Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah
Ramban on Numbers 30:16/רמב"ן על במדבר ל׳:ט״ז
אוְנָשָׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ – הוּא מֻכְנָס תַּחְתֶּיהָ. לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַגּוֹרֵם תַּקָּלָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ הוּא נִכְנָס תַּחְתָּיו לְכָל עֳנָשִׁין, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר ל׳:ט״ז) מִסִּפְרֵי (מטות ל). וְנִרְאֶה שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת שׁוֹגֶגֶת אוֹ מֻטְעָה, כִּי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר בְּבַעַל שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת בּוֹ, וְאַחַר זְמַן הֵפֵר וְאָמַר לָהּ שֶׁהוּא יוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ. וְלִמְּדָנוּ הַכָּתוּב שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים: שֶׁהַבַּעַל נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן כְּאִלּוּ הוּא נָדַר וַיַּחֵל דְּבָרוֹ, וְשֶׁהִיא פְּטוּרָה, אֵין עָלֶיהָ מֵעֹנֶשׁ הַשְּׁגָגוֹת כְּלָל. אֲבָל אִם הָאִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת שֶׁלֹּא הֵפֵר בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ וּבְקִיאָה בַּדִּין הַזֶּה, הִנֵּה הִיא חַיֶּבֶת וְגַם הַבַּעַל אֵינוֹ גּוֹרֵם הַתַּקָּלָה, אֲבָל עָנְשׁוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִחָה. וְהִזְכִּיר הַכָּתוּב זֶה בַּבַּעַל וְהוּא הַדִּין לָאָב, אֲבָל דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהֹוֶה כִּי הָאָב יִשְׁתַּמֵּר מִזֶּה לְאַהֲבַת בִּתּוֹ, וְהַבַּעַל אוּלַי יִשְׂנָא אוֹתָהּ וְחוֹשֵׁב לָתֵת עָלֶיהָ אָשָׁם. וְר' אַבְרָהָם כָּתַב: ״וְנָשָׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ״ - כִּי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אִם כֵּן עִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב יִהְיֶה בְּמַכְרִיחַ אוֹתָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מַה שֶׁאָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ, וְאֵינוֹ נָכוֹן:
1[BUT IF HE SHALL MAKE THEM NULL AFTER THAT HE HATH HEARD THEM], THEN HE SHALL BEAR HER INIQUITY — “he [the husband] takes her place.55. Ramban presents another interpretation. Thus we learn that one who causes somebody else to commit an offense takes the place of that person with respect to all punishments [which that person would otherwise incur].” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the Sifre.56 156. It would appear that this woman [broke her vow] in error or was misled, for Scripture speaks [here] of a husband who heard [his wife’s vow and did not annul it on that day], and the wife does not know about this, and after some time he “annulled” [the vow, although he in fact no longer had the power to do so], and told her that [he annulled it] in the day he heard it.57 Thus Scripture teaches us two things: that the husband bears her iniquity as if he had made a vow and profaned his word, and that she is totally free and not liable to any of the punishments [found elsewhere] for errors.58 But if the wife knows that he [her husband] did not annul it in the day he heard it,57 and she is versed in this law [that he only has a right to annul her vows on the day that he hears it, and not later, and nonetheless she breaks her vow], then she is the guilty one, and [since] the husband did not cause the offense, therefore his punishment is [only] like that of someone who can protest [at another person committing a sin] and does not protest.Now Scripture mentions this case with reference to a husband [misleading his wife to think that he annulled her vow in the day he heard it,57 when in actual fact he “annulled” it only afterwards when he no longer had the right to], although the same law applies to a father [and his daughter’s vows], because Scripture speaks of normal circumstances, that a father usually guards himself against doing this because of his love for his daughter, whereas a husband might perhaps hate his wife and think that he will make her guilty [by misleading her to break her vow]. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Then he shall bear her iniquity, because she is under his control.” If so, the verse is speaking of a case where he forces her to do that which she has bound herself47 [not to do, and it is then that he shall bear her iniquity]. But it is not correct [since the same laws obviously apply when he misleads her without actually forcing her].