נדרים צ - מקורות נלווים

(1) So Moses spoke to the Israelites just as יהוה had commanded Moses. (2) Moses spoke to the heads of the Israelite tribes, saying: This is what יהוה has commanded: (3) If a householder makes a vow to יהוה or takes an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips. (4) If a woman makes a vow to יהוה or assumes an obligation while still in her father’s household by reason of her youth, (5) and her father learns of her vow or her self-imposed obligation and offers no objection, all her vows shall stand and every self-imposed obligation shall stand. (6) But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of her vows or self-imposed obligations shall stand; and יהוה will forgive her, since her father restrained her. (7) If she should become someone’s [wife] while her vow or the commitment to which she bound herself is still in force, (8) and her husband learns of it and offers no objection on the day he finds out, her vows shall stand and her self-imposed obligations shall stand. (9) But if her husband restrains her on the day that he learns of it, he thereby annuls her vow which was in force or the commitment to which she bound herself; and יהוה will forgive her.— (10) The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, however, whatever she has imposed on herself, shall be binding upon her.— (11) So, too, if, while in her husband’s household, she makes a vow or imposes an obligation on herself by oath, (12) and her husband learns of it, yet offers no objection—thus failing to restrain her—all her vows shall stand and all her self-imposed obligations shall stand. (13) But if her husband does annul them on the day he finds out, then nothing that has crossed her lips shall stand, whether vows or self-imposed obligations. Her husband has annulled them, and יהוה will forgive her. (14) Every vow and every sworn obligation of self-denial may be upheld by her husband or annulled by her husband. (15) If her husband offers no objection from that day to the next, he has upheld all the vows or obligations she has assumed: he has upheld them by offering no objection on the day he found out. (16) But if he annuls them after [the day] he finds out, he shall bear her guilt. (17) Those are the laws that יהוה enjoined upon Moses between a husband and his wife, and as between a father and his daughter while in her father’s household by reason of her youth.

And Reuben saw Bilhah, Rachel's maid, the concubine of his father, bathing in water in asecret place, and he loved her.
And he hid himself at night, and he entered the house of Bilhah [at night], and he found her sleeping alone on a bed in her house. And he lay with her, and she awoke and saw, and behold Reuben was lying with her in the bed, and she uncovered the border of her covering and seized him, and cried out, and discovered that it was Reuben.
And she was ashamed because of him, and released her hand from him, and he fled.
And she lamented because of this thing exceedingly, and did not tell it to any one. And when Jacob returned and sought her, she said unto him: "I am not clean for thee, for I have been defiled as regards thee; for Reuben hath defiled me, and hath lain with me in the night, and I was asleep, and did not discover until he uncovered my skirt and slept with me."
And Jacob was exceedingly wroth with Reuben because he had lain with Bilhah, because he had uncovered his father's skirt. And Jacob did not approach her again because Reuben had defiled her. And as for any man who uncovereth his father's skirt. his deed is wicked exceedingly, for he is abominable before the Lord.

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her. “Heaven is between you and me”: as Heaven is far from earth, so this woman should be far from that man. “They should try to mediate.” Rav Huna said, they should make a dinner and they will get used to be with one another by the dinner. It was stated: “I am jailed away from you, I am separated away from you”. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, why did one not state “taken away from”? Rebbi Yose said, that was stated at the end: “I am taken away from the Jews.” If she was divorced, let her go and cling to the Arabs, for she loves them. If a woman made a vow to be a nazir; her husband heard and did not dissolve it: Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he put his finger between her teeth, for if he wants to confirm, he can confirm. If he said, I cannot stand her being a nazir, he should divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, she put her finger between her teeth, for if he wants to confirm, he can confirm. If she said, I can stand it to be a nazir, he may divorce her without paying the ketubah.” Remove this, how can Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say so in the Mishnah? Even in the later Mishnah, why did he not dissolve? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon follow the later Mishnah. But you might say, the earlier Mishnah. Why did she make the vow?

(Bamidbar 30:14) "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 9) "and he annul the vow which is upon her," I might think, whether or not it involves affliction. It is, therefore, written "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it." Scripture speaks only of vows involving affliction. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that he may annul them]) for vows affecting relations between him and her? From (Ibid. 17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter" — whether or not they entail affliction. And just as this vow (i.e., a vow involving affliction) is a vow which is not absolved by others (i.e., sages [but annulled by the husband]), so, all vows (i.e., those between husband and wife) which are not absolved by others (are annulled by the husband.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find vows which are absolved by others and which may be annulled by the husband. How so? If she said: "I forbid the fruits of the world to myself," he may annul it. (If she said:) "I forbid the fruits of the province to myself," he can bring them from a different province. (If she said:) "I forbid the fruits of this shopkeeper to me," the husband cannot annul it. And if his livelihood came only from him, he can annul it. We find, then, that only a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows entailing affliction. Whence do we derive the same for a father (vis-à-vis his daughter)? It follows (by induction), viz. Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows involving affliction, so, a father. — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a father can annul any vow, so, a husband can annul any vow. How, then, am I to understand "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it, etc."? As referring to the days of her maturity (bagruth), but in the days of her maidenhood (na'aruth), he may annul all of her vows. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) "in her maidenhood in her father's house." (i.e., This distinction between 'na'aruth and bagruth) applies only in her father's house, but not in her husband's house. I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal was refuted, and I have "merited" returning to the original formulation, viz.: Since a husband can annul and a father can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so, a father. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If a husband, who can annul in her maturity, can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, how much more so a father! — No, this may be true of a husband, who does not have exclusive authority (in the annulment of vows) — wherefore he can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, as opposed to a father, who does have such authority — wherefore he can annul all vows. I have not succeeded in deriving it by reasoning; it is, therefore, written "These are the statutes, etc." likening the father to the husband, viz.: Just as the husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so the father. "her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it": If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and he confirmed it for figs, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, it is not annulled until he annulled it also for grapes. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, but not for grapes, it is all annulled, it being written "her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it." Just as "shall confirm it" (connotes even) "part of it," so, "shall annul it" (connotes even) "part of it." If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and a sage was consulted (for absolution) and he (explicitly) permitted it for dates, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is all permitted. If he forbade it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all forbidden. If he forbade it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is forbidden. If her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all annulled. If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all confirmed. When is this so? When it is all one vow. But if she said: I vow not to eat figs, and, in addition, I vow not to eat grapes, and a sage were consulted, and he permitted it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs — or if her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, or if he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes or for grapes but not for figs — (then only) what was (specifically) confirmed is confirmed, and what was (specifically) annulled is annulled.