Around the time of Rosh Hashana, I will not be in the proximity of people who can do Hatarat Nedarim for me. Can I do it via Skype?
While a general Hatarat
Nedarim (=HN) within days of Rosh Hashana is just a
minhag (see Chayei Adam 138:8), it is good that you are looking for an
opportunity to do it.
There is a machloket
Rishonim (see Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 228 and Ran, Nedarim 8b) whether
hatarat nedarim (=hn – annulling (a) specific oath(s))
requires the presence of the oath taker (noder). The gemara
(Nedarim 8b) asks whether a husband can be an agent to request his wife’s hn
and concludes that he can. Some say (including R. Shimshon) that others,
who are less impacted by it, are certainly effective based on the general rule
that agents can carry out halachic processes. The Rambam (Shvuot 6:4), accepted
by the Shulchan Aruch (YD 228:16), is among those who require the oath taker’s
presence.
We must see how absolute this ruling
is, on a few levels. The Keren Ora (Nedarim 8b) and Kiryat Melech Rav (on the
Rambam ibid.) suggest that it is a Rabbinic law, with the latter explaining that
we want the noder to be self-conscious, to discourage making this a
common practice. Rav Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo, Nedarim ibid.) suggests that it
is to enable effective discussion of the grounds for the
hn.
Classical poskim suggest
exceptions. The Rama (YD 228:16, based on the Yerushalmi) says that the hn
can be done through an interpreter, but the Shach (228:29) and Taz (228:21)
say that this is only because the noder is present. More significantly,
the Taz (228:20) cites the Rashba who says that even those who disqualify an
agent allow the noder to submit his request to beit din in
writing. The idea is that the request must be transmitted without using
intermediaries, but it works even without formalistic interaction between the
noder and the beit din. The Taz also cites the Rivash (370),
who disallows writing. (The Rivash’s proof is from the midrash about
Yiftach’s haughty refusal to go to Pinchas to undo his oath, which seems to
indicate that a letter would not have sufficed.) The Taz does not take a clear
stand on hn by letter, and the Pitchei Teshuva (228: 9; see also Kol
Nidrei 19:3) allows it in a case of significant need.
Poskim have been discussing the use of
telephones for halachic matters. One crucial issue is appointing the
facilitators of a get. This a more difficult matter than ours because
of the need to ascertain identity and for a possibly higher level of connection
between the husband and the facilitators (see discussion in Tzitz Eliezer X:47
and article by Rabbi H. Jachter in Techumin XIV). Another area of interest is
berachot heard via telephone. One cannot fulfill mitzvot
through such a beracha, but leading poskim have argued whether
one can (Yechaveh Da’at II:68) or cannot (Minchat Shlomo I:9) answer
“Amen.” Hn by phone could follow the same logic, or can be
more lenient (if a practical rather than formal connection between the two is
enough) or more strict than other applications (if presence is a Torah
requirement).
A Skype discussion is no worse than
a written request for hn. After all, one’s written word does not have a
special status in this context (proof of this claim is beyond our present
scope). Rather, the important thing is to convey the requester’s message
effectively without another person’s intervention. In some ways, Skype is
preferable. It allows for give and take between the parties and creates a
personal connection that could provide a measure of self-consciousness (see
above). In the latter, it might even be a slight improvement over telephone.
Audio/video’s greater improvement is in regard to cases (arguably,
gittin) in which authentication is crucial, as it is easier to
impersonate a voice than a voice and appearance.
Machon Eretz Chemdah
