Imagine that a husband heard his wife make a vow and then divorced her without telling us why. Since he knows that he cannot revoke the vow any longer after divorce, is he affirming it by his action? Or he does not care and offers no comment.
What is the difference? If she made a vow and a day passed, her vow is now binding anyway!? – The difference is in the case where he remarried her on that same day. Since the day has not passed, then if we say that he offered no comment, he can still annul the vow. But if his divorce was a confirmation, he could no longer change his mind.
Can we resolve our question from our previous ruling? There the husband could still revoke the vow, so it must be that divorce is tantamount to silence and expresses no opinion! – No, perhaps our ruling only discusses the case where the husband did not hear her vow. The ruling just gives us the fundamental law that if the father heard about the vow and the groom did not, they only have one day to veto it. About our question, the ruling may be offering no opinion whatsoever.
A custom of the learned people: before the wedding, the groom would annul all his bride's vows while being betrothed to him. Could he annul even those that he had never heard about? – This will be researched on the next page.
Art: The Wedding Candles by Marc Chagall
No comments:
Post a Comment