With daf TB Nedarim 67 we begin the 10th chapter of our massehket. In the previous chapter we learned how a person who wants to dissolve his vow may go to a Sage or rabbinic court for that purpose. The Torah gives the father of the daughter in the husband of his wife jurisdiction to dissolve the vow themselves.
“If a woman*woman Lit. “(female)
participant whose involvement defines the depicted situation.” Unlike “woman”
in contemporary English, Heb. ’ishshah can denote girls within its scope, as
here and in 31.18, 35; Judg. 21.14. makes a vow to YHVH or
assumes an obligation while still in her father’s household by reason of her
youth, and her father learns of her vow or her self-imposed obligation and
offers no objection, all her vows shall stand and every self-imposed obligation
shall stand. But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of
her vows or self-imposed obligations shall stand; and YHVH will forgive her, since her father
restrained her.
If she should
become someone’s [wife] while her vow or the commitment*commitment Lit.
“utterance of her lips.” to which she bound herself is still in
force, and her husband learns of it and offers no objection on the day he
finds out, her vows shall stand and her self-imposed obligations shall stand.
But if her husband restrains her on the day that he learns of it, he thereby
annuls her vow which was in force or the commitment*commitment Lit.
“utterance of her lips.” to which she bound herself;
and YHVH will forgive her.—” (Numbers 30:4-9)
We have to
remember that there are three stages in a female's life. From birth to 12 years
old she is considered a minor (קטנה) and completely under the jurisdiction of her father. From 12
years old to 12 1/2 years old she is a na'arah (נערה). After 12 1/2 years old she is considered
an adult (בוגרת)
and no longer under her father's jurisdiction. We also have to remember there
are two stages in marriage. The first stages is kidushin and
the second stage is nesuin. Kidushin means that
the man and woman are bound each other as husband and wife; however, they are
not intimate, she still lives in her father's house, and the husband is not
obligated to provide for her until nesuin.
The first Mishnah
of our chapter deals with the unique case of a na'arah hameorsah (נַעֲרָה
הַמְאוֹרָסָה)
who gone through the first stage of marriage (which is imprecisely translated
as betrothed) and makes a vow. She is under the joint jurisdiction of both her
father and her husband. The Mishnah will teach us that they both have to
dissolve the vow if the vow is to be an annulled. “With regard to a
betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify
her vows. If the father nullified her vow and
the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and
the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified.
And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them
ratified the vow.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Analyzing the
Mishnah the Gemara posits a unique case why the Mishnah uses seemingly
unnecessary language. “At the end of the mishna it is stated: And
needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the
vow. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to
teach this? Now, it was stated that
if one of them nullified the vow without
the other, it is nothing, her vow is not nullified.
If one of them ratified it, why do I need it
to state that her vow is not nullified? Is it necessary to teach this?
"The Gemara
answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention this in a
case where one of them nullified the vow and the
other one ratified it, and the one who ratified the
woman’s vow retracted and requested dissolution of his
ratification from a halakhic authority, who dissolved it. Lest
you say: That which he ratified is what he uprooted, by
asking the halakhic authority to dissolve his ratification, and therefore the
vow is no more, the mishna teaches us that they both must nullify it together.”
The Ron ד"ה וְחָזַר הַמְקַיֵּים וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָתוֹ cites the Rashba’s problem with the
outcome that they must nullify the vow together even when one of them retracted
and requested the annulment of the vow. Isn't this like the case in TB
Kiddushin 50a when a man betroths a woman on the condition that she has no
vows. The man discovers that she has vows, but the woman goes to a Sage to
dissolve these vows. Now it is like she has never vowed. The condition has been
fulfilled and the couple are successfully husband and wife.
The Ron writes
that he is not bothered at all by the Rashba's problem because the two cases
are not the same. To be betrothed requires an act like giving her a ring in
front of two witnesses. Because of this act everybody knows that the couple has
gone through the first stage of marriage retroactively after the woman
dissolves her vows. But the one who changes his mind has no strong connection
to the woman and her vow. He hasn't actively done anything; consequently, the
initial vow remains intact. For the annulment to be successful both the husband
and the father must do so at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment