Бамидбар 30:2 Комментарий: Tze'enah Ure'enah, Rashi, Bartenura & Kli Yakar

In this portion, the Holy One teaches about the oaths that a person swears. The one who does not keep his oaths commits the greatest sin among all the sins. When a person is always angry, he always comes to swearing. Afterwards, he has regret. Therefore, the Holy One said here, when someone makes a vow and he has regret, he should go before three people and say, I have regret. The three people should then absolve him of his vow. The Torah wrote, “heads of the Israelite tribes” [30:2], near the vows and donations that Israelites brought on the festivals. He wants to teach us that the leaders that are in each generation have the power to force the people to give charity and give donations, when they so desire. Our sages explicitly wrote, “an injunction to the courts that they should do.”¹B. Rosh Hashanah, 6a. This means that the court has the power to force someone to make a donation. If a woman makes a vow and she is still within her father’s authority, and he forbids the vow, then she should not keep the vow, because her father forbade it. When she has a husband and the husband forbids it, then she also should not keep it. When a woman makes a vow not to eat fruit or that she will fast, or that she will not adorn herself with beautiful clothes, or she will not go to the bathhouse, or she says, I will not sleep with you, her husband absolves her of these vows and can forbid her. She must put aside all the vows if her husband so wishes. To take an oath is a great sin even if he wants to keep the oath, as we find with Yannai the King. He owned a thousand cities and they were all destroyed because of a true oath. A person said to his friend: I will go to the city and he swore on it. He went and fulfilled his oath. Why were all the cities destroyed, because they always mentioned the name of God needlessly?²Numbers Rabbah, 22.1. From here we learn that even though they kept their oaths, yet they were punished. How much more so, when someone swears falsely. However, when the person makes a vow because he is afraid that the evil inclination will dissuade him, then he may swear to keep it, expecting that he wants to overcome the evil inclination. If the person is a glutton and a drunkard and he makes a vow that he will not eat meat or drink any wine, he is a good man. The Torah told us to make such vows, as the verse says, “I have firmly sworn to keep Your just rules” [Psalms, 119:106]. This means, David said: I have sworn to keep the commandments and Torah.

ראשי המטות [AND MOSES SPAKE TO] THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — This does not mean that he spoke only to the princes of the children of Israel and not to the people also, but that he showed respect to the princes by teaching them first and that afterwards he taught the children of Israel. This explanation seems to assume that this was the general method of instruction, but from what Biblical verse may we infer that this was so in the case of all addresses, and that this was no exceptional case? Because it says, (Exodus 34:31—32) “[And Moses called unto them], and Aaron and all the princes of the congregation returned unto him and Moses spake unto them; and afterwards all the children of Israel came nigh, [and he gave them all the commandments which the Lord had spoken to him in Mount Sinai]”. But if this be no exceptional case, what reason is there for Scripture going out of its way to state it here? Because by specially stating that the laws about vows were taught in the first instance to the princes and afterwards to the Israelites, it intends to teach that the annulling of vows is really to be effected by one person who is expert in the Law, and that only if there be no such expert, may they be annulled by three ordinary persons. But you may perhaps say that the statement does mean that Moses spoke this section only to the princes of the children of Israel, and that Moses did not speak to them also, and that consequently nothing about the expert and laymen can be inferred! But it is stated here, “This is the word”, and it is stated in the passage dealing with “animals slaughtered outside the sanctuary” (Leviticus 17:2) “This is the word”. What is the case there? It was addressed to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, as it is said there, “Speak unto Aaron [and unto his sons and unto all the children of Israel]”! So, too, this was addressed to all of them (and the reason why it is stated here is to tell us that the annulling of vows etc., as above) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 153:1; Nedarim 78a).

"And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes": He showed honor to the leaders, etc., until "or perhaps you might think that this section was said only to the leaders." This means that although it is written "to the children of Israel," I might interpret "heads of the tribes of the children of Israel" as meaning the leaders. We find in many places that the prefix "ל" (lamed) at the beginning of a word functions in the place of "על" (al, meaning "upon" or "concerning"). And since the annulment of vows can be performed by a single expert, meaning that it is a mitzvah performed in the best way, I might think that it was said only to the heads of the tribes.