9

For instance, say that I text someone "I promise I'll do X." Does that have the same status as if I said out loud the same thing?

The same question can be asked with respect to Shevuos (as in oaths, not the holiday). If someone says "Swear to me that X happened," for instance, and you text him "Amen" (this exchange is cited in the third perek of Maseches Shevuos as being a form of an oath), do I have to bring an Oleh v'Yoreid if it's false and meets the various criteria brought down in Shevuos?

One other possible nafka minah: one could ask regarding Hein Tzedek (BM 49a), the obligation to keep one's word, even if not phrased in terms of a neder.

WHAT THIS IS NOT

Just to clear things up before anyone brings it up.

This question is not applicable to Lashon Hara, which just requires spreading the rumor, regardless of how it's done. At the moment I don't have the source for this claim, though I have heard it many times from my Rebbeim; if someone could provide a source, that would be great. I could make a chiluk between this and the above cases, though, where the issue is the speech, not the bad name.

This question is also dissimilar to halachos such as Virtual Kaddish or Answering Amein on the phone or even Havdalah on the phone in which the question is on the listener. My question is whether the texter has fulfilled any form of speech.

Also related, as this is about texting or emailing, this is not similar to התראה by phone which involves actual speech.

I'm also aware of this question about chat contracts, which is more of an issue of the legal status of the contract, not about whether it's a type of speech.

Finally, there is also this question about Hamapil which is highly related and I know someone's going to call duplicate. So I'd like to emphasize that my question is much, much broader. Maybe, for instance, that, which is only a d'Rabbanan, might be permissible, whereas by Nedarim, which is d'Oraisa, may require us to be stringent and force him to abide by his vow.

In conclusion

Is texting, essentially a written form of spoken conversation that hardly ever follows proper grammar (or spelling) considered speaking across Halacha, or in limited circumstance, or nowhere at all?

As a springboard, this discussion about whether digital text is considered written text l'halacha may be relevant.

Community
  • 1
DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • How do you know that Nedarim/Shevuot need speech specifically? – Double AA Sep 19 '16 at 02:33
  • 2
    Why would texting be considered speech? It's much more parallel, if not the exact same, as writing (which is something Halakha has been familiar with for a lot longer)? – Double AA Sep 19 '16 at 02:35
  • A good review of questions. Haflaa is the genuine expression differentiating thinking from speaking for nedarim and Shevuot. You need to learn what is haflaa in Talmud. – kouty Sep 19 '16 at 06:54
  • There is a Tshuvat Havat Yair and a number of shutim concerning neder by writing – kouty Sep 19 '16 at 07:55
  • @DoubleAA For that I rely on the post about Hamapil, that texting is a written form of speech. That is, I don't think anyone on here would be willing to take random comments and put them word for word in a college formal writing essay and assume it fits the proper grammar required by the assignment, but in terms of normal spoken conversation it would fit quite nicely. And although I haven't learned Nedarim or Nazir, I have learned Shevuos, which doesn't make a single reference to a written Shevuah, leading me to assume that such a Shevuah is nothing. – DonielF Sep 19 '16 at 11:57
  • I'd also like to emphasize that the question is not limited to nedarim and Shevuos. It applies to anywhere in Halacha where speech is needed. – DonielF Sep 19 '16 at 12:03
  • I don't know what post you are talking about. There are no linked posts about Hamapil. There is one about Kriat Shema al HaMitah, but it has no answers so doesn't support anything. – Double AA Sep 19 '16 at 14:16
  • related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/29096/759 – Double AA Sep 19 '16 at 14:16
  • @DoubleAA Fair enough that it doesn't support anything, but I always understood the Halacha in question there as being that one couldn't talk after Hamapil, not Krias Shema, and that the OP misunderstood the Halacha. It may very well be the opposite, and I'm the one who misunderstood it. – DonielF Sep 19 '16 at 14:24
  • @DonielF That verse is mentioned in the context of Krias Shema in the Yerushalmi. No mention of Hamapil there. Moreover, the Rama only mentions it by Shema and so does the Kol Bo, who the Rama is quoting, who has Shema after HaMapil. Basically there is no evidence from any Rishonim that you can't talk after HaMapil. Some of them even make light of the idea. If you talk after Shema you repeat Shema. Not talking after HaMapil seems to have been made up by some Achronim who conflated the obligations of Shema and HaMapil and who held what about which and in what order. – Double AA Sep 19 '16 at 14:33

1 Answers1

2

IMHO, it is not the same thing for a promise bein adam lachaveiro and an oath say, not to eat bread today for example.

Because in the latter, it is explicitly written לבטא בשפתים . Not only you have to pronounce, but with the lips! And also about an engagement to bring a qorban: מוצא שפתיך . See Shevuos 26b in this direction.

Now, about hein zedeq, it is more difficult.

In other words:

  • Does texting count as speaking with lips? No.

  • Does hein zedeq require 'speaking' or just 'informing' the other?

See also the notion of מתנה מועטת, where the idea is, the guy counted on you giving this little thing. (But maybe, he counted on you because you said it.)

yO_
  • 1,495
  • 9
  • 19
  • Interesting thoughts. Thanks! I’ve heard of the concept of מתנה מועטת before, but haven’t delved into it - where is that sugya discusses? – DonielF Nov 19 '18 at 23:29
  • @DonielF Bava Metsia 49a. And from the story there with R Yochanan ben Matia and his employees, seems that there is no need to pronounce. – yO_ Nov 20 '18 at 08:47