민수기 30:17의 미드라쉬

(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.

(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!

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 30:17) "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.