Commentaire sur Les Nombres 30:2

ראשי המטות [AND MOSES SPAKE TO] THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — This does not mean that he spoke only to the princes of the children of Israel and not to the people also, but that he showed respect to the princes by teaching them first and that afterwards he taught the children of Israel. This explanation seems to assume that this was the general method of instruction, but from what Biblical verse may we infer that this was so in the case of all addresses, and that this was no exceptional case? Because it says, (Exodus 34:31—32) “[And Moses called unto them], and Aaron and all the princes of the congregation returned unto him and Moses spake unto them; and afterwards all the children of Israel came nigh, [and he gave them all the commandments which the Lord had spoken to him in Mount Sinai]”. But if this be no exceptional case, what reason is there for Scripture going out of its way to state it here? Because by specially stating that the laws about vows were taught in the first instance to the princes and afterwards to the Israelites, it intends to teach that the annulling of vows is really to be effected by one person who is expert in the Law, and that only if there be no such expert, may they be annulled by three ordinary persons. But you may perhaps say that the statement does mean that Moses spoke this section only to the princes of the children of Israel, and that Moses did not speak to them also, and that consequently nothing about the expert and laymen can be inferred! But it is stated here, “This is the word”, and it is stated in the passage dealing with “animals slaughtered outside the sanctuary” (Leviticus 17:2) “This is the word”. What is the case there? It was addressed to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, as it is said there, “Speak unto Aaron [and unto his sons and unto all the children of Israel]”! So, too, this was addressed to all of them (and the reason why it is stated here is to tell us that the annulling of vows etc., as above) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 153:1; Nedarim 78a).

AND MOSES SPOKE UNTO THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES. Scripture did not precede this section with [the statement]: “And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the heads of the tribes, and say unto them: This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded,” as He stated in the section [dealing with] slaughtering [offerings] outside the Sanctuary Court,¹Leviticus 17:2. and in other sections. Instead, He mentioned it as the end of this section, saying, These are the statutes, which the Eternal commanded Moses.²Further, Verse 17. And in the section of Vayehi Bayom Ha’shemini³Leviticus 9:1. it says: And Moses said: ‘This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do,’⁴Ibid., Verse 6. See also Ramban ibid. Verse 2. but did not mention the [actual] command [given by G-d to Moses] at all. Similarly, in the section about the manna [it is said], And Moses said: ‘This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it be kept etc.’⁵Exodus 16:32. [although the Divine command about it to Moses is not expressly stated].
Now the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel are the princes of the standards, whom the tribes had appointed over their standards after Nachshon the son of Amminadab [prince of the children of Judah]⁶Above, 2:3. and his colleagues had died. It is possible that they [the heads of the tribes referred to here] were those who are mentioned in the section [dealing with] the inheritance [of the Land]: These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you;⁷Further, 34:17. or it may be that those [referred to here] were others, for there Scripture speaks about [the leaders of] the future [saying] that when they come to divide up the Land [in the time of Joshua] all those mentioned will be living, and they will represent them [in the apportionment of the Land].
And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes. The reason [why he did not address this section to the entire people] is because it was not necessary to teach all the children of Israel that the father and husband [of a woman] can declare void those vows [of their daughter or wife, respectively] which involve affliction of the soul, and perhaps it is [even] necessary to conceal these [rights] from them, so that they should not treat vows lightly. But it was to the Sages of Israel, the heads of their tribes, that he taught the ordinance [of vows]. The verse also alludes to the interpretation of our Rabbis⁸Nedarim 78a. [who said] that the heads of the tribes have a special function and power in vows over and above the rest of the people, namely, that a single person who is an expert in the laws can release a person from a vow [and therefore, this section was addressed to the heads of the tribes, i.e., the Sages].
Now the [power of] release from vows [by a Sage] is not expressly stated in the Torah, but it is a law declared to Moses on Sinai, and Scripture “hung it on a hair’s-breadth,” just as the Rabbis have said:⁹Chagigah 10a. Now although these rules concerning the release from vows by a Sage “have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based,” they are yet on an absolute par with those laws which do have support in Scripture, as “they are all the essentials of the Torah” (ibid., 11b). “[The rules concerning] the release from vows [by a Sage] hover in the air, and have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based.” But Scripture did allude to it [by saying]: ‘lo yacheil’ (he shall not profane) his word.¹⁰Verse 3. For it did not say: “he shall not transgress his word.” but commanded that he should not make “profane” his word, meaning that he should not treat the vow as a hollow [and irreverent] thing; and when he comes to the court and they find him a cause for absolution¹¹Thus, for example, if a man vows or swears that he will divorce his wife, the court may say to him: “Had you known that people would say about you: ‘Such is the nature of this person to divorce his wife,’ and that they will say about your daughters: ‘They are the daughters of a divorced woman! What did her mother do that she was divorced?’ [Had you known all this], would you then have made your vow?” If he says, “Had I known this I would not have made my vow,” they may release him from his vow (Nedarim 66a). See also Note 44 further on. and he regrets [having made the vow], and they release him thereof, he is not profaning it.⁹Chagigah 10a. Now although these rules concerning the release from vows by a Sage “have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based,” they are yet on an absolute par with those laws which do have support in Scripture, as “they are all the essentials of the Torah” (ibid., 11b). And the reason for this [law being indicated in this manner of allusion] is as I have said [above], that Scripture treated absolution from a vow or oath as if it were one of the secrets of the Torah which are only to be revealed to those who are fit to [hear] them, and therefore they are written [in the Torah] in allusion. And this section [of vows] is placed here [in the Torah] because since [in the section above] He mentioned vows to the Sanctuary, [as it is said], beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, whether they be your burnt-offerings, or your meal-offerings, or your drink-offerings, or your peace-offerings,¹²Above, 29:39. therefore He said furthermore: “Apart from these above-mentioned vows, there are also vows of a secular nature. [In the case of these vows, too], according to all that proceedeth out of a man’s mouth¹⁰Verse 3. he is obliged to fulfill, and to do all with which he bound his soul; for in [the case of] all vows [whether of a holy or secular nature] he shall not profane his word,¹⁰Verse 3. but others may absolve it for him” [by finding him a cause for absolution, as explained above].

'וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות....זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, G’d had commanded the basic legislation at Mount Sinai when He had said (Leviticus 19,12) ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר וחללת וגו' “do not render a false oath in My name and thereby desecrate it.” The plain meaning of that verse had not been that you must not deliberately swear falsely, but that having sworn you must honour your oath in all its details. A woman who is married and therefore subject to restrictions imposed upon her by the authority of her husband, is not considered as having desecrated G’d’s name when violating her vows or oath on that account, provided her husband had declared her vow void.

אל ראשי המטות, to the leaders of the tribes, etc. What is so different about this commandment that Moses assembled the chiefs of the tribes to inform them of it and that they in turn were to tell the Israelites? Sifri claims that seeing in Numbers 10,3 in connection with the trumpets the congregation was mentioned before the leaders, and Moses was afraid that this would be misinterpreted to mean that the congregation at large took precedence over the princes, he made sure in 10,4 that the princes were referred to as the heads of the congregation. Moses did something similar here when he addressed the heads of the tribes first. In Nedarim 78 we are told that the reason the heads of the tribes are mentioned here was to hint that vows may be dissolved by a lone judge if he is an expert in the subject. All these comments are strictly allegorical. We need to understand also why the Torah writes המטות לבני ישראל. All Moses had to say was מטות בני ישראל. What is the reason for the extra letter ל? We must assume that the reason for the extra letter is to avoid a misunderstanding. Had the Torah not written לבני ישראל, we might have thought that the legislation was aimed only at the leaders of the people. By writing the extra letter ל, the Torah ensured that we would understand the legislation as applying to the leaders of the people as well as to the nation at large. The absence of the letter ו in front of לבני ישראל is not significant as the Torah has omitted that letter on frequent occasions where we would have expected it such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן, שמעון, etc.

וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות, I was asked by people in some town in France, Anyon, where else we find a portion commencing with the words וידבר משה, without being told first that G’d had told Moses to deliver the message or legislation in question to the people. My answer to the question was that we had read in Numbers 29,39 אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם לבד מנדריכם ומנדבותיכם, “These you are to present to the Lord,” i.e. sacrifices which you have to present on one of the three pilgrimage festivals, seeing that everyone who is tardy is guilty of a serious misdemeanour, as we know from Rosh Hashanah 4. It was no more than natural that after he heard this Moses went and told the heads of the tribes, the judges all the details pertaining to all kinds of vows, including those between husband and wife, etc.

וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes, etc.” Nachmanides writes that seeing previously the Torah had written: “excepting your various offerings in fulfillment of vows, etc.,” (29,39), and those vows had involved only vows made to G’d, not personal vows made to oneself as in the chapter commencing here, the Torah now reminds the people that any utterance made by a human being in the form of a vow or oath, (or even without such a specific formulation) he must honour. [There is no such concept as “this is between me and myself, no one else’s concern.” Ed.] Other commentators see in the fact that the following legislation was addressed in the first instance to the heads of the tribes, i.e. judicial heads, a hint that if someone refuses to honour vows he has made or oaths he has sworn, he is being punished physically until he recants his refusal and agrees to honour the vow in question. Nachmanides writes further that seeing that contrary to common practice, this chapter has not been prefaced by the introductory line “G’d spoke to Moses telling him to say to the Israelites,” or something similar, the Torah makes up for this omission at the end of the chapter (verse 17) by stating that “these are the statutes that G’d had commanded Moses, etc.”

By teaching them first. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “To the tribal leaders”? One cannot say this passage was only said to the tribal leaders, and not to all of Israel. For here it states, “This is the word” in order to learn a gezeirah shavah [scriptural comparison] as Rashi explains shortly, to teach that this passage was said to all of Israel. If so, why is it written, “To the tribal leaders”? Rashi answers that it is to “bestow honor…” Accordingly the meaning of “To the tribal leaders of Bnei Yisroel” is “[To the tribal leaders] and to Bnei Yisroel.” Re’m. We cannot say that perhaps the verse means “To the tribal leaders of Bnei Yisroel” because if so, why would it have been necessary to write “of Bnei Yisroel” given that it would have been sufficient to just say “To the tribal leaders, saying…” Rather, one must say that it was informing us of the order of teaching, as Re’m explained and as Rashi will explain shortly. Alternatively, Rashi is answering another question: Why did the verse write ראשי המטות לבני ישראל [lit. "to the tribal leaders, to Bnei Yisroel"] when it should have said אל ראשי מטות בני ישראל ["to the tribal leaders of Bnei Yisroel"]? Rather, since the verse was written in this way one must say that “tribal leaders” is considered a construct, meaning that the word “tribal” is a construct with the word “leaders.” Consequently the word “Yisroel” is distinct, not a construct with the word “tribal,” rather it is an independent word. Thus one is obliged to explain as follows: Initially Moshe said this to the tribal leaders and afterwards to Bnei Yisroel, and it is as if it had written “and to Bnei Yisroel.” This was the honor bestowed upon them, that he taught them first and afterwards the Bnei Yisroel. Accordingly it is also understandable why the Torah did not write, “Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Speak to Bnei Yisroel: If a man makes [a vow]…” Rather the verse must be coming to inform us of the order of teaching, writing “Moshe spoke” as if to say, “This was [the order] of Moshe’s speech to Yisroel.” This is the essence of Rashi’s explanation according to Toras Kohanim, however in Gemara Nedarim (78a) it is expounded differently.

V. 2. וידבר משה וגו׳. Dies war jedoch ein neuer Ausspruch. Er eröffnet das Gebiet der, wie wir es nannten, freiwilligen Gesetzgebung, und ist daher gleichsam als Anhang zur eigentlichen Gesetzgebung gegeben, deren Erfüllung und Ausführung im Grunde das Motiv zur Sanktion dieser freiwilligen Gesetzgebung bildet. Es soll damit dem einzelnen wie den Gesamtheiten und der Gesamtheit der Nation die Möglichkeit eröffnet werden, sich dauernde Normen für eine pflichtgetreue Ausführung des Gesetzes festzustellen. Nicht ohne Grund ist daher wohl dieses Gesetzkapitel ganz besonders an die נשיאים gerichtet, die bedeutsam ראשי המטות genannt werden. Wir haben bereits zu Kap. 1 erläutert, wie מטה den Stamm als "Zweig" des großen Ganzen begreift, innerhalb dessen die einheitliche Gesamtaufgabe nach seiner besonderen Eigentümlichkeit zur Verwirklichung kommen soll. Aufgabe der ראשי המטות war es, die aus den Eigentümlichkeiten eines jeden "Zweiges" hervorgehenden Sitten und Gewohnheiten, sowie die gemeinsamen Bestimmungen, Tätigkeiten und Bestrebungen, nach den eigentümlichen Besonderheiten eines jeden "Zweiges" in eine der Gesamtaufgabe förderliche Richtung zu leiten und darin zu erhalten. Das unumgängliche Mittel zu einer solchen Wirksamkeit, zu einer Gesamtheitsentwicklung, zu einem Gemeindeleben überhaupt, ist die Unverbrüchlichkeit selbstgefasster Feststellungen, die Unverbrüchlichkeit des gelobenden Wortes, das לא יחל דברו, welches den Inhalt der folgenden Bestimmungen bildet. Gleichzeitig ist das heilsame Korrektiv solcher gelobenden Feststellungen, wie dies zum folgenden Verse zur Darstellung kommt, היתר נדרים, ebenfalls den ראשי המטות, gleichsam einem Familien- und Gewissensrate aus dem Volke anvertraut, und auch mit Hinblick hierauf das Gesetz über Gelobungen an die ראשי המטות zunächst gerichtet.

וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות וגו'...זה הדבר אשר צוה ה,“Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of Israel....this is what the Lord has commanded.” When Rabbi Sh’muel son of Meir, a grandson of Rashi, was asked where we can find that the legislation concerning vows was commanded to Moses, he directed the questioner to what has been written in the Torah immediately prior to our portion, namely: “these are the rules concerning the festivals for the Lord, apart from your vows, etc. “(Numbers, 29 39) The reference is to free willed vows and free will offerings, etc. There is also another category of vows, which is discussed in the Torah. Our verse refers to the chapter 28 in Numbers which commences with rules concerning sacrificial offerings.

אל ראשי המטות, “to the leaders of the tribes;” It would be their task to enforce this law. An alternate interpretation by Ibn Ezra: this paragraph was revealed to the people after the punitive expedition against Midian, seeing that these verses are continuous until the end of verse three. Rashi claims that the manner in which Moses ensured that the respective legislation reached the people was the same as in this instance, and he proves it from Exodus 34,3132 where the Torah wrote: 'וישובו אליו אהרן וגו, “and all of them returned to Moses, i.e. Aaron, the princes, etc.”This particular verse was spoken by Moses when he had just descended from Mount Sinai on the Day of Atonement equipped with all the commandments. Rashi adds here that the reason this formula has been used here by the Torah especially, is in order to teach that annulling vows can only be done by a judge authorised to do so, or in the absence of such by three laymen. This law has a unique feature in that a single judge, if an expert in that legislation is empowered to do so. The reference to the leaders of the tribes shows that such individuals possess special powers, whereas the words: “and to the Children of Israel,” mean that three laymen can accomplish the same as an expert without a colleague. This is stated in the Talmud tractate Nedarim folio 78, where Rav Acha says that the words: “Aaron, his sons, and the Children of Israel,” teach that an ad hoc court of three laymen can perform this task. If so, why does the Torah stress that this legislation be revealed foremost to the heads of the tribes, suggesting that these are people of superior knowledge? This suggests the opposite, i.e. that laymen are excluded!? Rabbi Chisda states that this is to teach that when an individual is indeed an expert in the legalese required, he can act independently.

זה הדבר THIS IS THE WORD — Moses prophesied with the words (introduced his message by the statement), “Thus saith the Lord, About midnight [will I go into the midst of Egypt]” (Exodus 11:4), and other prophets also prophesied with “Thus saith the Lord”, Moses, however, had an additional superiority in that he prophesied also with the expression “This is the actual word [that God hath spoken]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:2). Another explanation of זה הדבר THIS IS THE WORD: it is a restrictive phrase serving to intimate that the Sage (the expert) makes use of the expression “invalidating” (התרה), and the husband (dealing with his wife’s vows), only of the expression “annulling” (הפרה), as is the language of Scripture here (e. g., in v. 9), and that if they (one of them) exchanges the expression, it (the vow) is not invalidated nor is it annulled as the case may be (Nedarim 78a).

The words איש כי ידור נדר, refer to a person vowing to bring a voluntary sacrifice, just as the words או השבע שבועה mean that he phrases this vow in a negative manner. When the Torah adds that such a person must not יחל his word, the meaning is that he must not be late in fulfilling his vow else he is considered as having broken his promise, i.e. delay carrying out his word, his promise. He has only until (according to one view) the next pilgrimage festival to come to Jerusalem and make good on his vow. Seeing that at that time he must come to Jerusalem at any event, this does not impose any kind of hardship on him. The expression יחל in the sense of delaying, procrastinating, occurs several times in Scripture, for instance in Judges 3,25 ויחל עד בוש, “he waited an embarrassingly long time.” Or, in Genesis 8,10 ויחל עוד שבעת ימים, we read that Noach waited another seven days before sending out the dove again. In Psalms 130,7 David speaks of יחל ישראל אל ה', meaning that Israel is to continue to wait for G’d hopefully. Anyone translating the words לא יחל דברו as “he must not profane, dishonour his word,” as the plain meaning of the verse is in error.

ראשי המטות לבני ישראל, “the heads of the tribes of Israel.” These were the ones who replaced the first generation of such princes, carriers of the various banners, who had included such illustrious figures as Nachshon ben Aminadav, who had courageously entered the sea of Reeds before it had been split. It is possible that the men referred to here were the ones mentioned in the chapter dealing with the distribution of the parcels of land in the as yet non-existent State of Israel, (Numbers 34,17-28). Alternately, we may be speaking of different men, seeing that in Numbers 34 the Torah speaks about something that would come to pass later, after Moses had left the scene. Or, the men mentioned in chapter 34 were all alive and well 14 years after Joshua took over and was in a position to make the allocation of most of these lands. The reason why the Torah here uses the unusual formulation of ראשי המטות instead of saying: ”to all the Children of Israel,” is simply that there was no need for all of the Israelites to be taught rules applying to a narrow aspect of the relationship between a wife and her husband or a father with a daughter below twelve and a half years old. The vows discussed here are only those that result in interference with the father’s, or husband’s quality of life, עינוי נפש. Perhaps there was a need at this time to withhold these laws from them so that they would not begin to become negligent concerning the whole subject of vows, knowing that their husbands were able to rescue them from a foolish vow. At any rate, the spiritual leaders of the people could be entrusted with this legislation without it being filtered through the High Priest and the seventy elders first. Mention of the individual leaders of the tribes is also an oblique hint on which the sages later on may have based themselves, when allowing an individual who possesses the necessary expertise to annul such vow, without recourse to a lay court of at least three people. It is a fact that the Torah nowhere spells out a procedure for annulling vows generally, other than the specific vows mentioned here which are subject to annulment only by the father or husband, and only within 24 hours of their becoming aware of them. The whole legislation of annulling vows and how and by whom is הלכה למשה מסיני, a law handed down orally since the time of Moses, something that cannot be arrived at by the use of our logic in interpreting the written Torah. Our sages, in referring to this, describe it as hanging by a thread as thin as a hair on our heads.” (Compare Chagigah 10) Another expression used there is that this entire legislation, its various rules are “flying in thin air.” The “hint” we mentioned, consists of the Torah writing that the party making the vow לא יחל את דברו, “he must not profane his word,” instead of the Torah having written לא יעבור על דברו, “he must not violate his verbal undertaking.” This enabled the sages to save the applicant from violating his vow if he could find an opening, פתח, primarily by establishing that when making the vow the person who made it did not foresee certain circumstances which, if he had foreseen them, he never would have made such a vow in the first place. Seeing that this is so, the Torah did not reveal this legislation to the people at large, else too many people would become irresponsible and make vows lightheartedly.

Why, then, did he see fit to say this here? Meaning that because throughout the entire Torah honor had been bestowed upon the leaders, as it is written, “They returned to him, Aharon [and all the leaders…].” Why was this taught again here?

I have come across a Baraitha in Baba Batra 120 which goes as follows: "I might have thought that Moses said this paragraph only to the princes; to prevent me from thinking this the Torah wrote זה הדבר, 'this is the thing, etc.' We have the same expression in Leviticus 17,2 where the subject is the prohibition to slaughter animals for their meat and eat them unless they had first been offered as sacrifices in the Tabernacle. This legislation applies to all the people as it is is phrased: 'any man who, etc.' We therefore use the expression זה הדבר which appears on both occasions to conclude that the legislation in our paragraph also applies to all the men of Israel." Thus far the Talmud. Granted that the exegesis of this is valid, why did the Torah then have to add the words לבני ישראל, in our verse? Clearly the Baraitha did not understand the words לבני ישראל to mean that the legislation applied to the entire people why else would it have bothered to prove this indirectly by learning the גזרה שוה (similar wording) of זה הדבר in both instances? Moreover, the Talmud in Keritut 5 told us not to treat such a גזרה שוה lightly.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ד: diese eine Verordnung einleitende Formel findet sich zunächst bei Anordnungen zu augenblicklicher Erfüllung, wie beim Manna (Schmot 16, 16 und 32), תרומת המשכן (daselbst 35, 4), מלואים (Wajikra 8, 5 u. 9, 6). Auch die Bestimmung, dass eine Erbtochter nicht außer ihrem Stamme heiraten soll (Kap. 36, 6 bis 8) wird (Baba Batra 120 a), dieser Formel gemäß, als nur für das damalige Geschlecht geltend begriffen. Nur פרשת שחוטי חוץ. (Wajikra 17, 2) ist, obgleich ausdrücklich für ewige Zeiten bestimmt, חקת עולם וגו׳ (V. 7), ebenfalls durch זה הדבר וגו׳ eingeleitet. Erwägen wir, dass eine zur augenblicklichen Erfüllung getroffene Anordnung sofort die ganze Energie der Fassungs- und Willenskraft beansprucht, so dürfte dieselbe Einleitungsformel für zeitlich unbeschränkte Verordnungen nur die Bedeutsamkeit und Wichtigkeit derselben bemerkbar machen. Auch unser Gesetz über Gelobungen, obgleich für alle Zeiten geltend, wie (Baba Batra daselbst) durch גזרה שוה-Hinweisung auf שחוטי חוץ erläutert wird, erhält durch diese Einleitungsformel die ihr nach obigem zukommende Bedeutsamkeit. Durch diese Gleichstellung unseres נדרים-Kapitels mit dem שחוטי חוץ-Gesetze wird (daselbst) die Anrede an ראשי המטות zu der Allgemeinheit von אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל wie bei שחוטי חוץ erweitert und die Handhabung des Gelobungskorrektivs jeden dreien urteilsfähigen Männern aus dem Volke, ג׳ הדיוטות, überwiesen, wenn sie auch sonst nicht zu den Gesetzeskundigen, מומחה, gehören, wie denn nach רמב׳׳ם überhaupt für התרת נדרים der Begriff "מומחה", in dem Satze, dass dafür יחיד מומחה genüge, nicht in der Schärfe סמוך wie für Handhabung des übrigen Gesetzes zu verstehen sei und nicht רב מובהק bedeute, eine Eigentümlichkeit, die ר׳׳ן zu Nedarim 87 b einfach aus dem Begriff ראשי המטות herleitet, der ja nicht richterliche Qualifikation in eminentem Sinne, אלהים, wie bei den übrigen Gesetzen involviere. Alle diese Bestimmungen harmonieren mit unserer Auffassung des נדרים-Kapitels, das, wie wir glauben, als Kapitel über die freiwillige Gesetzgebung und das Gewohnheitsrecht eine von der eigentlichen Gesetzgebung geschiedene und untergeordnete Stellung einnimmt. Es dürfte aber diese Gleichstellung der נדרים- und שחוטי חוץ-Kapitel, aus welcher (ebendaselbst) für letztere auch noch die Übertragung des Gelobungskorrektivs auch auf יש שאלה בהקדש ,נדרי הקדש resultiert, auf einem tieferen inneren Grunde beruhen. Spricht doch schon der Satz der Weisen: הנודר כאלו בנה במה והמקיימו כאלו מקריב עליו קרבן eine solche innere Verwandtschaft aus. Beide, במה und נדר streben die Sanktion eines willkürlichen subjektiven Beliebens außer und neben dem Gesetze an. Die Allgemeinheit, wie eine solche Sanktion in שחוטי חוץ und במה zum Ausdruck kommt, ist absolut verwerflich. Im נדרים-Gesetz erhält jener Subjektivismus nur einen beschränkten und bedingten Raum der Betätigung (siehe Nedarim 22 a ר׳׳ן daselbst).

'זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, “this is the matter that the Lord has commanded:” The Torah did not reveal where G-d commanded the following law to Moses. This is only one of numerous prophetic announcements by Moses where the time and location where Moses received these instructions has not been revealed. Examples quoted by our author are: Exodus 10,3, Exodus 11,4, Exodus 32,27 and his commentary there.

'וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות לבני ישראל לאמור: זה הדבר אשר צוה ה', “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel to say: ‘this is the thing that Lord has said.’” According to the plain meaning of the text the words לבני ישראל mean that the leaders of the tribes are to convey this legislation to the Children of Israel.
However, our sages in Nedarim 78 explained that the dual wording “the heads of the tribes”, followed by “the Children of Israel,” implies that either a single expert or a quorum of three ordinary men are authorized to annul vows under certain conditions. The reason this portion has been recorded immediately after the chapter dealing with the mussaf offerings on the festivals is that at the conclusion of that chapter (verse 39) the Torah had mentioned the vows that are generally brought as gifts to the Lord on most of these festivals when the owner of the animals vowed is in Jerusalem on his pilgrimage. This is also the reason why in our verse the Torah adds אשר צוה ה', “which the Lord has commanded;” the Torah reminds us that apart from vows which are made in honor of Hashem there are also others of a more profane nature; one must fulfill all one’s undertakings regardless whether this is an undertaking (vow) made to G’d or to man. Another reason for these additional words “which the Lord has commanded,” is that just as sanctifying the Holidays requires calendar expertise so dissolving a vow also requires expertise if it is performed by a single individual.

Vows may be annulled by a single expert. When the Sage comes to permit a vow, he removes it retroactively as if there had never been a vow. With this sanction, the vow is annulled as if there had never been one; therefore Rashi uses the term הפרה ["annulment"].

We also need to understand the meaning of the word לאמור? To whom were the Israelites to convey this legislation? If the Torah meant that the heads of the tribes were supposed to convey this legislation to the Israelites the Torah should have written לאמור לבני ישראל, "to tell to the children of Israel!" Furthermore, what precisely did the Torah want to exclude by using the word זה הדבר in verse 2?

By three laymen. [Rashi says this] because “Tribal leaders” implies that there was one leader who could annul the vow, namely the one expert. You might ask: Surely it is written “leaders” in the plural form? The answer is that it speaks of leaders in general, referring to all the tribal leaders. Now, since one expert was required, then three laymen would be needed. [We derive the number as follows:] It is logical that we would need more laymen than experts. However, it is not possible [that we require only] two, given that a court can never be evenly balanced. Thus, we add an additional one, totaling three. We need not ask that perhaps more than three, because if so there would be no end to the matter.

I believe that we can understand our verse after recalling a statement in Chagigah 10. The Talmud says there: "the whole legislation of cancelling vows is like something which flies in the air (i.e. has no firm basis)." If so, we must investigate why the Torah treated this legislation so differently from any other legislation. Every other legislation has been spelled out in the written Torah whereas only this legislation is "left hanging in the air?"

Only to the leaders. And accordingly, לבני ישראל ["of Bnei Yisroel"] would mean for Bnei Yisroel, meaning that he taught the leaders so that they would teach Yisroel, but Moshe did not teach everyone for that would not be necessary here. [One might have thought so] since the annulment of vows requires people appointed over Yisroel, in order to instruct them as to which vows one is unable to annul and which one is able to annul. Therefore, here it would have been sufficient to have the leaders instruct them. Thus, Rashi answers that “here it says…”

I believe the reason is simple. The Torah did not feel comfortable with the thought that it would write outright that vows and oaths undertaken by an Israelite could be cancelled by a judge or even by a team of judges. If the Torah had spelled this out people would conclude that oaths and vows are meaningless as they can be cancelled so easily. The Torah therefore resorted to a clever stratagem by leaving the matter of evaluating a vow with a view to annulling it to the greatest minds of the nation. As far as the average Jew was concerned, the doors to annulment remained closed in order to encourage them to fulfil oral undertakings they had entered into. The operative clauses for keeping one's oral undertakings are: 1) לא יחל דברו, "he must not break his word (from the root 'to profane')," and 2) "he must fulfil what he has undertaken orally." The meter of the verse is as follows: "Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes and outlined the entire legislation to them. But to the rest of the children of Israel he only conveyed the following, i.e. זה הדבר." In other words, the people were to honour vows and oaths and not to fail to observe them; the tribal heads were given information about the instances when annulment might be considered. This then is what the Talmud meant in Chagigah 10 when it characterised this legislation as "flying in the air." This explanation solves all the questions we have raised earlier.

Moshe prophesied… You might ask: “This is the word” was necessary for the gezeirah shavah [scriptural comparison] above, as Rashi explained. The answer is that here one cannot question the gezeirah shavah, therefore it does not need to be superfluous [and one can also expound the simple meaning].

Another approach to our paragraph could be this: Moses told the heads of the tribes this whole legislation. He told the Israelites at large to honour their oral undertakings and to turn to the tribal heads in the event they had some problem in fulfilling their vows. The latter would then inform them if their specific vows could be annulled or not.

With the phrase “this is the word.” This is an additional distinction, for “This is the word” implies that it is the word itself, which was clearly heard from Hashem in what is termed a “clear vision.” This was not so for the other prophets, as Hashem spoke to them only in riddles or through dreams, termed as “unclear visions.” But to Moshe He spoke “the word” itself, so that he could tell it to Bnei Yisroel. Likewise, it states (Bamidbar 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him, in vision and not in riddles.” [One might ask what was meant] when Moshe prophesied with the words “So says Hashem” as it is written in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 8:26) and in Parshas Bo (Shemos 10:3). The answer is that before he stood on Mount Sinai he would prophesize with “So [says Hashem]” however after the Torah was given he prophesied with “This is the word [of Hashem],” once his face began to emit beams of light.

Having read all this you may wonder why our sages had to bother with exegetical methods such as a גזרה שוה, seeing the Torah did write the words: "to the children of Israel?" The answer is that the גזרה שוה really was not needed except to tell us that Moses personally said these things to Israel. As to the announcement of the legislation itself, no גזרה שוה was needed. This is what the sages meant with the statement "I could have thought that Moses personally related this legislation only to the heads of the tribes. To prevent me from erring, etc, etc." The sages were careful not to say: "I could have thought the legislation was not given except to the heads of the tribes."

Another interpretation: “This is the word” is exclusionary. According to the first explanation, there is the difficulty of why it did not say this for all of the mitzvos. Therefore Rashi explains that “this is the word…” However, one cannot say that it was only said for this [second] reason, for if so why did the Torah say, “The word that Hashem commanded…”? It should have said explicitly what is excluded. Therefore, the first reason is also necessary.

Another possible reason why the גזרה שוה was needed may be that without it I would have understood the words לבני ישראל as a continuation of the words אל ראשי המטות, as if the Torah had written: "Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel." The גזרה שוה of זה הדבר ensures that we understand the words לבני ישראל correctly. Do not ask that we ourselves have explained the word זה as restrictive, telling us that only part of the legislation was revealed directly to the Israelites. The exegesis of the גזרה שוה is not based on the common word זה, but on the common word הדבר which is not restrictive. Our exegesis is based on the word זה alone.

The Sage with the term “release” and the husband with the term “nullification.” The Sage only releases [the vow] when there is regret, therefore the term “release” is suitable. However the husband nullifies without regret and without providing any reason, thus the term “nullification” is appropriate.

A moral/ethical approach would read together the words לאמור זה הדבר; this would reflect a teaching by Bamidbar Rabbah 22,1 where we are exhorted to be very circumspect with keeping vows and oaths. King Yannai owned two thousand asses and they all perished on account of a true oath [but an unnecessary one. Ed.] The example quoted in the Midrash has someone swear to his friend that he would consume a certain amount of food and drink in a certain place. Both parties went to that place and the one who had sworn the oath consumed the requisite amount of food and drink. A short while later all his asses perished. The moral lesson to be derived from this is that if G'd is so particular about a true but needless oath which a person swears, how much more particular will He be if someone perjures himself! In our paragraph the Torah goes on record that there are certain vows and oaths that G'd commands people to swear, i.e. לאמור זה הדבר, "to utter this word." לבני ישראל לאמור. According to Sanhedrin 56 the word לאמור is a reference to גלוי עריות, unchaste behaviour, illicit sex. [based on Jeremiah 3,1: לאמור הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר, הישוב אליה עוד? הלא חנוף תחנף הארץ ההיא. "To say: 'if a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, can he ever go back to her? Would not such a land be defiled?'" The unusual position of the word לאמור at the beginning of this verse leads to interpreting it as a "verbal under-taking" such as in marriage Ed.] In verse three the Torah uses the word איש to hint that "a man" who is able to control his carnal urges should employ the legislation of making vows to help him resist the evil urge to sleep with people forbidden to him. In other words, the vow entered into by a Nazirite who wants to reinforce his resolution to resist sexual temptation, is acceptable to G'd. We have a number of Midrashim discussing situations when Biblical personalities needed to reinforce their resolution to resist such temptation. (Ruth 3,13, Vayikra Rabbah 23,11, Psalms 119,106 "I have sworn an oath to keep Your just rules.")

Following the Scriptural language here. For it is written (v. 3) “If a man makes a vow…to initiate a prohibition himself, he may not profane his word” which implies that he may not profane his word, however another [i.e., Sage] may "profane" it for him. Furthermore, it is written לאסור איסר ["to initiate a prohibition"] which implies that he prohibited a certain article upon himself and another person can come and release him from the prohibition. It is regarding “prohibition” the term “release” is appropriate, for איסור ["prohibition"] has the connotation of a knot, making the term מתיר [lit. "untying, releasing"] appropriate — just as one unties a knot. Hear from this that the term התרה ["release"] refers to the Sage.