Please click on image below to download & print

* * * * *

THE WEEKLY SIDRA- MATOS
Rabbi Moshe Greebel

This week’s Sidra commences with the importance of keeping one’s word, after committing himself. Because this is certainly a major obligation from the Torah, there are times when a more ‘Lomdishe’ (scholarly) approach to personal responsibility, will help us understand the matter better. Specifically, in this week’s Sidra, we deal with two forms of personal commitment- Neder (oath) and Sh’vua (swearing):

“If a man vows a Neder to HaShem, or swears a Sh’vua to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” (Bamidbar 30:3)

As far as the term Neder goes, there are two forms. The first is what our Rabbanim of blessed memory, called Nidrei Kodesh (holy oaths), where one committed himself to making an offering to the Bais HaMIkdash:

“When you shall vow a Neder to HaShem your G-d, you shall not be slack to pay it; for the HaShem your G-d will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.” (D’varim 23:22)

In this week’s Sidra however, we are not involved with Nidrei Kodesh, but rather, with what we term as Nidrei Issur (oaths of prohibition), whereby one will make a Neder prohibiting some thing to himself, an Issur Cheftzah (prohibition of an actual thing). A Sh’vua on the other hand, is one prohibiting himself to a certain thing, an Issur Gavra (prohibition of the man).

One who verbally prohibits a specific food upon himself, has made a Neder- an Issur Cheftza. One who verbally prohibits himself from a specific food, has made a Sh’vua- an Issur Gavra. Basically speaking, the difference between the Neder and the Sh’vua is a matter of phrasing.

But, to truly understand the difference between a Neder and a Sh’vua, a question must be posed. May one make a Neder or a Sh’vua that violates the Torah? The Gemarah in N’darim 16b discusses this matter in the following manner:

“Rav K’hana recited in the name of Rav Gidal, who said in Rav's name, and Rav Tivyumi recited in the name of Rav Giddal, who said in Sh’muel’s name, ‘From where do we know that one cannot make a Sh’vua to violate the Mitzvos? From the verse, “If a man . . . swears a Sh’vua . . . he shall not break his word.” (This implies,] he may not break his word, but he must break his word in respect of Heavenly matters……’”

Momentarily interrupting the Gemarah, when it comes to a Sh’vua in general, a man may not break his own personal word. However, if he made a Sh’vua which violates the Torah (in respect of Heavenly matters), he must break his word. The Gemarah resumes with Neder:

“…..Now, why are N’darim (oaths) different…..? Abaye answered, ‘In that case one says, “The pleasure of the Sukka is forbidden to me!” But in this case (Sh’vua), one says, “I swear that I shall not benefit from the Sukka!”’”

The Ran (Rabbeinu Nissim Ben R’uvain of Catalonia 1320-1376) of blessed memory, explained the opinion of Abaye by closely examining the original Passuk (verse):

“If a man vows a Neder to HaShem, or swears a Sh’vua to bind his soul with a bond…..”

Only when it comes to a Neder, does the Torah state ‘To HaShem,’ an expression not found when it comes to the adjoining Sh’vua. Why should more authority be given to the Neder than to the Sh’vua?

The Ran explained that the very nature of the Neder, an Issur Cheftza, is to cause to some degree, a 'reduction' of the Torah. ‘The pleasure of the Sukka is forbidden to me’ denotes that through that specific Sukka, he may not fulfill the Mitzvah, which is a reduction in the possible methods of accomplishing a Mitzvah. Yet, because the Neder has the expression ‘To HaShem,’ denoting a greater strictness, that reduction may not be broken.

However, continued the Ran, when it comes to a Sh’vua, an Issur Gavra, he may not attempt to prohibit himself from accomplishing a Mitzvah, for which he is already commanded in the Torah. The expression ‘To HaShem’ is not present with a Sh’vua, because if it violates the Torah, he must break his word. But, there is more to this discussion.

The celebrated Rav Baruch Epstein (1860-1941) of blessed memory, explained this matter, by beginning with a basic rule, found throughout Gemarah- Yoma 73a, N’darim 8a, Nazir 4a, Sh’vuos 21b, 23b, 25a-b, 27a, Makkos 22a:

“He (every Jew) stands as a Mushba (one who is sworn with a Sh’vua to keep all the Mitzvos) from Har Sinai!”

Hence, expounded Rav Baruch, since every Jew stood at Sinai, and made a Sh’vua committing himself to the entirety of Torah, any other Sh’vua he will make later in his life to violate the Torah, is immediately null and void.

However, only a Sh’vua was made by each and every Jew at Sinai, explained Rav Baruch, not a Neder. And, since the original Sh’vua at Sinai to fulfill the entire Torah, nullifies any later Sh’vua not to fulfill it, his word must be broken.

This is not so with a Neder, for while the Neder does in some way restrict the performance methods of a Mitzvah, it still allows for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah in other ways. And, because it is stamped with ‘To HaShem,’ one’s word cannot be broken.

One way or the other, it is incumbent upon us from the dictates of the Torah, to follow through and fulfill those verbal commitments we make. Because of man’s ability to speak, he is a very special creation in the eyes of HaShem. And, it follows, because his ability to speak makes man distinctive, his speech must always be on a high and refined level, and never misused.

Simply because it does not possess the ability to speak, a cow has never misused the gift of speech. Yet, if a man misuses his speech, he finds himself on a lower level in the eyes of HaShem, than even the cow.

We must continuously remember that we are always seen in the eyes of others through our words, and how much our words really mean. Let us always be mindful to speak carefully, and always follow through in everything we say.

May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times. Good Shabbos.