Комментарий о цитате к Бамидбар 30:11

Introduction Whereas in yesterday’s mishnah the husband tried to prevent his wife from benefiting from his property, in today’s mishnah he takes a to try to prevent her from eating any produce whatsoever. This is obviously a much more expansive vow. We should note that the Talmud explains this mishnah as a case where the wife took the vow not to eat a certain fruit and the husband did not annul the vow, as is his right (see Numbers 30:11-15). The reason why the Talmud explains the mishnah in this way is that a person can never take a vow to forbid another person to do something if it has nothing to do with his (the one who vowed) property. In other words while Reuven can take a vow that Shimon can’t eat any of Reuven’s bread, Reuven cannot take a vow that Shimon can’t eat bread. Therefore, our mishnah must deal with a case where the woman vowed and the man did not break the vow. I will explain the mishnah more according to its words than its explanation in the Talmud. If we understand the mishnah without the Talmud’s explanation, we will need to conclude that a husband can take a vow to forbid his wife from doing anything; however, if he does so he will need to divorce her immediately.

And the phrase she were at all ‘to a man’ means that she is [promised] unto him but [still] is in her father’s house, and has not yet come to his [the man’s] house, and [hence] this must refer to a betrothed girl, for Scripture calls her too, the wife of his fellow.⁴⁸Deuteronomy 22:23. Thus she is already called the wife of the man to whom she is betrothed, in the same way that here he is described as her ish (man) — literally “husband.” Now our Rabbis did not explain [that this verse refers to a fully-married wife, and teaches] that a husband himself can annul the vows of his married wife which she “brought along” from her father’s house to his house, as would seem the simple meaning of the verse, for if that were so, why would Scripture have to repeat itself and say [in Verse 11], And if a woman vowed in her husband’s house, for if he can annul [even] those vows which preceded [his marriage to her], surely [he can annul] those vows which [she makes whilst she is] in his house!⁴⁹So why, then would the Torah state the obvious (in Verse 11): And if a woman vowed in her husband’s house etc.? It must be because Verses 7-9 speak about a betrothed woman, in which case both the father and the betrothed do jointly annul her vow. “If the father revoked the vow but not the betrothed, or if the betrothed revoked it but not the father, the vow is not revoked. Still less need it be said if one of them explicitly confirmed the vow” (Nedarim 67a). — It should be noted that the term “betrothed” in this connection has reference to the actual “betrothal” of a man to a woman to be his wife [not a mere “engagement”]. In the eyes of the Jewish law she is then considered his wife, except that the consummation of the marriage takes place some time after the betrothal. And [even without resorting to this reasoning], it is the tradition [of the Rabbis] which decides [the true meaning of the verses].

It is possible to understand the word ובאלתו as referring to G’d, meaning “and by means of His oath which He swore to you.” The whole verse then would mean: “you are standing here today ready to enter the covenant and oath of the Lord by means of which He swore that You will be His people and that He will be your G’d.” The verse following would prove that this is the meaning, seeing the Torah writes there: “as He said to you and swore to your fathers.” Further reinforcement of this interpretation is provided by Samuel I 12,22: “seeing that the Lord had agreed (sworn) to make you His people.” Even though all the commentators there understand the word הואיל to be an expression of G’d’s goodwill, grace, I believe the word הואיל in that verse derives from the word אלה, and means “for G’d swore to make you His people.” This does not preclude that the oath itself was an expression of G’d’s goodwill towards the people so that there is no conflict between the two interpretations. Still further proof of the meaning of אלה in our verse is the comment in Tanchuma Nitzavim 3 on Song of Songs 7,6: מלך אסור ברהטים, usually translated as “a king held captive by tresses” (of hair). According to the Midrash the meaning is “a king who is bound by his oath.” The word אסר meaning oath, occurs in Numbers 30,7. G’d’s oath to the patriarchs that He would not exchange the Jewish people for any other nation is what ties Him to Israel. The word רהטים in the verse from Song of Songs which we quoted is a reference to the patriarchs; this word occurs in the record of their life stories both in Genesis 18,7 where the word הבקר is rendered by Onkelos as רהט; as well as in connection with Yaakov in Genesis 30,38. This is why G’d cannot violate His oath to the patriarchs .
You will find that in Ezekiel 20 when the Jewish people challenged the continued validity of the Torah’s commandments by describing themselves as having been freed (sold) by their master (G’d) since they had become exiled, that the prophet did not accept that argument and vehemently pointed out that the basic relationship between G’d and the Jewish people is an eternal bond, that severing it would mean the total demise of the party who severed it. [I have merely summarized the dialogue in Ezekiel 20. Ed.] Basically, Ezekiel’s argument was that as long as the master had not received monetary compensation from the “buyer” of the slave no transaction had taken place at all; the Jewish people still belong to their erstwhile master, i.e. G’d. This is also reflected in the words of Isaiah 52,3: “you have been sold חנם, without price, therefore you will also be redeemed without monetary compensation having to be paid.”

of the one who had aged [in] adulteries like: [lit. to the one who had aged adulteries,] the one who had aged in adulteries, as you say (Gen. 38:11): “and she remained her father’s house,” is like “in her father’s house”; (Exod. 30:20), “they shall wash water,” is like “they shall wash with water.” [Likewise,] (ibid.): “And he shall go out freedom;” [and] (Num. 30:11): “But if she made a vow [in] her father’s house.” So did Dunash (p. 17) explain [this]. However, Menachem connected it (p. 45) to (Lev 20:12): “they committed a disgraceful act (תֶּבֶל),” but his words are impossible.