[Par-reg] for Parshat Matot

Wed Jul 19 22:52:41 EDT 2006

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

     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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52109 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20060719/0ec7c444/matot2-0001.pdf