Shabbat Parshat Matot-Masei, 5769

Summary: Rav Granatstein spoke on the ability to be ‘matir neder’ – to undo a vow that has been taken – and why we have this allowance in the law.

Parashat Matot opens with the laws of one who takes an oath or a vow. We can get a context for these laws by looking at the end of last week’s parasha, Parashat Pinchas. In Parashat Pinchas, the parasha reviews the different sacrifices that are brought on the holidays. That parasha ends “These are what you will make/offer to Hashem on your holidays, aside from your [personal gifts that are brought to the beit hamikdash]. And Moshe spoke to the Jewish people all that Hashem had commanded him.” On the face of it, this gives us the lead in to our parasha. Last week – we discussed the holiday sacrifices and in that context made reference to the personal sacrifices offered by man; now we move to the laws of the personal sacrifices – those promised by man rather than those governed by the calendar. [Rashi on last week’s parasha explains the reference to the personal sacrifices as a suggestion to us that when we come to the Mikdash on the holidays, it’s a good time to bring any sacrifices that we had promised during the year.]

The last verse, “And Moshe . . . “ doesn’t quite fit, in light of this, in that this separates the flow from the discussion in last week’s parasha to this week’s. Rashi and the Ramban address this. In the Ramban’s explanation, he suggests that this verse may be emphasizing the difference between the personal neder and the sacrifices of the holidays; the personal neder is subject to a single expert or three regular people/judges who can allow/undo the neder while the holiday sacrifices depend on calendar, with three expert judges sanctifying the new moon.

The concept of being ‘matir neder’ requires explanation. Why should we have this allowance? The Gemara emphasizes the importance of meaning what you say – yes or no should mean yes or no. Here – we are allowing you to go against what you said, and even though you backed it up with a neder. Moreover, the verse says ‘do not nullify/break what you said, like all that you said – do;’ allowing you to get out of the neder doesn’t seem to fit with this emphasis. [And we know historically, this concept caused us trouble with the sectarians who did not accept the oral law. Our allowing this gave them a claim against us that we weren’t adhering to the Torah. We don’t need to answer their claims but we can assume that they were intelligent people and their question is not a stupid one.] To better understand this allowance, we will look at how neder works; the way to do this, is to compare and contrast a neder with a shavuah, or oath.

An oath is on an action. For example, an oath that I will / will not eat fruit. A neder is on a specific object or set of objects. For example, a neder that all fruits in the world are prohibited to me. In the Brisker learning, this is the difference between an ‘isur gavra’ – a prohibition on the person – and an isur cheftza – a prohibition on an object. In the Halacha, we have an important difference between these two methods of creating prohibitions/obligations on yourself. With regard to a shavuah (“oath”), if you take an oath that goes against the Torah, we say you are already sworn to do the mitzvot from when we were at Sinai and the new oath cannot apply to overturn the one that is currently in place. However, if you took an oath for example that “all sukkot in the world should be prohibited from me,” that would apply and de facto, you would not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. The reasoning is that the focus is on the object and your not obligation vis a vis the object. Even though the neder is causing you to not be able to do a mitzvah, since the neder is not directed against the mitzvah directly, the vow stands.

Coming back to our parshiot, the holiday sacrifices depend on the calendar. And – while the courts have the authority to make the calendar and set the dates – they do have rules they have to follow: the holidays must be on separate days, the new month itself must begin on one of two days, etc. In short, there is an order that must be followed. By contrast, we have the personal vows and oaths which are open for anyone to take oneself. And when it comes to a vow, this can be done even to a point where a mitzvah is no longer doable.

We first see the power of speech being emphasized in the story of the creation of Adam. It says that Hashem blew into man’s nostrils. Onkelos comments there that a ‘ruach mellalela’ filled man. Rashi quotes this and explains that this refers to man’s power of speech. Speech allows man to voice his thoughts and give expression to them. And the first command given to man is to name the animals – using his power of speech to categorize. Speech is presented as a power that elevates man over the animals.

In our parashah, the phrase ‘zeh hadavar’ (this is the thing) appears in the laws of vows and oaths. This same language appears in Parashat Acharei Mot (Vayikra, 17:2) in the prohibition of offering a sacrifice outside of the Mikdash. The Gemara makes a gzeira shava (learns rules from one to the other, because of the language similarity, not because of the discussions being similar) and learns that just as there is the opportunity to go to a wise man and allow a vow, as if it had not been taken, so too with regard to offering sacrifices outside the Mikdash – if one has done so, one can approach a wise man who can allow the designation of the animal as holy / Hekdesh and retroactively, make it that nothing wrong was done with the offering outside the Mikdash.

The Rambam at the end of the laws of nedarim, cites our Sages that one who takes a neder it’s as if he has built a bamah – a personal altar. The Rambam is quoting a Gemara in Nedarim, 22a. There Rav Natan says that one who takes a neder, it’s as if he has built a bamah and one who then is mekayem (upholds) the neder, it’s as if he has offered a sacrifice on that bamah (which is prohibited with a punishment of karet).

What is the meaning of this? The Ran there cites the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi explains that just like the Torah warned us to bring certain sacrifices inside the Mikdash and not to add to these sacrifices, so too the Torah has given us certain prohibitions and we are not to add on to these prohibitions. Why? The personal altar reflects a breakdown in the community. Each person worshipping in his own way and time. In broader terms, people could accept all sorts of laws / prohibitions on themselves and in doing so – dilute the effect and power of those mandated in the Torah. The message of the Torah can get diluted as we add these prohibitions. Here – quantity takes away from the quality or unique aspect of what we were given.

The laws of neder and oath are in place to allow their good use. For example, someone who is a recovering alcoholic who has managed through recovery and is now on the mend – this person may benefit from an additional prohibition accepted on himself, to shore up the fight he now has. But people can start accepting things that are actually harmful to their spiritual well being. Man has the power of speech but man makes mistakes. Citing the Baron Acton,”Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. . . “ The laws of matir neder are a practical necessity and a reminder to us that we must be careful in our vows as man does make mistakes.