us towards selflessness, altruism and G-dliness in our daily lives.
Ein Aya In Zion Even the Smoke of the Bark is Sweet
Just as Jewish nationalism is different from others, so too our capitol of Jerusalem is totally different than other national capitols. Rav Kook beautifully explains the passage in the Talmud that the trees of Yerushalayim were cinnamon trees.
