Numbers 30:16

Num 30:16, concluding formula.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

Not the same day he heard them, but some day after, the sin shall be imputed to him and not to her.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 16. These are the statutes] It is very probable that this law, like that concerning the succession of daughters, (Nu 27:1-11), rose from the exigency of some particular case that had just then occurred.

Making vows, in almost any case, is a dangerous business; they seldom do any good, and often much evil. He who does not feel himself bound to do what is fit, right, and just, from the standing testimony of God's word, is not likely to do it from any obligation he may lay upon his own conscience. If God's word lack weight with him, his own will prove lighter than vanity. Every man who professes the Christian religion is under the most solemn obligation to devote body, soul, and spirit to God, not only to the utmost extent of his powers, but also as long as he exists. Being baptized, and receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are additional ratifications of the great, general, Christian vow; but every true follower of Christ should always remember, and frequently renew, his covenant with God.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses between a man and his wife,.... Relating to vows made by the wife, and confirmed or disannulled by the husband: Aben Ezra adds, if she is at age or in puberty, understanding it of a married and not a betrothed wife:

between the father and his daughter; if she is not at age, as the same writer observes; for if she is at age he has nothing to do with her vows:

being yet in her youth; not at age, being not twelve years and one day old:

in her father's house; in his power and jurisdiction, and at his disposal, and so could make her vows void or firm, as he pleased: this power of ratifying or disannulling vows an husband had over his wife, and a father over his daughter, to prevent imprudent and extravagant vows, and the too frequent use of them, the consequences of which might be bad in families.

Next: Numbers Chapter 31

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

That. Septuagint, "the day." If he retract his consent, he shall incur all the guilt. (St. Augustine, q. 59.) The woman need not be under any disquietude, as the fault is not in her. (Calmet) --- If a person had made a rash vow, he might obtain a dispensation from the tribunal of three judges, or from a doctor of the law, who would enjoin him to offer the sacrifice for ignorance, to punish his levity. See Selden, Jur. vii. 2. Those who break their vow are to be scourged among the Jews, which shews that they do not, in general, approve the sentiments of those Rabbins whom Fagius, a Protestant, alleges, ver. 3. They make a distinction between vows and promises confirmed by an oath, ver. 11. The former change the nature of a thing, according to them; so that, if a person should vow not to wear the phylacteries ordained by Moses, he must comply, though not if he had only promised on oath to refrain. But this distinction is absurd. No vow or oath can bind any person to transgress the law of God. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

אחרי שמעו [BUT IF HE SHALL AT ALL ANNUL THEM] AFTER HE HATH HEARD THEM i.e., after he has heard and confirmed them — that he had said, “I am content with it”, then if he turns and annuls it even on the same day (Sifrei Bamidbar 156:2).

ונשא את עונה HE SHALL BEAR HER INIQUITY — He takes her place. We learn from here that he who makes another take a false step takes his place in respect to all punishments which he would incur (Sifrei Bamidbar 156:2).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

[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.. 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. 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. 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. But if the wife knows that he [her husband] did not annul it in the day he heard it, 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, 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 herself [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].

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

If he annuls them after having heard them. I.e., after the day in which he heard them, upon which he is no longer able to annul them.

He must bear her transgression. As the judgment of anyone who forces his fellow man to transgress or instructs him falsely and leads him astray.

Sforno on the Tanakh — English translation: “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.