Halakhah sobre Números 30:3

And regarding a vow (neder), a different approach pertains to it - as it is like placing something permissible into the category of the forbidden, and [it is] as if he would say thing x which is permissible will be forbidden to him, like a sacrifice that God, may He be blessed, forbade. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 14a) that only when he makes the vow with a thing that is vowed (that changes status) does his vow stand, and not in another way. As if he says, "Thing x is forbidden to me like a sacrifice," as we have said; in this [way], the vow will stand (Nedarim 13a). But if he says, "like the meat of a pig," this is not a vow; as the Torah stated (Numbers 30:3), "If he vows a vow," meaning to say, "if he vows with something that is vowed." And so, one who forbids something to his fellow or to himself like the matters of a sacrifice that God, may He be blessed, forbade, is like this matter (like something vowed); since it is as if he said [that] thing x will be forbidden to him or to his friend, [just] like God, may He blessed, forbade us the matters of a sacrifice. And this matter that we have the power to forbid the permissible is because the Torah taught us this, from that which is written (Numbers 30:3), "If [...] he creates a prohibition [...], he may not break his word."

The general principle of the thing is that the language of the oath must be said by his own mouth or that someone else specifically refers it to him and he accepts [it]. But he is not moved by the movement of another man, since his [own] body needs the movement; [but this] is not the case with a vow. [It is also] possible to say that it is from the strictness of a vow that they were stricter about it, that one should be added on more quickly than with an oath; since it is stricter than an oath, as behold, they compare it to the life of the King (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:3, see Ramban on Numbers 30:3). And from the reason that we wrote about an oath, that its content is that a man concludes to fulfill his words and to confirm [them by that which] he believes in the Divine existence, we would have learned that his oath cannot be nullified from any angle. But it was from the kindnesses of God to us - in His knowing the frailty of the structure of our body and the smallness of our opinions and the constancy of the change of our wills - to give us counsel to get out from the prison of the oath with the [change] of our will at any time: he allowed us to make the claim regarding the matter of the oath that it was under duress or inadvertent, as is explained in its place in Shevuot 26a and Nedarim 20b.

It is customary to do hataras nedarim [to annul certain vows] on erev Rosh Hashanah. (An allusion [for this can be found in the words] Lo yacheil devaro kechol, [He must not break his word (Numbers 30:3)]; the last letters of which form the acronym Elul.) A person who does not understand what he is reciting in Hebrew, should say it in the language he understands.

He prohibited the nazirite from eating grape skins. And that is His saying, "to the skins, etc." (Numbers 6:4). And if he ate a kazayit of them, he is lashed. And the proof about each one of these five types - meaning to say, wine, grapes, raisins, seeds and peels - being a separate commandment is that one is lashed [a separate set] of lashes for each one of them. And the language of the Mishnah (Nazir 34b) is, "And he is obligated for wine on its own, and for grapes on its own, and for grape seeds on its own, and for grape skins on its own." And in the explanation, they said in the Gemara, Nazir (Nazir 38b), "[If] he ate fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds and grape skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [the juice], he is lashed five [times]." But when they counted, so as to uphold the words of the teacher - such that [it turns out that] he taught and left [something] out, so that one would be obligated more than five [sets of] lashes - they said, "But behold, he left over the negative commandment of, 'he shall not desecrate [his word]' (Numbers 30:3)!" But they did not say, "But behold, he left over vinegar! For he is not liable twice for wine and vinegar. As vinegar is actually forbidden because the source of its prohibition (wine) did not recede with its decay. And what is appropriate for you to know is that all of these prohibitions of the nazirite combine for a kazayit, and that he is lashed for a kazayit from all of them [combined]. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)

The commandment that one who appraises a man give the value delineated in the Torah: To rule on appraisals of people; that is, one who says, "My appraisal is upon me" or "The appraisal of x is upon me," must give to the priest according to the amount that he said, and not less - as appears explicitly in Scripture about a male and female and according to the tally of [their] years - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:2), "If a man proclaims an oath of the appraisal of souls to the Lord." And the matter of appraisals is included in vows of consecration and we are therefore obligated to keep them on account of "he shall not profane his words" (Numbers 30:3), "you shall not delay" (Deuteronomy 23:22) and "he shall do like everything that comes out of his mouth" (Numbers 30:3).

And Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzot Lo Taase 206), "The proof about each and every one of these five being an independent commandment - meaning wine, grapes, raisins, seeds and pits - is that, behold a person is liable for one [set of] lashes for each and every one. And [it is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Mishnah (Nazir 34b), 'He is liable for the wine by itself, and for the grapes by themselves.' And they said [as follows] in Tractate Nazir 38b, '[If] he ate grapes that were damp and dry [along with] seeds and skins, and squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [the juice], he is lashed five times.' And when they wanted to establish that the teacher that taught [these five sets of] lashes taught [certain prohibitions] and omitted [others] and that the nazirite is liable for more than five [sets of] lashes, they said, \'What did he omit? Behold, he omitted the negative commandment of "He shall not profane his word" (Numbers 30:3),' and they did not say he omitted, the prohibition of vinegar. And the reason is because he would not be liable for two [sets of lashes] for wine and for vinegar - as vinegar is prohibited for its essence which is wine, as we have said. And the content of the passage is as if it had stated that the essence of the prohibition of wine does not depart from it when [the wine] spoils, and as we mentioned above in its place (Sefer HaChinukh 368). And from that which is fitting for you to know is that these prohibitions of the nazirite all combine to [form] a kazayit and that we administer lashes for a kazayit." To here [are the words of Rambam].

The commandment of the law of the abrogation of vows: That we were commanded in the abrogation of vows, meaning to say that we deliberate about someone who has made a vow, according to what the Torah commanded - as it is stated (Numbers 30:3), "If a man makes a vow, etc.," as it comes explained in [this] section of the Torah. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 95) and this is his language: "And the matter is not that we are obligated to annul regardless. And this matter itself understand from me - when you hear me counting a law from the laws, it is not [always] that it is a commandment to perform a certain action perforce, but rather the commandment is in our being commanded that we deliberate on the law about this thing. While Scripture has already elucidated and been exacting that a husband and a father can annul [a vow of their wife or daughter], it is the transmission that brought to us that a sage can annul [it] for all, and so too, an oath. And the indication of this is its statement (Numbers 30:3), 'he shall not profane his word' - and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Chagigah 10a), 'He does not pardon [it], but others may pardon it.' And the general principle is that there is no proof to this from Scripture. And they, may their memory be blessed, already said (Chagigah 10a), 'Annulment of vows flies in the air and has nothing to support it,' except for the truthful transmission only. To here [are his words].

That we not profane our words from vows: That we have been prevented that we not change that which we obligate ourselves in speech (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 157) - and even though it is without an oath. And these are vows - for example, a person will say [that] fruits of the world, or fruits of country x or y type of fruits are forbidden to him; and so too, [that] he will say his wife is forbidden to him; and similar to these things - that he is obligated to fulfill them. And about this is it stated (Numbers 30:3), "he shall not profane (yachel) his word." And they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4), that he should not make his word non-sacred (chullin), meaning to say, that he obligate something on himself and not fulfill it. And the language of the Gemara [in] Shevuot 20b [is that] they, may their memory be blessed, said [times that a person say] konam (a pledge to bring a sacrifice), he [is liable to] transgress because of "he shall not profane his word." And so [too,] with anything that a man vow for a sacrifice or upkeep of the [Temple] or charity or for the synagogue or similar to them, he [is liable to] transgress because of "he shall not profane his word." But with other matters - such as one who vows something to his fellow or who says, "I will" or "I will not do thing x" - even though it is ugly, and it is only small-souled people who do it, he does not transgress because of "he shall not profane his word"; only in the way that we have written. However, about it all is it stated in the Torah (Exodus 23:7), "Keep far from a false thing." And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote that they are two separate commandments, vows to the Elevated realm and vows of utterance, and as we will write below in the Order of Ki Tetseh in the commandment of fulfilling what comes out of the lips (Sefer HaChinukh 575).

And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 94), "And they already separated the words of this verse and placed a [different] matter on every word of it. And nonetheless what comes out from all that I have mentioned to you is that it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill that which he speaks about to obligate himself in any thing. And the language has already been duplicated in this commandment, and that is its stating (Bemidbar 30:3), 'like all that comes out of his mouth, he shall do.'" To here are his words.

And Ramban, may his memory be blessed (in his critique of Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 94) wrangled with him about it and said that he grouped two commandments here - which are different in their laws and their contents - into one. As this verse of "what comes out of your mouth, etc." is stated about the matter of what a person obligates himself to God, may He be blessed, whether they be in matters of sacrifices or charity moneys, and that is what is stated, "as He will surely demand it from you" - which is to say, that He will seek from you the money that you vowed to Him - and your delaying it will be a sin. And so, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 4a), "Those who are obligated for dedications [to the Temple]; appraisals; consecrations; sin-offerings; guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings; peace-offerings; charity [monies]; tithes; first-borns; [animal] tithes; a Pesach sacrifice; gleanings; forgotten sheaves; and corner fields - once three festivals passed him, he violates 'do not delay.'" But regarding everything that a person obligates himself to in optional matters - which the sages called, 'utterance (bitui),' and that is if he vows or swears, "I will eat," or "I will not eat," "I will go to place x," or "I will not go," and all that is similar to this - this does not come into the category of this commandment. And this is why the verse needed to promise, "If you refrain from vowing, you will incur no guilt." And nonetheless, with vows of utterance, there is another commandment specified for it, and that is the section of [the Torah about] vows in the Order of Roshei HaMatot, where it is written (Numbers 30:3), "taking an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall do all that has come out of his lips" - and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sifrei on Numbers 30:3) [that this is speaking about a vow] to forbid the permitted.