Sometimes it’s Not Supposed to Make Sense
The descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben came, and they spoke to Moshe and to Elazar the kohen and to the princes of the community, saying: Atarot, Divon, Yazer, and Nimrah, Cheshbon, Elaleh, Sebam, Nevo, and Beon, the land that Hashem struck down before the congregation of Israel is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock. They said: If it pleases you, let this land be given to your servants as a heritage; do not take us across the Jordan. (Sefer BeMidbar 32:2-5)
The problem posed by the request of the tribes of Reuven and Gad
Parshat Mattot opens with a discussion of the laws regarding vows and oaths. The commentators provide a number of explanations for the placement of these laws at this juncture of the Torah’s narrative. One of the most interesting explanations is provided by Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra. Before considering his explanation, we must review another portion of the parasha.
The parasha closes with an account of a negotiation that took place between Moshe and the tribes of Reuven and Gad. Moshe and Bnai Yisrael had approached the Land of Israel from the east. Their path into the land required passing through the kingdoms of Sichon and Og. Both of these rulers opposed this passage. Bnai Yisrael engaged Sichon and his legions and then Og and his armies. Both were defeated and their lands were occupied by Bnai Yisrael.
Moshe did not plan to permanently occupy these lands. Instead, Yehoshua – Moshe’s successor – was to lead the nation in the conquest of the lands west of the Jordan. These lands would be divided among the tribes. The Jordan would be the eastern border of the Land of Israel.
In the above passages, the tribes of Reuven and Gad ask that Moshe allow them to settle in the lands captured from Sichon and Og – the lands east of the Jordan. Moshe initially rejects their request with a stern rebuke. He explains that their brethren would interpret their request as abandonment. This would undermine the nation’s courage and its commitment to the Land of Israel. Moshe reminds the tribes of Reuven and Gad that thirty-eight years earlier the nation had turned away from the challenge of conquering the land. In response to their rebellion against His will, Hashem condemned that generation to wander for its remaining years in the wilderness. Moshe declares to these tribes that they are risking precipitating a repeat of that terrible crisis.
We will then arm ourselves quickly [and go] before Bnai Yisrael until we have brought them to their place. Our children will reside in the fortified cities on account of the inhabitants of the land. We shall not return to our homes until each of the children of Israel has taken possession of his inheritance. (Sefer BeMidbar 32:17-18)
So build yourselves cities for your children and enclosures for your sheep, and what has proceeded from your mouth you shall do. (Sefer BeMidbar 32:24)
The tribes of Reuven and Gad vow to lead the nation into the Land of Israel
The tribes of Reuven and Gad take to heart Moshe’s concern and suggest the solution described in the first set of above passages. They will build fortified settlements for their families and cattle. After settling their families, the men will lead the nation in conquering the lands west of the Jordan. Only after conquering these lands and settling the other tribes in their homelands will they return to their own homes east of the Jordan. Moshe accepts this arrangement.
Ibn Ezra explains that the opening discussion in the parasha regarding vows and oaths is directly related to this narrative. As indicated in the final passage above, Moshe accepted the arrangement offered by the tribes of Reuven and Gad only after they presented their arrangement as a vow. Moshe was confident that the terms of the agreement would be fully observed because the tribes of Reuven and Gad expressed them as a vow. Moshe knew that the tribes would not violate their words.
The opening section of the parasha describes Moshe teaching to the nation the laws regarding vows. Moshe impressed upon the people the importance of adhering to such commitments. Because he concluded that the nation understood this lesson, he accepted the arrangement offered by the tribes of Reuven and Gad. He was confident that an arrangement expressed as a vow would be observed.
According to Ibn Ezra, the opening and closing sections of the parasha deal with a single theme. We are expected to adhere to our vows, promises, and verbal commitments. The parasha opens with laws regarding vows and it ends by describing a specific agreement that Moshe accepted based upon his conclusion that the nation understood the lesson taught in this opening section.
If a woman makes a vow to Hashem, or imposes a prohibition [upon herself] while in her father's house, in her youth, if her father heard her vow or her prohibition which she has prohibited upon herself, yet her father remains silent, all her vows shall stand, and any prohibition that she has imposed upon herself shall stand. But if her father hinders her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has imposed upon herself shall not stand. Hashem will forgive her because her father hindered her. (Sefer BeMidbar 30:4-6)
Vows may be annulled
In the context of the above discussion, it is notable that the opening section of the parasha focuses upon the circumstances under which a vow may be annulled. The Torah explicitly outlines specific circumstances but also provides for a more general mechanism that is fully developed only in the Oral Law. This is the principle of hatarat nedarim – the nullification of vows. According to this principle, an expert sage or a court composed of three lay people may nullify a person’s vow. The person must present the sage or the lay court with a valid basis for the nullification. In general, one must identify a circumstance or consideration that was known or knowable to the person when he or she made the vow but was not properly considered and weighed before entering into the commitment.
An example will be helpful in illustrating the principle of hatarat nedarim. Assume I made an oath to not eat cookies or cake for a month. Now, at the time I made the vow, I knew that I would be attending a wedding at the end of the month. The celebration would include an extensive buffet of unusual and remarkably enticing desserts. Despite this foreknowledge, I did not take the wedding into account when making my vow. As the wedding is approaching, I realize that my vow will ruin my experience at the wedding. I have recourse to the principle of hatarat nedarim. I can annul my vow and enjoy the wedding.
From this discussion it seems that the attitude of the Torah toward vows and oaths is paradoxical. Ibn Ezra explained that the theme uniting the opening and closing portions of the parasha is the importance of being true to one’s word and adhering to one’s verbal commitments. In contrast to the importance of keeping these commitments, the opening portion of the parasha also explains that vows can be annulled and our Oral Torah grants to the courts broad authority over vows and verbal commitments. How can the Torah’s emphasis upon being true to one’s words be reconciled with the various avenues it provides for annulling vows and verbal commitments?
Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of Bnai Yisrael, saying: This is the thing Hashem has commanded. If a man makes a vow to Hashem or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not make hollow his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do. (Sefer BeMidbar 30:2-3)
Vows may be annulled, but they are serious of verbal commitments
Maimonides and others suggest a solution to this problem. Their insight is based upon a careful analysis of the Torah’s specific phrasing. In discussing our obligation to observe our verbal commitments, the Torah commands, “One should not make his word hollow or profane”. Maimonides explains that the Torah uses this specific phrasing rather than an unequivocal statement prohibiting acting contrary to one’s word. He explains that the Torah is admonishing us to treat our verbal commitments seriously. We should not regard them as casual statements which can be lightly dismissed.
Maimonides explains that this phrasing provides a rationale for the authority granted by the Oral Law to the courts or an expert sage to annul vows and verbal commitments. One may not treat vows and verbal commitments lightly. These are serious commitments. However, the Torah provides a means through which a person can gain relief from an ill-considered vow. The person must seek the intercession of a sage or court. Because one cannot on one’s own accord dismiss a verbal obligation but requires the intercession of a sage or court, the seriousness of these commitments is reinforced.
Sefer HaChinuch expands on Maimonides’ insight. He explains that the Torah’s treatment of vows and verbal commitments is designed to balance two conflicting considerations. The Torah seeks to teach us that vows and verbal commitments are serious and should not be made or treated casually. Also, the Torah recognizes that we sometimes make such commitments without fully considering their impact. In order to reconcile these concerns, the Torah creates a means through which a person may gain relief from a vow or verbal commitment – the intercession of the sage or court. This arrangement preserves the message that these commitments are significant but provides one who makes an ill-considered vow a means of extrication.
Moshe addressed himself to only the elders
Nachmanides suggests that the above discussion provides a solution to another problem in the parasha. In the above passages introducing the discussion of vows, Moshe addresses himself to the leaders of the tribes. He teaches them the laws of vows and instructs them in the means by which vows and verbal commitments can be annulled. Usually, when Moshe teaches a commandment, he addresses the nation. Why are these remarks addressed to the leaders of the tribes?
Nachmanides suggests a novel response. In this instance, Moshe did not deliver his instruction to the entire nation. He communicated the laws regarding the annulment of vows to only the leaders. Why did Moshe teach these laws to the elders and not to the entire nation? Nachmanides suggests that the unusual transmission of these laws was required because of the issues outlined above. Vows and verbal commitments are serious. Yet, these commitments can be annulled. Above, the resolution of this apparent paradox is discussed. Also, the reason the Torah created this paradoxical arrangement is explored. However, these ideas are not simple and require careful and focused consideration. Moshe’s primary objective was that the people appreciate the significance of verbal commitments. In his instruction to the people, he stressed this lesson. He could not undermine that message by revealing that these commitments are not absolute and may be annulled. This information is important and Moshe communicated it to the elders of the nation. He empowered them to teach the people the laws regarding the annulment of vows as circumstances required. Through his circumscription, he preserved the nation’s commitment to observing their verbal commitments and also provided the means through which relief might be secured.
Nachmanides adds that this same consideration is reflected in the absence of any mention in the parasha of the authority of a sage or court to annul vows. The laws regarding this authority and how it may be used are included in the Oral Law and not the Written Torah. Nachmanides explains the absence from the Written Torah of any mention of this authority is designed to reinforce the message that our verbal commitments are serious. Mention of the authority of a sage or court to annul such commitments, would undermine this message.
An interesting lesson emerges from this discussion. The laws of the Torah are not simple and their meaning cannot be grasped through superficial study. The mitzvot are not banal platitudes or a set of easily understood instructions. For example, the laws regarding vows are paradoxical. Hashem instructed Moshe to communicate these laws to the nation with care and discretion. Moshe was even directed to conceal from the people aspects of the laws in order to not undermine the people’s understanding of the seriousness of verbal commitments or invite their incredulity.
There is a lesson here for the teacher and for the student. The teacher must recognize that questions and puzzlement are to be expected. Moshe anticipated bewilderment and put in place a strategy to respond. He decided that some of the laws he wished to transmit should not be immediately shared with the entire nation. Instead, the nation would learn these laws in installments. The teacher also must anticipate questions, welcome them, but prepare for them. As in the instance described above, it is sometimes best for the teacher to forego or postpone teaching a lesson, rather than confuse one’s students. A teacher’s enthusiasm very much impacts the effectiveness of his or her instruction. But this enthusiasm cannot alone decide whether material should be taught to the students. Instead, the teacher’s passion must be balanced with the needs and preparedness of the students. Material should be selected for instruction that will deepen and broaden the students’ understanding rather than create confusion and frustration.
The student also learns an important lesson from this discussion. The student should expect to sometimes be troubled by the meaning or message of a commandment. We should react to our perplexity with humility. Our confusion is a result of the profoundness of Torah. We must recognize that often the answers to our questions can only emerge after extended and intense study. Rather than responding to our perplexity with judgment and condescension, we should renew our search for understanding and insight.