민수기 30:6의 미드라쉬

(Bamidbar 30:6) "And if her father constrain her": I would not know what this "constraint" was were it not written (Ibid. 9) "And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul the vow" — whence I derive that "constraint" is annulment. — We learn vis-à-vis the husband that "constraint" is annulment. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? And, furthermore, we find vis-à-vis the husband that (his) silence on the day of his hearing is equated with the day of the vow for confirmation. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? It follows (by induction), viz.: If he (the father) is permitted to confirm and he is permitted to annul, then if I have learned about annulment that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then for confirmation, too, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. — No, this may be true of annulment, where there is a distinction in the rule, (annulment in the heart not being considered annulment), wherefore silence on the day of hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, as opposed to confirmation, where no such distinction exists. Not succeeding (in deriving it in the above manner) I will derive it from (what obtains with) the husband, viz.: Since the husband annuls and the father annuls, then just as with the husband, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the same obtains with the father, too. Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If for the husband, who does not achieve exclusivity (of prerogative in the area of his wife's vows), silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the father, who does (occasionally) achieve exclusivity, how much more so should silence on the day of his hearing be equated with (silence on) the day of the vow! — No, this may be true of the husband, who annuls (her vows) when she has matured, (as opposed to her father who does not), wherefore silence on the day of his hearing is not equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination (we turn to Scripture, viz.:) It is written (Ibid. 17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter": The father is likened to the husband, viz.: Just as with the husband, "constraint" is annulment, and silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, towards confirmation — so with the father. (Ibid. 6) "and the L-rd will forgive her": If she (one's wife) made a vow and he annulled it in his heart and she broke it (to her thinking) wilfully, whence is it derived that she requires forgiveness? From "and the L-rd will forgive her." Now does this not follow a fortiori? If vows which are (thus) annulled require forgiveness, how much more so vows which are not annulled! An analogy: One, thinking that he was eating swine's flesh ate lamb flesh instead. If he requires forgiveness, how much more so one who intended to eat swine's flesh and actually ate it! "for her father has constrained her": If she said: "I know that father would annul any vow that he heard," I might think it is annulled; it is, therefore, written "for her father has constrained her." If the father annuls it, it is annulled; if not, it is not annulled. If he said to a caretaker: "Any vows that my daughter makes from now until I return, annul them," and he did so, I might think that they are annulled; it is, therefore, written "for her father has constrained her." If her father annulled them, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find in all places that a man's messenger is like himself.