민수기 30:6의 Halakhah
וְאִם־הֵנִ֨יא אָבִ֣יהָ אֹתָהּ֮ בְּי֣וֹם שָׁמְעוֹ֒ כָּל־נְדָרֶ֗יהָ וֶֽאֱסָרֶ֛יהָ אֲשֶׁר־אָסְרָ֥ה עַל־נַפְשָׁ֖הּ לֹ֣א יָק֑וּם וַֽיהוָה֙ יִֽסְלַח־לָ֔הּ כִּי־הֵנִ֥יא אָבִ֖יהָ אֹתָֽהּ׃
그러나 그 아비가 그것을 듣는 날에 허락지 아니하면 그 서원과 마음을 제어하려던 서약이 이루지 못할 것이니 그 아비가 허락지 아니하였은즉 여호와께서 사하시리라
Sefer HaChinukh
And there are some of the great commentators that wrote that even though we determine that the law is like Rava said [in the name of] Rav Nachman that "We open for regret, and make ourselves available to annul[...] by the God of Israel", now we are accustomed to be strict and [not follow it] as the law. And [so] we do not make ourselves available to the one that swore in the name of the God of Israel, but rather only to that which is similar to the four vows that are learned in the Mishnah. And also that we do not make ourselves available except for a matter that includes a commandment, such as the making of peace between a man and his wife, or between a man and his fellow, and similar to these matters. And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, say about this matter, that annulment of vows is with three commoners, and even if they have not learned and reasoned - and that is [only] if when it is explained to them, they can reason, and that one of them have studied nonetheless (Bekhorot 32b). And so too, they said that annulment of vows can be with one if he is an expert. And the same is true in any case that he has permission to annul vows from someone who is ordained, as he [is then considered] like an expert. And there is one that explained it, that so long as he is a great sage among Israel - even today, when we do not have ordination - he is called an expert; but his colleagues disagree with him. And the law of one who recants during the time of speech (immediately after the first speech), that his recanting is an [effective] recanting; that which they said that a father abrogates any vow, but a husband, [only] vows of affliction and things between him and her; the law of one who says, "Any vow that I vow this year," or "from now until ten years" - behold, they are null; the law [that] undifferentiated vows are [understood] stringently, and specified vows are [understood] leniently; the law that a man may not prohibit a thing that is not his; the law of one who says to his fellow, "My loaf is forbidden to you," or "this loaf"; the law of one who vows [not to] benefit his fellow, that he [may] pay his debt [back to him]; the law of the one who vows [not to have] meat, that he is permitted gravy, but if he said, "This meat," he is forbidden even the gravy; the law of one whose benefit is forbidden, that it is permitted to teach him oral law, but not written [law], because we can take a wage for it; the law of that which they said, "With vows, it follows the language of people" - in that place and that language that he vowed or swore; the law of annulment of vows that it is the whole day, meaning night and day, but not [twenty-four] hours, as it is stated, (Numbers 30:6) "on the day of his hearing it"; and the rest of its many details are elucidated at length in the tractate that is composed abut it, and that is Tractate Nedarim (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 233).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy