Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל הַנְּדָרִים וְהַשְּׁבוּעוֹת הָאָב מֵפֵר בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ל ו) "כָּל נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶיהָ". אֲבָל הַבַּעַל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר אֶלָּא כָּל נְדָרִים וּשְׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ שֶׁהֵן בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּעָה אוֹ נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא תִּכְחל אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַשֵּׁט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ל יז) "בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ":
כסף משנה
1.
A father [has the right to] nullify any1I.e., he may nullify all vows, not merely those that a husband may nullify.Rabbenu Asher and other Rishonim differ and maintain that the Sifri states that the father's rights are the same as the husband's. In a response attributed to the Rambam, he explains that although this view is stated in the Sifri, it is not mentioned anywhere else in the Talmud and the simple meaning of the Biblical passage does not lead to such an inference. This leads to the conclusion that the statement of the Sifri is a minority opinion. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:58) mentions both views without stating which one should be followed. vows and oaths [taken by his daughter only] on the day he hears of them,2I.e., not necessarily on the day the vow was taken, but on the day he first heard of it. as [Numbers 30:6] states: "[But if her father withheld her on the day that he heard,] all of her vows and prohibitions3The Emek HaShaalah interprets this term as referring to oaths.... [shall not stand]."
A husband,4I.e., after nissuin, the second stage of the marriage relationship. by contrast, may nullify only those vows and oaths that involve personal aggravation5For Numbers 30:14 specifically mentions a husband's authority involving vows of this type. Vows that involve personal aggravation refer to vows that involve accepting a prohibition of a particular type of satisfaction. or they are matters that affect the marriage relationship6Literally, those "between him and her.", e.g., she took an oath or a vow not to put on eye-paint or wear jewelry.7Such conduct could arouse a husband's displeasure, for he will not be happy that his wife does not appear attractive.
The Shulchan Aruch (234:59) mentions other views which consider these vows as ones that involve personal aggravation as well as the Rambam's view that these are matters that affect the husband-wife relationship. [This is implied by ibid.:17]: "between a man and his wife."
הלכה ב
וּמַה בֵּין נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ לִדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. שֶׁהַנְּדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ מֵפֵר אֶל עַצְמוֹ וְאֶל אֲחֵרִים. וְשֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ לְעַצְמוֹ מֵפֵר וְלַאֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר:
כסף משנה
2.
What is the difference between [the laws governing] vows that involve personal aggravation and those that affect the marriage relationship. With regard to vows that involve personal aggravation, his nullification has bearing for himself and for others.8I.e., even if he divorces her, the vow is nullified. With regard to those involving the marriage relationship, his nullification has bearing for himself but not for others.9The nullification applies only when they are married.הלכה ג
כֵּיצַד. נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכל בָּשָׂר מֵפֵר לָהּ וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לֶאֱכל עִם כָּל אָדָם לְעוֹלָם. אָסְרָה עָלֶיהָ תַּשְׁמִישׁ כָּל אָדָם שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ וְתִהְיֶה מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ. וּכְשֶׁיָּמוּת אוֹ יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ כָּל אָדָם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
3.
What is implied? She took a vow not to eat meat. He may nullify it and she will be permitted to eat meat if she is married to any other person forever. If she forbade marital intimacy with any man, he may nullify the vow with regard to himself10See Halachah 9 with regard to clarification when this vow must be nullified and when it need not be nullified. The Siftei Cohen 234:83 quotes views that maintain that since the vow takes effect with regard to other men, it would also take effect with regard to him if he did not nullify it. and she may engage in intimacy with him. If, however, he dies or divorces her, she is forbidden to engage in intimacy with all other men. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.הלכה ד
אֶחָד עִנּוּי גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד עִנּוּי קָטָן וְאֶחָד עִנּוּי שֶׁהוּא לִזְמַן מְרֻבֶּה אוֹ לְפִי שָׁעָה הַכּל מֵפֵר הַבַּעַל:
כסף משנה
4.
Whether the aggravation is of a minor nature or a major nature, for a short time or for a long time, the husband has the right to nullify all [such] vows.הלכה ה
כֵּיצַד. נָדְרָה אוֹ נִשְׁבְּעָה שֶׁלֹּא תִּרְחַץ הַיּוֹם. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה יַיִן הַיּוֹם. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל הַיּוֹם דְּבַשׁ. וְכֵן אִם נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא תִּכְחל הַיּוֹם אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִּלְבַּשׁ רִקְמָה הַיּוֹם מֵפֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲפִלּוּ נָדְרָה מִמַּאֲכָל רַע אוֹ מִמִּין שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמָה אוֹתוֹ מִיָּמֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר:
כסף משנה
5.
What is implied? She took a vow or an oath "not to bathe today," "not drink wine today," or "not to eat honey today,"11These are considered vows that involve personal aggravation. he may nullify the vows. [This also applies if] she vowed "not to put on eye paint today" or "not to wear colored woven garments today."12These are considered vows affecting the marriage relationship. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Even if she took a vow [not to partake of] an unpleasant food13Our translation follows the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The Chatam Sofer explains that since it is forbidden to eat unpleasant foods on Yom Kippur - when fasting is described as aggravating one's soul - even unpleasant foods are included in this category.The Turei Zahav 234:51, however, translates the term as "harmful foods," arguing that if the woman considered the food unpleasant and had no desire for it, it would not be considered as "aggravation" for her to be prevented from partaking of it. or a type of food that she had never eaten,14Since she never partook of this food, there is room to say that no aggravation would be caused by prohibiting it. Hence it is necessary to emphasize that it is forbidden. [her husband] may nullify it.
הלכה ו
נָדְרָה מִשְּׁתֵי כִּכָּרוֹת בְּאַחַת יֵשׁ לָהּ עִנּוּי וּבְאַחַת אֵין לָהּ עִנּוּי מֵפֵר לְזוֹ שֶׁמִּתְעַנָּה בָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ מֵפֵר לְזוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עִנּוּי:
כסף משנה
6.
When she took a vow not to partake of two loaves of bread and not partaking of one would cause her aggravation, but not partaking of the other would not cause her aggravation,15The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher's commentary to Nedarim 82b which explains that this refers to a situation where one loaf is made of fine flour and is attractive and one is made of coarse flour and is not. She will suffer aggravation from not eating the first, but not from not eating the second.There is a slight difficulty with this explanation, because the previous halachah stated that a husband may nullify even a vow involving unpleasant food. It can be explained, however, that since her husband makes it possible for her to partake of the loaf of fine bread, she will have no aggravation over not partaking over the coarse bread. When, however, she is not able to partake of the unpleasant food, she has no similar alternative.
Alternatively, Rabbenu Asher explains that she is hungry and will be satisfied by eating one loaf. Hence, not eating that loaf will give her aggravation. Not eating the second one will not. her husband may nullify the one that would cause her aggravation and may not nullify the one that would not cause her aggravation.16The Kessef Mishneh notes that when a sage absolves a vow, if he nullifies a portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Chapter 4, Halachah 11). This principle does not, however, hold true with regard to a vow nullified by a husband.
הלכה ז
נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל תְּאֵנִים שֶׁל מְדִינָה זוֹ יָפֵר מִשּׁוּם דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ שֶׁעֵסֶק גָּדוֹל הוּא לוֹ לְהִטָּפֵל וּלְהָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת אוֹ גֵּרְשָׁהּ אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא לָהּ אִישׁ אַחֵר מִפֵּרוֹת אוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵפֵר לַאֲחֵרִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ:
כסף משנה
7.
When a woman takes a vow not to eat figs from her native country, [her husband] may nullify her vow, because this is a matter that affects the marriage relationship.17I.e., it is not a matter of aggravation, because she may eat figs. Nevertheless, obtaining the figs places a difficulty upon her husband. Although it also mentions the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:60) appears to follow the view of other Rishonim who maintain that this is also considered a vow involving aggravation. For it is a major problem for him to undertake the difficulty of bringing her [figs] from another place. Therefore, if he dies, divorces her, or another person brings her figs from her native country, they are forbidden to her. For [a husband's] nullification [of a vow that] affects the marriage relationship does not have bearing for others.18As stated in Halachah 2.הלכה ח
וְכֵן אִם נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְהַנּוֹת לַבְּרִיּוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל בַּכְּלָל יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהָפֵר מִשּׁוּם דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה זָקוּק לְהַאֲכִילָהּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן אִם אָסְרָה הֲנָאָתָהּ עַל אֻמָּה (כֻּלָּהּ) כְּגוֹן [כָּל] הַיְהוּדִים אוֹ כָּל הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר:
כסף משנה
8.
Similarly, if she took an oath not to benefit from people at large, even though her husband is not included in the vow,19I.e., this point is obvious. Even if she does not say so explicitly, she may benefit from him without him having to nullify the vow. he has the right to nullify it, because it affects the marriage relationship.20The Mishnah (Nedarim 11:3) quotes Rabbi Yossi who rules that one may not nullify such a vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this is a minority view.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:64) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of other Rishonim who maintain that such a vow is considered one which involves personal aggravation. Otherwise, he will have to give her food only from his own resources. Similarly, he may nullify [the vow] if she [takes a vow], forbidding her from benefiting from an entire nation,21Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh who states that the wording of the original is inexact. e.g., all the Jews or all the Ishmaelites.
הלכה ט
הָאִשָּׁה שֶּׁאֲמָרָהּ לְבַעְלָהּ הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישִׁי אֲסוּרָה עָלֶיךָ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְאוֹסֵר פֵּרוֹת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל בַּעַל הַפֵּרוֹת. וְכֵן הוּא שֶׁאוֹמֵר לָהּ הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישִׁי אֲסוּרָה עָלַיִךְ לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָהּ בִּשְׁאֵר כְּסוּת וְעוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת. אֲבָל אִם אָמְרָה לוֹ הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישְׁךָ אֲסוּרָה עָלַי צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הֵפֵר הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לְשַׁמְּשָׁהּ שֶׁאֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָאָדָם דָּבָר הָאָסוּר לוֹ:
כסף משנה
9.
When a woman tells her husband: "Pleasure from intimacy with me is forbidden to you," he need not nullify the vow.22I.e., even if he does not nullify the vow, it does not take effect. To what can the matter be compared? To one who forbids the owner of fruit from benefiting from his own fruit.23See Chapter 5, Halachah 3. By agreeing to marriage, a woman gives her husband rights to marital intimacy that cannot be withheld. Similarly, if he tells her: "Pleasure from intimacy with me is forbidden to you," his statements are of no consequence, because he is obligated to provide her with her sustenance, clothing, and intimacy, as we explained in Hilchot Ishut.24Hilchot Ishut 12:2, based on Exodus 21:10.If, however, she told him: "Pleasure from intimacy with you is forbidden to me," he must nullify the vow.25Since the vow does not forbid anything to the man, it will take effect unless he nullifies it. See also parallels in Hilchot Ishut 14:7 and Chapter 1, Halachah 30, above.
Based on Chapter 3, Halachah 10, it must be concluded that we are referring to an instance where she said "Your body is forbidden to me," for satisfaction is not a tangible matter (Rashba, as quoted by Turei Zahav 234:57; Siftei Cohen 234:81). Tosafot maintains that even if he does not say "Your body...," we consider it as if he did. This intent is reflected in the wording chosen by the Shulchan Aruch. If he does not nullify it, it is forbidden for him to engage in relations with her, because we may not force a person to partake of food that is forbidden to him.
הלכה י
אָמְרָה יִקְדְּשׁוּ יָדַי לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנָּדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא יֵהָנֶה בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדֶיהָ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לוֹ. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַשִּׁחְרוּר וְהֶחָמֵץ וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעִין הַשִּׁעְבּוּד חֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ חִזּוּק לְשִׁעְבּוּד הַבַּעַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהַפְקִיעוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל צָרִיךְ הוּא לְהָפֵר שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וְתִהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה לַחְזֹר לוֹ:
כסף משנה
10.
If she said: "May my hands be sanctified to the One who made them," or she took a vow that he would not benefit from the labor of her hands,26I.e., in both cases, she is consecrating the future products of her labor to the Temple treasury. She must, however, be careful to phrase the vow in a manner that she is not consecrating an entity that does not exist. For then the vow would not be effective [Nedarim 85a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 234:71)]. See also Hilchot Arachin 6:28. he is not forbidden to benefit from the labor of her hands, because her hands are on lien to him.27I.e., one of the rights given to a husband is the right to benefit from his wife's labor (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.). Although [our Sages] declared:28Ketubot 59b; Nedarim 86b. "Emancipation,29Of a servant. If a servant was designated as security for a debt and was then freed by his master, he is a free man and is not in any way subjugated to the person who had the lien (Hilchot Malveh ULoveh 18:6). [the prohibition against] chametz,30If a Jew designated leavened products (chametz) as security for a loan to a gentile, when the prohibition against benefiting from chametz takes effect, the lien is no longer effective and the chametz reverts to the ownership of the Jew and he is obligated to destroy it. and consecration31If an ox was designated as security for a loan and then its owner, the borrower, consecrated it, the lien is severed and the lender must collect the debt from another source. See also Hilchot Arachin 7:5. sever a lien," our Sages reinforced a husband's lien [on his wife's work and her earnings], preventing her from severing it, because it is of Rabbinic origin.32As in several other instances, our Sages reinforced their decrees, giving them more power than Scriptural Law (see Chapter 3, Halachah 9 for another example). The rationale is that if Rabbinic Law was not given this additional measure of strength, people might treat it lightly. He must, however, nullify the vow, lest he divorce her and then he be forbidden to remarry her.33For her vow would take effect after the divorce and then, he would not be able to remarry her because he would then be forbidden to benefit from her work, including her performance of household tasks, thus creating an impossible situation.See Turei Zahav 234:63 who explains why we mention this concern in this instance and not in others where it would seemingly apply.
הלכה יא
נִשְׁבְּעָה אוֹ נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא יֶהֱנֶה בָּהּ לֹא אֲבִי בַּעְלָהּ וְלֹא אֶחָיו וּשְׁאָר קְרוֹבָיו אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְכֵן אִם נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן מַיִם לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתְּךָ וְתֶבֶן לִפְנֵי בְּקָרְךָ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ וְאֵינָם מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ וְאֵינָהּ מִמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר:
כסף משנה
11.
If she took an oath or a vow that neither the father of her husband, his brothers, or any of his other relatives will benefit from her, he cannot nullify the vow.34For, as reflected by Hilchot Ishut 21:3, she is not under any obligation to perform work on behalf of these people. Similarly, he may not nullify her vow if she vows not to bring his animal35I.e., the animal he rides upon. water,36As Hilchot Ishut 21:5 states, she is obligated to provide straw for his riding animal. She is not, however, obligated to provide water for it, for it is necessary to draw water from a spring or river and that is compromising to a woman's modesty (Kessef Mishneh). As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit., the Rambam's ruling is based the version of Ketubot 61b cited by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. The standard published text of the Talmud follows a different understanding. straw for his cattle,37She is obligated to provide straw for the animal he rides upon, for that is an expression of consideration for her husband's person. She has no such obligation with regard to his cattle, for those animals are necessary only for work and that is solely her husband's concern. or the like. [The rationale is that these vows] do not aggravate the soul, nor do they affect the marriage relationship, [since] they are not of the tasks that she is obligated to perform.38I.e., were she obligated to perform these tasks, her vow not to perform them would not take effect.הלכה יב
יֵשׁ לַבַּעַל וְלָאָב לְהָפֵר נְדָרִים שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא חָלוּ וְלֹא נֶאֶסְרָה בָּהֶן. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמְרָה הַיַּיִן אָסוּר עָלַי אִם אֵלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זֶה מֵפֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הָלְכָה וְלֹא נֶאֶסְרָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
12.
A husband and a father may nullify vows that have not taken effect and have not yet caused prohibitions for her.39A sage, by contrast, may only absolve an oath or a vow after it takes effect (Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14). What is implied? She said, for example: "Wine will be forbidden to me if I go to this-and-this place."40The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:28). The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama quote the ruling of Rabbenu Yerucham who maintains that this principle applies only with regard to vows that have not taken effect because the time when they are due to take effect has not come. If, however, they are dependent on a deed, they cannot be nullified until they take effect. See the comments of the Siftei Cohen 234:45 which discusses this issue. Even though she has not yet gone there and [thus the wine] is not yet forbidden, the vow may be nullified. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.הלכה יג
הָאָב אוֹ הַבַּעַל שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹמְעִין אֵינָם מְפֵרִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵפֵר נְדָרִים שֶׁלֹּא שְׁמָעָן הָרָאוּי לִשְׁמֹעַ אֵין הַשְּׁמוּעָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ:
כסף משנה
13.
A father or a husband who is deaf41This applies even if he is not both deaf and dumb [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:25)]. may not nullify vows.42For Numbers 30:5 speak of her father hearing. Implied is that if he cannot hear, he cannot nullify the vow (Sifri to the verse). Even though a husband may nullify vows which he has not heard,43Chapter 11, Halachah 21. This also applies with regard to her father, as indicated by Halachah 20 of that chapter. when a person is fit to hear a vow, [the fact that he does not] hear it is not of consequence.44Rabbenu Asher [quoted by Rama (Yoreh De'ah 234:25)] differs and maintains that it is necessary for him to hear the vow.הלכה יד
הַשּׁוֹטֶה אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר בֵּין אָב בֵּין בַּעַל. הַקָּטָן אֵין לוֹ אִישׁוּת לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר. וְהַבַּעַל מֵפֵר נִדְרֵי שְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו כְּאַחַת. וְכֵן הָאָב מֵפֵר נִדְרֵי שְׁתֵּי בְּנוֹתָיו כְּאַחַת:
כסף משנה
14.
Neither a father, nor a husband who is intellectually or emotionally unstable may nullify a vow. A minor cannot establish a marriage bond;45See Hilchot Ishut 4:7; 11:6. accordingly, he may not nullify a vow. A husband may nullify the vows of two of his wives simultaneously. Similarly, a father may nullify the vows of two of his daughters simultaneously.46The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:29) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but mentions that there are other Rishonim who differ regarding this issue.הלכה טו
הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים כָּל הַיּוֹם וְאֵינָהּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. כֵּיצַד. נָדְרָה בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל שֵׁנִי הֲרֵי מֵפֵר כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה וְכָל יוֹם שֵׁנִי. נָדְרָה בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי בִּתְחִלַּת הַיּוֹם מֵפֵר כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. נָדְרָה בְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם עִם חֲשֵׁכָה אִם הֵפֵר לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֶּחְשַׁךְ מוּפָר. וְאִם לֹא הֵפֵר לָהּ עַד שֶׁחֲשֵׁכָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר:
כסף משנה
15.
The nullification of vows may be carried out throughout the entire day.47I.e., until nightfall, as the Rambam continues to explain. [The right does not continue] for 24 hours.What is implied? If she took a vow at the beginning of Sunday night, the vow may be nullified throughout that night and the entire day Monday.48The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:29) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but mentions that there are other Rishonim who differ regarding this issue. When she took a vow at the conclusion of the day, directly before nightfall. If he49I.e., neither a husband, nor a father. nullified the vow before nightfall, it is nullified. If he did not nullify it until after nightfall, he may not nullify it any longer.50For the day on which he heard the vow has passed.
הלכה טז
וּמַהוּ זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (במדבר ל טו) "מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּפֵר בַּלַּיְלָה אִם נָדְרָה בַּלַּיְלָה. וְכֵן מֵפֵר כָּל הַיּוֹם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. נָדְרָה וְשָׁהֲתָה כַּמָּה יָמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמַע הָאָב אוֹ הַבַּעַל הֲרֵי זֶה מֵפֵר בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ וּכְאִלּוּ נָדְרָה בְּעֵת שֶׁשְּׁמָעָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ל ו) (במדבר ל יג) "בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ" לֹא בְּיוֹם נִדְרָהּ בִּלְבַד:
כסף משנה
16.
What is meant by the Torah's words [Numbers 30:15]: "from one day to the next"?51Which seemingly implies a 24 hour period. They teach that if she takes a vow at night, he may nullify it during the night. And he may nullify it throughout the following day, as we explained.52In the previous halachah.If she took a vow and waited several days and only then, her father or her husband heard of it, he may nullify it on the day he heard of it. It is as if she took the vow on the day that he heard of it, as [implied by ibid.:6]: "On the day he heard of it," [i.e.,] and not only the day she took the vow.
הלכה יז
נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָסָה שֶׁנָּדְרָה וְשָׁמַע אָבִיהָ וְהֵפֵר וּלְאַחַר יָמִים שָׁמַע הָאָרוּס וְהֵפֵר בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ אֵין זֶה מוּפָר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ל ו) "וְאִם הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אוֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ" וְגוֹ' (במדבר ל ז) "וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ" (במדבר ל ח) "וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ" וְגוֹ' הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאַחַר שֶׁהֵפֵר הָאָב וְשָׁמַע הָאָרוּס הֲרֵי זֶה מֵפֵר בְּיוֹם שְׁמוֹעַ הָאָב. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם שָׁמַע אָרוּס וְהֵפֵר וְאַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים שָׁמַע הָאָב וְהֵפֵר בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּפָר. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּנַעֲרָה מְאֹרָסָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּה (במדבר ל יא) "וְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה" וְגוֹ' (במדבר ל יב) "וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ וְהֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ" וְגוֹ' מִכְּלַל שֶׁאִישָׁהּ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה אָרוּס כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
17.
When a consecrated maiden took a vow and her father heard of it and nullified it and after several days her erus heard of it and nullified it on the day he heard of it, it is not nullified, as [implied by ibid.:6-8]: "If her father prevented her on the day that he heard of it.... If she was married to a man with vows incumbent upon her.... If her husband heard of it. On the day, he heard of it...." From this we infer: Since her father nullified it and her erus heard of it, he must nullify it on the day the father heard of it. Similarly, if her erus heard [of the vow] and nullified it and after several days, the father heard of it and nullified it on the day he heard of it, it is not nullified.53I.e., according to the Rambam, regardless of who hears about the vow and nullifies it first, the father and the husband must both nullify it on the same day. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:5) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of the Ramban and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that the father and the husband do not have to nullify the vow on the same day. As long as each one nullifies it on the day he hears of it, it is nullified. The Siftei Cohen 234:13 quotes the opinion of the Bayit Chadash who rules that we should be stringent and follow the Rambam's decision.How do we know that the verse is speaking about a consecrated maiden? Because further on, the passage [ibid.:11-12] states: "If she vows in her husband's home...54I.e., this obviously applies after nissuin, when the woman is living in her husband's home. her husband heard her and remained silent." We can infer that the husband spoken about previously is an erus., as we explained.
הלכה יח
שָׁמַע הָאָב אוֹ הַבַּעַל וְשָׁתַק כְּדֵי לְצַעֲרָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְקַיֵּם נִדְרָהּ הוֹאִיל וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא הֵפֵר וְלֹא בִּטֵּל נִתְקַיְּמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ. נָדְרָה וְהֵפֵר לָהּ הָאָב אוֹ הַבַּעַל וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה שֶׁהֵפֵר וְעָבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ אוֹ עַל שְׁבוּעָתָהּ בְּזָדוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּטוּרָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנָה לְאִסּוּר הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה הַהֶתֵּר פְּטוּרָה וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ל ו) "וַה' יִסְלַח לָהּ כִּי הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ". וּמַכִּין אוֹתָהּ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנָה לְאִסּוּר:
כסף משנה
18.
When a father or a husband hears of a vow and remains silent in order to cause the woman aggravation,55I.e., he intended to nullify her vow afterwards, but desired that she think that the vow is binding so that she will take the matter more seriously. if the day passes without him nullifying or revoking [her vows], they are binding even if he did not have the intent of accepting them.If she took a vow and her father or her husband nullified it, but without knowing of the nullification, she willfully violated her vow or oath, she is not liable. Although she had the intent of transgressing, since she committed a permitted act,56I.e., since the vow was nullified, there is no prohibition involved in the action. she is exempt. Concerning this, [ibid.:6] states: "God will forgive her, although her father prevented her." She is given stripes for rebellious conduct,57A punishment instituted by the Rabbis. because she had the intent to transgress.
הלכה יט
נָדְרָה וְעָבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּפֵר לָהּ אָבִיהָ אוֹ בַּעְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁמַע בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם וְהֵפֵר לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חַיֶּבֶת עַל דָּבָר שֶׁעָבְרָה בּוֹ. אִם מַלְקוֹת מַלְקוֹת וְאִם קָרְבָּן קָרְבָּן:
כסף משנה
19.
When she takes a vow and violates her vow before her father or her husband nullifies it, she is liable - either for lashes58If she transgressed willfully. or a sacrifice59If she transgressed inadvertently. - for the transgression she committed even if he heard of it that day and nullified it.60In contrast to the repeal of a vow by a sage, when a father or a husband nullify a vow, they do not nullify it retroactively, only from the time of their actions onward. See the notes to Chapter 13, Halachah 2.הלכה כ
שָׁמַע נִדְרָהּ וְשָׁתַק מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָאָב אוֹ לַבַּעַל לְהָפֵר. אוֹ שֶׁיָּדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם לְהָפֵר אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע שֶׁנֵּדֶר זֶה צָרִיךְ הֲפָרָה וּלְאַחַר זְמַן יָדַע הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר וּשְׁעַת יְדִיעָתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הִיא שְׁעַת הַנֵּדֶר אוֹ שְׁעַת שְׁמוּעָתוֹ וְיָפֵר כָּל הַיּוֹם:
כסף משנה
20.
If a father or a husband heard of [a woman's] vow, but remained silent, because he did not know that a father or a husband has a right to nullify her vows or he knew that he had a right to nullify her vow, but did not know that such a vow required nullification, when he learns of this, he may nullify [the vow]. The time when he gains this knowledge is equivalent to the time of the vow or the time he heard of it and he may nullify it for that entire day.הלכה כא
נָדְרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְסָבוּר שֶׁהִיא בִּתּוֹ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁהִיא בִּתּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם נָדְרָה בְּנָזִיר וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּקָרְבָּן וְהֵפֵר לָהּ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁנָּדְרָה קָרְבָּן. אָסְרָה עַצְמָהּ בִּתְאֵנִים וְסָבוּר [שֶׁאָסְרָה עַצְמָהּ] בַּעֲנָבִים וְהֵפֵר לָהּ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁנָּדְרָה לֶאֱסֹר [עַצְמָהּ] בַּעֲנָבִים צָרִיךְ לַחְזֹר וּלְהָפֵר כְּשֶׁיֵּדַע הַנֵּדֶר וְהַנּוֹדֶרֶת לְשֵׁם הַנּוֹדֶרֶת הַזֹּאת וּלְשֵׁם הַנֵּדֶר הַזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ל יב) "לֹא הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ" לְנוֹדֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ וְאוֹמֵר (במדבר ל ה) "וְשָׁמַע אָבִיהָ אֶת נִדְרָהּ" עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע אֵי זֶה נֵדֶר נָדְרָה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהָפֵר אוֹתוֹ כָּל יוֹם הַיְדִיעָה:
כסף משנה