אל ראשי המטות, “to the leaders of the tribes;” It would be their task to enforce this law. An alternate interpretation by Ibn Ezra: this paragraph was revealed to the people after the punitive expedition against Midian, seeing that these verses are continuous until the end of verse three. Rashi claims that the manner in which Moses ensured that the respective legislation reached the people was the same as in this instance, and he proves it from Exodus 34,3132 where the Torah wrote: 'וישובו אליו אהרן וגו, “and all of them returned to Moses, i.e. Aaron, the princes, etc.”This particular verse was spoken by Moses when he had just descended from Mount Sinai on the Day of Atonement equipped with all the commandments. Rashi adds here that the reason this formula has been used here by the Torah especially, is in order to teach that annulling vows can only be done by a judge authorised to do so, or in the absence of such by three laymen. This law has a unique feature in that a single judge, if an expert in that legislation is empowered to do so. The reference to the leaders of the tribes shows that such individuals possess special powers, whereas the words: “and to the Children of Israel,” mean that three laymen can accomplish the same as an expert without a colleague. This is stated in the Talmud tractate Nedarim folio 78, where Rav Acha says that the words: “Aaron, his sons, and the Children of Israel,” teach that an ad hoc court of three laymen can perform this task. If so, why does the Torah stress that this legislation be revealed foremost to the heads of the tribes, suggesting that these are people of superior knowledge? This suggests the opposite, i.e. that laymen are excluded!? Rabbi Chisda states that this is to teach that when an individual is indeed an expert in the legalese required, he can act independently.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, “this is the matter that the Lord has commanded:” The Torah did not reveal where G-d commanded the following law to Moses. This is only one of numerous prophetic announcements by Moses where the time and location where Moses received these instructions has not been revealed. Examples quoted by our author are: Exodus 10,3, Exodus 11,4, Exodus 32,27 and his commentary there.

או השבע שבועה לאסור איסר, “or swears an oath to declare something permitted to others as forbidden to himself;” what is the difference between making a “vow” and “swearing an oath,” seeing both place something out of bounds to the party making such a declaration?When making a vow the object of the vow is placed out of bounds to the party who makes such a vow, whereas when swearing an oath, the party swearing it places himself out of bounds to the object or people that are the subject of such an oath. Even though the Torah has not spelled this out specifically, we find hints that this is so in the wording used by the Torah to describe these two kinds of self imposed restrictions. (Compare Sifri) If someone says: “by the Life of Hashem and by your own life, I am not going to abandon you,” he is stating that Hashem is alive, and that the party to whom he makes such a statement is alive. Using the name of the Lord as relevant to one’s own standing, is something which makes it such a severe sin if it turns out that one does not honour such a vow or oath.

לא יחל דברו, “he must not delay fulfillment of his words indefinitely.”Alternately, he must not profane his own solemn undertaking by not honouring it.” We find this expression used in this sense in Psalms 130,7: 'יחל ישראל אל ה, “keep faithfully waiting, o Israel for Hashem fulfilling His undertakings” where the Psalmist has G-d urging Israel to wait patiently for G-d to honour His vows. G-d can be depended on to fulfill His vows or oaths. The party failing to fulfill his vow must not profane himself by doing so. However, others, i.e. a legal court have the power to release him from the obligations he imposed himself at a time of personal stress, not realising all the implications of what he had said at that time. (Talmud tractate Chagigah, folio 10).

ושמע אביה, “and her father has heard about it (the vow).” The Torah speaks only about when the father has heard about his daughter’s vow from her directly. What is the legal status if he heard about her vow only from others? This is why the Torah continues that “all her vows remain in force.” Even if he heard about it only indirectly, he can use his authority to annul it.

או מבטא שפתיה, “or the utterance of her lips;” this does not refer to a casual few words, but is an alternate formula describing an oath, as we know from Leviticus 5,4: כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים, “or if one swears clearly with his lips etc.”

ושמע אישה, “and her husband hears about it;” here Rashi comments that the Torah implies that her husband had silently approved of his wife’s vow that it remains valid. [Our author appears to have had a different version of Rashi’s commentary from that which appears in our editions. Ed.]

ונשא את עונה, “and he will bear the burden of her guilt.” She was as if having acted under compulsion, as she was under the impression that her husband was able to cancel her vow even after he had known about it for more than a day.