Rashi on TanakhNumbers 30

Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel. This concludes the subject, comments R’ Yishmael. Because, up until this point, we have the words of the Omnipresent, and the chapter of vows begins with the words of Moshe, it is necessary to conclude the subject by saying that Moshe reviewed this parshah with the Israelites. Otherwise, the implication would be that he (Moshe) did not tell them this, but began his discourse with the chapter of vows.

The tribal leaders. He bestowed honor on the leaders by teaching them first, and afterward, all of Bnei Yisroel. How do we know that the other discourses were so? The Torah therefore teaches, “. . . they returned to him— Aharon and all the leaders of the congregation— and Moshe spoke to them. Afterward, all of Bnei Yisroel approached.” Why, then, did he see fit to say this here? He taught that vows may be nullified by a single expert. When there is no single expert, nullification is by three laymen. But perhaps Moshe recited this chapter only to the leaders? “This is the word” is said here, and it is said concerning slaughtering outside [the Temple], “this is the word.” Just as that was said to Aharon and his sons, and all of Bnei Yisroel, as it is said, “speak to Aharon, etc.,” so was this, said to all of them.

This is the word. Moshe prophesied with “this is what Adonoy has said, about the time of midnight. . .,” and the [other] prophets prophesied with “this is what Adonoy has said:” Moshe surpassed them, as he prophesied with the phrase “this is the word.” Another interpretation: “This is the word” is exclusionary, teaching that the Sage [annuls] with the term “release,” and the husband with the term “nullification,” following the Scriptural language here. If they reverse the terminology, there is neither release nor nullification.

A vow. By saying, ‘Let it be as a konam to me, that I will not eat, or I may not do a certain thing.’ But perhaps, even if he swears to eat the meat of an animal that was not ritually slaughtered, I read, concerning him, “all that he has verbalized, he must fulfill”? The Torah, therefore, teaches, “. . .to initiate a prohibition”— to prohibit what is permitted, but not to permit what is prohibited.

He may not profane his word. Like Gא יְחַלֵּל דְבָרוֹ, he may not secularize his word.

In her father’s home. Under her father’s jurisdiction, even if she is not actually in his home.

While still in her youth. But not a minor, or a “bogeres,” as a minor’s vows are invalid, and a bogeres is no longer under her father’s jurisdiction for nullification of vows. When is she considered a minor? Our Rabbis say, at the age of eleven and a day, her vows should be examined. If she recognizes in Who’s Name she took the vow, or in Who’s Name she made the sanctification, then her vow is valid. At the age of twelve and a day, examination is no longer required.

But if her father restrained her. He restrained her from the vow, in other words, he nullified it. I would not know what this הֲנָאָה means, but when it says, “but if, on the day her husband hears about it, יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ וְהֵפֵר, he restrains her and nullifies,” you may conclude that הֲנָאָה means nullification. Its plain meaning is to restrain and turn aside. Similarly, “why do you turn [the people’s hearts] away,” and “let the oil on my head not turn my head,” and “you will know My turning aside” [i.e. the punishment] for turning away from Me.”

Adonoy will forgive her. To whom does Scripture refer? To a woman who took the Nazirite vow. Her husband heard and nullified it, but she was not aware. She then violated her vow by drinking wine and defiling herself by contact with a corpse. She is in need of forgiveness, although it was nullified. Now, if those who[se vows] have been nullified require forgiveness, certainly those who[se vows] have not been nullified.

If she is [married] to a man. This refers to an “arusah.” But perhaps to a “nesuah?” When it says, “and if she took the vow in her husband’s home,” a “nesuah” is mentioned, so this must mean an “arusah.” It is intended to distinguish her, in that her father and her husband annul her vow. If the father annulled, but not the husband, or the husband, but not the father, there is no annulment, and it goes without saying, if one of them endorsed it.

And her vows were upon herself. She took the vows in her father’s home, but her father did not hear them — they were neither annulled nor endorsed.

And her husband heard, etc. Here you have [the ruling] that if the husband endorses, it stands.

He then annuls her vow which was upon her. Perhaps even if the father did not annul? The Torah therefore teaches, “in her youth, while in her father’s house” — all through her youth, she is under her father’s jurisdiction.

Everything she prohibited for herself shall remain incumbent upon her. Since she is neither under the jurisdiction of the father, nor the jurisdiction of the husband. Scripture refers here to a widow after “nisuin,” but a widow after “erusin,” when the husband dies, his jurisdiction transfers to the father.

But if she took the vow in her husband’s home. Scripture refers to a “nesuah.”

Every vow, and every oath of self-denial, etc. Since it was said that the husband may annul, perhaps all vows are included; the Torah therefore teaches, “of self-denial.” He may only annul vows which are of self-denial They are defined in tractate Nedarim.

From one day to the next. So that you should not say [he may annul] for twenty four hours — this is why “from day to day” is said, to teach that he may only annul until nightfall.

After having heard. After he heard and endorsed, saying, “I approve,” he recanted and annuled it, even during the same day.

He must bear her transgression. He must take her place. We learn from here that one who causes another’s downfall, must bear full punishment in his place.