민수기 30:6의 주석

ואם הניא אביה אתה BUT IF HER FATHER DISALLOWED HER — The Hebrew signifies, “if he withholds her” from the vow, that is to say, that he annuls it for her. I would not know what this expression הניא, “withholding”, implies (i.e., how he withholds her) — but when it states, (v. 9) “But if on the day that he hears, he withholds her and annuls [her vows]”, one must admit that “the withholding” consists in “annulling the vow” (i.e. in exclaiming מופר לך) (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:6). But still the plain meaning is that it is a term for “withholding” and “removing” (and the word והפר only shows how and by what means she is to be withheld from keeping her vow); and similar is (Numbers 32:7): “And wherefore do you remove (תניאון) [the heart of the children of Israel from the idea of passing over the land]”; and so, too, (Psalms 141:5): “Oil so choice, let not my head turn away (יניא), and similar, also, (Numbers 14:34): “And ye shall know My turning aside (תנואתי)” — i.e. ye shall know that ye have turned aside from Me.

וה' יסלח לה, for having made a vow which it was not in her power to fulfill

וה' יסלח לה כי הניא אביה אותה, “and Hashem will forgive her for her father had restrained her.” The message of this verse is that G’d will forgive her only any violation committed after her father had restrained her. If the girl in question had pre-empted her father’s objection and violated her vow already, she will not be forgiven. The reason is that the father’s authority does not extend to revoking a vow retroactively, that is a privilege the Torah gave only to judges.

I would not know what this הנאה means. You might ask: Surely without that verse Rashi would still know the meaning of הנאה, for afterwards he brings the verses למה תניאון ["why do you turn away"] and אל יניא ראשי ["not turn my head"]. [Re’m] brings many more difficulties. The answer is as follows: Initially Rashi explained “He restrained her from the vow” in accordance with his later explanation that “Its plain meaning is [to restrain…].” However, since it said, “If he restrained her” I might have said that he could annul the vow solely with words, by saying, “I do not wish this vow to stand.” Therefore Rashi explained that “In other words, he nullified it.” Meaning as the Sifri teaches, that he has to explicitly nullify the vow saying, “Let it be nullified for you.” But if he did not say so and merely restrained her, then it is not annulled. It is in relation to the Sifri that Rashi says, “I would not know what this הנאה means,” meaning that according to Sifri “If her father הנאה ["restrained"] her” is in the sense of nullification, and I would not know how הנאה implies nullification. However, since the Sifri explained that at the end of the passage it says regarding the husband, “But if on the day her husband hears about it, he restrains her and then annuls” (v. 9) we see that הנאה in the context of the husband is nullification. Thus it would be logical to say that הנאה here in the context of the father is also nullification. For if it merely meant restraint, the verses would be contradictory, for “Her father restrained her” would imply mere restraint while “restrain” in the context of the husband would imply nullification, that he said, “Let it be nullified for you,” because it is written, “If… he restrains her and nullifies.” Therefore, one must say that “nullify” is the explanation of “restrain” and we see that הנאה written in the context of the father is also nullification, only that [here] the Torah wrote הנאה in place of nullification. Nonetheless, its plain meaning is to restrain and turn aside as Rashi explains above, bringing proof from Scripture. Afterwards (s.v. ‘will forgive her’) Rashi raises a difficulty: Since “Her father restrained” implies actual nullification, why is it written, “Hashem will forgive her”? Why would she need forgiveness if she did not sin, given that her vow had been annulled? He answers that regarding the husband it also writes, “Hashem will forgive her” (v. 9) and, “To whom does Scripture refer? To a woman who made a [Nazirite] vow…” This is a woman who needs forgiveness, even though the vow was annulled. So too, regarding the father and daughter, it refers to a daughter who made a Nazirite vow where her father heard… She too needs forgiveness, since she was not aware that it was nullified, and transgressed her vow, as Rashi explains. He expands more upon this, see there. (Kitzur Mizrochi). Regarding Rashi’s comment about the youth, that if she took a Nazirite vow and he nullified it etc., Mahari raises the difficulty that there is no punishment in the heavenly court until the age of twenty. He answers that this could be where she vowed not to eat meat for twenty years, meaning her vow continued until after she had reached twenty, and became independent. If she then transgressed her vow, she would require atonement. He discusses this at length but finally he raises the difficulty with his answer that it is inconceivable that she would not hear or know about the nullification until the age of twenty. It appears to me that the matter is not dependent upon any punishment, for even an older woman would not be punished, given that her husband had annulled the vow. However, there would still be some blemish to her soul. Here too with the youth, since she knew to whom she made the vow [in the case where she was a minor], and all the more so if she was older than twelve where she would be liable to punishment in the earthly court, her soul would be somewhat blemished because her intention was to sin.

וה' יסלח לה AND THE LORD SHALL FORGIVE HER — Of what is Scripture here speaking? Of a woman who, e.g., vowed that she would become a Nazarite, and whose father heard it and annulled it for her, but she knew it not, and transgressed her vow and drank wine or made herself unclean by means of a corpse. It is such a woman who requires forgiveness even though it (her vow) has been annulled. — And if those whose vows have been annulled require forgiveness in such a case, how much more is this so for those whose vows have not been annulled and have been transgressed! (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:6; cf. Kiddushin 81b).

כי הניא אביה אותה, and at the time she made the vow she had not known that her father would object to it. It had been her intention to honour her vow.