~ What are the limits of vows and oaths, according to the plain reading of the text?
~ Why are vows and oaths such a serious business?
מתני׳ ואלו נדרים שהוא מפר דברים שיש בהן ענוי נפש אם ארחץ ואם לא ארחץ אם אתקשט ואם לא אתקשט אמר רבי יוסי אין אלו נדרי ענוי נפש ואלו הן נדרי ענוי נפש אמרה קונם פירות העולם עלי הרי זה יכול להפר פירות מדינה זו עלי יביא לה ממדינה אחרת פירות חנווני זה עלי אינו יכול להפר ואם לא היתה פרנסתו אלא ממנו הרי זה יפר דברי רבי יוסי
MISHNA: And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself. Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction. Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
(נה) אלו נדרים שהבעל מפר נדרים שיש בהם עינוי נפש ודברים שבינו לבינה אלא שנדרים שיש בהן עינוי נפש כשמתירים לה מותרת בהם לעולם ודברים שבינו לבינה אין ההתרה אלא לעצמו כל זמן שיש לו בו תועלת דהיינו כל זמן שהיא תחתיו ולאחר שתתגרש כל זמן שלא תנשא שאפשר שתחזור אליו אבל לאחר שתנשא חל הנדר גם לדידיה ונדרים שאין בהם עינוי נפש ואינם בינו לבינה אינו יכול להפר:...
(נז) אין הבעל מצטרף עם ב' להתיר נדרי אשתו בלשון התרה אבל האב מותר להתיר נדרי בתו בלשון התרה כשאר חכם:
(נח) יש אומרים שגם האב אינו מפר נדרים שאין בהם עינוי נפש ויש מי שמתיר ויש מי שחילק שקודם שנתארסה מפר כל נדריה אבל נתארסה ומת הארוס וחזרה לרשותו אז אינו מפר אלא נדרי עינוי נפש:
(נט) איזו הם דברים שיש בהם עינוי נפש כגון רחיצה וקישוט כיחול ופרכוס כגון שנשבעה שלא תרחץ או שלא תתקשט או שאמרה הנאת רחיצה וקישוט עלי אם ארחץ או אתקשט אפילו לא תלתה אלא ברחיצה וקישוט של היום ואפשר שלא תרחץ ולא תתקשט היום ולא תאסר הוי עינוי נפש אע"פ שאין חל הנדר אלא ליום א' וי"א דרחיצה וקישוט הוי דברים שבינו לבינה. (עיין ס"ק ע"ג) : הגה וכל זה לא מיירי אלא בקישוט הפנים אבל קישוט של מטה לכולי עלמא לא הוי דברים שבינו לבינה. (ב"י בשם הרב רבינו נסים):
(55) These are the vows that a husband cancels: vows that bring bodily affliction [lit. afflictions of a soul] and (vows) that involve things that come between him and her. Vows that bring bodily affliction that are permitted to her, she has a permission for all times. And (vows) that involve things between him and her he only permits for himself, and while he has benefit from it, (that is) during the time she is under him. And after she divorces, during all the time she still could come back to him, but if she remarries all these are cancelled. And anything that has no affliction and does not come between him and her he cannot cancel.
...
(57) The husband does not join another two men to release his wife's vow with the formula of release, but the father does release the vows of his daughter with the formula of release if he is a wise man.
(58) There are those who say that the father cannot cancel the vows in which there is no bodily affliction; there are those who permit (him to do so); and there are those who make a distinction if she is betrothed: before she is betrothed, he can cancel all her vows, but once she is betrothed, (even when) the intended has died and she returns to her father's home, he is unable to cancel her vows, unless they involve bodily affliction.
(59) What are the things that involve bodily affliction? Washing oneself, and donning adornments, painting the eyes and the cheeks. For example, if she vowed not to have a bath or to adorn herself, or said that I forbid myself the pleasure of bathing and adorning even for that day, since it is possible that she won't do those things and not be betrothed, those are things involving bodily afflictions, even though the vow is valid only for one day. And there are those who say that bathing and adorning are (also) things that come between him and her. Gloss: and all that only applies for beautification of the face, but adornment of below (ie, feet) everyone agrees that these are not things that come between him and her.
~ What are the limits that the rabbis impose on the husband? Why would they do that?
~ Think of a vow that the husband or father could not cancel.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6221c/6221cc7d48cfe0dc493c4ce44088bf04c45bae86" alt=""
~ This is a "room of miracles". In many communities in Brazil, those who vowed something make an image of what was vowed and, after what they requested happened, put that up in rooms such as those, mainly in churches. Note full bodies on the right side.
~ Notice that without a leader (a judge) things go really bad, really fast. Enter Yiftach.
~ Who is Yiftach, up to here?
~ Compare and contrast the messages sent to the Amorites with his vow.
~ Look at the vow. What could go wrong?
~ What are the dynamics between father and daughter in this story?
~ Who could cancel this vow? Who makes sure the vow is fulfilled?
~ What is the end of the story, according to the plain meaning of the text?
~ How is Rabbi David Kimchi trying to make us feel better about the end of the story?
~ Why would he need to do so?
Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. This text is related (to Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, [BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (nefashot)]. This refers to the Torah, because when one is a Torah scholar (literally: child of Torah), s/he learns how one acquires lives (nefashot), as stated (ibid.): BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES. And so you find in the case of Yiftach the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he lost his daughter. When? In the time that he fought with the children of Ammon and made a vow, as stated (in Jud. 11:30–31): THEN YIFTACH MADE A VOW TO THE LORD, < AND SAID: IF YOU INDEED GIVE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON INTO MY HAND, > THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…, < SHALL BELONG TO THE LORD, AND I WILL OFFER IT UP AS A BURNT OFFERING >. At that time the Holy One was angry with him. The Holy One said: If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to Me? The Holy One summoned his daughter to him, as stated (in Jud. 11:34–35): AND THERE WAS HIS DAUGHTER COMING OUT TO MEET HIM <…. > AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE SAW HER, < THAT HE RENT HIS CLOTHES…. But was not Pinchas there? Still he said (in vs. 35): AND I CANNOT RETRACT. However, Pinchas had said: I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus ('am ha'arets)? But Yiftach said: I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates! Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner(hediot, from the Greek idiotes). Between the two of them that poor woman perished; so the two of them were liable for her life (lit. blood). In the case of Pinchas, the Holy Spirit left him. In the case of Yiftach, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7): AND HE WAS BURIED IN THE CITIES OF GILEAD. His daughter had said to him: My father, is it ever written in the Torah: They offer the lives (nefashot) of their sons upon the altar? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2): [WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD FROM THE CATTLE], < YOU SHALL PRESENT YOUR OFFERING > FROM THE HERD OR FROM THE FLOCK, < i.e., > from the cattle and not from the children of Adam? He said to her: My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31): THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…. [She said to him:] When our father Yaakov made a vow (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU, and when the Holy One gave him twelve tribes, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? [Moreover, does not Hannah do likewise, when she makes a vow and says (in I Sam. 1:11): THEN I WILL GIVE HIM TO THE LORD ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE. Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One?] All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. She said to him: Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words. Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37): LEAVE ME ALONE FOR TWO MONTHS, [SO THAT I MAY GO AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS]. R. Levi ben Berekhyah said: Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS? These represent the Sanhedrin, as in the usage (of Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD. She went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow. So it is with reference to him that the Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3): A POOR MAN WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT IS A TORRENTIAL RAIN WHICH LEAVES NO BREAD. A POOR MAN: This is Yiftach, since he was poor in the Torah. He was a < mere > sycamore shoot (the metaphor designates one who is poor) (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT, since he exploited the indigent, when he said (in Jud. 12:6): SAY: SHIBBOLETH; AND HE SAID SIBBOLETH. Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) A TORRENTIAL RAIN, AND THERE IS NO BREAD, in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.): THERE IS NO BREAD, in that the Holy One had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One. Then the Holy Spirit proclaimed: Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (NEFASHOT) to me, lives (see Jer. 19:5), WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED, NEVER SPOKE FOR, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND? 'WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED' This is Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12): DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD…. This was in order to make known to you how Abraham carried out my will, when the nations of the world were saying: Why does the Holy One love Abraham so much? For that reason he said to him (in Gen. 22:2): PLEASE TAKE YOUR SON…. Ergo (in Jer. 19:5): 'WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED' Abraham to slaughter his son. 'NEVER SPOKE FOR' this is Yiftach to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to me, 'AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND' that is the king of Moab falling into the hand of the King of Israel and offer up his firstborn son to Me as a sacrifice, as stated (in II Kings 3:27): SO HE TOOK HIS FIRSTBORN SON, WHO WOULD BECOME KING IN HIS STEAD, AND OFFERED HIM UP AS A BURNT OFFERING UPON THE WALL.] Who caused Yiftach to lose his daughter? He himself because he had not studied the Torah; for if he had studied the Torah, he would not lose his daughter, since it is written (in Lev. 27:2, 4): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS < TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS (NEFASHOT) >…. AND IF IT IS A FEMALE < …. > That is what it means (Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, < BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NEFASHOT) >.
~ According to midrash Tanchuma, who is to blame for the vow to have been carried out?
~ What does the daughter try to do, according to this midrash?
~ What are the lessons here?
~ How does the vow of Yiftach compare to the other two?
~ Why do you think the rabbis select these three moments to contrast and compare?
~Who is to blame for not getting the vow annulled?
~ What do the rabbis imply actually happened?
~ Why is it obvious for the rabbis that this is not something God would want?
~ Think back to what happens in Kol Nidrei. Can you find echoes of this section of the Talmud?