Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the halakhic concept of Mushba Veomed Mehar Sinai, which literally translates as we are bound by a vow at Mount Sinai to uphold the Torah. The halakhic significance of this is to explain why a person who swears to violate a Torah principle is not obligated by this vow. He is already bound by the prior commitment of the vow at Mount Sinai.

The simple understanding is that it is a literal vow. We are taught there was a trans generational vow made by the Jewish people to uphold the Torah (Devarim 29:13-14).  Some say this oath refers to the one made by the fetus to uphold the Torah before leaving the womb (See Gemara Niddah 30b and Maris Ha’ayin Nedarim 8a) . However, there are less literal interpretations. In essence a Shavua is a commitment. If a person is already committed to something he cannot commit to something else that is in conflict with that. In other words, the value and belief that something is intrinsically wrong, or must be done, is seen as if it is a vow, because it is a prior, deep commitment.

Recanti (Vayera 19) describes the spiritual process of swearing to be invoking God’s intrinsic will. The person is indicating that he believes that whatever he is saying, is as true as God’s will, and even possibly an obligation to uphold because it is perceived as God’s will. A violation of an oath is a subversion of God’s will because one invoked and co-opted God’s will with his own and then failed to live up to that correspondence. (See tomorrow’s Psychology of the Daf, Nedarim 18.)

This idea has “practical” halakhic ramifications. For example, if one of the Avos swore, would he be obligated to uphold it even if it violated one of the Seven Noahide laws? Or perhaps even if it violated the other 613 commandments that we have a tradition that they observed? If it is about the literal oath at Sinai, they did not make one. If it is about conflict with pre-existing implicit obligation and commitment, perhaps the oath would not be binding. (This comes up in regard to whether Yosef was allowed or not allowed to send a message home to his father that he was alive, despite the brothers making an injunction about revealing the secret. See Yiismach Moshe, Vayigash 1).

Of more practical importance, what about in modern times, if a gentile makes an oath that violates one of the seven Noahide laws? This gentile made no oath at Mount Sinai regarding the Law of Noah, yet nonetheless there is a strong long-standing prior commitment.

In tomorrow’s daf, we will examine further the relationship between an oath by swearing and the invocation of God’s presence.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)