https://pixabay.com/photos/pinky-swear-friendship-gesture-329329/
Traducido por Balbino Cotarelo Núñez
To read this post in English, click here
Esta semana la perashát Matót-Masé, como todo el mundo sabe, presenta la figura de la mujer que hace un voto y también especifica las restricciones paternas que se aplican a estos votos.
Queda inmediatamente claro que las restricciones son por sí solas limitadas. Son la prerrogativa del padre de la mujer cuando es menor y del marido desde que se comprometen. Ellos solo pueden anular su voto en el día en que lo han oído (vv. 4- 6), que, como el Talmud especificará en el TB Nedarím, explica que se refiere al resto del día (¡esto podría referirse a nada más que unas pocas horas!).
Furthermore, if a woman’s vow was accepted by her father (silence here counts as tacit acceptance, see v. 15 ), and she later marries, the husband may only annul her vow when he first hears of it ( vv. 7–9 ). The vows of a woman who is widowed or divorced are, so to speak, invulnerable ( v. 10 ). In the following verses, it is made clear that God is merciful to the woman who made a vow that was subsequently annulled by her husband. Based on v. 14 , the sages (see Mishnah Nedarím 11:1 ) explain very clearly that the husband may annul vows that “afflict the soul,” those involving innui nefesh . In the Talmud ( Nedarím 79b ) another category is added: vows beno levena , “between him and her.” Even then, he can only nullify the aspect that affects him directly. Sifré Bemidbár 155 states that the same conditions apply to the father (if his daughter is still a minor).
A careful reading of TB Nedarím reveals that the use of hafarat nedarím by the father or husband became increasingly restricted, based on the sages ’ understanding of perashat matari. The sages created a more comprehensive solution – a better solution, I believe – to free men and women alike from their vows – the institution of hafarat nedarím , which linguistically refers to the possibility of freeing people from their vows rather than aggressively destroying the vows (the mechanism of hafara ). The main difference is that in hafarat nedarím the sages basically try to help people free themselves from their vows by rational means, by helping them find a peticha, literally a “way out,” which can be translated in this context as a “loophole.” For example, in TB Nedarím 21b-22a , the case is cited of a mother who disinherits her daughter with a neder . She then consulted the sages to try to obtain an annulment of this extreme obligation. In an attempt to find a peticha , they asked the mother: “When you made this vow, did you think about what the neighbors would say about your daughter?” Would it not be clear to them that to be rejected by her mother in this way the daughter had committed very shameful actions? The mother admitted that, no, she had not realized the deleterious consequences of this hasty decision and so was released from her vows.
But why did the sages facilitate recourse to hafarat nedarím , while simultaneously limiting the parameters of the only option that is clearly explained in the Torah, hafarat nedarím ?
Let us take a step back to delve into the meaning of vows. Vows are commitments made by means of a ritual formula. One may take a vow to deny oneself any benefit, whether it comes from another person or object, making the entity that the vow concerns similar to an offering, a sacrifice ( konam or korban ), a kadósh, a “sacred” or “holy” object. The best translation of kadósh in this context would be “separated, distanced from oneself.” However, when a sacrifice normally designates an object from which one distances oneself in order to “draw closer” ( korban ) to God, the vow creates a separation between oneself and others (whether people or objects) that only creates tension, dissension, and frustration. It creates discord between husband and wife, parents and daughters, and so on. Because of the extreme legal and social consequences of the neder , and because of its symbolic violence (as it involves depriving oneself or others of contact or satisfaction in a way that is not at all supported by the Torah), the sages generalized, according to their means, the recourse to annulling vows, particularly when it is necessary to save human relationships. Whereas hafarat nedarim seems purely arbitrary, on the part of the father or husband, and relies on paternalistic assumptions that they knew better than their wives and daughters whether they should make a vow or not, without requiring any justification before annulling the vow, hatarat nedarim introduces rationality and introspection into the process of annulling one’s own vow. It presupposes that women and men make mistakes and there are decisions in the heat of the moment that will have a negative impact on them, their friends and family, and that both sexes will need to annul their vows. There is something about hatarat nedarim that makes me think of psychological therapy, as the sages simply guide the person making a vow until he comes to better understand the wrong consequences of the vow, considering all of its ramifications and unintended consequences. Only a system that values self-understanding over outside interventions can lead us from the status of children in need of rebuke (as the Bnei Yisrael frequently did in the desert) to greater maturity and the responsibility of an am kadósh , a people holy in their words and actions.
Daf of the Day
