פירוש על במדבר 30:4

בבית אביה [IF A WOMAN VOW] … BEING IN HER FATHER’S HOUSE — i.e., under her father’s control, but the law here stated applies even though she be not in his house, provided she be under his control (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4).

AND IF A WOMAN VOWETH A VOW UNTO THE ETERNAL … 5. AND HER FATHER HEARETH HER VOW. Scripture wanted to mention the [case of] prohibition first [in Verses 4-5, namely that if she makes a vow and her father is quiet about it or confirms it, then all her vows shall stand ..] in order to tell us that a young girl [in her father’s house] is also subject to the negative commandment mentioned [previously], that he shall not break his word,¹⁰Verse 3. and therefore if her father confirms her vow [expressly or tacitly] the vow shall stand, but if he disallowed her, it shall not stand.⁴³Verse 6. And Scripture states [in conclusion], and the Eternal will forgive her, because her father disallowed her,⁴³Verse 6. in order to tell us that G-d will only forgive her if she acted [in disregard of her vow] after her father had disallowed it, but not [if she broke it] at the beginning, that is, if she [first] transgressed her vow and later on her father disallowed it, just as the Rabbis have said: “[The father or husband] ‘cuts off’ [the vow from the moment that he disallows it], but [unlike a Sage] he does not uproot it retrospectively.”⁴⁴Nedarim 68a. The intention of this statement is to contrast the law, of a Sage who “releases” a vow, with that of a father or husband who “annuls” it. In order that a vow or oath should be valid, the person who makes it must at the time of the utterance thereof have been fully aware of its consequences. If at that time he did not fully understand all that his vow or oath entailed, the Sage points this out to him and affords him an opportunity to regret having made it. If he so declares that he regrets it, the Sage “releases” him from the vow or oath. This release “uproots it” from the very start, since it has now been shown that he made it under a misapprehension. The father or husband, on the other hand, is empowered by the Torah to “annul” the vow or oath, even if made under no misapprehension and the daughter or wife does not regret it. Therefore there is no power of retroactive effect; instead, the “annulment” only “cuts off” in the future. One of the differences between these two procedures is here referred to by Ramban, and that is namely, if the person who made the vow or oath violates it before the time of “release” or “annulment.” In the case of the release by the Sage, since it takes effect retrospectively, there is no sin. In the case of the father or the husband, however, there is a sin entailed.

ואשה כי תדור, “and if a woman makes a vow, etc.” A female of twelve years and over is called אשה, “a woman.” Her vows and oaths are legally valid. If she is between 11 and 12 years of age she is presumed to be a minor though she is examined if she understands the implication of a vow or an oath. If she does, she is subject to the same rules as a male between the ages of 12 and thirteen. If she is less than eleven years old she is a minor in all respects of the law. Her pronouncements have no legal standing whatever. If a female is over 12 years of age or a male over 13 years of age their vows or oaths are legally binding even if they did not know to whom [i.e. that this involves an undertaking vis-a vis G’d. Ed.] they made such commitments (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 11,1-3).
This entire paragraph reveals many important laws concerning vows and oaths in very few words. The legal status of women concerning vows may be divided into four categories: 1) A נערה, girl between the age of 12-12 years and six months; 2) An ארוסה, a girl betrothed but not yet having moved in with her husband. 3) A married woman (after חופה); 4) A widow. When a נערה has a father she remains under his legal control and her father can invalidate her vows on the day he hears about them but not later. The logic behind this is that she would have attached a mental rider to her vow that her father would approve of it. If she finds that she was mistaken and her father objected upon hearing of it, her vow was never valid in the first place. The same logic does not apply to vows undertaken by a male of corresponding age. Just as the father is legally empowered to sell the services of his daughter to a stranger, an entitlement which does not extend to selling the services of his son, so the father is also legally entitled to countermand vows made by a daughter not yet fully of age.
When such a נערה has attained the age of 12 years and six months she is considered adult in all legal respects and no longer under her father’s legal control (Niddah 47). She is fully responsible for all her vows and oaths, the same as a widowed woman or a divorcee. The words of verse 10: כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה, “everything she has prohibited upon herself- shall remain upon her,” apply to such a 12 and a half year old single girl. If, while under the age limit, she made a vow and her father annulled it on the day he heard of it, it is as invalid as if it had never been uttered. When the Torah adds the words וה' יסלח לה, that “the Lord will forgive her,” the sages reasoned that these words are applicable when the girl who had made the vow is in need of forgiveness, such as when she violated her vow being unaware that her father had already canceled it (Niddah 47). Obviously, if someone commits what he or she perceives to be a violation of G’d’s law they are in need of forgiveness even if technically, for reasons unknown to them they did not commit a sin.
As to the woman who has been betrothed. The Torah speaks here about a woman who prior to her betrothal made a vow or swore an oath and who enters the first stage of her marriage with such vows still valid. The Torah, by employing the words, ואם היו תהיה לאיש indicates that the girl (under 12 and a half years old) has not yet completely left her father’s domain and also has not yet come under the domain of her husband concerning his interest in the matter. Her father and husband-to-be must both annul her vows in order for such an annulment to be legally valid. This is what we learned in Nedarim 66 seeing that we presume that when she made the vow she mentally resolved that it would be with the approval of both her father and her husband-to-be. Both her father and her husband-to-be have to hear it on the same day in order for both of them together to be able to annul it. The Talmud adds, that if the fiance of the betrothed girl dies before she reaches the age of maturity and she had moved into her husband’s home (after חופה), she reverts to her father’s domain and he can cancel her vows as if she had made them before she was married. If her father died prior to her having become fully married, (חופה), her husband cannot annul her vows until after she is fully married to him (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 11,10).

Under her father’s jurisdiction. At the end of this passage it is written, “In her youth, while in her father’s house” (v. 17) which is apparently superfluous, given that here it is written, “In her father’s home while still in her youth.” Rather, it comes to teach you that all the profits of a youth belong to her father, and this is even if she is not in his house, since “In her father’s house” is not to be taken literally. Similarly, here, “In her father’s home” means under his jurisdiction and not literally in his house. Re’m.

V. 4. ואשה וגו׳. Der gelobende Vorsatz eines Mannes ist für ihn von vornherein bindend. Nur seiner nationalen Genossenschaft und deren Vertretern kann er — ja, wie zu Dewarim Kap. 23, 22 f. zu entwickeln kommt, soll er (Nedarim 57a) — sein Gelübde zur einsichtigen und umsichtigen Prüfung und Entscheidung vorlegen. Ist ja der Mann ein selbständiger Schöpfer seiner Lebensstellung, und wenn durch ein bindendes, der Lösung unfähiges Gelübde seine Lebensrichtung ein normal nicht gegebenes, sie zu einer Besonderheit gestaltendes Element in sich aufgenommen, so liegts ja an ihm, diese Besonderheit bei Gestaltung seiner Lebensverhältnisse massgebend sein zu lassen. Nicht so das Weib. Die sittliche Größe der weiblichen Lebensbestimmung selbst fordert ein Eingehen und Aufgehen in die von einem andern geschaffene Lebensstellung. Es schafft sich das Weib nicht selbst ein Haus. Es tritt in die von dem Manne zu schaffende Häuslichkeit ein und waltet darin als die beglückende Pflegerin alles Gegebenen im Geiste der Sittenheiligkeit und der Gott zugewandten Gesinnung. Mehr noch als der Mann hat das Weib sich vor bindenden abnormen Lebensrichtungen zu hüten, sie können sich dauernd der Erfüllung seiner Bestimmung in den Weg stellen, und dürften sich von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus die fürsorgenden Anordnungen begreifen, mit denen das Gotteswort das gelobende Weib vor den Konsequenzen des eigenen Wortes sichergestellt, und dem Vater dem Gelübde einer unter seiner Obhut stehenden jugendlichen Tochter gegenüber, dem Vater und dem Verlobten dem Gelübde einer verlobten Tochter, dem Manne dem Gelübde seiner Frau gegenüber ein beschränktes Veto erteilt.

בנעורה IN HER YOUTH — when she is a נערה i.e., in the first state of womanhood, but not when she is a קטנה, a minor, and not when she is a בוגרת (in full womanhood); for so far as a minor is concerned, her vow is in general no vow (it is null and void ab initio), and a בוגרת is not under her father’s control so that he can annul her vows. What is a קטנה, a minor, in respect to vows? We may gather this from what our Rabbis said: a woman of eleven years and one day must have her vows investigated until she reaches the age of twelve years; if she understands in Whose name it is that she has made the vow or in Whose name it is she has dedicated the thing, her vow is a vow, but a woman of twelve years and a day does not require any investigation regarding her vow (Niddah 56b).

But not a minor. Meaning that her vows are not definite vows, rather there are those whose vows must be examined, and there are those that are not vows at all, as explained.

בנעריה. Auf tiefem psychologischen Grunde dürfte die im Gebiete des göttlichen Gesetzes einzige Bestimmung beruhen, nach welcher für gelobende Vorsätze die Zeit der Reife früher beginnt, als für alle anderen Äußerungen des gesetzlichen Lebens. In jeder anderen Beziehung beginnt die gesetzliche Zurechnungsfähigkeit für das männliche Geschlecht mit zurückgelegtem dreizehnten Jahre, für das weibliche Geschlecht, welchem das heilige Wort eine frühere Verstandesreife zuerkennt, mit zurückgelegtem zwölftem Jahre, beides bei übrigens erlangter Pubertät. Allein die bindende Kraft von Gelobungen beginnt schon um ein Jahr früher, im dreizehnten Jahre für Knaben, im zwölften Jahre für Mädchen, wenn sie das volle Bewusstsein haben, dass sie mit dem Gelübde Gott einen gelobenden Vorsatz angelobt, יודעין לשם מי נדרו (Nidda 45 b). Diese bei vorhandener Erkenntnisreife um ein Jahr früher als die sonst gesetzliche Mündigkeit eintretende Gelobungsreife, עונת נדרים, wird unter die Formel מיפלא סמוך לאיש gefasst und wird in solchem Ernste als דאוריתא begriffen, dass nach einer allerdings nicht rezipierten Auffassung für einen מופלא סמוך לאיש selbst מלקות bei Übertretung seiner Gelobungen eintreten würde (daselbst 46 a). Erwägen wir, wie in den Jahren, in welchen der Knabe zum Jüngling, das Mädchen zur Jungfrau reift, oft ein stiller nur Gott bewusster Gelobungsvorsatz für das ganze Leben entscheidend wird, und der reiche Lebensinhalt eines edlen Mannes, einer edlen Frau, oft nur als Fruchtsegen eines als Knabe, als Mädchen Gott gelobten Vorsatzes reift: so begreift sich der liebende Ernst, mit welchem Gott Gelobungsvorsätze ihm zureifender Knaben und Mädchen entgegennimmt. —

Es statuiert nun das Gesetz: בבית אביה בנעריה, und ebenso am Schlusse dieses Gesetzkapitels (V. 17): בנעריה בית אביה, dass sie während ihres נעורים-Alters, also bis nach zurückgelegten sechs Monaten nach erlangter Pubertät, wo sie vom נערה- zum בוגרת-Charakter übergeht (siehe Schmot 21, 7) בית אביה der Obhut des Vaters hinsichtlich ihrer Gelobungen angehört (Ketubot 46b und 47a).