Midrash su Numeri 30:20

(Numb. 30:3:) “When someone makes a vow (neder) to the Lord.” Let our master instruct us: How are konamot (i.e., vows of abstinence) and vows (nedarim)? Thus have our masters taught (in Ned. 2:1): [If one makes] a konam (i.e., a vow of absitinence) [that he will not sleep, that he will not speak; [if he utters a konam to his wife] “that I will not have marital relations with you,” such a one is liable to [the injunction] (in Numb. 30:3), “he shall not break his word.” [If he swears] an oath (shevu'ah)] that he will not sleep, that he will not walk, he is forbidden [to do so].¹Cf. Ned. 2:2-5; Ned. 13b, 14b-15a; 20a; yNed. 2:2-5 (37b-6); above, Lev. 1:16. Oaths (shevu'ot) carry more weight than vows (nedarim); and vows, than oaths. How so? [if one makes] a konam not to make a sukkah, not to take up a lulab, not to put on phylacteries, in the case of vows (nedarim) it is forbidden to put them on or to make them, even though they are commandments (of the Torah); but in the case of oaths (shevu'ot) it is permitted, because one does not swear to transgress against the commandments. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Be circumspect with your vows (nedarim) and do not break them; for all who break vows (nedarim) end up in being faithless in oaths (shevu'ot).” And the one who is faithless in oaths is denying the Holy One, blessed be He through it and will never have forgiveness, as stated (in Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11), “for the Lord will not exonerate [one who takes His name in vain].” [Yet] it is also written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ [in truth, in justice, and in righteousness].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do not think that you have permission to swear in My name even in truth.²Numb. R. 22:1. You are not entitled to swear by My name unless you possess all the following attributes (of Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast, [and by Him you shall swear]”: That you should be like those three who were called God-fearing, Abraham, Job, and Joseph: Abraham of whom it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “For now I know that you fear [God].” Concerning Job it is written (in Job 1:1), “the man was blameless [and upright, one who feared God].” Concerning Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “for I fear God.” Ergo (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “Him you shall serve.” [You do so,] if you turn [all] your attention to the Torah, fulfill [its] commandments and have no other work (abodah). It therefore is stated (ibid.), “Him you shall serve (rt.: 'bd).” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “To Him you shall hold fast.” Can one hold fast to the Divine Presence? Moreover, has it not already been stated (in Deut. 4:24), “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire?” It is simply [being stated with reference to] anyone marrying off his daughter to a scholar who reads [Scripture] and recites [Mishnah], that he engage in commerce³Gk.: pragmateia. for him and have him benefit from his assets.⁴Ket. 111b; cf. Sot. 14a. It is with reference to [such a] one that it is stated (in Deut. 10:20), “to him you shall hold fast.”
If you have all these [attributes] you may swear; if not, you are not entitled to swear. There is a story about King [Jannai], that he had two thousand towns and they all were destroyed because of a true oath. (Numbers 30:17:) “Between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter.” Just like a man only annuls vows of self-affliction and matters between him and her, so too a father only annuls with regards to self-affliction and what is between him and her.

(Numb. 30:2–3 [1–2]:) THEN MOSES SPOKE UNTO THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES …: WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A VOW (neder) TO THE LORD, <….> Let our master instruct us: What about konamot (i.e., vows of abstinence) and vows (nedarim)?¹Tanh., Numb. 9:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Ned. 2:1): <IF ONE MAKES> A KONAM (i.e., a vow of absitinence) [THAT HE WILL NOT SLEEP, THAT HE WILL NOT SPEAK, THAT HE WILL NOT WALK; IF HE UTTERS A KONAM TO HIS WIFE THAT HE WILL NOT HAVE MARITAL RELATIONS WITH HER, SUCH A ONE IS LIABLE TO <THE INJUNCTION> (in Numb. 30:3 [2]): HE SHALL NOT BREAK HIS WORD. <IF HE SWEARS> AN OATH (shevu'ah)] THAT HE WILL NOT SLEEP, THAT HE WILL NOT SPEAK, THAT HE WILL NOT WALK, HE IS FORBIDDEN <TO DO SO>.²Cf. Ned. 2:2-5; Ned. 13b, 14b-15a; 20a; yNed. 2:2-5 (37b-6); above, Lev. 1:16; cf. Matthew 5:33-37; 23:16-22; James 5:12. Oaths (shevu'ot) carry more weight than vows (nedarim); and vows, than oaths. How so? <If one makes> a konam not to make a Sukkah, not to take up a Lulab, not to put on phylacteries, in the case of vows (nedarim) it is forbidden to put them on or to make them, even though they are commanded (in Torah); but in the case of oaths (shevu'ot) it is permitted, because one does not swear to transgress against the commandments. The Holy One said to the Israelites: Be circumspect with your vows (nedarim) and do not break them, for all who break vows (nedarim) end up in being faithless in oaths (shevu'ot). Moreover, the one who is faithless in oaths is denying me and will never have forgiveness, as stated (in Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11): <YOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD IN VAIN,> FOR THE LORD WILL NOT EXONERATE <ONE WHO TAKES HIS NAME IN VAIN>. It is also written (in Jer. 4:2): AND YOU SHALL SWEAR: AS THE LORD LIVES, <IN TRUTH, IN JUSTICE, AND IN RIGHTOUSNESS>. The Holy One said to the Israelites: Do not think that you have permission to swear in my name even in truth.³Numb. R. 22:1. You are not entitled to swear by my name unless you possess all the following attributes (of Deut. 10:20): THE LORD YOUR GOD YOU SHALL FEAR, [HIM YOU SHALL SERVE, TO HIM YOU SHALL HOLD FAST, AND BY HIM YOU SHALL SWEAR]:

1) (Vayikra 17:2) ("Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel and say to them: This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded, saying:") This teaches us that the children of Israel are commanded not to slaughter and bring an offering outside (the Temple court), but not gentiles. And, what is more, a gentile is permitted to build a bamah (a temporary altar) in all places and to offer sacrifices to Heaven. If (it were written only) "the children of Israel," I would know (that this applies) only to the children of Israel. Whence do I derive (that it applies also) to proselytes and bondsmen? From "and say to them." I might thing that (only) Israelites, who are commanded against offering sacrifices within (viz. Bamidbar 18:4), are commanded against slaughtering outside; but Aaron and his sons, who are not commanded against offering sacrifices within, are not commanded against slaughtering outside. It is, therefore, written ("Speak to) Aaron and to his sons." Whence is it derived that the heads of tribes are included here? It is written here "This is the thing," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 30:1, in connection with vows,) "This is the thing." Just as there, the heads of tribes (are specified), here, too, the heads of tribes (are intended). And just as here, Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel (are specified), so, there, Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel (are intended — See Nedarim 78b).

“The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent. They have placed dust on their heads, have girded themselves with sackcloth. The virgins of Jerusalem have lowered their heads to the ground” (Lamentations 2:10).
“The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent.” Rabbi Elazar said: Let the portion of vows not be insignificant in your eyes, as it is on account of the portion of vows that the Great Sanhedrin of Zedekiah were killed. When Yekhonya was exiled, King Nebuchadnezzar appointed him¹⁰⁶Zedekiah. over five kings. That is what is written: “Send to the king of Edom, to the king of Moav, to the king of the children of Ammon, to the king of Tyre and to the king of Sidon, in the hand of the messengers who come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah, king of Judah” (Jeremiah 27:3). He would enter and exit before him without permission.¹⁰⁷Zedekiah had unfettered access to Nebuchadnezzar. One day, he entered before him and saw that he was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it raw. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to him: ‘Take an oath to me that you will not publicize this about me,’ and he took an oath to him. On what did he administer the oath to [Zedekiah]? Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: On the inner altar. The five kings were sitting and maligning Nebuchadnezzar before Zedekiah and saying to him: ‘The kingdom is not suitable for Nebuchadnezzar, but rather it is suitable for you, as you are from the offspring of David.’ He, too, maligned Nebuchadnezzar and said: ‘I saw that he was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it.’ Immediately, they sent [a message] to the king, saying: ‘This Jew who enters and exits before you without permission said about you: I saw that Nebuchadnezzar was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it.’ That is what is written: “Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon” (II Kings 24:20).
Immediately, he¹⁰⁸Nebuchadnezzar. came and settled in Daphne of Antioch and the Great Sanhedrin went to greet him. When he saw that they were all men of noble form, he issued a command and had seats of honor brought for them, and he seated them. He said to them: ‘Teach me the Torah.’ Immediately they began reading each and every portion and translating it before him. When they reached the portion of vows: “A man who takes a vow” (Numbers 30:3), he said to them: ‘If he wishes to renege on it, can he or can he not do so?’ They said to him: ‘He can go to a Sage and [the Sage] can nullify his vow for him.’ He said to them: ‘It seems to me that you nullified for Zedekiah the oath that he took to me.’ Immediately, he decreed and had them placed down on the ground. That is what is written: “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent.” “They have placed dust [on their heads],” they began mentioning the merit of Abraham, as it is written: “I am dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). “Have girded themselves with sackcloth,” they began mentioning the merit of Jacob, as it is written: “He placed sackcloth on his loins” (Genesis 37:34).¹⁰⁹The Sages began to pray to God for mercy in the merit of Abraham and Jacob, both of whom took oaths and were careful to fulfill them (Etz Yosef; see Genesis 14:22, 28:20). What did they do to them? They tied their hair to horses’ tails and had them run from Jerusalem to Lod. That is what is written: “The virgins of Jerusalem have lowered their heads to the ground.”¹¹⁰They did so in mourning for the Sages. Alternatively, the Sages are alluded to with the term virgins because of their purity.

(Deut. 29:11:) “To enter into the covenant with the Lord your God....” Three covenants did the Holy One, blessed be He, make with Israel when they came out of Egypt, one when they stood before Mount Sinai, (one at Horeb,) and one here. But why did he make [a covenant] with them here? Because they had revoked the one which He had made with them at Sinai, when they said (of the golden calf in Exod. 32:4), “This is your god, O Israel.” For that reason He made [another covenant] with them at Horeb⁵The text should probably read: “With them here,” in accord with Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. and established a curse over it for whoever would go back on his words. Now the word, enter (rt.: 'br), [can] only be in the sense of one who says to his companion, “May this curse come (rt.: 'br) upon you, if you go back on me in this thing.” And so you find that, when Israel provoked [the Holy One, blessed be He], and they went into captivity, what did Daniel say (in Dan. 9:11)? “And all Israel has transgressed (rt.: 'br) Your Torah [...] so the curse (alah) and the oath are poured down upon us.” Now alah can only be a curse,⁶Alah can also mean “oath” and “covenant.” as where it is stated (in Numb. 5:27), “and the woman shall become a curse (alah).” [This is] to teach you that just as one imposes an oath on the suspect adulteress, so the Holy One, blessed be He, imposed an oath upon Israel. But perhaps you will say, “Why all this bother?” It is not because I need you? Rather what shall I do to you, when I have already sworn to your ancestors, that I will never replace you and your children? It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:12), “In order to establish you today as his people […] as he swore to your ancestors.” It [also] says (in Cant. 7:6), “a king is bound by his tresses.” Now bound [indicates] nothing except an oath. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 30:4), “[When a woman vows a vow to the Lord] and binds herself with a bond.” Therefore, He cannot break his oath. And so you find, when they sought to get rid of the yoke of His oath in the days of Ezekiel, it is written (in Ezek: 20:1), “some elders of Israel came to consult the Lord.” They said to him, “When the son of a priest buys a slave, is it legal for him to eat the terumah?”⁷The priestly tithe on produce. He said to them, “He may eat it.” They said to him, “If a priest returned and sold him to an [ordinary] Israelite, has he not left his jurisdiction?” He told them, “Yes.” They said to him, “We too have left the jurisdiction of [the Holy One, blessed be He]; are we not [now] like the all the [rest of the] world?” Ezekiel said to them (in Ezek. 20:32-33), “But that which you have in mind shall never come to pass, that should you say: let us become like the gentiles…. ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘surely I will [reign] over you with a powerful hand....’” He said to them, “As long as one has not sold [a slave], he is in his jurisdiction; and you have not been sold for a price.” It is so stated (in Is. 52:3), “For thus says the Lord, ‘You were sold for free, [and you shall be redeemed for no money].’” (Deut. 29:12:) “In order to establish you today as his people…,” so that I would not go back on the word that I swore to your ancestors. Deut. 29:13), “And not only with you [have I made this covenant and this oath].” But rather the generations that have yet to come were also there at that time, as stated (in vs. 14), “But with those who are [standing ('md)] here with us [today… and with those who are not here with us today].” R. Abahu said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahmani, “Why does it say, ‘those who are [standing ('md)] here [...]; and those who are not here’ (without using the word, standing)? Because all the souls were there, [even] when [their] bodies had still not been created. It is for that reason [their] existence (literally, standing, rt.: 'md) is not stated here.” R. Eliezer said, “A curse will come upon Laban, because he said to Jacob (in Gen. 31:30), ‘Why did you steal my gods?’ It (i.e., such an idol) could not save itself from theft. [So] how could it save others? But Israel is not like that, as they serve the Holy One, blessed be He, about whom it is stated (in Deut. 10:21), “He is your praise, and He is your God, [who has done these great and awful things for you that your own eyes have seen].” He [also] watches over Israel like a father who watches over his son, as stated (in Ps. 121:4), “Behold the One keeping Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.”

(Fol. 23) Our Rabbis were taught (Num. 30, 13) Her husband hath annulled them; and the Lord will forgive her. The passage deals with a woman whose husband annulled her vow, but she was not aware of the fact she needs forgiveness. R. Akiba, when he would reach the foregoing passage, would cry, saying: "If one who only had intention to eat swine meat, and he actually ate lamb meat, nevertheless the Torah says he needs an atonement and forgiveness, how much more so is it necessary for a man who wanted to eat swine meat and really did eat it!" Similar to this is the following passage (Lev. 5, 17) And he knew not whether he had incurred guilt and so bear his iniquity. If one who actually had intentions to eat lamb meat, that is permitted to be eaten, but it turned out that he did eat swine meat, nevertheless the Torah says, and he know not whether he had incurred guilt, and so bear his iniquity, how much more so is this applied to one who intended to eat swine meat and did eat it! Issi b. Juda says: And he know not whether he had incurred guilt. If one who actually had intentions to eat lamb, but it turned out that he ate swine meat, nevertheless the Torah says, and he should bear his iniquity, how much more so is this applied to one who intended to eat swine meat and did eat it! Upon this let mourn all those who feel the affliction."

We are taught: (Num. 30, 13) Her husband hath annulled them; and the Lord will forgive her. R. Akiba, when he would reach the above passage, would cry, saying: "If one only had the intention to eat swine meat, and he actually ate lamb meat, nevertheless the Torah says he needs an atonement and forgivenness; how much more so is it necessary for a man who wanted to eat swine meat and really did eat it!" Similar to this the following passage (Lev. 5, 17) And he know not whether he had incurred guilt, and so bear his iniquity. "If one who actually had intentions to eat fat that is permitted to be eaten, but it turned out that he did eat such fat which is prohibited, nevertheless the Torah says and he know not whether he had incurred guilt, and so bear his iniquity, how much more so is this applied to one who intended to eat prohibited fat and did actually eat it!" Issi b. Juda says: "Upon the above passage, and he know not whether he had incurred guilt, should a man feel sorry his entire life?"

(Deut. 29:11 [12]:) TO ENTER INTO THE COVENANT WITH THE LORD YOUR GOD, EVEN THROUGH HIS OATH. Three covenants did the Holy One make with Israel: one when they came out of Egypt, one when they stood before Mount Sinai, {one at Horeb,} and one here.⁷Tanh., Deut. 8:3. But why did he make <a covenant> with them here? Because they had {cooked} [revoked] the one which he had made with them <on Sinai>,⁸This identification appears in the parallel from the traditional Tanhuma. when they said (of the Golden Calf in Exod. 32:4): THIS IS YOUR GOD, O ISRAEL. For that reason he made < another covenant> with them on Horeb⁹The text should probably read: “With them here,” in accord with Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. and established a curse over it for whoever would go back on his words. Now the word, ENTER (rt.: 'BR), <can> only be in the sense of one who says to his companion: May this curse come (rt.: 'BR) upon me, if I go back on this word. And so you find that, when they provoked the Holy One, they went into captivity. What did Daniel say (in Dan. 7:11)? AND ALL ISRAEL HAS TRANSGRESSED (rt.: 'BR) YOUR TORAH [….] SO THE CURSE (alah) AND THE OATH ARE POURED DOWN UPON US. Now alah can only be a curse,¹⁰Alah can also mean “oath” and “covenant.” as where it is stated (in Numb. 5:27): AND THE WOMAN SHALL BECOME A CURSE (alah). <This is> to teach you that, just as one imposes an oath on the suspect adulteress, so the Holy One imposed an oath upon Israel. But perhaps you will say: Why all this bother? It is not because I need you? Rather what shall I do to you, when I have already sworn to your ancestors, that I will never change anything for you and your children? It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:12 [13]): IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH YOU TODAY AS HIS PEOPLE […,] <AS HE SWORE TO YOUR ANCESTORS, TO ABRAHAM, TO ISAAC, AND TO JACOB>. It also says (in Cant. 7:6 [5]): THE KING IS BOUND BY THE TRESSES. Now no one is bound except by an oath. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 30:4 [3]): <WHEN A WOMAN VOWS A VOW TO THE LORD> AND BINDS HERSELF WITH A BOND <….> Therefore, one cannot break his oath.

(Exodus 21:7) "And if a man sells his daughter": Scripture speaks of a minor (under twelve). You say that it speaks of a minor, but perhaps it speaks of an adult! __ Would you say that? (The rationale for his selling is) Since he is permitted to annul her vows, he is permitted to sell her. Just as he may annul the vows of a minor but not of an adult, so, he can sell a minor but not an adult. __ But (reason from) the "place" you are coming from (i.e., from vows). Just as there, (he may annul her vows) when she is a na'arah, (a maiden), (from twelve years and a day until twelve and a half years, viz. [Numbers 30:17]) here, too, (he should be able to sell her) when she is a na'arah! __ Would you say that? if (pubertal) signs remove her from servitude, how much more so (may he not sell her [a na'arah]) when she has not yet been sold!

(Bamidbar 6:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man or a woman, if he shall declare to vow the vow of a Nazirite, to be a Nazirite to the L-rd": What is the intent of this section? (i.e., the section of vows has already been stated!) — Because it is written (Ibid. 30:3) "A man if he vow a vow to the L-rd, or if he take an oath to bind upon his soul, etc.", whence if he vows (to forbid) something for one day it is forbidden for one day; for two days, it is forbidden for two days; (to forbid) a specific thing, that specific thing is forbidden — I would think that the same is true of Naziritism. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." that if he vowed (Naziritism, to forbid something to himself) for one day or for one moment, it is forbidden to him for thirty days. And he is forbidden to drink wine and to render himself tamei for the dead and to cut his hair. This is the intent of this section. "a man or a woman": to equate women with men (in respect to Naziritism). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where minors are equated with adults, (i.e., in respect to Cohanim not rendering themselves tamei for the dead, viz. Vayikra 21:1), women are not equated with men, then here (in respect to Naziritism), where minors are not equated with adults, how much more so should women not be equated with men! It is, therefore, written "a man or a woman," to equate women with men. "a man": and not a minor. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where women are not equated with men (see above), minors are equated with adults, then here, (in respect to Naziritism), where women are equated with men, how much more so should minors be equated with adults! It is, therefore, written "a man," and not a minor. "if he shall declare": to include (Naziritism as obtaining with) one who knows how to declare (i.e., one who is cognizant of the import of what he is saying.) From here they ruled: The vows of a girl of eleven years and one day are examined (for such cognizance); of twelve years and one day — her vows stand. The vows of a boy of twelve years and one day are examined; of thirteen years and one day — his vows stand. "if he declare": willingly, and not under coercion. — But perhaps even under coercion! — It follows (that they must be willing), viz.: It is written here "declare," and, in respect to vows and gifts (Vayikra 22:21) "declare." Just as there, willingly; here, too, willingly. "to vow a vow": I might think that even if he vows to bring an offering he becomes a Nazirite; it is, therefore, written "to make a Nazirite" — he must make the vow of a Nazirite. I might think (from "to make a Nazirite") that he may make even others Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "nazir," (which connotes that) he makes himself a Nazirite, and not others. If so, why is it written (lit.,) "nazir, to make a nazir"? To equate epithets of Naziritism with Naziritism and "signals" of Naziritism with Naziritism. This tells me only of Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows? From "the vow of a Nazirite," to equate vows with Naziritism and Naziritism with vows, viz.: Just as in Naziritism, epithets of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, and signals of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, so, with vows, epithets of vows are equated with vows, and signals of vows are equated with vows. And just as vows are subject to transgression of (Bamidbar 30:3) "He shall not profane his word" and (Devarim 23:22) "You shall not delay to pay it," so, Naziritism. And just as with vows a father may void the vows of his daughter, and a husband, the vows of his wife, so, with Naziritism. R. Yehoshua says: "to make a Nazirite": (to make) even others (Nazirites, e.g., a father, vis-à-vis his son). "to make a Nazirite to the L-rd": It is a mitzvah to become a Nazirite to the L-rd. Shimon Hatzaddik said: I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazirite who had become unclean (by contact with a dead body) but once. Once a Nazirite came to me from the south. His eyes were beautiful, he was very handsome, and his hair was wavy. I said to him: "What prompted you to destroy this beautiful hair?" (at the end of the Nazirite period). He answered: "I was a shepherd for my father in my town. Once, while drawing water from the well, I gazed upon my reflection and my evil inclination seized hold of me and threatened to snatch me from the world — whereupon I said to it: 'Empty one, why do you vaunt yourself in a world that is not yours, where you are destined to be consigned to worms and maggots? I swear, I shall shear you in the name of Heaven!'" I thereupon arose, and, kissing him on the head, said to him: "May Nazirites like you multiply in Israel, doing the will of the L-rd! Of such as you it is written 'A man … if he shall declare to vow the vow of the Nazirite to be a Nazirite to the L-rd.'"

(Numb. 30:2-3) “And Moses said to the heads of the tribes, ‘When someone makes a vow (neder) to the Lord.’” This is related to that which is written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ [in truth, in justice, and in righteousness].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do not think that you have permission to swear in My name even in truth. You are not entitled to swear by My name unless you possess all the following attributes (of Deut. 10:20), ‘The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast, [and by Him you shall swear].’” That you should be like those who were called God-fearing, Abraham, Job, and Joseph: Abraham of whom it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “For now I know that you fear [God].” Concerning Job it is written (in Job 1:1), “the man was blameless and upright, one who feared God.” Concerning Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “for I fear God.” Ergo (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.) “Him you shall serve.” [You do so,] if you turn [all] your attention to the Torah, fulfill [its] commandments and have no other work (abodah). It therefore is stated (ibid.), “Him you shall serve (rt.: 'bd).” (Deut. 10:20, cont.) “To Him you shall hold fast.” Can one hold fast to the Divine Presence? Moreover, has it not already been stated (in Deut. 4:24), “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire?” It is simply [being stated with reference to] anyone marrying off his daughter to a scholar who reads [Scripture] and recites [Mishnah], that he engage in commerce¹Gk.: pragmateia. for him and have him benefit from his assets.²Ket. 111b; cf. Sot. 14a. It is with reference to [such a] one that it is stated (in Deut. 10:20), “to him you shall hold fast.”
If you have all these [attributes] you may swear; if not, you are not entitled to swear. There is a story about King Jannai, that he had two thousand towns and they all were destroyed because of a true oath. How so? One man said to his fellow, “It is an oath that I will walk and eat such and such in place x”; and they would walk and fulfill the oath, and [the towns] were [nevertheless] destroyed. [If] this is with someone that swears truthfully, all the more so with one who swears falsely.

(Numb. 30:2-3) “And Moses said to the heads of the tribes, ‘When someone makes a vow (neder) to the Lord.’” This is related to that which is written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ [in truth, in justice, and in righteousness].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do not think that you have permission to swear in My name even in truth. You are not entitled to swear by My name unless you possess all the following attributes (of Deut. 10:20), ‘The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast, [and by Him you shall swear].’” That you should be like those who were called God-fearing, Abraham, Job, and Joseph: Abraham of whom it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “For now I know that you fear [God].” Concerning Job it is written (in Job 1:1), “the man was blameless and upright, one who feared God.” Concerning Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “for I fear God.” Ergo (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.) “Him you shall serve.” [You do so,] if you turn [all] your attention to the Torah, fulfill [its] commandments and have no other work (abodah). It therefore is stated (ibid.), “Him you shall serve (rt.: 'bd).” (Deut. 10:20, cont.) “To Him you shall hold fast.” Can one hold fast to the Divine Presence? Moreover, has it not already been stated (in Deut. 4:24), “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire?” It is simply [being stated with reference to] anyone marrying off his daughter to a scholar who reads [Scripture] and recites [Mishnah], that he engage in commerce¹Gk.: pragmateia. for him and have him benefit from his assets.²Ket. 111b; cf. Sot. 14a. It is with reference to [such a] one that it is stated (in Deut. 10:20), “to him you shall hold fast.”
If you have all these [attributes] you may swear; if not, you are not entitled to swear. There is a story about King Jannai, that he had two thousand towns and they all were destroyed because of a true oath. How so? One man said to his fellow, “It is an oath that I will walk and eat such and such in place x”; and they would walk and fulfill the oath, and [the towns] were [nevertheless] destroyed. [If] this is with someone that swears truthfully, all the more so with one who swears falsely.

(Exodus 21:30) "When kofer is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul": the value of the victim. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: the value of the killer (i.e., the owner of the ox). And thus do we find that redemption is not given for those who are put to death. In all places, those who are liable to death at the hands of man are not redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:24) "Any cherem that is devoted from a man (going out to be executed) shall not be redeemed, (for) he is going to be put to death" (and has no valuation). But here "he shall give the redemption of his soul." R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heaven, as it is written (Numbers 30:12) "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then each man shall give the ransom of his soul to the L rd, etc.", and (II Kings 12:5) "each man, the money for the valuation of his soul," and (Mishlei 13:8) "A man's wealth may redeem his soul," and (Daniel 4:24) "But, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you. Redeem your soul through charity," and (Job 33:23-24) "If there will be for him but a single defending angel from a thousand to declare a man's uprightness for him, then He will be gracious to him and He will say: Redeem him from descending to the grave I have found kofer for Him!" We find that certain consecrated objects can be redeemed and others cannot be redeemed; certain things that may not be eaten may be redeemed; things from which benefit may not be derived may not be redeemed. The nations of the world cannot be redeemed, as it is written (Psalms 49:8) "A man cannot redeem his brother; he cannot give his kofer to G d. Too costly is their soul's redemption and unattainable forever." Beloved is Israel for whose souls the Holy One Blessed be He has given the nations as kofer, as it is written (Isaiah 43:3) "I gave Egypt as kofer for you." Why? (Ibid. 4) "Because you were honored in My eyes, you were honored and I loved you, and I placed a man in your place and nations in place of your souls."

(Bamidbar 10:3-4) "And when they (the Cohanim) blow with (both) of them, then all the congregation shall gather unto you, to the door of the tent of meeting. And if they blow with one, there shall gather unto you the chiefs." — But we have not heard to where (the chiefs are to gather). It follows (by induction), viz. "Blowing" is written in respect to the congregation, and "blowing" is written in respect to the chiefs. Just as the first (gathering) is at the door of the tent of meeting, so, the second. I might think that all who are (written) first in Scripture (in this instance, the congregation) are first in the act (of gathering). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:2) "And Moses spoke (first) to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel": Since "speaking" is mentioned in the Torah unqualified (as to the order of speaking), and in one instance it is explicitly mentioned that the chiefs take precedence, so I induce that in all instances of "speaking" the chiefs take precedence. R. Yonathan said: (The above derivation is) not needed. For it is already written (Shemot 34:31-32) "And Moses called to them, and there returned to him Aaron and all the chiefs of the congregation and Moses spoke to them. And afterwards all the children of Israel drew near, etc." Since "speaking" is mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance it is mentioned that the chiefs take precedence, so I induce that in all instances of speaking the chiefs take precedence. What, then, is the intent of "And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes, etc."? To teach (by juxtaposition with 30:3) that annulment of vows is effected only by experts.

(Bamidbar 30:2) "And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 10:3) "And when they (the Cohanim) blow (tekiah) with them (the shofaroth) then all the congregation shall gather unto you," and (Ibid. 4) "And if they blow (tekiah) with one, there shall gather unto you the chiefs," we do not know where (they are to gather). It is (therefore) written "tekiah" re the congregation, and "tekiah" re the chiefs. Just as the congregation, (Ibid. 3) "to the door of the tent of meeting," so, the chiefs, at the door of the tent of meeting. — But perhaps all that is first in Scripture (i.e., "congregation") is first in act? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 30:2) "to the heads of the tribes" (and then to the tribes). Since "spoke" is written in the Torah unqualified (as to whom he is speaking first), and in one instance (i.e., this one) it is specified that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation, it is, likewise, assumed in all such instances that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation) is not necessary. It is already written Shemot 34:31-32) "And Moses called to them, and there returned to him all the chiefs of the congregation, and Moses would speak to them. And after that, all the children of Israel would approach and he would command them, etc." Since "speaking" is written in the Torah unqualified (as to whom he is speaking first), and in one instance it is specified that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation, so, this is assumed in all such instances. If so, why need it be written (here) "to the heads of the tribes"? To indicate that the permitting (i.e., absolution) of vows is through experts alone.

"This is the thing": We are hereby apprised that just as the prophets prophesied by "Thus said the L-rd," so did Moses, viz. (Shemot 11:4), and, in addition, "This is the thing, etc." Variantly: This is the "word" (for the absolution of vows.) A husband "annuls" ("mefer" [his wife's vows, viz. Bamidbar 30:9]), but a sage does not annul. A sage "permits" ("matir" [viz. Bamidbar 30:3]) but a husband does not permit. For would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If he who does not annul, permits, then he who does annul, how much more so should he permit. And if he who does not permit, annuls, then he who does permit, how much more so should he annul! It is, therefore, written "This is the 'word' that the L-rd has commanded": The husband "annuls," and a sage does not annul. A sage "permits," and the husband does not permit.

"This is the thing": We are hereby apprised that just as the prophets prophesied by "Thus said the L-rd," so did Moses, viz. (Shemot 11:4), and, in addition, "This is the thing, etc." Variantly: This is the "word" (for the absolution of vows.) A husband "annuls" ("mefer" [his wife's vows, viz. Bamidbar 30:9]), but a sage does not annul. A sage "permits" ("matir" [viz. Bamidbar 30:3]) but a husband does not permit. For would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If he who does not annul, permits, then he who does annul, how much more so should he permit. And if he who does not permit, annuls, then he who does permit, how much more so should he annul! It is, therefore, written "This is the 'word' that the L-rd has commanded": The husband "annuls," and a sage does not annul. A sage "permits," and the husband does not permit.

(Bamidbar 30:3) "A man, if he vow a vow, etc.": "A man": to exclude a minor. — But this would exclude (both) a minor and one who is thirteen years and one day old! — It follows (by induction that it does not), viz.: It is written here "vow," and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) "vow." Just as there, "ki yafli" (i.e., if he can clearly articulate his vow), so, here — whence it was ruled: If he were thirteen years and one day old, his vows stand. If he were twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined (for the yafli factor). "if he vow a vow": (The meaning is:) If he "supports" his vow by something that is vowed (e.g., "I vow not to eat X just as (I am forbidden to eat) an offering" [i.e., something that is vowed]), it is a vow. Otherwise, it is not a vow. — But perhaps (the meaning is) that it is not a vow until he appends to it (Ibid.) "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6:2) "to vow a vow" — in any event (i.e., even without appending "to the L-rd.") — But perhaps, just as with vows, if he supports his vow by something which is a vow, it is a vow, and, otherwise, not — so with oaths? It is, therefore, written (in respect to oaths) (Ibid. 30:3) "to bind a bond" — in any event (i.e., even without such support). Why is there a difference between vows and oaths (in this regard)? Vows are like vowing by the life of the king. Oaths, (in that they must be in the name of the L-rd) are like swearing by the King Himself. And even though there is no proof for this (distinction) it is intimated in (II Kings 4:20) "As the L-rd lives, and as you (King David) live." "to bind a bond upon his soul": Upon his soul he binds (i.e., forbids), but he does not bind upon others (i.e., his wife [i.e., he cannot confirm (in advance of her making them) all the vows that his wife will make (in his absence)]. For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where he cannot annul his own vows once he has made them, he can annul his own vows before he has made them, then where he can annul his wife's vows once she has made them, how much more so can he annul his wife's vows before she has made them! And if he can do this, it follows that he can confirm them before she makes them. In the words of R. Eliezer: I might think that just as he can annul (her vows) before she makes them, so can he confirm them before she makes them — it is, therefore, written "to bind a bond upon his soul" — Upon his soul he binds, but he does not bind upon others.

Variantly: What is the intent of "to bind a bond upon his soul"? Because it is written (Ibid.) "According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do," I might think, even if he swore to eat neveiloth and treifoth, forbidden animals and reptiles. It is, therefore, written "to bind a bond" — to bind (i.e., to forbid) what is permitted, and not to permit what is forbidden. Variantly: What is the intent of "upon his soul"? From "According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do," I might think, only if he spoke it. Whence do I derive (the same for) his accepting it upon himself (inwardly) by vow or oath? It is, therefore, written "upon his soul." "lo yachel devaro": He shall not make his word "chullin" ("profane"). If he were a sage, (even though he annuls for others), he should not annul for himself. For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If he annuls for others, should he not annul for himself? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "He shall not make his (own) words "chullin." "lo yachel devaro": This tells us (that if he breaks his vow) he is in transgression of "lo yachel." Whence is it derived that he is also in transgression of "You shall not delay"? From (Devarim 23:22) "If you make a vow to the L-rd your G-d, you shall not delay to pay it" — whence we derive that he is in transgression of both. R. Eliezer says: This ("You shall not delay") is to equate (verbal) expression (i.e., vowing) with swearing. R. Akiva says: "According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do" — to equate expression with swearing ("According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do.") [followed by] "And a woman, etc." A woman is hereby being likened to a man, viz.: Just as a man transgresses both ("breaking" and "delaying") so, a woman. "And a woman": I might think, when she has matured; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:17) "in her maidenhood." If so, I might think, even a minor. It is, therefore written "And a woman." How is this to be resolved? (We are speaking of a stage) where she has left the status of a minor and not yet achieved maturity. Whence is it derived that she is subject to vowing? It is written here "vow," and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) "vow." Just as "vowing" there connotes "hafla'ah" (distinctness of expression), so, "vow" here connotes "hafla'ah" — whence they ruled: The vows of a girl of twelve years and a day stand. Those of a girl of eleven are "examined" (for "hafla'ah"). "if she vow a vow": If she "supports" her vow by something which is vowed (see above), it is a vow. Otherwise, it is not a vow. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that it is not a vow until he appends to it (Ibid.) "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore, written "to vow a vow" — in any event (i.e., even without appending "to the L-rd.") It is the first assumption, then, which is to be accepted. "and she binds a bond": This connotes an oath, as it is written (Ibid. 11) "or she bound a bond on her soul by an oath." "in her father's house": in her father's domain — to include her having been widowed or divorced from betrothal (vis-à-vis her father's prerogative in her vows). — But perhaps it is to be understood literally, even after her marriage (i.e., that even then if she vowed while in her father's house, the father may annul the vow?) It is, therefore, written "in her father's house in her youth." (Scripture is speaking of one) all of whose youth was spent in her father's house — to exclude one who was widowed or divorced in marriage, all of her youth not having been spent in her father's house.

(Bamidbar 30:5) "If her father hear her vow": to exclude one who is deaf. "If her father hear": this tells me only of her father's hearing (her vow). Whence do I derive (the same for) his being told (of it) by others? From (6) "on the day that he hears." "and he be silent to her": He must intend her. If his daughter vowed, and he said "I thought it was my wife," he may (later) annul her vow (for it was never confirmed by his silence.) For it is written "and he be silent to her": He must intend her. "Then all of her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand": If she vowed and he confirmed it (by his silence), and then he annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand "Then all of her vows shall stand"? (As meaning) if he did not (later) annul them. Or, (am I to understand it as meaning that they stand) even if he did annul them, (their having been confirmed by his original silence)? And how would I understand (6) "And if her father constrain her, (which implies that he can annul them)? If he never confirmed them (by his silence.) Of, even if he did confirm them, (if he then annulled them, they are annulled?) It is, therefore, written "shall stand," Scripture hereby apprising us that every vow, if it were confirmed for one instant, cannot thereafter be annulled.

(Bamidbar 30:6) "And if her father constrain her": I would not know what this "constraint" was were it not written (Ibid. 9) "And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul the vow" — whence I derive that "constraint" is annulment. — We learn vis-à-vis the husband that "constraint" is annulment. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? And, furthermore, we find vis-à-vis the husband that (his) silence on the day of his hearing is equated with the day of the vow for confirmation. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? It follows (by induction), viz.: If he (the father) is permitted to confirm and he is permitted to annul, then if I have learned about annulment that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then for confirmation, too, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. — No, this may be true of annulment, where there is a distinction in the rule, (annulment in the heart not being considered annulment), wherefore silence on the day of hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, as opposed to confirmation, where no such distinction exists. Not succeeding (in deriving it in the above manner) I will derive it from (what obtains with) the husband, viz.: Since the husband annuls and the father annuls, then just as with the husband, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the same obtains with the father, too. Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If for the husband, who does not achieve exclusivity (of prerogative in the area of his wife's vows), silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the father, who does (occasionally) achieve exclusivity, how much more so should silence on the day of his hearing be equated with (silence on) the day of the vow! — No, this may be true of the husband, who annuls (her vows) when she has matured, (as opposed to her father who does not), wherefore silence on the day of his hearing is not equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination (we turn to Scripture, viz.:) It is written (Ibid. 17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter": The father is likened to the husband, viz.: Just as with the husband, "constraint" is annulment, and silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, towards confirmation — so with the father. (Ibid. 6) "and the L-rd will forgive her": If she (one's wife) made a vow and he annulled it in his heart and she broke it (to her thinking) wilfully, whence is it derived that she requires forgiveness? From "and the L-rd will forgive her." Now does this not follow a fortiori? If vows which are (thus) annulled require forgiveness, how much more so vows which are not annulled! An analogy: One, thinking that he was eating swine's flesh ate lamb flesh instead. If he requires forgiveness, how much more so one who intended to eat swine's flesh and actually ate it! "for her father has constrained her": If she said: "I know that father would annul any vow that he heard," I might think it is annulled; it is, therefore, written "for her father has constrained her." If the father annuls it, it is annulled; if not, it is not annulled. If he said to a caretaker: "Any vows that my daughter makes from now until I return, annul them," and he did so, I might think that they are annulled; it is, therefore, written "for her father has constrained her." If her father annulled them, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find in all places that a man's messenger is like himself.

(Bamidbar 30:7) "And if she be to a man, and her vows be upon her": This refers to one who is betrothed. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: In either case, (i.e., either betrothed or wed) Scripture comes to make a distinction, viz.: As long as she is in her father's house, her father and her husband (jointly) annul her vows. If she is wed, her father does not annul her vows. "and her vows be upon her": the vows that "came along" with her from her father's house to her husband's house. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows that she made on his (her husband's) domain? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he annuls vows that she vowed not in his domain, how much more so vows that she made in his domain! Variantly: "and her vows be upon her": (Can the husband annul only) vows which were never confirmed (in her father's house) or even vows which were confirmed there? It follows (inductively), viz.: The husband annuls and the father annuls. Just as the father annuls only vows which were never confirmed or annulled, so, the husband. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the father, who has an exclusive prerogative (over his daughter's vows) can annul only vows which were never confirmed, how much more so, the husband, who does not have such a prerogative! — No, this may be true of the father, who does not annul in her maturity — wherefore he annuls only vows which were never confirmed, as opposed to the husband, who does annul (the vows of her) maturity — wherefore he can annul every vow, (even those confirmed in her father's house)? Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination, we must revert to Scripture, viz.: "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter. Scripture likens the husband to the father, viz.: Just as the father can annul only those vows which were never confirmed, so, the husband. "or the utterance (mivta) of her lips": "bitui" (like "mivta") connotes an oath, as in (Vayikra 5:4) "Or if a soul swear 'levatei' with his lips."

(Bamidbar 30:8) "And her husband hear": to exclude one who is deaf. "And her husband hear": This tells me only of his own hearing. Whence do I derive (the same for) others' hearing (and reporting it to him? From (9) "And if on the day of her husband's hearing." (Ibid. 8) "and he be silent to her." He must intend her. If his wife vowed, and he said: "I thought it was my daughter," he may annul it later (see above), it being written "and he be silent to her." He must intend her. "then all of her vows shall stand": If she vowed and he confirmed (her vow by his silence), and he later annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand "then all of her vows shall stand"? If he did not annul them. Or, even if he did annul them, and how would I understand (9) "and he annul her vow"? If he had not confirmed it. Or, even if he did confirm it? (See the same discussion vis-à-vis one's daughter above.) It is, therefore, written "they shall stand," Scripture apprising us that any vow which was confirmed at the time cannot thereafter be annulled.

(Bamidbar 30:9) "And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul her vow": We learn vis-à-vis the husband that "constraint" is annulment and vis-à-vis the husband that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow.

(Bamidbar 30:10) "And the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman": widowed or divorced after marriage. You say after marriage, but perhaps it is after betrothal? You reason thus: Since a father cannot annul the vows of his daughter once she has come of age (bogereth [twelve and a half years]), and he cannot annul the vows of his widowed daughter, then just as a bogereth is one who has entirely left her father's domain, so, the widowed and divorced woman in question must be one who has left her father's domain (i.e., widowed and divorced after marriage, as opposed to after betrothal, in which instance she is still partially in his domain.) R. Akiva says: She is called "an orphan in her father's lifetime" (in respect to vows.) — But perhaps even if she were widowed or divorced (after marriage) and married another, I "pronounce" over her "and the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman" (her vows shall stand)? It is, therefore, written (to negate this, Ibid. 11) "and if in the house of her husband, etc." This tells me only of a woman who married an Israelite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a widow who married a high-priest or a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who had received release from levirate marriage), who married an ordinary Cohein? From "And if in the house of her husband" — in any event. "And if in the house of her husband she vowed": This refers to a married woman. — But perhaps it refers only to a betrothed woman? (This cannot be,) for (Ibid. 7) "And if she be (betrothed) to a man" already refers to a betrothed woman. How, then, am I to understand "And if in the house of her husband she vowed"? As referring to a married woman.

(Bamidbar 30:12) "and her husband heard": to exclude one who was deaf. "And her husband heard": This tells me only of one who himself heard (the vow). Whence do I derive (the same for) his being informed by others? From (13) "on the day of his hearing," "and he was silent to her": to (the end of) confirmation. You say this, but perhaps (the "silence" intended is the silence of) taunting. (This cannot be, for (Ibid. 15) "And if her husband be silent to her from day to day" already speaks of (the silence of) taunting. How, then, am I to understand "and he was silent to her"? As referring to (the silence of) confirmation. (Ibid. 12) "then all of her vows shall stand": If she vowed and he confirmed (her vow by his silence), and he later annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand "then all of her vows shall stand"? If he did not annul them. Or, even if he did annul them, and how would I understand "and he annul her vow"? If he had not confirmed it. Or, even if he did confirm it? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12) "shall stand."

(Bamidbar 30:13) "Her husband has annulled them": If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. If she said: "I know that any vow of mine that my husband would hear of he would annul," I might think that it is annulled. It is, therefore, written "Her husband has annulled them." If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. If he said to a caretaker: "Annul all the vows that my wife makes from now until I return from that place," and he did so, I might think that they would be annulled. It is, therefore, written "Her husband has annulled them." If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find in all places that a man's messenger is like the man himself. "and the L-rd will forgive her": If she vowed and he annulled it in his heart, and she went and broke (the vow wilfully), whence do we derive that she (still) requires forgiveness? From "and the L-rd will forgive her."

(Bamidbar 30:14) "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 9) "and he annul the vow which is upon her," I might think, whether or not it involves affliction. It is, therefore, written "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it." Scripture speaks only of vows involving affliction. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that he may annul them]) for vows affecting relations between him and her? From (Ibid. 17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter" — whether or not they entail affliction. And just as this vow (i.e., a vow involving affliction) is a vow which is not absolved by others (i.e., sages [but annulled by the husband]), so, all vows (i.e., those between husband and wife) which are not absolved by others (are annulled by the husband.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find vows which are absolved by others and which may be annulled by the husband. How so? If she said: "I forbid the fruits of the world to myself," he may annul it. (If she said:) "I forbid the fruits of the province to myself," he can bring them from a different province. (If she said:) "I forbid the fruits of this shopkeeper to me," the husband cannot annul it. And if his livelihood came only from him, he can annul it. We find, then, that only a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows entailing affliction. Whence do we derive the same for a father (vis-à-vis his daughter)? It follows (by induction), viz. Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows involving affliction, so, a father. — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a father can annul any vow, so, a husband can annul any vow. How, then, am I to understand "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it, etc."? As referring to the days of her maturity (bagruth), but in the days of her maidenhood (na'aruth), he may annul all of her vows. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) "in her maidenhood in her father's house." (i.e., This distinction between 'na'aruth and bagruth) applies only in her father's house, but not in her husband's house. I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal was refuted, and I have "merited" returning to the original formulation, viz.: Since a husband can annul and a father can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so, a father. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If a husband, who can annul in her maturity, can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, how much more so a father! — No, this may be true of a husband, who does not have exclusive authority (in the annulment of vows) — wherefore he can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, as opposed to a father, who does have such authority — wherefore he can annul all vows. I have not succeeded in deriving it by reasoning; it is, therefore, written "These are the statutes, etc." likening the father to the husband, viz.: Just as the husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so the father. "her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it": If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and he confirmed it for figs, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, it is not annulled until he annulled it also for grapes. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, but not for grapes, it is all annulled, it being written "her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it." Just as "shall confirm it" (connotes even) "part of it," so, "shall annul it" (connotes even) "part of it." If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and a sage was consulted (for absolution) and he (explicitly) permitted it for dates, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is all permitted. If he forbade it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all forbidden. If he forbade it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is forbidden. If her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all annulled. If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all confirmed. When is this so? When it is all one vow. But if she said: I vow not to eat figs, and, in addition, I vow not to eat grapes, and a sage were consulted, and he permitted it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs — or if her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, or if he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes or for grapes but not for figs — (then only) what was (specifically) confirmed is confirmed, and what was (specifically) annulled is annulled.

(Bamidbar 30:14) "And if her husband be silent, silent to her from day to day": This is the silence of taunting. You say this, but perhaps it is the silence of confirmation (of the vow)? (This is not so, for Ibid. 12) "and he was silent to her" already speaks of the silence of confirmation. How, then, is "and he be silent, silent" to be understood? As referring to the silence of taunting. "from day to day": I might think, from time to time (i.e., for a twenty-four hour period); it is, therefore, written "which are upon her. He has confirmed them for he was silent to her on the day of his hearing" (i.e., until the night). R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "from time to time (i.e., a twenty-four hour period)," it being written "from day to day."

(Bamidbar 30:16) "And if he annul them after his hearing": after his confirmation of the vow. You say this, but perhaps it is "after his hearing," literally? (This cannot be, for) "for he was silent to her on the day of his hearing" already speaks of hearing. How, then, am I to understand "after his hearing"? As after his confirmation of the vow. "And if he annul them after his hearing," i.e., after his confirmation (and she breaks her vow), "then he shall bear her sin." (i.e., he takes her place for (punishment of) the sin. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz. If in respect to G-d's measure of punishment, which (relative to that of reward) is small, one who causes his neighbor to go astray takes his place for punishment, then, in respect to His measure of good, which is (relatively) large, how much more so (is one rewarded for being instrumental in his neighbor's mitzvah)!

(Bamidbar 30:17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter": Father is likened to husband, and husband to father in all of the ways we have mentioned "in her maidenhood (in) the house of her father", but not "in her maidenhood" in the house of her husband (i.e., her husband, unlike her father, does have prerogatives in her vows beyond her maidenhood.) R. Yishmael says "in her maidenhood in the house of her father": Scripture here speaks of a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband (jointly) annulling her vows.