민수기 30:14의 주석

כל נדר וכל שבעת אסר וגו׳ EVERY VOW AND EVERY BINDING OATH [TO AFFLICT THE SOUL HER HUSBAND MAY CONFIRM IT OR HER HUSBAND MAY ANNUL IT] — Because it states that a husband may annul his wife’s vows, one might think that all vows are implied! It therefore states: “[every vow] …to afflict the soul” — he may annul only vows to afflict the soul, and these are set forth in Treatise Nedarim 79b.

EVERY VOW, AND EVERY BINDING OATH TO AFFLICT THE SOUL, [HER HUSBAND MAY ESTABLISH IT, AND HER HUSBAND MAY MAKE IT VOID]. “Since He had said [in the preceding verses] that a husband may annul [his wife’s vows], I might think that this includes all her vows! Scripture therefore says, to afflict the soul, meaning that he can only annul vows which afflict the soul, and they are explained in Tractate Nedarim.” These are the words of Rashi. But his language here is [too] concise, because a husband annuls vows which afflict the soul, such as [if she vows] “The fruits of the world be forbidden to me,” or even if she [only] vowed that she would not taste one of all the kinds [of fruits]; and likewise he may annul matters [which concern the relationship] between himself and his wife, even if they do not involve affliction of the soul, such as [if she swore] “I will not paint [my eyes]” or “I will not put powder on my face,” or “I will not have sexual intercourse,” these being matters about which He said, between a man and his wife,⁵⁰Further, Verse 17. as is explained in the last chapter of Tractate Nedarim.⁵¹Nedarim 79b. Such is also the law with respect to the father himself, as we have been taught in the Sifre:⁵²Sifre, Matoth 155. “I only know that a husband may annul vows [which concern the relationship] between himself and his wife, and vows which afflict the soul, [to the exclusion of other vows which he may not annul]. Whence do I know that the father [is similarly limited in his rights]? You can reason [in the following manner] etc… But I have not succeeded in establishing [the father’s law] by reason. Therefore Scripture says: These are the statutes, which the Eternal commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter.⁵⁰Further, Verse 17. [This teaches us that] we must of necessity compare the father to the husband, sothat just as the husband may only annul vows [which concern the relationship] between himself and his wife, and matters which involve affliction of the soul, so also the father may only annul matters [which concern the laws] between him and her,⁵³Such as if she vows not to give him the wages for her work. and matters which involve affliction of the soul.” It is also taught in this way in the Gemara Yerushalmi of Tractate Nedarim.⁵⁴Yerushalmi Nedarim XI, 1. For “Yerushalmi” see Vol. III, p. 192, Note 44.

כל נדר וכל שבועת איסר לענות נפש, “any vow or any prohibition by oath, the purpose of which is to diminish one’s quality of life, etc.” This verse tells us that the husband has no power to rescind a vow by his wife unless it impinges on his quality of life; for instance, if his wife vowed not to partake of certain foodstuffs forever, and the change in her diet has definitively negative effect on her health, something that it is in her husband’s interest to preserve. The same applies to matters that affect the interpersonal relationship between husband and wife, such as the wife vowing not to use any cosmetics, something that will make her unattractive in the eyes of her husband. Anything that is within the province of a husband to rescind is also within the province of a father to rescind. The Torah equated father and husband by writing בין איש לאשתו ובין אב לבתו, “between a man and his wife or between a father and his daughter.”

כל נדר וכל שבועת אסר לענות נפש, “any vow or oath which results in a personal affliction, etc.” Here the Torah teaches that the fact that the Torah has granted the husband of a woman the right to interfere with her vows and to annul them is not a carte blanche applicable to any type of vow. The husband’s authority applies only when such a vow results in personal pain or discomfort also involving him in his marital status. If his wife were to vow not to wash or bathe herself, keeping such a vow would clearly interfere with their marital life; as a result of such considerations the Torah permitted her husband a veto power over such vows. It goes without saying that the husband can veto any vow of his wife which would interfere directly with their family life together. The husband’s authority extends to his wife’s vowing not to use eye-shadow or even certain products for sale in specific stores. We derive all this from the words בין איש לאשתו “between man and his wife,” in verse 17. The reason the husband has the right to interfere in vows concerning either ענוי נפש, self-affliction, and matters directly involving inter-marital relations is that his wife (any wife) is subservient to her husband in two areas; he is entitled to demand that his wife appear attractive to him and not take measures which result in her becoming physically repugnant to her husband. Our sages in Ketuvot 62 understood this concept as derived form Genesis 3,20 “for she (Chavah) is the mother of all living beings,” as meaning that the wife’s purpose in life is to enhance the quality of life of her husband not the reverse.
In matters of their sexual relations there is no need for additional proof that the wife is subservient to the needs of her husband as denial by the wife of the husband’s legitimate rights whether with a vow or without a vow means that she endangers her marriage and would forfeit her כתובה upon being divorced for cause. In matters which have no bearing on the successful relations between husband and wife the husband has no authority to interfere with his wife’s vows.

He may only annul vows which are self-denial. For example, that she may not taste anything [that I prepare] or that she may not drink any beverage.

V. 14. כל נדר וגו׳. Die Einsprachbefugnis des Mannes wird hier auf נדרי עינוי נפש, auf solche Gelübde beschränkt, die eine Vernachlässigung der Gesundheitspflege oder eine Gemüts- und Lebensgenussverkümmerung einschließen. Dazu kommen noch nach der an das בין איש לאשתו des V. 17 sich knüpfenden Halacha: דברים שבינו לבינה, Gelübde, die die Beziehungen der Gatten zu einander beeinträchtigen. Die ersteren sind mit der הפרה des Mannes für immer aufgehoben, die letzteren nur für die Ehe mit diesem Manne (Nedarim 79b).