Komentaryo sa Mga Bilang 30:4: Rashi, Bartenura, Ramban & Rabbeinu Bahya

וְאִשָּׁ֕ה כִּֽי־תִדֹּ֥ר נֶ֖דֶר לַיהוָ֑ה וְאָסְרָ֥ה אִסָּ֛ר בְּבֵ֥ית אָבִ֖יהָ בִּנְעֻרֶֽיהָ׃

At kapag ang isang babae ay nanata ng isang panata sa Walang-Hanggan, at nagbawal ng isang pagbabawal habang nasa sambahayan ng kanyang ama, sa kanyang kabataan,

Rashi

בבית אביה [IF A WOMAN VOW] … BEING IN HER FATHER’S HOUSE — i.e., under her father’s control, but the law here stated applies even though she be not in his house, provided she be under his control (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4).
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura

"In her youth": This excludes a minor, etc., until "And what is considered a minor?" Our Rabbis said, etc. It is difficult to understand why he asked "And what is considered a minor?" and did not explain afterward but rather said "her vows are examined." We still have not understood from his words what constitutes a minor. One could say that it means this: "In her youth" and not "a young woman" as the text usually states in other places. Therefore, it is written afterward, "A girl of eleven years, her vows are examined," etc. This means that the "youth" mentioned here regarding vows is not the same as the "youth" mentioned in other commandments, which starts at twelve years and one day, as Rambam wrote in Chapter 2 of the Laws of Marriage. Here, it does not simply state "a young woman" but rather "in her youth," implying a specific kind of youth according to her intelligence and understanding. Therefore, the criterion is based on examination, as Rashi explained.
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Ramban

AND IF A WOMAN VOWETH A VOW UNTO THE ETERNAL … 5. AND HER FATHER HEARETH HER VOW. Scripture wanted to mention the [case of] prohibition first [in Verses 4-5, namely that if she makes a vow and her father is quiet about it or confirms it, then all her vows shall stand ..] in order to tell us that a young girl [in her father’s house] is also subject to the negative commandment mentioned [previously], that he shall not break his word,10Verse 3. and therefore if her father confirms her vow [expressly or tacitly] the vow shall stand, but if he disallowed her, it shall not stand.43Verse 6. And Scripture states [in conclusion], and the Eternal will forgive her, because her father disallowed her,43Verse 6. in order to tell us that G-d will only forgive her if she acted [in disregard of her vow] after her father had disallowed it, but not [if she broke it] at the beginning, that is, if she [first] transgressed her vow and later on her father disallowed it, just as the Rabbis have said: “[The father or husband] ‘cuts off’ [the vow from the moment that he disallows it], but [unlike a Sage] he does not uproot it retrospectively.”44Nedarim 68a. The intention of this statement is to contrast the law, of a Sage who “releases” a vow, with that of a father or husband who “annuls” it. In order that a vow or oath should be valid, the person who makes it must at the time of the utterance thereof have been fully aware of its consequences. If at that time he did not fully understand all that his vow or oath entailed, the Sage points this out to him and affords him an opportunity to regret having made it. If he so declares that he regrets it, the Sage “releases” him from the vow or oath. This release “uproots it” from the very start, since it has now been shown that he made it under a misapprehension. The father or husband, on the other hand, is empowered by the Torah to “annul” the vow or oath, even if made under no misapprehension and the daughter or wife does not regret it. Therefore there is no power of retroactive effect; instead, the “annulment” only “cuts off” in the future. One of the differences between these two procedures is here referred to by Ramban, and that is namely, if the person who made the vow or oath violates it before the time of “release” or “annulment.” In the case of the release by the Sage, since it takes effect retrospectively, there is no sin. In the case of the father or the husband, however, there is a sin entailed.
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi

בנעורה IN HER YOUTH — when she is a נערה i.e., in the first state of womanhood, but not when she is a קטנה, a minor, and not when she is a בוגרת (in full womanhood); for so far as a minor is concerned, her vow is in general no vow (it is null and void ab initio), and a בוגרת is not under her father’s control so that he can annul her vows. What is a קטנה, a minor, in respect to vows? We may gather this from what our Rabbis said: a woman of eleven years and one day must have her vows investigated until she reaches the age of twelve years; if she understands in Whose name it is that she has made the vow or in Whose name it is she has dedicated the thing, her vow is a vow, but a woman of twelve years and a day does not require any investigation regarding her vow (Niddah 56b).
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy