[Par-lite] for Parshat Matot - shiur

Tue Jul 6 13:37:43 EDT 2010

**********************************************************
***

     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]

          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

**********************************************************
***

                  PARSHAT MATOT  [Parshanut]

    The opening pasuk of Parshat Matot is simply a 'gold
mine'

for those who enjoy the study of "parshanut" [the Hebrew
word

for biblical commentary].

     In this week's shiur, we grab this opportunity to
take a

'summer tour' of the various exegetic approaches of the

classical commentators, as they all grapple with the

difficulties that arise when studying Bamidbar 30:2.

INTRODUCTION

     There are two classic approaches to the study of

"parshanim". The simplest is simply to read the pasuk, and

then immediately afterward, to read the commentary; thus

enhancing one's understanding and appreciation of what the

Torah is telling us.

     Another approach is to read each pasuk carefully
while

considering its context, but before reading any commentary
-

to attempt on your own to consider any problems that
arise,

and then to contemplate possible answers.  Then, after you

have thought through all the various possibilities, to
read

the various commentaries, noting if they raised the same
(or

similar) questions and/or answers.

     Even though the latter approach is quite tedious, it

usually leads to a much better appreciation and
understanding

of the various commentaries.

     In the following shiur, we will employ this method,
as we

study the opening pasuk of Parshat Matot.

LOTS OF QUESTIONS

     Let's begin by taking a look at the first pasuk, and
then

making a list of questions that arise:

  "And MOSHE spoke to the Heads of the Tribes of Bnei
Yisrael

  saying: THIS is the 'DAVAR' [translation unclear] that
God

  has commanded: If a man makes a vow or takes an

  obligation...."  (see 32:2-3)

     The first obvious question that catches almost
everyone's

attention relates to the fact that these laws about
"nedarim"

[vows] are directed specifically to the "rashei ha'matot"

[tribal leaders].  In contrast to most all other laws in
the

Bible, that are directed to the entire nation - for some

reason, these laws are different.

  Before we attempt to answer this question, let's note
some

other related questions that come to our attention:

  .    When did God inform Moshe about these laws?  [Note
that

     this set of laws doesn't begin with the classic
'opening

     pasuk' of "va'ydaber Hashem el Moshe lay'mor... daber
el Bnei

     Yisrael..." - And God spoke to Moshe saying...]

.    Were the rest of nation supposed to find out about
these

laws, or were they intended only for the 'leaders'?

.     Why are these laws recorded specifically at this
point

in Sefer Bamidbar?

.    What does Moshe introduce these laws with the

introductory phrase "ZEH HA'DAVAR"? (see 30:2)

  With these additional questions in mind, let's return to
our

opening question.

EXCLUSIVITY

     Obviously, the first issue that must be dealt with

concerns why Moshe presents these laws directly to the
tribal

leaders.

     Recall that we have found several earlier examples in

Chumash where a set of laws are given to a 'select' group.

For example, the laws of how to offer a sacrifice in
Parshat

Tzav (see Vayikra 6:1-2) are directed exclusively to the

"kohanim" [the preists].  However, there the reason is

obvious, for only the kohanim need to know those laws.

     How about these laws concerning "nedarim" in Parshat

Matot?

There are two possible directions to we can entertain.

Either:

  1. They are indeed intended to be heard ONLY by the
tribal

       leaders - if so, we must attempt to understand why
the laws of

       "nedarim" are special in this regard.

  2. The entire nation is supposed to hear these laws - if
so,

        we must explain why the tribal leaders receive
them first.

  Let's see how we find these two approaches in the
classic

commentators.  As is traditionally accepted, let's begin
with

Rashi's commentary on 30:2:

  "He [Moshe] gave honor to the princes to teach them
first,

  then afterward he taught [these laws] to Bnei
Yisrael..."

  Note how Rashi, in his opening line, assumes that the
reader

was already bothered by this question; and he immediately

provides an answer.  He follows the second approach, i.e.
the

entire nation heard these laws as well - but explains that
the

princes were taught first, as an honor to the tribal

leadership.

     This explanation immediately raises another question:
How

about when all of the other mitzvot were taught - was this
a

common practice - i.e. to teach the "rashei ha'matot"
first?

     Rashi claims that this was indeed the common practice
-

and proves his claim from a pasuk in Sefer Shmot, that

describes what transpired when Moshe came down from Har
Sinai

with the second Luchot:

  "...And how do we know that all of the other mitzvot
were

  taught in this manner? As the pasuk states [when Moshe

  descended from Har Sinai with the second luchot]: Then

  Aharon and all of the PRINCES of the congregation
approached

  him [i.e. Moshe], and Moshe spoke to them [re: the
laws].

  Then AFTERWARD, ALL of BNEI YISRAEL came forward and
Moshe

  COMMANDED them concerning ALL of the laws that God had

  instructed him on Har Sinai (see Shmot 34:29-32)."

  [Note that we've included the entire quote of 34:32
(even

  though Rashi only quoted half of it). That's because
Rashi

  takes for granted that you know the continuation (which
is

  key to understand his pirush), while we've taken for
granted

  that you are not familiar with the pasuk. As a rule of
thumb

  - whenever Rashi (or any rishon) quotes another pasuk -
look

  up that pasuk in its entirety and pay careful attention
to

  its context. Note as well, that from the context of
Shmot

  29:32, Rashi's conclusion is not conclusive, as we will

  discuss in Ramban's approach.]

     Even though Rashi has established that ALL of the
mitzvot

were given in this manner (first to the princes and then
to

the people), our opening question still remains, but now
in a

different form.  If indeed this was that manner that all
the

laws were transmitted - why does the Torah emphasize this

point specifically in regard to the laws of "nedarim"?

  Rashi deals with this question as well, explaining that
the

Torah does this intentionally in order that we infer a

specific halacha:

  "...And why is this mentioned here? To TEACH us that a
vow

  can be annulled by a SINGLE judge - if he is an EXPERT,

  otherwise a group of three "hedyotot" ['non-experts] is

  required to annul a vow."

     In other words, by informing us that Moshe first gave

these laws to the "rashei ha'matot", we can infer that
there

is something special about their status in regard to these

laws of "nedarim' that follow. This allowed Chazal [the
Sages]

to conclude the special law that an expert judge ["yachid

mumche"] can annul such vow on his own.

     To strengthen his interpretation, Rashi then raises
the

possibility of the first approach (i.e. that these laws
were

given exclusively to the tribal leaders) - in order to
refute

it:

  "... OR - [possibly] Moshe made have told these laws
ONLY to

  the tribal leaders [and hence not to all of Bnei
Yisrael] -

  -- it states here ZEH HA'DAVAR (32:2) and it states in

  regard to SHCHUTEI CHUTZ [offering a sacrifice outside
the

  Mishkan] the phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR (see Vayikra 17:2) -
just

  like those laws were directed not only to the priests,
but

  ALSO to the entire nation [as it states "speak to
Aharon,

  his sons, and ALL BNEI YISRAEL" (17:2); so too these
laws

  [of NEDARIM were given not only to the princes but also
to

  ALL of Bnei Yisrael.]"

  Rashi completes his commentary by adding two additional

points concerning why the Torah records how Moshe
introduced

these laws with the phrase "zeh ha'dvar..."

  "We learn from here that Moshe was prophet of a higher
level

  than other prophets could say only: "KOH amar Hashem" -

  [thus God said] - but only Moshe could state precisely
"ZEH

  HA'DAVAR..." - THIS was the word of God..."

     Finally, Rashi concludes this commentary with another

Halacha that Chazal infer from this pasuk concerning HOW
(i.e.

in what manner) the judge must pronounce the annulment of
a

vow.

PSHAT vs. DRASH

     As usual, Rashi's commentary anchors itself on
several

MIDRASHIM (see Sifri 153, and Nedarim 88a).  In other
words,

he explains the pasuk based on what he found in the
Midrash.

  In contrast, other commentators such as Ibn Ezra,
Rashbam,

and Ramban will usually anchor their interpretation in
what

they feel is the simple understanding ["pshat"] of the
pasuk -

even if that understanding may contradict a Midrash.

Nonetheless, they will usually consider the opinion raised
by

the Midrash with the utmost respect - but they do not

automatically accept it.

    Let's see how this will help us understand the

interpretations advanced by Rashbam and Ramban, as they
relate

to the topic discussed in Rashi's pirush. Afterward, we
will

discuss Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and Seforno.

RASHBAM

     Rashbam, clearly bothered by all of the questions
that we

raised above, approaches all of them from a very different

angle.  His first consideration is the juxtaposition of
these

laws to the laws of Tmidim u'Musafim that were found at
the

end of Parshat Pinchas.

  In essence, Rashbam considers this section of laws

concerning "nedarim" as a direct continuation of the laws
that

concluded Parshat Pinchas; and hence, we no longer have a

strangely worded introductory pasuk, since it isn't

introductory!  Carefully follow how he presents his key

points:

  "I was asked a question in the city of Loshdon, Aniyob

  (somewhere in France): 'According to pshat - where else
do

  find such a parshiya that begins in this manner, [where

  Moshe commands mitzvot] but does not begin with
VA'YDABER

  HASHEM EL MOSHE... [informing us first that God told
these

  laws to Moshe]?'  -

     and this was my [Rashbam's] answer:

  Above [at the end of Parshat Pinchas/ 29:39] it states:

    "These [korbanot] you shall bring on your holidays in

    ADDITION to your VOWS [nedarim & nedavot...]"

  [This pausk teaches us that] you must offer all of your

  voluntary korbanot [that you had taken upon yourself by
a

  vow] during one of the three pilgrimage holidays - in
order

  that you do not transgress the commandment of 'keeping a

  promise on time ["baal t'acher"/ see Mesechet Rosh
Ha'shana

  4a.]

  Therefore, Rashbam maintains that God told Moshe these
laws

of "nedarim" at the same time that he told him the laws of
the

korbanot of the holidays in Bamidbar chapters 28->29.
Since

those laws began with "va'ydaber Hashem...", there is no
need

to repeat that phrase once again.  Instead, the Torah
tells us

that after Moshe told the people the laws of the korbanot
(see

30:1):

  "he [Moshe] went to the tribal leaders - WHO are their

  JUDGES - to tell them to teach these laws concerning
NEDARIM

  to ALL of Bnei Yisrael. When he did this, Moshe told
them:

  God has just commanded me to tell you that everyone must

  offer the NEDARIM and NEDAVOT during the holidays (see

  29:39), therefore should anyone make a vow [neder]...
they

  should not BE LATE in fulfilling it..."

     First of all, note how beautifully Rashbam explains
the

phrase "LO YACHEL DEVARO". Usually, "yachel" is translated
-

he should not PROFANE (or break his pledge/ JPS). Based on
his

interpretation, Rashbam translates "yachel" as DELAY, and

brings excellent examples from Breishit 8:10 and Shoftim
3:25.

  [Note also how he boldly states that according to pshat,
any

  other translation of "yachel" here is a MISTAKE!]

     In summary, Rashbam claims that chapter 30 is simply

direct continuation of chapter 29, for one is obligated to

fulfill his vows (chapter 30) on the holidays (chapter
29). By

recognizing this point, note how Rashbam manages to answer
ALL

of the questions raised in our introduction, and adds a

brilliant translation for the word "yachel" within this

context.

     If you don't read him carefully (while paying
attention

to the opening questions), you won't appreciate how clever
his

pirush is!

  [Note as well how the division of chapters makes a
'futile'

  attempt to solve Rashbam's opening question, by starting

  chapter 30 with the last pasuk in Parshat Pinchas. [Did
you

  notice this?!] Note how CHAZAL's division according to

  parshiyot must be correct, i.e. beginning the new topic
in

  30:2 - BECAUSE 30:1 forms the completion of of 28:1-2,
and

  hence SHOULD be the LAST pasuk in chapter 29 instead of
the

  first pasuk in chapter 30.]

RAMBAN

     Ramban begins his commentary dealing with the same

question that bothered Rashbam, but offers a very
different

answer! [Note also how Ramban takes for granted that the

reader has already been bothered by these questions.]

  "The pasuk does not tell us first that God told these
laws

  to Moshe... like it says by SHCHUTEI CHUTZ and most all

  other parshiyot, INSTEAD we are told this at the END of
this

  parshiya! [There we find a summary:] "These are the laws

  that GOD COMMANDED MOSHE... (see 30:17)"

     Note how clever this Ramban is! He answers the
question

by paying careful attention to the conclusion of this
unit.

[Again, this is a classic example of the comprehensive
nature

of Ramban's approach.]

  Ramban brings a parallel example from SHCHUTEI CHUTZ
(see

Vayikra 17:1-2), clearly in reaction to Rashi's pirush
(which

he will soon argue with), even though he doesn't quote
Rashi

directly!

  [Ramban expects that the reader of his commentary is
already

  familiar with Rashi, as he himself was!]

     But even without this concluding pasuk (i.e. 30:17)

Ramban proves that we need not be bothered by the fact
that

Moshe's instruction to the "rashei ha'matot" is not
prefaced

by "va'ydaber Hashem el Moshe...". Ramban brings two other

examples where commandments by Moshe that begin with ZEH

HA'DAVAR are not prefaced with a "va'ydaber Hashem el

Moshe...":

  [Furthermore], in Parshat Shmini it states ZEH HA'DAVAR
(see

  Vayikra 9:6 and its context) without a preface that God
had

  commanded this, and in relation to keeping the manna
[next

  to the aron] it states ZEH HA'DAVAR... (see Shmot
16:32)"

     Once again, we see the comprehensive nature of
Ramban's

methodology, always considering parallel occurrences of

similar phrases or patterns.

     After explaining WHO these tribal leaders are
(possibly

those leaders mentioned later in Bamidbar 34:17-29),
Ramban

offers an interpretation which is exactly the opposite of

Rashi's, claiming that indeed these laws were given

intentionally ONLY to the tribal leaders:

  "And the reason for Moshe saying these laws to the
"rashei

  ha'matot" - BECAUSE there is no need to teach all of
Bnei

  Yisrael that a father (or husband) can annul the vow of
his

  daughter (or wife). Maybe these laws need to kept
'hidden'

  so that people will not take their words lightly (should

  they know that their promises can be annulled). However,
the

  judges and leaders of Israel MUST know these laws..."

  Note how Ramban prefers the 'simple pshat' of the pasuk
over

Chazal's interpretation (i.e. the Sifri quoted by Rashi) -
and

provides a very good reason that supports his preference.

     On the other hand, Ramban does accept the halacha
that

Chazal infer from these psukim, relating this to the
special

style that the Torah uses to record this commandment:

  "And this does HINT to the MIDRASH CHAZAL that tribal

  leaders have special privileges in relation to nedarim
that

  a "yachid mumche" (expert) can annul a vow on his
own..."

     Ramban concludes his commentary by noting, as Rashbam

did, the thematic connection to the laws of Tmidim
u'Musafim

(based on 29:39), nevertheless reaching a different

conclusion.

IBN EZRA

     Ibn Ezra also deals with the thematic connection
between

these laws of "nedarim" and the 'neighboring' topics in
Sefer

Bamidbar.  However, instead of looking 'backward' to the

halachik sections of Parshat Pinchas, he looks forward to
what

transpires in the stories that are recorded in Parshat
Matot,

i.e. the war against Midyan and the story of Bnei Gad and

Reuven (chapters 31 & 32).

  "In my opinion, this parshiya was given AFTER the war

  against MIDYAN (chapter 31), and that is why THAT story
is

  recorded immediately afterward! [Ibn Ezra then brings an

  example of this style from Bamidbar chapter 12.]

     This interpretation is also very creative, for it
claims

that these laws were actually given in reaction to an
event

that took place at that time!  As you study this Ibn Ezra,

note how he also deals with most all of the above
questions,

yet offers very different answers. Let's take a look:

  "Then, (after that battle) the pasuk tells us that Bnei
Gad

  and Reuven came to Moshe and Elazar and the PRINCES and

  requested [to keep Transjordan / see 32:1-5]. At the

  conclusion of their discussion, [when the deal is
finalized]

  it states:

    "Then Moshe gave instructions [concerning Bnei Gad] to

    Elazar and Yehoshua and the RASHEI AVOT HA'MATOT
l'BNEI

    YISRAEL" (see 32:28),

  after Moshe had just forewarned Bnei Gad u'Reuven that

  "whatever you PROMISE - you must keep" (see 32:24)..."

     Ibn Ezra prefers both this thematic (making and
keeping

promises) and textual ("rashei ha'matot") parallel to
chapter

30, in order to explain the location of this parshiya at
this

point in Sefer Bamdibar; over Rashbam's and Ramban's
parallel

to Parshat Pinchas.

  Note also how Ibn Ezra agrees with Rashi that the
"rashei

ha'matot" were supposed to relay these laws to Bnei
Yisrael;

however he provides a different proof, based on the LAMED
in

L'BNEI YISRAEL in 30:2!

CHIZKUNI

     Chizkuni opens with yet another creative answer to
our

original question.  He states:

  "k'dei l'hachirach et ha'am" - in order to enforce this
upon

  the people"   (translation unclear)

  Like Rashi, he agrees that these laws were indeed
intended

to be taught to EVERYONE (arguing with Ramban). However,

provides a different reason for why the "rashei ha'matot"
are

singled out.  Unlike Rashi who claims that it is an issue
of

'honor', he claims that they are taught first, for it is
their

responsibility to enforce these laws.  Chizkuni
understands

that the Torah wants the leaders to make sure that
unnecessary

vows are annulled (by those who can), OR that the leaders

should make sure that the people keep their promises.

     Afterward, Chizkuni continues by quoting from both
Ibn

Ezra and Rashi.

SEFORNO

     Finally, Seforno adds a very creative explanation for
the

phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR. He claims as follows:

  In the original commandment at Har Sinai - "Do not to
make

an oath in God's Name (and not fulfill it) lest God's Name
be

desecrated" (see Vayikra 19:12) - one may conclude that
this

would refer to anyone making a vow.

  Here in Parshat Matot, claims Seforno, the Torah makes
an

exception. That law applies only to males - for they are

'their own bosses' ["b'rshut atzmo"].  However, a wife or
a

daughter, because she is under the jurisdiction of her
father

(or husband), should she not fulfill a vow, it would not
be

such a terrible desecration of God's Name, for the person

hearing this vow being made immediately realizes that she
may

not able to fulfill it.  As the potential "chillul Hashem"
is

less, the Torah provides a special avenue through which
she

can annul her vow.

  This original interpretation (even though is may sound a
bit

chauvinist) takes into consideration the details of these
laws

in relation to a similar law recorded earlier, and
explains

both the phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR as well as the nature of the

specific details of these laws.

NEXT TIME

     Hopefully, our shiur has highlighted how "parshanut"
can

be better understood by spending a little time first

considering possibilities, instead of just reading right
away

what each one has to say.  In other words, if you study

Chumash the same way the commentators themselves did
(thinking

first), you'll have a better chance of appreciating the

treasure that they have left us.

                         shabbat shalom,

                         menachem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20100706/01145288/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52109 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20100706/01145288/attachment-0001.pdf 