[Par-reg] For Parshat Matot
Menachem Leibtag
mleibtag at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 15:55:53 EDT 2015
*************************************************************
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-reg/attachments/20150715/d13642cc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20150715/d13642cc/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list