Comentário sobre Nedarim 10:9

נערה המאורסה – a girl who is twelve years and one-day old, and who brought forth two [pubic] hairs, is called a נערה/a young woman/lass, until six months. But a woman who is eleven years and one-day old, her vows are examined, if she knew for whom she made the vow, and in the name of whom she sanctified, her vow is vow, and even regarding her, her father and her husband annul her vows.

Introduction The final two chapters of Nedarim discuss a father’s and husband’s right to annul the vows of their daughters or wives. Whereas the release of vows, the topic of the previous chapter, is not mentioned in the Torah, chapter 30 of Numbers discusses the father/son’s right to annul vows at length. Indeed most of what we know about vows comes from the context of this chapter. Thus vs. 6 states, “But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of her vows or self-imposed obligations shall stand.” Vs. 13 makes a similar statement concerning the husband. There are several limits that the rabbis placed on this right of fathers/husbands. First of all, as we shall learn later in the chapter, not all vows may be annulled. Second, the father may annul his daughter’s vow only until she has reached what was considered majority age (12 ½). Beyond that age she was obligated, as are all people, to keep all her vows. Our mishnah discusses the betrothed young woman, one between the ages of 12 and 12 ½. This girl is still living in her father’s house and yet is already betrothed to another man. She is therefore a classic example of a borderline case, which as we have seen time and time again, is typically the focus of the Mishnah.

הפר האב ולא הפר הבעל – because it was possible to err and to explain [the phrase]: “her father and her husband annul her vows,”/"אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה" as or her father or her husband, it teaches in he Mishnah:"הפר האב ולא הפר הבעל"/”if her father annulled her vows, but not her husband, etc.,” to inform us that both need to nullify [her vows].

In the case of a betrothed young woman, her father and her betrothed husband annul her vows. If her father annulled [her vow] but not the husband, or if the husband annulled [it] but not the father, it is not annulled; and it goes without saying if one of them upheld [it]. The simple message of the mishnah is that since she is partly in her father’s domain, for she has not yet reached majority age and she is still living in his house, and partly in her betrothed husband’s domain, both parties must annul her vows. If either party does not annul the vow, or upholds the vow, the vow is not annulled.

ואין צריך לומר שקיים אחד מהם – if one of them confirmed [her vows] the second is not able to nullify them. But this tells us that even though the even though that one of them (i.e., the father or the husband was consulted that he established his confirmation, as we hold, we consult on the confirmation (i.e, the privilege of confirming a vow – see also Tractate Nedarim 10:7), , this one who was asked for confirmation cannot nullify any further, since both of them are not able to nullify [a vow] at the same time.

מת האב לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל – the husband does not annul the vows of his wife until she marries.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss the ability of fathers and husbands to annul their daughters’ or wives’ vows.

מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב – and he annuals all of the days of her being a lass, as it is written (Numbers 30:17): “while in her father’s house by reason of her youth.”

If the father dies, his authority does not pass over to the husband. If the husband dies, his authority passes over to the father. The mishnah is still discussing the betrothed young girl. Generally, both the father and husband must jointly annul her vows. If, while she is in this status, her father dies, her husband still cannot annul her vows on his own. This is because she is only betrothed and not fully married. A husband’s right to annul his wife’s vows on his own begins only at the point of marriage. In contrast, should her betrothed husband die, her father may annul her vows. This is because she was never fully married, nor has she reached majority age.

והאב אינו מפר בבגר – as it is written (there – Numbers 30:4): “while still in her father’s household by reason of her youth.”

In this respect, the father’s power is greater than the husband’s. But in another respect, the husband’s power is greater than that of the father, for the husband can annul [her vows] when she is of majority age but the father cannot annul her vows when she is of majority age. After pointing out a way in which the father’s authority over his wife is greater than the husband’s, the mishnah now contrasts that with an example in which the husband’s ability to annul vows is greater. As we stated in yesterday’s mishnah, the father’s authority ends when his daughter reaches majority age. In contrast, the husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows exists even when she is of majority age.

נתגרשה בו ביום – that the father heard, for if the day passed, he can no longer annul [her vows].

Introduction This mishnah teaches that while a full husband cannot annul vows his wife made before their marriage, a betrothed husband who annuls her vows jointly with her father has the ability to do so.

ונתארסה – [and she became betrothed] to another, on that selfsame day.

If one vowed as a betrothed woman, and then was divorced on that day and betrothed [again] on the same day, even a hundred times, her father and last betrothed husband can annul her vows. This is the general rule: as long as she has not passed out into her own control for even one hour, her father and last husband can annul her vows. If a woman takes a vow while she is betrothed and then on the same day is divorced and betrothed again to another man, the last husband and her father can still annul her vows. This all must occur on the same day, because as we shall learn in mishnah 8 and as is stated clearly in Numbers 30, the woman’s vows must be annulled that very day. The mishnah is teaching that although she vowed while betrothed to another man, the last betrothed husband may annul her previous vows because her father has continuously had the right to annul her vows. As is stated in the general rule at the end of the mishnah, should she be fully married or reach majority age, even for one hour and thereby leave her father’s control, her husband will not be able to annul her earlier vows.

אביה ובעלה האחרון מפירין נדריה – that she vowed in the presence of the first betrothed man, for the betrothed man releases those who preceded him.

כל זמן שלא יצאת לרשות עצמה – not on account of becoming an adult nor on account of marriage.

עד שלא היתה בתו יוצא מאצלו – prior to her coming to the domain of the husband. And similarly the betrothed man says to her the same thing.

Introduction As we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah a father and husband jointly annul the vows of a betrothed girl who has not yet reached majority age. Furthermore, at this point the husband may annul vows that she took before she was betrothed. Once she is married, no one, neither her father nor her husband may annul the vows that she took before she was married. Our mishnah relates what Torah scholars would do in order to avoid this problem.

עד שלא תכנס לרשותו – since from when she enters into his domain, he cannot annul [her vows], for the husband cannot annul what proceeded, and we learn from our Mishnah that the husband can annul the vows of his wife even without hearing [about it], since it is taught [in the Mishnah]: “And so the husband before she enters his domain, says to her, etc.”

It is the practice of scholars, before the daughter of one of them departs from him, he says to her, “All the vows which you vowed in my house are annulled.” Likewise the husband, before she enters into his domain would say to her, “All the vows which you vowed before you entered my domain are annulled,” because once she enters into his domain he cannot annul them. Evidently husbands in general and husbands who are Torah scholars (and hence understand the halakhot) in particular did not want to be surprised to find out that they had married a woman who was restricted by vows. Furthermore, a father would not want his daughter to be caught by her husband with previously made restrictive vows, for that may be grounds for divorce without payment of the ketubah (see Ketuboth 7:7). Therefore, right before the girl would leave her father’s domain to enter her husband’s domain, both the father and husband would annul vows that she had previously taken. Once she enters his domain, the husband would no longer be able to annul previously taken vows. By the way, it seems likely that if we read between the lines of this mishnah, scholars married other scholars’ daughters. Rabbis formed a social class somewhat separate from other Jews and as a result, rabbis often married each others daughters.

בוגרת ששהתה י"ב חודש – an adult woman whose father does not annul her vows, and she was claimed to [get ready to] marry and she waited twelve months that from then onwards, her husband would be liable for her food [and support].

Introduction In Mishnah Ketuboth 5:2 we learned that a girl who was betrothed and then reached majority age has 12 months during which she prepares herself for marriage. During this time he prepares himself and the wedding as well. A widow or a divorcee receives thirty days. If the betrothed husband does not marry her within this time, she receives her maintenance (cost of food) from him. In our mishnah, the Sages debate whether the husband also has the ability to annul her vows during this period.

ואלמנה – that waited thirty days, from when she was claimed [to get ready to] marry, that she eats from her husband.

[In the case of] a girl who has reached majority age who waited twelve months, or a widow [who waited] thirty days, Rabbi Eliezer says: since her [betrothed] husband is responsible for her maintenance, he may annul [her vows]. But the Sages say: the husband cannot annul [her vows] until she enters into his domain. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since he is responsible for her maintenance, in other words has financial responsibility for his betrothed wife’s well-being, he receives the right to annul her vows. In contrast, the Sages do not give him this right until she actually enters his domain. According to the Sages he should have married her after this time period had elapsed. Therefore, while he is penalized and liable to pay for her maintenance, he does not receive the right to annul her vows as would a full husband.

רבי אליעזר אומר הואיל ובעלה חייב במזונותיה = and he annuls her vows. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

שומרת יבם וכו' ר"א אומר יפר when he made her the widow of a brother who died without children (יבמה) , it (i.e., the Mishnah) is speaking of the Yavam’s betrothal (by word of mouth, as opposed to the consummation of marriage, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that מאמר/statement - betrothal of the widow of a brother who died without children/a יבמה – that this betrothal should be effected by means of a marriage document or money should be accompanied by a statement of betrothal, which acquires the childless widow of his dead brother completely from the Torah, But if she is a נערה/a young woman/lass and she has a father, the father and her Yavam/dead husband’s brother [both] annul her vows.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a yavam’s rights to annul the vows of a woman who is awaiting yibbum or halitzah with him. To remind ourselves briefly, if a husband dies without children his wife is liable for either yibbum (levirate marriage) or halitzah (the release from levirate marriage) with his brother. Generally speaking, any brother may perform yibbum or halitzah.

רבי יהושע אומר לאחד ולא לשנים – for Rabbi Yehoshua does not hold that מאמר/the statement does not acquire In a complete acquisition. However, he holds that there is a זיקה/a levirate bond (between the Yevama waiting for her brother-in-law to act and her deceased husband’s brothers during the period after the husband’s death before one of the brothers performs a levirate marriage) and this levirate bond is like she is a married woman, but when there is only one levir/יבם , he annuls [her vows, vut when there are two levirs, not a single one of them can annul [her vows] for there is no retroactive designation.

If a woman waits for a yavam, whether for one or for two [yevamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he can annul [her vows]. Rabbi Joshua says: [only if she waits] for one, but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says: neither for one nor for two. There are three halakhic opinions in this section. According to Rabbi Eliezer, even if there are several brothers (yevamim) any one of them may annul her vows. According to Rabbi Joshua if there is only one yavam he may annul her vows but if there are more than one, neither may annul her vows. Rabbi Joshua believes that the connection between a yavam and his yevamah is strong enough that he may annul her vows but if there are two yevamim each prevents the other from doing so. Also, if there are two yevamim we don’t know who will end up performing yibbum and therefore neither may annul her vows. According to Rabbi Akiva a yavam never has the right to annul his yevamah’s vows.

ר"ע אומר לא לאחד ולא לשנים – for he holds that the levirate bond/זיקה is not like someone who is married, and the “statement”/מאמר – does not effect a complete acquisition from the Torah.

Rabbi Eliezer said: if a man can annul the vows of a woman whom he himself acquired, isn’t it logical that can he annul those of a woman bequeathed to him by Heaven! Rabbi Akiva said to him: No! If you speak of a woman whom he himself acquires, that is because others have no rights in her; will you say [the same] of a woman given to him by Heaven, in whom others too have rights! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Akiva, your words apply to two yevamim; but what will you answer if there is only one yavam? He (Rabbi said to him (Rabbi: the yevamah is not as completely acquired to the yavam as a betrothed girl is to her [betrothed] husband. In this section the three rabbis argue out their respective positions. Rabbi Eliezer reasons that in a normal marriage a woman is acquired by the man himself (“acquisition” is one of the typical ways by which the mishnah refers to marriage) but in yibbum Heaven bequeaths the yevamah to the yavam. In other words the relation between the yavam and the yevamah is created at the moment of the brother’s death without any action by the yavam and therefore it is a stronger connection. If in the weaker acquisition the husband is allowed to annul vows, so too in the stronger acquisition. Rabbi Akiva responds by pointing out that the two situations are not truly analogous. If there are two or more yevamim then each has some rights in her, because any of them can perform yibbum or halitzah with her. However, in cases of normal marriage, only the betrothed husband has rights in her, for only he will be able to marry her. Rabbi Joshua points out that Rabbi Akiva’s refutation of Rabbi Eliezer holds true only if there is more than one yavam. If there is only one yavam he is the only one who has rights in her, and therefore he should be allowed to annul her vows. Why then does Rabbi Akiva say that he cannot. Rabbi Akiva responds again, this time with a more fundamental difference between normal marriage and yibbum. The union between a betrothed couple is stronger than the unity between a yavam and a yevamah (remember this is before yibbum has been performed; after yibbum she is his wife in all regards). A betrothed woman who has relations with a man other than her betrothed husband is an adulteress and is technically liable for the death penalty. In that sense Jewish betrothal works like marriage. In contrast, a yevamah who has relations with a man other than her yavam is not considered an adulteress and has merely broken a less severe commandment, one not punishable by death. From here we can deduce that the bond of betrothal is stronger and therefore a betrothed husband may annul his betrothed wife’s vows but a yavam may not do so for his yevamah.

אשה שקנה הוא לעצמו – that is his betrothed woman.

הרי הוא מיפר נדרהי – in partnership with her father.

אשה שהקנו לו מן השמים – which is the widow of his dead brother who died without children/יבמתו – his Yevamah.

אינו דין שיפר נדריה – in partnership with her father.

שיש לאחרים רשות בה – for she is also in a levirate bond with the other brothers [of her dead husband].

מה אתה משיב על יבם אחד – meaning to say, your response is good on the words of Rabbi Eliezer who states that he annuls even when there are two [potential] levirs, what can you respond to me on my words that I state, to one, but not to two [levirs]?

אין היבמה גמורה ליבם – to make liable for death o someone who comes upon her in the same manner that the betrothed woman is completely his wife (of the betrothed man) in regard to the liability for death (if someone comes upon his betrothed wife). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

הרי הן קיימין לא אמר כלום – for this is an errant confirmation, because there are vows that he would not desire in their confirmation.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses whether or not a husband can uphold or annul vows that his wife will take in the future.

הרי הן מופרין רבי אליעזר אומר מופר – for in general, a man does not desire in the vows of his wife.

If a man says to his wife, “All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place behold, they are upheld,” he has not said anything. Everyone agrees that the husband may not legally uphold vows that his wife has not yet taken. If, when he returns from the trip he hears that she has taken a vow and he wants to annul it, he still may do so, despite his earlier statement that her vows were upheld.

נדרים שבאו לכלל איסור – for after she vowed, she is prohibited in them if [her] husband did not annul them.

[If he said: All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place], behold, they are annulled,”: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are annulled; The Sages say: they are not annulled. Said Rabbi Eliezer: if he can annul vows which have already had the force of a prohibition, surely he can annul those which have not had the force of prohibition! They said to him: behold, it is said, “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it” (Numbers 30:14), that which has entered the category of upholding, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of upholding, has not entered the category of annulment. This section discusses the reverse situation, in which the husband wishes to annul vows that his wife takes while he is away. Rabbi Eliezer says this annulment is effective and the Sages say that it is not. Rabbi Eliezer argues that if a man can annul a vow that has already taken effect, he should be able to annul a vow before it has begun to be effective. A husband can annul vows on the day he hears them even though she vowed earlier (we will learn more about this tomorrow). In other words, even if she vowed earlier and therefore had to keep her vow before it was annulled, on the day that he hears of the vow he may still annul it. From here Rabbi Eliezer concludes that he certainly should be able to annul a vow that has not yet had a prohibitory force. The Sages respond with a midrash on a verse in Numbers. This verse compares upholding and annulling. Since, as we learned in section one, only a vow which has already been made can be upheld, so too only a vow that has already been made can be annulled. To the Sages their midrash is more authoritative and convincing than Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning.

שבאו לכלל הקם – vows that took place already.

הפרת נדרים – as the Torah stated (Numbers 30:9): “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 to which she bound herself.”

Introduction Numbers 30:6, 9 imply that the husband or father must annul their wives’ or daughters’ vows on the day on which they heard of them. Our mishnah explains how this day is calculated.

כל היום – until it gets dark, as it states (Numbers 30:6): “[But if her father restrains her] on the day he finds out (literally, “hears it”). But as it is written (Numbers 30:15): “[If her husband offers no objections] from that day to the next, [he has upheld all the vows or obligations she has assumed],” it is necessary, that you don’t say, yes, in the daytime, but now at night, we hold (Numbers 30:15): “from that day to the next/"מיום אל יום" – for sometimes he has the time to annul [her vows] during the period of twenty-four astronomical hours/"מעת לעת", as, for example, if she took a vow at the beginning of the night.

The annulment of vows is the whole day. This may result in a stringency or in a leniency. How is this so? If she vowed on the eve of the Sabbath, he can annul on the eve of the sabbath and on the Sabbath day until nightfall. If she vowed just before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall: for if night fell and he had not annulled it, he can no longer annul it. The period allotted for annulling vows is one whole day. That day is calculated by the calendar and not by counting 24 hours from the time the father/husband heard the vow. In other words, the vow must be annulled on the calendar day on which it was taken. Remember, the Jewish day is calculated from evening until evening. As the mishnah points out, sometimes this will result in a longer time and sometimes in a shorter time. For instance, if he hears of the vow on the eve of the Sabbath (late Friday afternoon, towards twilight), he has until nightfall the following night, when the Sabbath is over. This is because twilight is already considered part of the Sabbath and the Sabbath is not over until nightfall. However, if he hears of the vow just before nightfall on the Sabbath itself, he only has until nightfall. After that he may no longer annul the vow. The reason that the mishnah uses the example of the Sabbath and not any other day of the week is to teach that vows may be annulled on the Sabbath.

ויש בדבר להקל ולהחמיר – meaning to say, sometimes when he can annula them within a short time and sometimes within a longer time.

נדרה בלילי שבת – this that it (i.e., the Mishnah) took/used the phrase "בלילי שבת"/”on Friday nights” to teach us that we annul vows on Shabbat (see Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 24, Mishnah 5), and even not for the need of the Sabbath. But the Sage does not release [from vows] on Shabbat other than vows that are for the needs of the Sabbath, and even though he had the free time while it was still day, he can release for the needs of the Sabbath.

שאם לא הפר וחשכה אינו יכול להפר – for there is no absolution of vows during the period of twenty-foru astronomical hours unless she vowed from the beginning of the night. But regarding absolution for cause, it has no affect until he says, "מופר לך"/”you are annulled,” like the language of Scripture, for the absolution of the husband is from now and into the future without reason, like (Genesis 17:14): “[And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin;] he has broken My covenant.” But the Sage who states, “you are permitted” there is no vow here, and there is no oath here which uproots the vow from its essence. But if the Sage stated in the language of הפרה/absolution and the husband in the language of התרה/permission, he is not permitted and he is not absolved (see Talmud Nedarim 77b). But if he (i.e., the husband) said: “if you did not vow, I put you under the influence of a vow,” his words are fulfilled, and he does not have to state that they are fulfilled to you, since for even if he kept silent all of the entire day, the vow is fulfilled, for any speech is also fulfilling. But on Shabbat, he should say [to the woman]: “take, eat; take drink,” and he doesn’t absolve in the manner that he states on weekdays, for the vow is nullified on its own. But if he is unable to force her, he annuls it in his heart, and he doesn’t need to release it from his lips. And specifically, nullification such as “take it, eat,” where he forces her to violate her vow is effective if he thought in his heart even though he did not release it from his lips, but absolution In which he does not force her to violate the vow, he needs to release it from his lips, and it is not sufficient if he nullified it in his heart.