💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Vows%… captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:45:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
11 ‎[1] [The following rules apply with regard to] a male minor who is twelve years and one day old and a female minor who is eleven years and one day old who took an oath or a vow, whether a vow forbidding something to them or a vow consecrating an article. We investigate them and ask them [questions]. If they know for Whose sake they took the vow or for Whose sake they consecrated [the article] or took the oath, their vows and their consecration are binding. If they do not know, their vows and their statements are of no consequence.
It is necessary to make an investigation throughout the entire twelfth year of a female minor and the entire thirteenth year of a male minor. ‎[2] What is implied? A minor took a vow or consecrated [property] at the beginning of the year, they were questioned, it was discovered that they knew [for Whose sake the vow was taken], and the vow was maintained. If they took another vow, even at the end of this year, they must be questioned again [for the vow] to be maintained. We do not say: "Since they were knowledgeable at the beginning of the year, they no longer have to be questioned. Instead, we question them throughout the entire year. ‎[3] Before this time, even when they say: "We know for Whose sake we took the vow or for Whose sake we consecrated it," their vows and their consecration are of no consequence. After this time [passes] and a male is thirteen years and one day and a female is twelve years and one day, even though they say: "We do not know for Whose sake we took the vow or for Whose sake we consecrated it," their vows and their consecration are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity. This is the time when vows [take effect] which is mentioned in all sources. ‎[4] Since they reached the age of majority, their vows are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of majority and [thus] are not considered as adults with regard to all matters. This concept is of Scriptural origin: that when a person close to the age of adulthood utters a vow, his consecration [of articles] and his vows are binding. Nevertheless, although the vows of these individuals are binding, if they desecrate their vows or take oaths and substitute for them, they are not punishable by lashes until they reach the age of majority and manifest signs of physical maturity. ‎[5] If [such a minor] consecrated an article and an adult came and benefited from the article that he consecrated, [the adult] is liable for lashes. For [the minor's] vows are valid according to Scriptural Law, as explained. ‎[6] When does the above statement - that the vows taken by a female twelve years and one day old are binding - apply? When she is neither in her father's domain or her husband's domain. If, however, she is in her father's domain, even if she comes of age and she is a maiden, her father may nullify all of the vows and oaths she takes on the day he hears of them, as [Numbers 30:6] states: "All of her vows and prohibitions... [shall not stand...] because her father withheld her." ‎[7] Until when may her father nullify [her vows]? Until she fully comes of age. Once she fully comes of age, he may not nullify her [vows]. Instead, all of her vows and oaths are like those of a widow or a divorcee, as [implied by Numbers 30:10]: "Everything that she forbade upon her soul [shall remain upon her]." ‎[8] When may a husband nullify his wife's vows and oaths? From the time she enters the *chupah*. He may continue to nullify her vows forever until he divorces her, with the bill of divorce reaching her hand.
If there was an unresolved doubt concerning her divorce, he should not nullify her vows. If he gives her a bill of divorce conditionally or one that takes effect at a later time, he should not nullify [her vows] in the interim. Similarly, [when a woman] has heard that her husband died and remarried, but [in truth] her husband was alive or other similar situations [prevail], neither her first husband, nor her second husband should nullify her vows. If she was forbidden [to her husband] by a negative commandment and needless to say, if she is forbidden only by a positive commandment, and her husband nullified her vows, her vows are nullified. ‎[9] When a maiden has been consecrated, her vows may be nullified only by her father and the *erus* together. If one nullified [a vow] alone, it is not nullified. If her *erus* nullified [the vow] alone and she violated the vow before her father nullified it, she is not liable for lashes. ‎[10] If (the *erus*) dies, she returns to her father's domain. Any vow she takes may be nullified by her father as was her status before consecration. If her father died after she was consecrated and she took a vow after his death, her *erus* cannot nullify it. For an *erus* cannot nullify his wife's vows [alone] until she enters the *chupah*. ‎[11] [The following rules apply when] a consecrated maiden takes a vow, her father heard her vow, but not her *erus*, she was divorced that day and then consecrated by another person that day. Even if [she was divorced and consecrated] 100 times [that day], her father and her last *erus* may nullify the vows she took before her first *erus*. [The rationale is that] she never departed into her own domain for one moment, for throughout the entire time, she is in her father's domain, for she is still a maiden. ‎[12] When, by contrast, a married woman took a vow and her husband did not nullify it, he divorced her that day, and remarried her that day, he cannot nullify her vows, for she departed into her independent domain after she took her vow. Although she took her vow in his domain and she is now in his domain, since she departed into her own domain in the interim, her vows are binding. ‎[13] [The following rule applies when] a consecrated maiden took a vow that was not heard by either her father or her *erus*, she was divorced, and then consecrated to someone else. Even several days after [she took the vow], when her father and her last *erus* hear about the vow that she took while consecrated to her first *erus*, they may nullify it, since her first *erus* did not hear it. ‎[14] [The following rule applies when] a consecrated maiden took a vow, her father alone heard it and nullified it, but the man to whom she was consecrated died before hearing it. If she was consecrated to another man - or to 100 other men - that day her father and her last *erus* may nullify her vow. ‎[15] [The following rule applies when] the *erus* heard [her vow], nullified it and died and afterwards, her father heard and she was consecrated to another person that day. Her father and the second *erus* may nullify her vows. ‎[16] If her father heard [that she took a vow], but the *erus* did not and the *erus* died that day or the *erus* also heard [about her vow] and nullified it or remained silent and then died that day, she returns to her father's domain and her father may nullify [her vows].
If the *erus* heard [about her vow] and maintained it and died that day, or remained silent and died the following day, her father cannot nullify her vow. ‎[17] If the *erus*, divorced her after hearing [of her vow], there is an unresolved question whether the divorce is considered as silence and her father may nullify her vow together with a second *erus* who consecrates her that day. Or perhaps the divorce is like her first *erus* maintaining her vow, in which instance, the vow is maintained. ‎[18] When the father heard the vow and nullified it and then died and then the *erus* heard [of the vow] or even if the *erus* heard of the vow before the death of the father, she is not transferred [entirely] to the domain of her *erus*. He cannot ever nullify the vow after the father's death, for an *erus* can nullify a vow only together [with the father]. ‎[19] If the *erus* heard [the vow], nullified it, and died and then the father heard or the father heard and nullified it and the *erus* died before he heard it, the father cannot nullify these vows that were in the jurisdiction of the first *erus* except together with a second *erus* to whom she is consecrated that day, as we explained. ‎[20] If a woman took a vow, her father nullified it alone, and her husband did not hear [of the vow] until he brought her into his domain, he cannot nullify [her vow]. For a husband cannot nullify a vow taken by the woman he consecrated after he marries her. Instead, [this must be done] before she enters his domain, when he nullifies it together with her father. For this reason, it was the practice of Torah Sages to tell their daughters before they left their domain: "All the vows which you took while in my household are nullified." ‎[21] Similarly, the husband would tell her before she enters his domain: "All of the vows that you took from the time I consecrated you until you entered my home are nullified." For a husband can nullify the vows of his wife even though he did not hear them. ‎[22] If the father went with the agents of the husband or the father's agents went with the agents of the husband, her vows must still be nullified by her father and her husband jointly. If her father transferred her to the agents of her husband or her father's agents transferred her to her husband's agents, her father can no longer nullify her vows. Nor may the husband nullify them. For the husband cannot nullify vows that were taken before [he married her], as we explained. ‎[23] When a woman is waiting for *yivum* - even if the *yevam* already made a statement of his intent, and even if there is only one *yevam* and one *yevamah* - [the *yevam*] may not nullify her vows until he is intimate with her. ‎[24] When a *yevamah* who is a maiden had been [merely] consecrated to [her deceased husband] and her father is alive, the *yevam* and her father do not nullify her vows together. Instead, her father alone is the one who nullifies any vow that she takes. Even if the *yevam* stated his intent to marry her, she is not considered as a consecrated maiden, for a statement of intent does not [establish] a complete [marriage bond between] a *yevamah* [and her *yevam*], as we explained. ‎[25] When a maiden who was given in marriage by her father is widowed or divorced after marriage, she is like an orphan in her father's lifetime. Her father does not have the right to nullify her vows even if she is a maiden. ‎[26] When a consecrated maiden takes a vow, but neither her father or her husband heard of her vows until she came of age or until she became like an orphan in her father's lifetime, her vows are binding; they cannot be nullified by her *erus*. [The rationale is that] she departed from her father's domain and he [and her *erus*] must nullify her vows together and she has not entered her husband's domain.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC