Comentario citado sobre Números 30:17

It disqualifies that which preceded it. If you say: [This rule seems not true because] in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 27:34) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the commandments.” And in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 36:13) it says, “ אלה (These) are the commandments and the laws.” And in Parshas Matos (ibid 30:17) it says, “ אלה (These) are the statutes.” And in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 28:69) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the words of the covenant.” And in all theses cases we do not interpret it as disqualifying that which preceded. The answer is: We only interpret it this way for “ אלה (These) are the histories of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4; see Shemos Rabba 30:3), where the histories were already mentioned above, so a difficulty arose: why are they repeated and detailed? Similarly for “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (Bereishis 6:9), where the descendants were mentioned above in Parshas Bereishis, so a difficulty arose: why were they mentioned again? Thus we say they were mentioned again in order to disqualify the preceding. [The meaning of “disqualify” is discussed in the next entry.] But with “ אלה (These) are the commandments” and all the above verses, nothing was mentioned [preceding them that was similar to them], so אלה cannot mean to disqualify the preceding. Similarly in Parshas Devarim, where it says “ אלה (These) are the words” (Devarim 1:1), we cannot interpret אלה as disqualifying the preceding, since Chumash Devarim is Mishneh Torah [i.e., its primary purpose is a repetition of the Torah].

ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.” according to Rashi whenever the word אלה appears, it signals a break with what preceded, whereas when the word ואלה appears it signals a continuation or addition of the subject that had been discussed previously. In other words, the correct translation of the word: אלה is: “these opposed to what preceded it,” whereas ואלה should be translated as “and these as well as the preceding verses.” The author warns the reader not to challenge Rashi by quoting the word אלה in Leviticus 27,34, or the same word in Numbers 36,13, and Numbers 30,17 nor the same word in Deuteronomy 28,69, as in those instances as well as in others like it, the previously mentioned subject has been concluded. ואלה המשפטים, Rabbi Avahu, quoting Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra said that the word אלה represents a break with what was written previously, whereas when the word appears with the prefix letter ו it signals some type of continuation. He quotes Exodus 15,25, as an example, where the Torah had written: שם שם לו חוק ומשפט ושם נסהו, “there He made for them a fixed rule and gave them social laws, there He put them to a test.” המשפטים, prior to this paragraph the Torah spoke about aspects of being G-d fearing, whereas from now on it concentrates on laws that enable living in the land of Israel as a civilised nation. An alternate interpretation: previously the Torah spelled out prohibitions as warnings, as for instance: “do not commit murder; do not commit adultery;” from here on in the Torah repeats the prohibitions but adds the type of penalty that applies to violating these prohibitions deliberately. As to the commentary by Rashi here, who poses the question why we read here about the details of an altar, something entirely different from the subjects the Torah deals with here, he bases himself on the Mechilta, which suggests that this is a hint that the High Court should have its office near the Temple and that all these laws had been told to Moses while he was on the Mountain. The altar was after all also close to the Temple, immediately in front of its eastern entrance. Logic dictates that the whole paragraph commencing with 21,2 “when you purchase a Jewish slave, etc., until chapter 23,10, ושש שנים תזרע, “and during six consecutive years you may plant seeds,” are all laws that G-d taught Moses while he was on the Mountain before the people had heard the Ten Commandments. Concerning all these laws, Rashi has written: these laws are a continuation of the earlier laws.” He is referring to the laws listed in Parshat B’har in the Book of Leviticus.

אמר ר"י אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש (vows referring to privation of the necessities of life) – regarding the vow alone Rabbi Yossi disputes the first Tanna/teacher, and [when he] states that the benefit of washing is forbidden upon me if I shall wash today,” this is not a vow of privation of the necessities of life, for behold, it is possible for her that she will not wash today and that the benefit of washing won’t be forbidden upon her forever. But the prevention/refraining from washing for one day is not a privation of the necessities of life, for a neglected appearance for one day (by not bathing) is not considered self-neglect (see Tractate Nedarim 80a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi. But whether the father or the husband, vows of privation of the necessities of life are ones that are absolved, as it is written (Numbers 30:17): “[These are the laws that the LORD enjoined upon Moses] between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter [while in her father’s household by reason of her youth],” there is an analogy between two laws that rest on a biblical intimation of the father to the husband. Just as the husband does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life, so also the father does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life. But Maimonides made the legal determination that the father absolves all vows and oaths, even those that are not referring to privation of the necessities of life, as it states (Numbers 30:6): “none of her vows or self-imposed obligations [shall stand].”

והפר את נדרה AND HE (THE HUSBAND) ANNULS HER VOW — One might think that since confirmation by the husband does not require the assent of the father, in the case mentioned here it is annulled even if the father has not annulled it! It, however, states, (v. 17): "[These are the laws … relating to a father with his daughter] בנעריה בית אביה" which means: so long as she is בנעריה (not fully married) she is under her father’s control (Sifrei Bamidbar 155; Ketuvot 46b).