Halakhah к Бамидбар 30:23

Rav Henkin concludes that we should not abandon the accepted practice for wives to follow their husbands’ family traditions. However, he rules that a wife may continue to follow her family’s traditions regarding a matter that does not impinge on her relationship with her husband and does not impose a hardship on her.¹⁴These two areas are considered within the husband’s domain, as it is in these areas that he has the right to cancel her vows (hafarat nedarim; see Bemidbar 30:7-17 and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 234:55). Rav Henkin requires that she stipulate with her fiancée before the marriage that she wants to continue to practice her own family’s traditions. We should note, however, that Rav Hershel Schachter (Beit Yitzchak 39:519) confirms the rulings of Rav Feinstein, Rav Felder, Dayan Weisz, and Rav Ovadia that the wife enters the domain of the husband “since this is the essence of marriage – the wife entering the domain of the husband.”

And regarding a vow (neder), a different approach pertains to it - as it is like placing something permissible into the category of the forbidden, and [it is] as if he would say thing x which is permissible will be forbidden to him, like a sacrifice that God, may He be blessed, forbade. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 14a) that only when he makes the vow with a thing that is vowed (that changes status) does his vow stand, and not in another way. As if he says, "Thing x is forbidden to me like a sacrifice," as we have said; in this [way], the vow will stand (Nedarim 13a). But if he says, "like the meat of a pig," this is not a vow; as the Torah stated (Numbers 30:3), "If he vows a vow," meaning to say, "if he vows with something that is vowed." And so, one who forbids something to his fellow or to himself like the matters of a sacrifice that God, may He be blessed, forbade, is like this matter (like something vowed); since it is as if he said [that] thing x will be forbidden to him or to his friend, [just] like God, may He blessed, forbade us the matters of a sacrifice. And this matter that we have the power to forbid the permissible is because the Torah taught us this, from that which is written (Numbers 30:3), "If [...] he creates a prohibition [...], he may not break his word."

The general principle of the thing is that the language of the oath must be said by his own mouth or that someone else specifically refers it to him and he accepts [it]. But he is not moved by the movement of another man, since his [own] body needs the movement; [but this] is not the case with a vow. [It is also] possible to say that it is from the strictness of a vow that they were stricter about it, that one should be added on more quickly than with an oath; since it is stricter than an oath, as behold, they compare it to the life of the King (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:3, see Ramban on Numbers 30:3). And from the reason that we wrote about an oath, that its content is that a man concludes to fulfill his words and to confirm [them by that which] he believes in the Divine existence, we would have learned that his oath cannot be nullified from any angle. But it was from the kindnesses of God to us - in His knowing the frailty of the structure of our body and the smallness of our opinions and the constancy of the change of our wills - to give us counsel to get out from the prison of the oath with the [change] of our will at any time: he allowed us to make the claim regarding the matter of the oath that it was under duress or inadvertent, as is explained in its place in Shevuot 26a and Nedarim 20b.

There are those who say the “ḥupah” is not (constituted by) “yiḥud”, rather (“ḥupah” is) only when the husband (to-be) brings her from her father’s house to his house for the sake of marriage, even if he has not had ‘yiḥud” with her, for behold, it is written: “If she made a vow in the house of her husband” (Numbers 30:11), the meaning is that at all times when she is in her husband’s house, she is under his authority³³ Should be understood conversely, that she is the responsibility of her father or her husband. (Rin) to the first Chapter of Ketubot). And thus taught the sages: she is always under the authority of the (her) father, until she enters under the authority of the (her) husband in marriage; consequently, the essence of marriage is her entering under the authority (entering the domain) of the husband.
The Rambam holds that it is true: (her) entering under his domain constitutes marriage, but only in conjunction with “yiḥud”, because generally when he brings her into his house, he has “yiḥud” with her. But also, the opinion agrees with the Rambam, that, on the road, the essence (of valid marriage) is the “yiḥud”, as apparent in Chapter 57. (Ketubot 12b: “our rabbis taught [in a Baraita]: ‘he took her to his house … and she had witnesses so that it [her going with him, i.e. “yiḥud”] would not be hidden.’ ” There is no contradiction between the Rambam and the Tosafot, indeed, he does not rely on them. On the contrary, because of how remarkable in his reasoning, we suspend [the other opinion]. And the Rambam, at the beginning of Chapter 12, does away with witnesses, as it will be explained, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 67.)

It is customary to do hataras nedarim [to annul certain vows] on erev Rosh Hashanah. (An allusion [for this can be found in the words] Lo yacheil devaro kechol, [He must not break his word (Numbers 30:3)]; the last letters of which form the acronym Elul.) A person who does not understand what he is reciting in Hebrew, should say it in the language he understands.

He prohibited the nazirite from eating grape skins. And that is His saying, "to the skins, etc." (Numbers 6:4). And if he ate a kazayit of them, he is lashed. And the proof about each one of these five types - meaning to say, wine, grapes, raisins, seeds and peels - being a separate commandment is that one is lashed [a separate set] of lashes for each one of them. And the language of the Mishnah (Nazir 34b) is, "And he is obligated for wine on its own, and for grapes on its own, and for grape seeds on its own, and for grape skins on its own." And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara, Nazir (Nazir 38b), "[If] he ate fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds and grape skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [the juice], he is lashed five [times]." But when they counted, so as to uphold the words of the teacher - such that [it turns out that] he taught and left [something] out, so that one would be obligated more than five [sets of] lashes - they said, "But behold, he left over the negative commandment of, 'he shall not desecrate [his word]' (Numbers 30:3)!" But they did not say, "But behold, he left over vinegar! For he is not liable twice for wine and vinegar. As vinegar is actually forbidden because the source of its prohibition (wine) did not recede with its decay. And what is appropriate for you to know is that all of these prohibitions of the nazirite combine for a kazayit, and that he is lashed for a kazayit from all of them [combined]. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)

The commandment that one who appraises a man give the value delineated in the Torah: To rule on appraisals of people; that is, one who says, "My appraisal is upon me" or "The appraisal of x is upon me," must give to the priest according to the amount that he said, and not less - as appears explicitly in Scripture about a male and female and according to the tally of [their] years - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:2), "If a man proclaims an oath of the appraisal of souls to the Lord." And the matter of appraisals is included in vows of consecration and we are therefore obligated to keep them on account of "he shall not profane his words" (Numbers 30:3), "you shall not delay" (Deuteronomy 23:22) and "he shall do like everything that comes out of his mouth" (Numbers 30:3).

And Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzot Lo Taase 206), "The proof about each and every one of these five being an independent commandment - meaning wine, grapes, raisins, seeds and pits - is that, behold a person is liable for one [set of] lashes for each and every one. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Mishnah (Nazir 34b), 'He is liable for the wine by itself, and for the grapes by themselves.' And they said [as follows] in Tractate Nazir 38b, '[If] he ate grapes that were damp and dry [along with] seeds and skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [the juice], he is lashed five times.' And when they wanted to establish that the teacher that taught [these five sets of] lashes taught [certain prohibitions] and omitted [others] and that the nazirite is liable for more than five [sets of] lashes, they said, \'What did he omit? Behold, he omitted the negative commandment of "He shall not profane his word" (Numbers 30:3),' and they did not say he omitted, the prohibition of vinegar. And the reason is because he would not be liable for two [sets of lashes] for wine and for vinegar - as vinegar is prohibited for its essence which is wine, as we have said. And the content of the passage is as if it had stated that the essence of the prohibition of wine does not depart from it when [the wine] spoils, and as we mentioned above in its place (Sefer HaChinukh 368). And from that which is fitting for you to know is that these prohibitions of the nazirite all combine to [form] a kazayit and that we administer lashes for a kazayit." To here [are the words of Rambam].

The commandment of the law of the abrogation of vows: That we were commanded in the abrogation of vows, meaning to say that we deliberate about someone who has made a vow, according to what the Torah commanded - as it is stated (Numbers 30:3), "If a man makes a vow, etc.," as it comes explained in [this] section of the Torah. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 95) and this is his language: "And the matter is not that we are obligated to annul regardless. And this matter itself understand from me - when you hear me counting a law from the laws, it is not [always] that it is a commandment to perform a certain action perforce, but rather the commandment is in our being commanded that we deliberate on the law about this thing. While Scripture has already elucidated and been exacting that a husband and a father can annul [a vow of their wife or daughter], it is the transmission that brought to us that a sage can annul [it] for all, and so too, an oath. And the indication of this is its statement (Numbers 30:3), 'he shall not profane his word' - and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chagigah 10a), 'He does not pardon [it], but others may pardon it.' And the general principle is that there is no proof to this from Scripture. And they, may their memory be blessed, already said (Chagigah 10a), 'Annulment of vows flies in the air and has nothing to support it,' except for the truthful transmission only. To here [are his words].

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).

That we not profane our words from vows: That we have been prevented that we not change that which we obligate ourselves in speech (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 157) - and even though it is without an oath. And these are vows - for example, a person will say [that] fruits of the world, or fruits of country x or y type of fruits are forbidden to him; and so too, [that] he will say his wife is forbidden to him; and similar to these things - that he is obligated to fulfill them. And about this is it stated (Numbers 30:3), "he shall not profane (yachel) his word." And they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4), that he should not make his word non-sacred (chullin), meaning to say, that he obligate something on himself and not fulfill it. And the language of the Gemara [in] Shevuot 20b [is that] they, may their memory be blessed, said [times that a person say] konam (a pledge to bring a sacrifice), he [is liable to] transgress because of "he shall not profane his word." And so [too,] with anything that a man vow for a sacrifice or upkeep of the [Temple] or charity or for the synagogue or similar to them, he [is liable to] transgress because of "he shall not profane his word." But with other matters - such as one who vows something to his fellow or who says, "I will" or "I will not do thing x" - even though it is ugly, and it is only small-souled people who do it, he does not transgress because of "he shall not profane his word"; only in the way that we have written. However, about it all is it stated in the Torah (Exodus 23:7), "Keep far from a false thing." And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote that they are two separate commandments, vows to the Elevated realm and vows of utterance, and as we will write below in the Order of Ki Tetseh in the commandment of fulfilling what comes out of the lips (Sefer HaChinukh 575).

And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 94), "And they already separated the words of this verse and placed a [different] matter on every word of it. And nonetheless what comes out from all that I have mentioned to you is that it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill that which he speaks about to obligate himself in any thing. And the language has already been duplicated in this commandment, and that is its stating (Bemidbar 30:3), 'like all that comes out of his mouth, he shall do.'" To here are his words.

And Ramban, may his memory be blessed (in his critique of Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 94) wrangled with him about it and said that he grouped two commandments here - which are different in their laws and their contents - into one. As this verse of "what comes out of your mouth, etc." is stated about the matter of what a person obligates himself to God, may He be blessed, whether they be in matters of sacrifices or charity moneys, and that is what is stated, "as He will surely demand it from you" - which is to say, that He will seek from you the money that you vowed to Him - and your delaying it will be a sin. And so, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 4a), "Those who are obligated for dedications [to the Temple]; appraisals; consecrations; sin-offerings; guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings; peace-offerings; charity [monies]; tithes; first-borns; [animal] tithes; a Pesach sacrifice; gleanings; forgotten sheaves; and corner fields - once three festivals passed him, he violates 'do not delay.'" But regarding everything that a person obligates himself to in optional matters - which the sages called, 'utterance (bitui),' and that is if he vows or swears, "I will eat," or "I will not eat," "I will go to place x," or "I will not go," and all that is similar to this - this does not come into the category of this commandment. And this is why the verse needed to promise, "If you refrain from vowing, you will incur no guilt." And nonetheless, with vows of utterance, there is another commandment specified for it, and that is the section of [the Torah about] vows in the Order of Roshei HaMatot, where it is written (Numbers 30:3), "taking an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall do all that has come out of his lips" - and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sifrei on Numbers 30:3) [that this is speaking about a vow] to forbid the permitted.

“The order of the reading of the Torah and of circumcision on Yom Kippur” - Containing six paragraphs.
We take out (from the ark) two Torah scrolls.¹⁶⁸Two Torah scrolls are taken out on the festivals because portions from two separate sections of the Torah are read. The Torahs can be set before hand so that they can be opened to the correct portion without the necessity of rolling the scroll from one portion to the next. In the first Torah six men read from the portion “אחרי מות”, (Leviticus 16:1-18:30) until “and he did as the Lord commanded (Moses)”, (Leviticus 16:34). But if (Yom Kippur) falls on Shabbat, seven (men read from the first Torah), and the Maftir¹⁶⁹Maftir, מפטיר, means literally "one who concludes". It is the name given to the man who is the last to read in the Torah and he also usually reads the haftarah (see footnote 170), the section of the prophets that corresponds to the Torah reading. Maftir is also the name given to the three or more concluding verses of the regular weekly Torah portion as well as to the final verses read on festivals and public fast days.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 11, p. 685. (the last reader) reads from the second (Torah scroll) from the portion, Pinḥas, (Numbers 25:10-30:1), the section “and you shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month”, (Numbers 29:7-11). The Maftir (the Haftarah section from the Prophets¹⁷⁰The Haftarah, הפטרה, is a portion from the Prophets section of the Bible read after the Torah is read on Sabbaths, festivals, and fast days. On Sabbaths and festivals the haftarah is read during the Morning, Shaḥarit Service (see footnote 17), but on fast days it is read only during the Afternoon, Minḥah Service (see footnote 40). The exception to this is Yom Kippur and Tishah be-Av (see footnote 102) where there is a haftarah after the Torah reading in both the Morning and the Afternoon Service.
The Torah in its regular portions is read straight through during the year but such is not the case on festivals and some special Sabbaths. The haftarot are selected in parts from both the Former and Latter Prophets. Only two prophetic books are read in their entirety as haftarot, the Book of Obadiah which has only twenty-one verses and is read after the Torah portion Va-Yishlaḥ (Genesis 32:4-36-43) according to the Sephardi rite, and the Book of Jonah which is the haftarah for the Minḥah Service on Yom Kippur (see the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 622:2).
Haftarot were usually selected so there would be some similarity in content between the Pentateuchal and the Prophetic portions, but often this did not happen and haftarot were chosen because of historical events or because of some special date. Special haftarot are read on special Sabbaths and the haftarah for each festival is based on the nature of the festival.
When the custom of reading the haftarah got started is not known for sure, but it is thought that it began during the persecutions of the Antiochus Epiphanes which preceded the Hasmonean revolt. The Torah was not permitted to be read by the Jews during the persecution for it was felt that the reading of it kept the Jews together and gave them a special strength. As a substitute for the Torah reading, sections form the Prophets were chosen that would remind the Jews of the corresponding Torah portion. Appearantly when the ban against reading the Torah was lifted, the practice of reading the haftarah continued. The first mention of the practice of the reading of the haftarah is found in the New Testament. Acts 13:15 states, "after the reading of the law and the prophets". Haftarot are also discussed in the Talmud as to which are to be read at specific times and festivals. In Mishnaic times different communities read different haftarot, and a set order was probably not established until talmudic times. Some haftarot today differ from those recorded in the Talmud, and there are differences in the Sephardi and Ashkenazi rites.
The maftir, the one who reads the haftarah also reads the last part of the weekly portion, (i.e., the Torah reader reads it for him). On the Sabbath, after the seventh reader from the Torah, the maftir usually rereads the last three verses of the weekly portion. On festivals and the four special Sabbaths, the maftir reads the special section from the second scroll which is usually a short description of of the festival found in the Torah. Before the haftarah is read (or chanted) the maftir precedes the haftarah with two blessings and after he ends the haftarah he recites three blessings to which a fourth one is added on Sabbaths and festivals. This fourth blessing changes with the nature of the day. The Sabbath haftarah usually has a minimum of twenty-one verses while the festival has at least fifteen verses. Lately it has become the custom for the Bar Mitzvah boy (a man upon reaching the age of thirteen) to chant the haftarah to display his ability with a Hebrew text.
Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, E. J., v. 16, pp. 1342-44.) comes from Isaiah, “and shall say, cast you up, cast you up, prepare the way” until “for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it”, (Isaiah 57:14-58:14).