Commentary for Numbers 30:7

ואם היו תהיה לאיש AND IF SHE BECOMES A MAN’S — (a phrase used for marriage). This refers to a woman who becomes betrothed (ארוסה). Or perhaps this is not so, but it refers to a married woman (one who has joined her husband; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:9). When, however, it says, (v. 11) “And if she vowed in her husband’s house”, it is evident that a married woman is being spoken of there, and here, therefore, the text is speaking of one who has been only betrothed. And it (the separate mention of her) is intended to make a different rule about her — that her father and her husband must annul her vow: if the father annulled and the husband did not annul, or the husband annulled and the father did not annul, then this vow is not regarded as annulled, and it is not necessary to state (and it is a matter of course) that if one of them confirmed the vow the other has no power to annul it (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:7; Nedarim 67a).

AND IF SHE WERE AT ALL [BETROTHED] TO A MAN, AND THERE ARE VOWS UPON HER. In the opinion of our Rabbis⁴⁵Nedarim 71a. Scripture [here] is saying: “and if she, this woman [mentioned above in Verses 4-6] were at all [betrothed] to a man, and bound herself by a bond, being in her father’s house, in her youth⁴⁶Verse 4. — and there are vows upon her, meaning that her father had not heard them, so that they were neither annulled nor confirmed, and her [betrothed] husband hears them as well [as her father who hears them now when she is betrothed], then he makes void her vow,⁴⁷Verse 9. signifying that he also joins [now] with the father in annulling her vows [that are upon her].”

But perhaps to a “nesuah.” Meaning that although the plain understanding of הויה [lit. "being" having the connotation of marriage] refers to kiddushin [betrothal], nonetheless, we also find הויה referring to relations as in “his virgin [sister] who is close to him, who was not היתה ["married"] to a man” (Vayikra 21:3) where [היתה] refers to relations, meaning she was a nesuah. Thus, I would have said that הויה here also refers to relations and a she was a nesuah, such that both the father and the husband would annul her vow. However “when it says…”

V. 7. ואם היה תהיה לאיש וגו׳. Erst V. 11 ואם בית אישה נדרה spricht von נשואה, von dem Verhältnis der Frau nach ihrer Verheiratung, wenn sie bereits in das Haus des Mannes übergegangen ist. ואם היה תהיה לאיש bezeichnet daher nur die persönliche Aneignung, קידושין, und handelt von dem Verhältnis einer נערה המאורסה, die sich noch בבית אביה befindet und als נערה noch der Gelobungshut des Vaters angehört. Für eine solche statuiert das Gesetz, dass אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה, dass Vater und Verlobter nur in Gemeinschaft ihr Gelübde hindernde Einsprache tun können, und zwar steht dem ארוס das Veto zu und ist das Veto des Vaters auch an seine Einsprache gebunden, selbst נדריה עליה, selbst hinsichtlich der Gelübde, die sie schon vor den אירוסין gelobt, ohne dass vor den אירוסין der Vater sie vernommen und Einsprache getan, während dem Ehemann die Einsprache nur hinsichtlich während der Ehe getaner Gelübde zusteht, אין הבעל מפר בקודמין (Nedarim 66b u. 67a). — ואם היה תהיה selbst bei wiederholten אירוסין, wenn der erste ארוס gestorben. War sie beim Tode des ארוס noch נערה, so tritt sie wieder ganz unter die Gelobungsobhut des Vaters zurück, מת הארוס נתרוקנה רשות לאב (daselbst 70a), verlobt sie sich wieder als נערה, so teilt der Vater wieder sein Einspruchsrecht mit dem zweiten ארוס (daselbst 17a). Stirbt aber der Vater während des אירוסין-Standes, so steht dem ארוס allein keine Einsprache zu (daselbst 70b) מת האב לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל.

או מבטא שפתיה, “or the utterance of her lips;” this does not refer to a casual few words, but is an alternate formula describing an oath, as we know from Leviticus 5,4: כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים, “or if one swears clearly with his lips etc.”

ונדריה עליה [AND IF SHE BECOMES A MAN’S] AND HER VOWS ARE UPON HER — It means that she had made the vows being in her father’s house, and her father did not hear them, and so they were neither annulled nor confirmed at the time of her betrothal (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 153:7).

And the phrase she were at all ‘to a man’ means that she is [promised] unto him but [still] is in her father’s house, and has not yet come to his [the man’s] house, and [hence] this must refer to a betrothed girl, for Scripture calls her too, the wife of his fellow.⁴⁸Deuteronomy 22:23. Thus she is already called the wife of the man to whom she is betrothed, in the same way that here he is described as her ish (man) — literally “husband.” Now our Rabbis did not explain [that this verse refers to a fully-married wife, and teaches] that a husband himself can annul the vows of his married wife which she “brought along” from her father’s house to his house, as would seem the simple meaning of the verse, for if that were so, why would Scripture have to repeat itself and say [in Verse 11], And if a woman vowed in her husband’s house, for if he can annul [even] those vows which preceded [his marriage to her], surely [he can annul] those vows which [she makes whilst she is] in his house!⁴⁹So why, then would the Torah state the obvious (in Verse 11): And if a woman vowed in her husband’s house etc.? It must be because Verses 7-9 speak about a betrothed woman, in which case both the father and the betrothed do jointly annul her vow. “If the father revoked the vow but not the betrothed, or if the betrothed revoked it but not the father, the vow is not revoked. Still less need it be said if one of them explicitly confirmed the vow” (Nedarim 67a). — It should be noted that the term “betrothed” in this connection has reference to the actual “betrothal” of a man to a woman to be his wife [not a mere “engagement”]. In the eyes of the Jewish law she is then considered his wife, except that the consummation of the marriage takes place some time after the betrothal. And [even without resorting to this reasoning], it is the tradition [of the Rabbis] which decides [the true meaning of the verses].

So this must mean an “arusah.” For here it is written ואם היו תהיה לאיש ["if she is married to a man"] which is in the sense of הויה ["marriage"] and kiddushin.

That her father and husband annul her vow. Meaning that the Torah did not group them [the nesuah and arusah] together so that it could distinguish between them, teaching about an arusah that her father and husband annul her vow, which is not the case for a nesuah. Afterwards Rashi explains that one should not say that [between] her father and her husband one of them can annul it, for this is not so, because “if the father annulled…” as is explained in the continuation of the passage.

If one of them endorsed it. We have said that if one annulled and one was silent then it is not annulled. Even more so if one endorsed, the other would not be able to annul.

But her father did not hear them — they were neither annulled. Because if the father annulled [the vows], they would not have to be annulled any further.

Nor endorsed. Because if the father endorsed [the vows], the husband’s annulment would not help. [In the case of an arusah] if the father did not annul while the husband did, it would not help, as Rashi explained above that “[if the father] annulled but not [the husband]…” Consequently, even more so if the father endorsed the vows, they could not be annulled by the husband’s annulment.