<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT MATOT [Parshanut]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The opening pasuk of Parshat
Matot is simply a 'gold mine'<BR>for those who enjoy the study of "parshanut"
[the Hebrew word<BR>for biblical commentary].<BR> In
this week's shiur, we grab this opportunity to take a<BR>'summer tour' of the
various exegetic approaches of the<BR>classical commentators, as they all
grapple with the<BR>difficulties that arise when studying Bamidbar
30:2.<BR> <BR>INTRODUCTION<BR> There are two
classic approaches to the study of<BR>"parshanim". The simplest is simply to
read the pasuk, and<BR>then immediately afterward, to read the commentary;
thus<BR>enhancing one's understanding and appreciation of what the<BR>Torah is
telling us.<BR> Another approach is to read each pasuk
carefully while<BR>considering its context, but before reading any commentary
-<BR>to attempt on your own to consider any problems that arise,<BR>and then to
contemplate possible answers. Then, after you<BR>have thought through all
the various possibilities, to read<BR>the various commentaries, noting if they
raised the same (or<BR>similar) questions and/or
answers.<BR> Even though the latter approach is quite
tedious, it<BR>usually leads to a much better appreciation and
understanding<BR>of the various commentaries.<BR> In the
following shiur, we will employ this method, as we<BR>study the opening pasuk of
Parshat Matot.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>LOTS OF QUESTIONS<BR> Let's
begin by taking a look at the first pasuk, and then<BR>making a list of
questions that arise:<BR> "And MOSHE spoke to the Heads of the Tribes of
Bnei Yisrael<BR> saying: THIS is the 'DAVAR' [translation unclear] that
God<BR> has commanded: If a man makes a vow or takes an<BR>
obligation...." (see 32:2-3)<BR> <BR> The
first obvious question that catches almost everyone's<BR>attention relates to
the fact that these laws about "nedarim"<BR>[vows] are directed specifically to
the "rashei ha'matot"<BR>[tribal leaders]. In contrast to most all other
laws in the<BR>Bible, that are directed to the entire nation - for
some<BR>reason, these laws are different.<BR> Before we attempt to answer
this question, let's note some<BR>other related questions that come to our
attention:<BR> · When did God inform Moshe about these
laws? [Note that<BR> this set of laws doesn't
begin with the classic 'opening<BR> pasuk' of "va'ydaber
Hashem el Moshe lay'mor... daber el Bnei<BR> Yisrael..."
- And God spoke to Moshe saying...]<BR>· Were the rest of
nation supposed to find out about these<BR>laws, or were they intended only for
the 'leaders'?<BR>· Why are these laws recorded
specifically at this point<BR>in Sefer Bamidbar?<BR>· What
does Moshe introduce these laws with the<BR>introductory phrase "ZEH HA'DAVAR"?
(see 30:2)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> With these additional questions in mind,
let's return to our<BR>opening question.<BR>
<BR>EXCLUSIVITY<BR> Obviously, the first issue that must
be dealt with<BR>concerns why Moshe presents these laws directly to the
tribal<BR>leaders.<BR> Recall that we have found several
earlier examples in<BR>Chumash where a set of laws are given to a 'select'
group.<BR>For example, the laws of how to offer a sacrifice in Parshat<BR>Tzav
(see Vayikra 6:1-2) are directed exclusively to the<BR>"kohanim" [the
preists]. However, there the reason is<BR>obvious, for only the kohanim
need to know those laws.<BR> How about these laws
concerning "nedarim" in Parshat<BR>Matot?<BR>There are two possible directions
to we can entertain.<BR>Either:<BR> 1. They are indeed intended to be
heard ONLY by the tribal<BR> leaders - if
so, we must attempt to understand why the laws
of<BR> "nedarim" are special in this
regard.<BR> 2. The entire nation is supposed to hear these laws - if
so,<BR> we must explain why the tribal
leaders receive them first.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's see how we find these two approaches
in the classic<BR>commentators. As is traditionally accepted, let's begin
with<BR>Rashi's commentary on 30:2:<BR> "He [Moshe] gave honor to the
princes to teach them first,<BR> then afterward he taught [these laws] to
Bnei Yisrael..."<BR> <BR> Note how Rashi, in his opening line,
assumes that the reader<BR>was already bothered by this question; and he
immediately<BR>provides an answer. He follows the second approach, i.e.
the<BR>entire nation heard these laws as well - but explains that the<BR>princes
were taught first, as an honor to the
tribal<BR>leadership.<BR> This explanation immediately
raises another question: How<BR>about when all of the other mitzvot were taught
- was this a<BR>common practice - i.e. to teach the "rashei ha'matot"
first?<BR> Rashi claims that this was indeed the common
practice -<BR>and proves his claim from a pasuk in Sefer Shmot,
that<BR>describes what transpired when Moshe came down from Har Sinai<BR>with
the second Luchot:<BR> "...And how do we know that all of the other
mitzvot were<BR> taught in this manner? As the pasuk states [when
Moshe<BR> descended from Har Sinai with the second luchot]: Then<BR>
Aharon and all of the PRINCES of the congregation approached<BR> him [i.e.
Moshe], and Moshe spoke to them [re: the laws].<BR> Then AFTERWARD, ALL of
BNEI YISRAEL came forward and Moshe<BR> COMMANDED them concerning ALL of
the laws that God had<BR> instructed him on Har Sinai (see Shmot
34:29-32)."<BR> <BR> [Note that we've included the entire quote of
34:32 (even<BR> though Rashi only quoted half of it). That's because
Rashi<BR> takes for granted that you know the continuation (which
is<BR> key to understand his pirush), while we've taken for
granted<BR> that you are not familiar with the pasuk. As a rule of
thumb<BR> - whenever Rashi (or any rishon) quotes another pasuk -
look<BR> up that pasuk in its entirety and pay careful attention
to<BR> its context. Note as well, that from the context of Shmot<BR>
29:32, Rashi's conclusion is not conclusive, as we will<BR> discuss in
Ramban's approach.]<BR> <BR> Even though Rashi has
established that ALL of the mitzvot<BR>were given in this manner (first to the
princes and then to<BR>the people), our opening question still remains, but now
in a<BR>different form. If indeed this was that manner that all
the<BR>laws were transmitted - why does the Torah emphasize this<BR>point
specifically in regard to the laws of "nedarim"?<BR> Rashi deals with this
question as well, explaining that the<BR>Torah does this intentionally in order
that we infer a<BR>specific halacha:<BR> "...And why is this mentioned
here? To TEACH us that a vow<BR> can be annulled by a SINGLE judge - if he
is an EXPERT,<BR> otherwise a group of three "hedyotot" ['non-experts]
is<BR> required to annul a vow."<BR> <BR> In
other words, by informing us that Moshe first gave<BR>these laws to the "rashei
ha'matot", we can infer that there<BR>is something special about their status in
regard to these<BR>laws of "nedarim' that follow. This allowed Chazal [the
Sages]<BR>to conclude the special law that an expert judge ["yachid<BR>mumche"]
can annul such vow on his own.<BR> To strengthen his
interpretation, Rashi then raises the<BR>possibility of the first approach (i.e.
that these laws were<BR>given exclusively to the tribal leaders) - in order to
refute<BR>it:<BR> "... OR - [possibly] Moshe made have told these laws
ONLY to<BR> the tribal leaders [and hence not to all of Bnei Yisrael]
-<BR> -- it states here ZEH HA'DAVAR (32:2) and it states in<BR>
regard to SHCHUTEI CHUTZ [offering a sacrifice outside the<BR> Mishkan]
the phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR (see Vayikra 17:2) - just<BR> like those laws were
directed not only to the priests, but<BR> ALSO to the entire nation [as it
states "speak to Aharon,<BR> his sons, and ALL BNEI YISRAEL" (17:2); so
too these laws<BR> [of NEDARIM were given not only to the princes but also
to<BR> ALL of Bnei Yisrael.]"<BR> <BR> Rashi completes his
commentary by adding two additional<BR>points concerning why the Torah records
how Moshe introduced<BR>these laws with the phrase "zeh ha'dvar..."<BR>
"We learn from here that Moshe was prophet of a higher level<BR> than
other prophets could say only: "KOH amar Hashem" -<BR> [thus God said] -
but only Moshe could state precisely "ZEH<BR> HA'DAVAR..." - THIS was the
word of God..."<BR> <BR> Finally, Rashi concludes
this commentary with another<BR>Halacha that Chazal infer from this pasuk
concerning HOW (i.e.<BR>in what manner) the judge must pronounce the annulment
of a<BR>vow.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PSHAT vs. DRASH<BR> As
usual, Rashi's commentary anchors itself on several<BR>MIDRASHIM (see Sifri 153,
and Nedarim 88a). In other words,<BR>he explains the pasuk based on what
he found in the Midrash.<BR> In contrast, other commentators such as Ibn
Ezra, Rashbam,<BR>and Ramban will usually anchor their interpretation in
what<BR>they feel is the simple understanding ["pshat"] of the pasuk -<BR>even
if that understanding may contradict a Midrash.<BR>Nonetheless, they will
usually consider the opinion raised by<BR>the Midrash with the utmost respect -
but they do not<BR>automatically accept it.<BR> Let's see how
this will help us understand the<BR>interpretations advanced by Rashbam and
Ramban, as they relate<BR>to the topic discussed in Rashi's pirush. Afterward,
we will<BR>discuss Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and Seforno.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>RASHBAM<BR> Rashbam,
clearly bothered by all of the questions that we<BR>raised above, approaches all
of them from a very different<BR>angle. His first consideration is the
juxtaposition of these<BR>laws to the laws of Tmidim u'Musafim that were found
at the<BR>end of Parshat Pinchas.<BR> In essence, Rashbam considers this
section of laws<BR>concerning "nedarim" as a direct continuation of the laws
that<BR>concluded Parshat Pinchas; and hence, we no longer have a<BR>strangely
worded introductory pasuk, since it isn't<BR>introductory! Carefully
follow how he presents his key<BR>points:<BR> "I was asked a question in
the city of Loshdon, Aniyob<BR> (somewhere in France): 'According to pshat
- where else do<BR> find such a parshiya that begins in this manner,
[where<BR> Moshe commands mitzvot] but does not begin with
VA'YDABER<BR> HASHEM EL MOSHE... [informing us first that God told
these<BR> laws to Moshe]?' -<BR> and this
was my [Rashbam's] answer:<BR> Above [at the end of Parshat Pinchas/
29:39] it states:<BR> "These [korbanot] you shall bring on
your holidays in<BR> ADDITION to your VOWS [nedarim &
nedavot...]"<BR> [This pausk teaches us that] you must offer all of
your<BR> voluntary korbanot [that you had taken upon yourself by
a<BR> vow] during one of the three pilgrimage holidays - in
order<BR> that you do not transgress the commandment of 'keeping
a<BR> promise on time ["baal t'acher"/ see Mesechet Rosh
Ha'shana<BR> 4a.]<BR> <BR> Therefore, Rashbam maintains that
God told Moshe these laws<BR>of "nedarim" at the same time that he told him the
laws of the<BR>korbanot of the holidays in Bamidbar chapters 28->29.
Since<BR>those laws began with "va'ydaber Hashem...", there is no need<BR>to
repeat that phrase once again. Instead, the Torah tells us<BR>that after
Moshe told the people the laws of the korbanot (see<BR>30:1):<BR> "he
[Moshe] went to the tribal leaders - WHO are their<BR> JUDGES - to tell
them to teach these laws concerning NEDARIM<BR> to ALL of Bnei Yisrael.
When he did this, Moshe told them:<BR> God has just commanded me to tell
you that everyone must<BR> offer the NEDARIM and NEDAVOT during the
holidays (see<BR> 29:39), therefore should anyone make a vow
[neder]... they<BR> should not BE LATE in fulfilling
it..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> First of all, note how
beautifully Rashbam explains the<BR>phrase "LO YACHEL DEVARO". Usually, "yachel"
is translated -<BR>he should not PROFANE (or break his pledge/ JPS). Based on
his<BR>interpretation, Rashbam translates "yachel" as DELAY, and<BR>brings
excellent examples from Breishit 8:10 and Shoftim 3:25.<BR> [Note also how
he boldly states that according to pshat, any<BR> other translation of
"yachel" here is a MISTAKE!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In summary, Rashbam claims
that chapter 30 is simply<BR>direct continuation of chapter 29, for one is
obligated to<BR>fulfill his vows (chapter 30) on the holidays (chapter 29).
By<BR>recognizing this point, note how Rashbam manages to answer ALL<BR>of the
questions raised in our introduction, and adds a<BR>brilliant translation for
the word "yachel" within this<BR>context.<BR> If you
don't read him carefully (while paying attention<BR>to the opening questions),
you won't appreciate how clever his<BR>pirush is!<BR> [Note as well how
the division of chapters makes a 'futile'<BR> attempt to solve Rashbam's
opening question, by starting<BR> chapter 30 with the last pasuk in
Parshat Pinchas. [Did you<BR> notice this?!] Note how CHAZAL's division
according to<BR> parshiyot must be correct, i.e. beginning the new topic
in<BR> 30:2 - BECAUSE 30:1 forms the completion of of 28:1-2,
and<BR> hence SHOULD be the LAST pasuk in chapter 29 instead of
the<BR> first pasuk in chapter 30.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>RAMBAN<BR> Ramban begins
his commentary dealing with the same<BR>question that bothered Rashbam, but
offers a very different<BR>answer! [Note also how Ramban takes for granted that
the<BR>reader has already been bothered by these questions.]<BR> "The
pasuk does not tell us first that God told these laws<BR> to Moshe... like
it says by SHCHUTEI CHUTZ and most all<BR> other parshiyot, INSTEAD we are
told this at the END of this<BR> parshiya! [There we find a summary:]
"These are the laws<BR> that GOD COMMANDED MOSHE... (see
30:17)"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note how clever this
Ramban is! He answers the question<BR>by paying careful attention to the
conclusion of this unit.<BR>[Again, this is a classic example of the
comprehensive nature<BR>of Ramban's approach.]<BR> Ramban brings a
parallel example from SHCHUTEI CHUTZ (see<BR>Vayikra 17:1-2), clearly in
reaction to Rashi's pirush (which<BR>he will soon argue with), even though he
doesn't quote Rashi<BR>directly!<BR> [Ramban expects that the reader of
his commentary is already<BR> familiar with Rashi, as he himself
was!]<BR> <BR> But even without this concluding
pasuk (i.e. 30:17)<BR>Ramban proves that we need not be bothered by the fact
that<BR>Moshe's instruction to the "rashei ha'matot" is not prefaced<BR>by
"va'ydaber Hashem el Moshe...". Ramban brings two other<BR>examples where
commandments by Moshe that begin with ZEH<BR>HA'DAVAR are not prefaced with a
"va'ydaber Hashem el<BR>Moshe...":<BR> [Furthermore], in Parshat Shmini it
states ZEH HA'DAVAR (see<BR> Vayikra 9:6 and its context) without a
preface that God had<BR> commanded this, and in relation to keeping the
manna [next<BR> to the aron] it states ZEH HA'DAVAR... (see Shmot
16:32)"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Once again, we see the
comprehensive nature of Ramban's<BR>methodology, always considering parallel
occurrences of<BR>similar phrases or patterns.<BR> After
explaining WHO these tribal leaders are (possibly<BR>those leaders mentioned
later in Bamidbar 34:17-29), Ramban<BR>offers an interpretation which is exactly
the opposite of<BR>Rashi's, claiming that indeed these laws were
given<BR>intentionally ONLY to the tribal leaders:<BR> "And the reason for
Moshe saying these laws to the "rashei<BR> ha'matot" - BECAUSE there is no
need to teach all of Bnei<BR> Yisrael that a father (or husband) can annul
the vow of his<BR> daughter (or wife). Maybe these laws need to kept
'hidden'<BR> so that people will not take their words lightly
(should<BR> they know that their promises can be annulled). However,
the<BR> judges and leaders of Israel MUST know these laws..."<BR>
<BR> Note how Ramban prefers the 'simple pshat' of the pasuk
over<BR>Chazal's interpretation (i.e. the Sifri quoted by Rashi) -
and<BR>provides a very good reason that supports his preference.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> On the other hand, Ramban
does accept the halacha that<BR>Chazal infer from these psukim, relating this to
the special<BR>style that the Torah uses to record this commandment:<BR>
"And this does HINT to the MIDRASH CHAZAL that tribal<BR> leaders have
special privileges in relation to nedarim that<BR> a "yachid mumche"
(expert) can annul a vow on his own..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Ramban concludes his
commentary by noting, as Rashbam<BR>did, the thematic connection to the laws of
Tmidim u'Musafim<BR>(based on 29:39), nevertheless reaching a
different<BR>conclusion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>IBN EZRA<BR> Ibn Ezra also
deals with the thematic connection between<BR>these laws of "nedarim" and the
'neighboring' topics in Sefer<BR>Bamidbar. However, instead of looking
'backward' to the<BR>halachik sections of Parshat Pinchas, he looks forward to
what<BR>transpires in the stories that are recorded in Parshat Matot,<BR>i.e.
the war against Midyan and the story of Bnei Gad and<BR>Reuven (chapters 31
& 32).<BR> "In my opinion, this parshiya was given AFTER the
war<BR> against MIDYAN (chapter 31), and that is why THAT story
is<BR> recorded immediately afterward! [Ibn Ezra then brings an<BR>
example of this style from Bamidbar chapter 12.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This interpretation is
also very creative, for it claims<BR>that these laws were actually given in
reaction to an event<BR>that took place at that time! As you study this
Ibn Ezra,<BR>note how he also deals with most all of the above questions,<BR>yet
offers very different answers. Let's take a look:<BR> "Then, (after that
battle) the pasuk tells us that Bnei Gad<BR> and Reuven came to Moshe and
Elazar and the PRINCES and<BR> requested [to keep Transjordan / see
32:1-5]. At the<BR> conclusion of their discussion, [when the deal is
finalized]<BR> it states:<BR> "Then Moshe gave
instructions [concerning Bnei Gad] to<BR> Elazar and Yehoshua
and the RASHEI AVOT HA'MATOT l'BNEI<BR> YISRAEL" (see
32:28),<BR> after Moshe had just forewarned Bnei Gad u'Reuven
that<BR> "whatever you PROMISE - you must keep" (see
32:24)..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Ibn Ezra prefers both this
thematic (making and keeping<BR>promises) and textual ("rashei ha'matot")
parallel to chapter<BR>30, in order to explain the location of this parshiya at
this<BR>point in Sefer Bamdibar; over Rashbam's and Ramban's parallel<BR>to
Parshat Pinchas.<BR> Note also how Ibn Ezra agrees with Rashi that the
"rashei<BR>ha'matot" were supposed to relay these laws to Bnei
Yisrael;<BR>however he provides a different proof, based on the LAMED
in<BR>L'BNEI YISRAEL in 30:2!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CHIZKUNI<BR> Chizkuni opens
with yet another creative answer to our<BR>original question. He
states:<BR> "k'dei l'hachirach et ha'am" - in order to enforce this
upon<BR> the people" (translation unclear)<BR>
<BR> Like Rashi, he agrees that these laws were indeed intended<BR>to be
taught to EVERYONE (arguing with Ramban). However,<BR>provides a different
reason for why the "rashei ha'matot" are<BR>singled out. Unlike Rashi who
claims that it is an issue of<BR>'honor', he claims that they are taught first,
for it is their<BR>responsibility to enforce these laws. Chizkuni
understands<BR>that the Torah wants the leaders to make sure that
unnecessary<BR>vows are annulled (by those who can), OR that the
leaders<BR>should make sure that the people keep their
promises.<BR> Afterward, Chizkuni continues by quoting
from both Ibn<BR>Ezra and Rashi.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SEFORNO<BR> Finally,
Seforno adds a very creative explanation for the<BR>phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR. He
claims as follows:<BR> In the original commandment at Har Sinai - "Do not
to make<BR>an oath in God's Name (and not fulfill it) lest God's Name
be<BR>desecrated" (see Vayikra 19:12) - one may conclude that this<BR>would
refer to anyone making a vow.<BR> Here in Parshat Matot, claims Seforno,
the Torah makes an<BR>exception. That law applies only to males - for they
are<BR>'their own bosses' ["b'rshut atzmo"]. However, a wife or
a<BR>daughter, because she is under the jurisdiction of her father<BR>(or
husband), should she not fulfill a vow, it would not be<BR>such a terrible
desecration of God's Name, for the person<BR>hearing this vow being made
immediately realizes that she may<BR>not able to fulfill it. As the
potential "chillul Hashem" is<BR>less, the Torah provides a special avenue
through which she<BR>can annul her vow.<BR> This original interpretation
(even though is may sound a bit<BR>chauvinist) takes into consideration the
details of these laws<BR>in relation to a similar law recorded earlier, and
explains<BR>both the phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR as well as the nature of
the<BR>specific details of these laws.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NEXT TIME<BR> Hopefully,
our shiur has highlighted how "parshanut" can<BR>be better understood by
spending a little time first<BR>considering possibilities, instead of just
reading right away<BR>what each one has to say. In other words, if you
study<BR>Chumash the same way the commentators themselves did
(thinking<BR>first), you'll have a better chance of appreciating the<BR>treasure
that they have left us.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>