Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

As explained by the commentaries, in this context, we follow the principle: “A portion of a day is considered as an entire day.” Thus, directly after his twelfth birthday, as soon as a male child enters into his thirteenth year of life, these laws apply to him. Similar concepts apply with regard to a female minor.

For a vow must be taken for God's sake, as Numbers 30:3 states: "When a man will take a vow to God."

This is a unique concept that Niddah 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.

As explained in the following halachah.

The Kessef Mishneh 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 aminor, it is possible that his level of understanding will fluctuate.

I.e., their thirteenth and twelfth birthdays arrive as stated in note 1.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 5:6), the Rambam writes that the Torah made the age for which women become responsible for their vows lower than that of men, because a woman’s lifetime is generally less than that of a man.

If they manifested signs that they are mentally or emotionally incapable, this law does not apply. If, however, they are merely somewhat slow and do not understand the concept of vows, their vows are of consequence, because they have already reached the age when one becomes responsible for his or her actions.

I.e., two pubic hairs as stated in Hilchot!shut 2:1.

There are others who maintain that the expression “the time when vows [take effect]” refers to a minor who understands the meaning of his vows as stated in Halachah 1. The Rambam prefers his interpretation, because it is dependent on time, the child’s age, while the first interpretation is dependent on the child’s knowledge (Yayim Malchut).

This is the subject of debate among the Rishonim, for some do not accept the Rambam’s view.

For until the latter age, they are still minors, and minors are not liable for punishment for transgressions that they perform.

For violating the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property (Hilchot Mei/ah 1 :3).

In the previous halachah. Since the child’s consecration is valid, the article has the status of a consecrated article according to Scriptural Law and a person who misappropriates it is liable.

I.e., her father died. Alternatively, she was married as a minor and then she was divorced or widowed (see Halachah 25). Otherwise, she remains in his domain until the age of twelve and a half, as stated in the following halachah.

I.e., from the age of twelve until the age of twelve and a half.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 2, which describes how the father nullifies his daughter’s vow.

As the Shulchan Aruch (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.

The HaEmek HaShaalah interprets this term as referring to oaths.

I.e., reaches the age of twelve and a half after manifesting physical signs of maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:2).

Numbers 30:17 gives him this privilege “during her maidenhood,” i.e., and not beyond that time period (Kessef Mishneh).

l. e, from the beginning of the second stage of the marriage relationship known as nissuin. At that time, he takes her into a private room and from that time onward, the couple live as man and wife (Hilchot ls hut 10: I). 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 perfonn both these stages of marriage together in one ceremony.)

Implied is that if he sends the bill of divorce to her via an agent, he may nullify her vows until the bill of divorce enters her possession (Siftei Cohen 234:6, Turei Zahav 234:1).

I.e., he had a bill of divorce given to her and our Rabbis could not resolve if the manner in which the bill of divorce was given or written is effective. See Hilchot Gerushin 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 if she becomes unattractive (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Gerushin 8:1.

He tells her: “Here is your bill of divorce, but it does not take effect for 30 days” (ibid. 9:1).

I.e., in the days before the vow takes effect. The Siftei Cohen 234:8 states that even after the fact, the nullification does not take effect.

See Hilchot Gerushin I 0:5 which describes this situation at length.

E. g., a woman who went through a divorce and then remarried, but then it was discovered that her divorce was invalid (ibid.:7). In both this and the previous instance, both husbands are required to divorce the woman.

The rationale for this and the previous laws 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. In this instance, since he is obligated to divorce her, it is desirable that she become unattractive to him (Yevamot, loc. cit.).

I.e., a negative commandment that is not punishable by execution, death at the hand of heaven, or karet. See Hilchot!shut I :7.

E. g., marriages like that of a non-virgin to a High Priest, which are -not prohibited by a negative commandment. Instead, the prohibition is self-understood, because there is a positive commandment instructing the opposite. See ibid. :8.

Although these marriages are forbidden, since they are still binding, the husband has this privilege.

I.e., a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half.

The term arus 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 arus, because the term baal usually implies that nisuin, the second stage of marriage, has already taken place.

Numb’ers 30:17 states: “These are the statutes... between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter in her youth.” Nedarim 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.

Nedarim 68a states that since one of the two has already nullified the vow, it is weak and its violation is not punishable by lashes.

Even the vows she took previously while consecrated [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 234:11)]. This applies even if she has a yevam (Halachah 24).

As stated in Halachah 6.

Before nissuin, an erus can nullify his wife’s vows only together with her father and that is impossible in this instance. See also Halachah 16.

For if her first arus heard her vow and did not nullify it, her father can no longer nullify it together with her second arus. See Halachah 17.

Or consecrated again by her first erus [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 234:13)].

It is necessary that the divorce(s) and the consecration(s) take place on the same day the father heard of and nullified the vow. For if not, the woman’s last erus will not have the right to nullify the vow, as indicated by Chapter 12, Halachah 17.

In contrast to the laws applying to a married woman, as stated in the following halachah.

Nor may her father nullify her vows, for once she marries, her father no longer has the right to nullify her vows.

Once a woman becomes independent for even one moment, her future husband cannot nullify the vows she took previo:usly..

If, however, either her erus or her father heard her vow when it was taken, it cannot be nullified at a later date.

Since she remains partially in her father’s domain, the divorce does not affect the right of her father and her present erus to nullify her vows.

The consecration and the nullification of the vow must take place on the day that the father heard of the vow and nullified it (Turei Zahav 234:22).

Since her first erus 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.

I.e., after the death of her erus.

But not on the following day. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation when the father heard of the vow on the same day as her first erus, 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.

The Turei Zahav 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.

Since he did not maintain the vow and died before the day was completed, we say that there was a possibility that he would nullify it. Hence, her father is given the right to nullify it.

Since her erus 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.

Since he did not nullify it on the day that he heard it, he cannot nullify it later. It is considered as if he maintained it. Once he maintained it, her father cannot nullify it.

I.e., combining Halachah 15 which states that the father and the second erus 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, toe. cit.)..

And cannot be nullified afterwards.

But did not nullify it then.

If, however, he nullifies on a later date it is unacceptable, for the father must nullify the vow on the day he became aware of it.

Halachah 15. In his gloss to this halachah, the Radbaz explains the apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 16 by stating that Halachah 16 refers to an instance where the father did not nullify the vow before the arus died. Accordingly, the right of the arus 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).

I.e., completed the second stage of the marriage, nissuin.

See Halachah 8.

I.e., to enable all the vows concerning which he did not hear to be nullified.

I.e., before their marriage.

An erus 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).

This also applies to her father. The husband and the father must, however, be capable of hearing. If they are deaf, they cannot nullify a vow (Chapter 12, Halachah 13).

Thus if both the father and the husband made these statements, the vows are nullified. In some manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah, these two halachot are combined as one..

Who were sent to bring her to her husband's home.

As long as her father is accompanying her, he is not considered to have transferred her to her husband’s domain and hence, still has the right to nullify her vows.

I.e., even if the husband dies [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 234:12)].

See Halachah 20.

I.e., we are speaking about a widow whose husband dies childless who must be married by her deceased husband's brother. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25.

Which is similar to consecration, but not entirely analogous to consecration (see Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1).

And thus there is no question that she is designated for him.

At which point their marriage is consummated and she becomes his wife. Until then, even if he has stated his intent, according to Scriptural Law, she is not his wife and he cannot nullify her vows.

As stated in Halachah 10.

I.e., she has already completed nissuin, the second stage of the marriage bond.

I.e., although from the standpoint of age, her father would still have the right to nullify her vows, since she married, she is given full independence. Hence, he no longer has this right.

As stated in Halachah 7, once she comes of age, her father no longer has any authority over her.

I.e., she was divorced or widowed after marriage, as stated in the previous halachah.

I.e., in the first situation, the man who consecrated her before she came of age. In the second situation, it refers to a second husband who consecrated her after she was divorced or widowed.

This occurs only after nissuin. Moreover, even after she enters her husband’s domain, he cannot!}Ullify her vows that were taken beforehand, as stated in Halachah 20.