Which difference between a vow and an oath is the posuk alluding to?
(30,2) Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Yisrael, saying…If a man makes a vow to Hashem or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not violate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth he shall do.
Why is it that concerning a vow it says “if a man makes a vow to Hashem”, but concerning an oath it just says “makes an oath”, and does not say that it is “to Hashem”. Alternatively, it could have said “if a man makes a vow or makes an oath to Hashem”, in which case the “to Hashem” would have referred to both of them, and the posuk could then have continued “to prohibit himself”.
It seems to me that all this is coming to allude to that which we hold by vows and oaths, that it is a mitzvah to ask to be released from a vow, but by oaths we hold that one should not asked to be released except in pressing circumstances. Indeed, we find in the gemara Kesubos 77b, that when R. Yehoshua ben Levi refused to return the sword to the Angel of Death, Hashem said that if he had never asked to be released from an oath then he would be allowed to keep it. So we see that this is a good thing with oaths, but with vows it is more of a mitzvah to ask to be released.
However, in the case of an vow concerning a mitzvah, one should also not ask to be released except in pressing need. Thus, with oaths there is no difference whether he made an oath for the needs of Hashem or to distress himself. But with vows, if it was made to distress himself then it is a mitzvah to ask, but if it was made for Hashem then there is no mitzvah to ask.
This is what our posuk is saying: “If a man makes a vow to Hashem” - specifically if he intended for a mitzvah, for the sake of Hashem, “or makes an oath” - even not for a mitzvah, but rather “to prohibit himself”, to distress himself, even not for the sake of Hashem, in these two cases it is proper that “he shall not to violate his word”, but rather “according to whatever came out of his mouth he shall do”, and not change his word by being released from his vow or oath.
Who are permitted to make a vow?
(30,2) Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Yisrael, saying…If a man makes a vow to Hashem or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not violate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth he shall do.
The Midrash writes that this posuk is explained by (Yirmeyohu 2,4) “And you will swear, ‘as Hashem lives’, in truth and in justice and in righteousness” - Hashem said to Yisrael: Do not think that it is permissible for you to swear by My name. You are not permitted to swear by My name even in truth unless you have all of these traits - (Devarim 10,20) “You shall fear Hashem, your G-d, serve Him, and cling to Him, and swear by His name”. What problem did the Midrash have that required it to bring this posuk?
Behold, the simple reading of the posuk implies that Moshe only told this law to the heads of the tribes, and so we need to explain why he did not tell it to all of Klal Yisrael. But it seems clear from the Midrash that one is not permitted to swear even in truth, except someone who has all those good traits. Thus it was not necessary to say to the general populace of Klal Yisrael that when they swear they should keep everything which came out of their mouths, because it is in any case forbidden for them to swear. But to the heads of the tribes it was necessary to say that they should keep what they swear, because they were great Tzaddikim - and for this reason they were chosen to be the heads - and so they certainly had all these good traits and thus were indeed permitted to swear. Moreover, if he would have said this to all of Klal Yisrael, they would have mistakenly thought that they were indeed permitted to swear. Therefore, he only told this law to the heads of the tribes.
Thus, the difficulty of the Midrash was why Moshe spoke specifically to the heads of the tribes. It answered with the posukim in Yirmeyohu and Devarim, that only someone who has all those good traits is permitted to swear, and therefore he spoke only to the heads of the tribes to whom these laws were applicable in general, and also in order not to cause a misunderstanding amongst the general populace. This is the correct explanation of the Midrash.
Why does a woman who had her vow annulled by her husband need Hashem to forgive her?
(30,6) But if her father annuls her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has prohibited on herself shall not stand. And Hashem will forgive her because her father has annulled her.
One would have thought that the reason that is given at the end of the posuk - because her father has annulled her - should have been stated immediately after the words “shall not stand”. Why, instead, was it given as the reason why Hashem will forgive her.
But behold, Rashi asked why she needs forgiveness? It seems to me that we can answer this with that which Chazal said in the gemara Nedarim, that when one makes a vow it is as if he has built an altar outside the Beis Hamikdash, and when he fulfils it, it is as if he has offered a sacrifice on it, which is strictly forbidden. The sefer Nezer HaKodesh asked that they should have said that at the time he made the vow it is as if he has offered a sacrifice - why did they depend the matter on his fulfilling the vow?
But it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that at the time he made the vow it is not appropriate to say that it is as if he offered a sacrifice, because it is possible that he will have himself released from the vow, and when a Rabbi uproots a vow, it is uprooted retroactively, and so it is as if the vow had never been made. But it is like the beginning of bringing a sacrifice, like building an altar, because maybe he will not have it released. But when he fulfils the vow, at which point releasing him from the vow is ineffective, as is clear from the Shulchan Aruch, then it is as if he had offered a sacrifice retroactively at the time of the vow.
But all this is only true when a Rabbi annuls a vow, because he uproots it from the very beginning. But when a father or a husband annul a daughter’s/wife’s vow, they do not uproot it from the beginning, but rather they cut off the vow from then onwards, and it is possible that at that point releasing her from the vow by a Rabbi would be ineffective, as it is after a person fulfils a vow. Thus, also at that point it is as if she offered a sacrifice retroactively at the time of the vow, and therefore she needs forgiveness for her vow.
Therefore, the posuk says that “Hashem will forgive her”, because even though her vow has been annulled, it is as if she had offered a sacrifice. Why? “Because her father annulled her” - he only cut off the vow, and did not uproot the vow from the beginning.
