הלכות נדרים

[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. 45b derives from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:2. Although throughout Jewish law, until a male attains the age of thirteen and a female, the age of twelve, their actions are of no consequence according to Scriptural Law, an exception is made in this instance because of the above verse, as stated in Halachah 4. 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.

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. questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that Niddah, loc. cit., the source for this halachah, does not lead to such a conclusion. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text. Yayin Malchut states that this resolution is reflected in the revised version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 5:6). In his initial explanation of the mishnah, he appeared to follow the same text as the popular version of the Talmud, but later in life, he revised that interpretation, accepting a different version of the text. The Rambam's rationale is that since we are speaking about a minor, it is possible that his level of understanding will fluctuate.

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, 5:6), the Rambam writes that the Torah made the age for which women become responsible for their vows less than the age men become responsible, generally, a woman's lifetime is less than that of a man. 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. 2:1. This is the time when vows [take effect] which is mentioned in all sources., the child's age, while the first interpretation is dependent on the child's knowledge (Yayim Malchut).

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:, for some do not accept the Rambam's view. 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.

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 (Yoreh De'ah 234:1) states, this applies even to vows taken dependent on the consent of others which cannot be repealed by a sage. 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 interprets this term as referring to oaths.... [shall not stand...] because her father withheld her."

Until when may her father nullify [her vows]? Until she fully comes of age. 2:2). 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]."

When may a husband nullify his wife's vows and oaths? From the time she enters the chupah.. At that time, he takes her into a private room and from that time onward, the couple live as man and wife (Hilchot Ishut 10:1). During the first stage of the marriage relationship (erusin), when the erus has merely consecrated his wife, he does not have the right to nullify her vows alone (see Halachah 9). (In the present era, it is customary to perform both these stages of marriage directly after each other.) He may continue to nullify her vows forever until he divorces her, with the bill of divorce reaching her hand. 234:6, Turei Zahav 234:1).
If there was an unresolved doubt concerning her divorce, 5:13 for an example.
The rationale for this law is that our Sages understood that the reason the Torah gave a husband the right to nullify his wife's vows was so that she would not become unattractive to him (Yevamot 90b). In this instance, he is not concerned that she becomes unattractive (Radbaz). he should not nullify her vows. If he gives her a bill of divorce conditionally 8:1. or one that takes effect at a later time, 9:1). he should not nullify [her vows] in the interim. 234:8 states that even after the fact, the nullification does not take effect. Similarly, [when a woman] has heard that her husband died and remarried, but [in truth] her husband was alive 10:5 which describes this situation at length. or other similar situations [prevail],:7). In both this and the previous instance, both husbands are required to divorce the woman. neither her first husband, nor her second husband should nullify her vows.). If she was forbidden [to her husband] by a negative commandment. See Hilchot Ishut 1:7. and needless to say, if she is forbidden only by a positive commandment,:8. and her husband nullified her vows, her vows are nullified.

When a maiden has been consecrated, her vows may be nullified only by her father and the erus means "the man who consecrated her." The Rambam does not use this term, but instead, the term baal meaning "husband." We, however, have used the term erus, because the term baal usually implies that nisuin, the second stage of marriage, has already taken place. together. 68a interprets the verse as referring to one woman, implying that the nullification of her vows is performed by her father and her erus together. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 9:9), the Rambam writes that from the Biblical text, it might appear that both the father and the erus have the right to nullify her vows independently. Hence, it is necessary to clarify that this is not so. 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. 68a states that since one of the two has already nullified the vow, it is weak and its violation is not punishable by lashes.

If (the erus) dies, she returns to her father's domain. Any vow she takes (Yoreh De'ah 234:11)]. This applies even if she has a yevam (Halachah 24). 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., an erus can nullify his wife's vows only together with her father and that is impossible in this instance. See also Halachah 16.

[The following rules apply when] a consecrated maiden takes a vow, her father heard her vow, but not her erus, heard her vow and did not nullify it, her father can no longer nullify it together with her second erus. See Halachah 17. she was divorced that day and then consecrated by another person [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:13)]. that day. will not have the right to nullify the vow, as indicated by Chapter 12, Halachah 17. 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.

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.

[The following rule applies when] a consecrated maiden took a vow that was not heard by either her father or her erus, or her father heard her vow when it was taken, it cannot be nullified at a later date. she was divorced, and then consecrated to someone else. to nullify her vows. 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.

[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 234:22). her father and her last erus may nullify her vow. did not hear of her vow, the fact that he died before nullifying it does not deprive her last erus of that right. The father cannot nullify her vow alone, because it was taken when she was consecrated. Since her father nullified the vow, the right of her erus to nullify the vow is weak and of little substance. Accordingly, the right to nullify it cannot be transferred to the father alone, as in Halachah 16.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:16) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which maintains that the second erus can never nullify a vow together with the father.

[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., for the nullification must be completed on the same day that he heard of the vow. If, however, her father does not hear about it until the following day and she was consecrated then, he and her new erus may nullify her vow then. Her father and the second erus may nullify her vows. 234:13 maintains that the Rambam would also give her father the right to nullify the vow alone, because her first erus also heard the vow and did not maintain it (see the following halachah). The Rambam mentions her being consecrated by another person only to teach that if, this is indeed the situation, the second erus must also nullify the vow.

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]. no longer exists and he did not maintain the vow, the right to nullify is given to her father. In his gloss to Halachah 19, the Radbaz explains the apparent contradiction between these two halachot by stating that this halachah refers to an instance where the father did not nullify the vow before the erus died. Accordingly, the right of the erus to nullify the vow is not weakened. Hence it can be transferred to the father. Halachah 19 refers to a situation where the father nullified the vow and weakens it, as explained above.
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.

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. can nullify the vow and Halachah 16 which states that silence is equivalent to nullification. If she does not become consecrated again, the father can nullify the vow alone (Turei Zahav, loc. cit.). Or perhaps the divorce is like her first erus maintaining her vow, in which instance, the vow is maintained.

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].

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. died. Accordingly, the right of the erus to nullify the vow is not weakened. Hence it can be transferred to the father. This halachah refers to a situation where the father nullified the vow and weakens it. Hence it cannot be transferred as explained in the notes to Halachah 15. This understanding is reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:16).

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."

Similarly, the husband would tell her before she enters his domain: "All of the vows that you took from the time I consecrated you may also nullify the vows that a woman took before he consecrated her (together with her father). We assume, however, that her father already nullified those vows (Siftei Cohen 234:21; Turei Zahav 234:11). until you entered my home are nullified." For a husband can nullify the vows of his wife even though he did not hear them., these two halachot are combined as one.

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. (Yoreh De'ah 234:12)]. Nor may the husband nullify them. For the husband cannot nullify vows that were taken before [he married her], as we explained.

When a woman is waiting for yivum - even if the yevam already made a statement of his intent, 2:1). and even if there is only one yevam and one yevamah - [the yevam] may not nullify her vows until he is intimate with her.

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. 2:1).

When a maiden who was given in marriage by her father is widowed or divorced after marriage,, the second stage of the marriage bond. 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.

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.. Moreover, even after she enters her husband's domain, he cannot nullify her vows that were taken beforehand, as stated in Halachah 20.