민수기 30:6의 인용 해설

Introduction The final two chapters of Nedarim discuss a father’s and husband’s right to annul the vows of their daughters or wives. Whereas the release of vows, the topic of the previous chapter, is not mentioned in the Torah, chapter 30 of Numbers discusses the father/husband’s right to annul vows at length. Indeed most of what we know about vows comes from the context of this chapter. Thus vs. 6 states, “But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of her vows or self-imposed obligations shall stand.” Vs. 13 makes a similar statement concerning the husband. There are several limits that the rabbis placed on this right of fathers/husbands. First of all, as we shall learn later in the chapter, not all vows may be annulled. Second, the father may annul his daughter’s vow only until she has reached what was considered majority age (12 ½). Beyond that age she was obligated, as are all people, to keep all her vows. Our mishnah discusses the betrothed young woman, one between the ages of 12 and 12 ½. This girl is still living in her father’s house and yet is already betrothed to another man. She is therefore a classic example of a borderline case, which as we have seen time and time again, is typically the focus of the Mishnah.

die man. Der Gatte oder der Vater. Nach Maim. Hil. Ned. XII, 1 kann jedoch der Vater nicht nur die hier in der Mischna bezeichneten, sondern alle Gelübde seiner Tochter aufheben, weil es Num. 30, 6 כל נדריה ואסריה heisst und der Talmud die Gelübde, die die Beziehungen zwischen Vater und Tochter beeinträchtigen, nicht besonders behandelt, wie er es bei den Gelübden tut, die das Verhältnis zwischen Mann und Frau betreffen; s. מגדל עז z. St.

אמר ר"י אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש (vows referring to privation of the necessities of life) – regarding the vow alone Rabbi Yossi disputes the first Tanna/teacher, and [when he] states that the benefit of washing is forbidden upon me if I shall wash today,” this is not a vow of privation of the necessities of life, for behold, it is possible for her that she will not wash today and that the benefit of washing won’t be forbidden upon her forever. But the prevention/refraining from washing for one day is not a privation of the necessities of life, for a neglected appearance for one day (by not bathing) is not considered self-neglect (see Tractate Nedarim 80a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi. But whether the father or the husband, vows of privation of the necessities of life are ones that are absolved, as it is written (Numbers 30:17): “[These are the laws that the LORD enjoined upon Moses] between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter [while in her father’s household by reason of her youth],” there is an analogy between two laws that rest on a biblical intimation of the father to the husband. Just as the husband does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life, so also the father does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life. But Maimonides made the legal determination that the father absolves all vows and oaths, even those that are not referring to privation of the necessities of life, as it states (Numbers 30:6): “none of her vows or self-imposed obligations [shall stand].”

את תנואתי [AND YE SHALL KNOW] את תנואתי — You shall know (realise) that you have removed your heart from following after Me. תנואה is an expression for “removing”, similar to (Numbers 30:6) “for her father hath removed her (הניא) from her vow” (cf. Rashi on that verse, where he quotes this phrase).