민수기 30:14의 미드라쉬

(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."