Commento su Numeri 30:17

בין איש לאשתו, בין אב לבתו, “between man and his wife, between father and his daughter.” Our sages in Sifri Mattot 156 drew a comparison between husband and father. Just as the husband is only permitted to revoke those vows of his wife which either directly affect their marital relations or which represent an affliction upon his wife threatening to make her repulsive to her husband’s eyes, so the father also may only cancel vows of his daughter if they are either an affliction for his daughter undermining her health, or otherwise disturb the normal relationship between father and daughter. If, for instance, the daughter had vowed not to provide the services for her father which a daughter is expected to perform for him, the father is entitled to declare such a vow as null and void. This is also spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 11,1. Nachmanides, in his volume on the laws of vows, agrees with the Jerusalem Talmud.

בין איש לאשתו (siehe zu Verse 14 u. 6).,בנעריה בית אביה solange sie alsנערה dem Hause des Vaters angehört, also bis sie durchנשואין in das Haus des Mannes übergegangen.

Maimonides does not base his rulings on vows on the Jerusalem Talmud and rules that the father has an unrestricted right to cancel vows made by his daughter prior to her reaching the age of 12 and a half years. (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 12,1). He follows the plain text of the verse which does not speak of any restrictions. When the scholars from Luneil challenged Maimonides’ ruling pointing to the Sifri we quoted as their source, Maimonides told them that the author of the Sifri unless otherwise noted is Rabbi Shimon, and that we do not generally rule according to his opinion when it conflicts with the opinion of other scholars.
Concerning the subject of the efficiency and therefore desirability of making vows altogether, Maimonides writes in Hilchot Nedarim 5,23: “if someone engages in the practice of making vows to help him build his character, resist temptation, etc., then such a practice is praiseworthy. Example: if someone used to indulge in excessive consumption of wine and strong drink and he imposes upon himself a vow to abstain from drinking wine for an extended period in order to help him overcome his desire to imbibe this is a good idea. Similarly, if someone pursued illegal gains, i.e. payment for services not rendered, and the like, and he repents and wants to reinforce his resolution to desist from this in the future, he may make a vow not to accept gratuitous benefits from certain people, or even from all persons. There are other similar situations when the making of a vow is basically desirable. The principal criterion governing the desirability of a vow is if it helps the person making it to better serve his Creator.
Pursuing this line of thought, our sages in Avot 3,13 have said נדרים סיג לפרישות, “vows are a fence for abstinence.” Maimonides quotes several verses from the Bible in support of such an attitude, such as Psalms 119,106: “I have firmly sworn to keep Your just rules.” (Clearly, even David had to reinforce his resolutions with an oath). We know that Yaakov made a vow from Genesis 28,20. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 70,1 said that the reason that Yaakov added the word לאמור, “to say,” before spelling out the details of his vow was to tell his descendants that when they would find themselves in a situation similar to that of the patriarch Yaakov, they too should resort to making vows. In Numbers 21,2 we find that the Israelites accepted their patriarch Yaakov’s advice and vowed to destroy the Canaanites and their belongings if only the Lord would make them victorious over their attackers, the Canaanites.

Siehe ferner über נדרים zu Dewarim 23, 22 f.

Erwägen wir, dass dieser rückblickende Schlusssatz אלה החקים וגו׳ nur die in diesem Gesetzesabschnitt geregelten Beziehungen der Tochter und Frau zu Vater und Mann hervorhebt, das in V. 3 gegebene Gesetz über die Heiligkeit von Gelobungen überhaupt unerwähnt bleibt, so scheint in der Tat die Regelung dieser Beziehungen der Töchter und Frauen den eigentlichen Inhalt dieses Abschnittes zu bilden, welchem der allgemeine Ausspruch über die Verbindlichkeit der Gelübde nur einleitend, und zwar gegensätzlich, vorangeht: seine eigenen Gelübde kann ein Mann nicht lösen, für ihn liegt diese Befugnis in Händen seiner nationalen Genossen —; allein seiner Tochter und Frau gegenüber hat er eine beschränkte Befugnis der Einsprache. Aus diesem Gesichtspunkte dürfte sich denn dieses נדרים-Kapitel dem Kapitel 27 gegebenen Gesetze über das Erbrecht der Töchter, ergänzend und vielleicht motivierend, anschließen. Es ist die Bestimmung des Weibes, in das Haus eines Mannes als bedeutungsvoll integrierender Faktor aufzugehen, die ganze Erziehung im Vaterhause ist Vorbereitung dazu. Es ist aber nicht seine Bestimmung, selbständig ein Haus zu gründen. Daraus geht ebensowohl die Abhängigkeit ihrer עינוי נפש- und דברים שבינו לבינה-Gelübde von der Zustimmung des Mannes und Vaters hervor, wie wir dies zu Verse 4-6 angedeutet, als darin auch die Bestimmung ihr Motiv finden möchte, dass normal das Erbgut vom Vater nicht auf die Tochter übergeht.