7. THE DECIDING FACTOR
We can posit that here lies the practical difference between the two above-mentioned opinions regarding “the age of vows”:
These two above-mentioned approaches are only valid according to the opinion that “the age of vows” is “the twelfth year for a female minor and the thirteenth year for a male minor.” This is the (Torah’s) novelty of “a minor nearing adulthood who vows.”
[This leads to the question of what the primary novelty of “a minor nearing adulthood who vows” is: Is it the element of “who vows” (that they know how to vow properly) or the element of “nearing adulthood” (that they are in the year preceding adulthood)?]
By contrast, according to the opinion that “the age of vows” is reached when “a male is thirteen years and one day and a female is twelve years and one day... even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity,” it follows that the entire status of a vow made before the year of adulthood — “the twelfth year for a female minor and the thirteenth year for a male minor” — depends (not on age, but rather) solely on whether they “know for Whose sake they took the vow.”
This is indeed the fundamental difference between the two categories of “the age of vows” discussed above: (a) when “a male is thirteen years and one day and a female is twelve years and one day... even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity,” (b) “the twelfth year for a female minor and the thirteenth year for a male minor” who know how to vow properly:
The Torah’s novelty regarding when “a male is thirteen years and one day and a female is twelve years and one day... even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity,” is about age, telling us that the age of vows begins immediately upon reaching the age of thirteen years and one day (and this rule is not connected with their level of knowledge, as Rambam rules [see above] “even though they say: ‘We do not know for Whose sake we took the vow...’ their vows are binding”).
Then, there is another novelty: “The twelfth year for a female minor and the thirteenth year for a male minor.” Here, the defining factor is (not related to age, but rather) connected with them “knowing how to vow,” which makes the vow binding.
[This understanding is cemented in light of Rogatchover’s explanation of Rambam’s opinion. The Rogatchover explains that Rambam holds that “according to Torah law, ‘a minor nearing adulthood who vows’ applies exclusively when the male minor is thirteen years old or the female minor twelve years old and they have not yet manifested physical signs of maturity” (as implied by the straightforward understanding of Rambam’s subsequent words: “Since they reached the age of majority, their vows are binding even if they did not manifest physical signs of maturity... This concept is of Scriptural origin: when a person close to the age of adulthood utters a vow, his consecration and his vows are binding.”) However, the rule of “the twelfth year for a female minor and the thirteenth year for a male minor” is (according to Rambam) something that all agree is of Rabbinic origin.
Thus, we can certainly posit that the Rabbinic injunction is connected (not to the age-factor of the twelfth or thirteenth year, but rather) with the fact that the individual already “knows for Whose sake he took the vow,” and it is because of this knowledge that they said that his vow is binding].
