[Par-lite] For parshat matot

Wed Jul 20 13:55:07 EDT 2011

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

     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/20110720/2609c186/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/20110720/2609c186/attachment-0001.pdf 