2 took out "neder"
source | link

In Kesuvos 56a we learn about the principle of where one makes a stipulation on something that was written in Torah. For example:

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר שבממון תנאו קיים

as it is taught "one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no [ability to claim] from me food, clothing, or conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void- this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says [by] monetary matters [ie food and clothing] his stipulation stands.

To my understanding, we tend to pasken that for one who does this their stipulation is invalid.

Purim

If someone were to make a stipulation for one of the mitzvos of Purim (ex: taking a neder not to not hear the megillah) would we say this is valid?

There's discussion about מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה by a d'rabanan in this yeshiva.org.il link (there are opinions for both sides), but my question is:

  • Would Purim fall under this application? Along with Channukah it's kind of like a "super" d'rabanan - namely, we say "אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצוונו" and "shehechiyanu"- ie stipulating about it may not be allowed.

Thoughts?

In Kesuvos 56a we learn about the principle of where one makes a stipulation on something that was written in Torah. For example:

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר שבממון תנאו קיים

as it is taught "one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no [ability to claim] from me food, clothing, or conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void- this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says [by] monetary matters [ie food and clothing] his stipulation stands.

To my understanding, we tend to pasken that for one who does this their stipulation is invalid.

Purim

If someone were to make a stipulation for one of the mitzvos of Purim (ex: taking a neder not to hear the megillah) would we say this is valid?

There's discussion about מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה by a d'rabanan in this yeshiva.org.il link (there are opinions for both sides), but my question is:

  • Would Purim fall under this application? Along with Channukah it's kind of like a "super" d'rabanan - namely, we say "אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצוונו" and "shehechiyanu"- ie stipulating about it may not be allowed.

Thoughts?

In Kesuvos 56a we learn about the principle of where one makes a stipulation on something that was written in Torah. For example:

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר שבממון תנאו קיים

as it is taught "one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no [ability to claim] from me food, clothing, or conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void- this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says [by] monetary matters [ie food and clothing] his stipulation stands.

To my understanding, we tend to pasken that for one who does this their stipulation is invalid.

Purim

If someone were to make a stipulation for one of the mitzvos of Purim (ex: to not hear the megillah) would we say this is valid?

There's discussion about מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה by a d'rabanan in this yeshiva.org.il link (there are opinions for both sides), but my question is:

  • Would Purim fall under this application? Along with Channukah it's kind of like a "super" d'rabanan - namely, we say "אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצוונו" and "shehechiyanu"- ie stipulating about it may not be allowed.

Thoughts?

1
source | link

Would a "מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה" (stipulating on something written in the Torah) by Purim be valid?

In Kesuvos 56a we learn about the principle of where one makes a stipulation on something that was written in Torah. For example:

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר שבממון תנאו קיים

as it is taught "one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no [ability to claim] from me food, clothing, or conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void- this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says [by] monetary matters [ie food and clothing] his stipulation stands.

To my understanding, we tend to pasken that for one who does this their stipulation is invalid.

Purim

If someone were to make a stipulation for one of the mitzvos of Purim (ex: taking a neder not to hear the megillah) would we say this is valid?

There's discussion about מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה by a d'rabanan in this yeshiva.org.il link (there are opinions for both sides), but my question is:

  • Would Purim fall under this application? Along with Channukah it's kind of like a "super" d'rabanan - namely, we say "אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצוונו" and "shehechiyanu"- ie stipulating about it may not be allowed.

Thoughts?