Комментарий к Бамидбар 30:13

ואם הפר יפר אותם אישה, "But if her husband will surely declare her vow null and void, etc." In order to understand why the Torah repeated the word הפר and why the Torah wrote the words כל מוצא שפתיה, "everything which her lips uttered," can be understood with the help of Nedarim 82. We are told there in the name of Shemuel that "if she vowed not to eat two loaves of bread, and observing her vow concerning one of these loaves represents hardship for her, [i.e. it looks very appetizing Ed.] whereas abstaining from the other loaf does not represent any hardship for her, then, if the husband cancels the loaf which represents hardship, he automatically is also considered as having cancelled the vow not to eat the other loaf." It is such a situation which our verse envisaged when referring to two הפרות, cancellations, or breaching of the vow. Once the husband has cancelled the part of her vow which is subject to his prerogative to cancel, he has also cancelled the part which is not subject to his authority to cancel. [one must appreciate here that the husband's entire authority stems from the fact that if his wife suffers emotionally as a result of her vow, this disturbs the harmonious relationship between him and his wife. Ed.] The Torah goes on with כל מוצא שפתיה לא יקום, that none of her utterances are valid. This means that even if her husband disallowed those parts of her vow over which he has no legal authority, they become ineffective because he has already disallowed the parts over which he does have legal authority. According to the approach of Rav Assi who disagreed with this interpretation in Nedarim, claiming that the prerogative of the woman's husband extends only to the part of the vow which is burdensome for her and therefore potentially also for him, we would have to explain the words in this verse as follows: אם הפר, "if the husband disallows something which he is entitled to disallow," יפר, "his objection is legally valid;" it is not valid, however, concerning parts of his wife's vow which does not have the potential to bother him and which therefore is excluded from this whole legislation. The reason the Torah had to write both the word כל and the word נדריה was to inform us that even if the vow is made up of two parts only one of which is burdensome for the wife, the parts of the vow are lumped together for the purpose of disallowing it.

V. 13. וד׳ יסלח לה selbst, wenn sie, ohne die הפרה des Mannes erfahren zu haben, gegen ihre Gelübde gehandelt (Nasir 23 a), durch die הפרה des Mannes ist die Geltung des Gelübdes entweder für immer oder doch für die Zeit ihrer Ehe mit ihm objektiv aufgehoben (siehe zu V. 14).

Our verse becomes clearer when we consider what the Mishnah says in Nedarim 87 [The subject is a husband or father who has failed to dissolve his wife's or his daughter's vow within the prescribed period of time because he was unaware of part of the legislation and who now explains his dilemma to a collegium of judges. Ed.] When someone says: "I am aware that there are regulations regarding the keeping of vows, but I was unaware of my right to disallow some such vows;" he is allowed to disallow the vow in question at the later date when he was told the regulations. Alternatively, this petitioner says: "I am aware that there are regulations concerning disallowing certain vows, but I was not aware of the regulations which pertain to keeping the vows." In such a case Rabbi Meir holds that the petitioner is not now allowed to disallow the vow in question whereas the sages hold that he is allowed to do so. Thus far the Mishnah. The words הפר יפר in our verse may refer to the situation discussed in the Mishnah we just quoted. In other words, even if the error concerned only the disallowing of the vow, if the husband disallows it belatedly because he was unaware of the law he may do so (in accordance with the view of the sages). As to the view of Rabbi Meir, the repetition of the words הפר יפר may be understood thus: "there are occasions when even after the time has elapsed we allow the husband or father to exercise the right to disallow his wife's or his daughter's vow which the Torah has provided; however this belated disallowing is only possible if the petitioner did not know that he possessed such a right at all." According to the view of Rabbi Meir, לנדריה means: "when is her husband able to disallow her vows even after the time set aside for this by the Torah has elapsed? If her husband did not make an error once he became aware of his rights under this legislation." According to the view of the sages, the word לנדריה would simply mean: "when he became aware of the nature of her vows." The word would then teach you that even though the husband's error concerned the vow itself and not his ability to disallow it, he is permitted to disallow it once he finds out that he had been in error.