Talmud su Numeri 30:17

HALAKHAH: “These are the vows which he can dissolve,” etc. It is written⁵Num. 30:14. The verse ends: “Her husband shall confirm it or her husband shall dissolve it.”: “Any vow and any oath of prohibition to mortify.” That covers only vows which contain mortification. Vows regarding the relations between him and her, from where? “Between a man and his wife⁶Num. 30:17. One opinion in this Halakhah (Notes 11 ff.) and the consensus in the Babli (79b) hold that the dissolution of vows of mortification is permanent since it is expressly sanctioned by the verse but that dissolution of a vow regarding marital relations, which is the result of an indirect inference, is valid only as long as the marriage continues. Such a dissolution would be automatically voided for the divorcee or widow. The Mishnah mentions only vows the husband can permanently dissolve..” So far the husband; the father from where? Since the husband can dissolve only vows of mortification and matters between him and her, so the father can dissolve only vows of mortification and matters between him and her⁷This argument seems to be taken out of thin air. It is explained in Sifry Num. 155: V. 17 reads “These are the principles which the Eternal commanded to Moses between a husband and his wife, between a father and his daughter, in her adolescence, in her father’s house.” Now this verse is really an appendix to the laws governing the married wife. It is concluded that the restrictions which apply to the husband in relation with his wife in his house also apply to the father in relation to the adolescent daughter in his house..

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar⁶If the material in the first paragraph is Amoraic, R. Eleazar is the Amora, bar Pedat. If the argument is tannaїtic, he is the Tanna, ben Shamua. R. Eleazar’s argument is paralleled in Sifry Num. 153 by R. Joshia, student of R. Ismael. The final argument in this paragraph is attributed to R. Ismael in the Babli, 68a.: “If she should be a man’s”³Num. 30:7. The masoretic text reads הָיוֹ., the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl⁷At 12 years and 6 months (or 6 months after she developed two pubic hairs) she permanently leaves her father’s potestas. He reads the verse as dealing with a case where there is no residual power of the father. But since vv. 11 ff. speak of the married woman, he must find a case of a preliminarily married woman free from her father.. The colleagues say, Rebbi Eleazar says it correctly⁸His interpretation follows the wording of the verse more closely.. Is it not difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: Did she not leave her father’s power the moment she became an adult⁹Vv. 7–8 give the husband the right to dissolve vows which preceded the marriage. But vv. 11 ff. restrict the right of the husband to vows made during the marriage (Mishnah 2). For the rabbis, the right to dissolve prior vows depends on the father’s collaboration. But R. Eleazar denies any participation to the father; why should the power of the preliminarily married husband be greater than that of the fully married one?? Who may dissolve the vows of an orphan whose father had died¹⁰If the father had arranged his daughter’s preliminary marriage and then had died, the husband cannot dissolve his wife’s prior vows (Mishnah 2) and, after the definitive marriage ceremony, he cannot dissolve prior vows. (The existence of undisclosed prior vows might be grounds for divorce.) An underage girl orphaned from her father can be married off by her mother and brothers, but that is only a rabbinic institution (cf. Yebamot1:2, Note 118). The husband can dissolve her vows only after the definitive marriage or after she became an adult. The latter case is the one dealt with by R. Eleazar.? The husband dissolves¹¹But only the vows made after the preliminary marriage and only after she has reached adulthood.. It is difficult for the rabbis: If he may dissolve before she entered his power, is it not obvious [that he may dissolve] after she entered¹²Why are vv. 11 ff. needed after vv. 7–9? That is a rhetorical question since the two cases are not comparable. For the rabbis, the husband dissolves the vow of the preliminarily married minor only in conjunction with the father, but he also dissolves vows made before the marriage. Once the woman is emancipated from her father, either by completed marriage or by becoming of age, the husband dissolves alone but only vows made during the marriage.? How do the rabbis explain “with her vows on her”? What are we talking about? If about vows which she made before she was preliminarily married and she became preliminarily married, already the father and the husband had the power to dissolve¹³If they do not exercise their powers, they get no second chance. If the girl became an adult between preliminary and definitive marriage, the father lost his right of dissolution and the husband lost it with him. If the father died between preliminary and definitive marriages, the husband alone cannot dissolve; therefore, he cannot dissolve her vow after the definitive marriage when he lives with her.. But we must talk about a vow which she made before her father died, then the father died¹⁴Before she was preliminarily married. Then the father never had any right concurrent with the husband; the husband is not hindered by the father’s power. and she became an adult. From where does Rebbi Eleazar obtain: “The father and the husband dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl.¹⁵Since he rejects the references given in the first paragraph.” “Between a man and his wife.¹⁶Num. 30:17.” That deals with the husband. The father? “Between a father and his daughter.¹⁶Num. 30:17.” How do the rabbis interpret “between a man and his wife”? Not what is between her and others. “Between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others. Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree with this? He agrees; he understands everything from there: “Between a man and his wife”, not what is between her and others¹⁷This is the topic of Chapter 11. The husband can only void vows that either involve the relations between husband and wife or “vows of deprivation” (v. 14); he can forbid his wife to mortify herself. As in Mishnah 11:13, if she had vowed not to sleep with any man, he can void his part but she remains forbidden if she should become a widow or a divorcee.; “between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others.