 |
| Artwork: Carnage Altar, by James Paick |
Parashas Mattos: Bli Neder
Pasrashas Mattos opens with the laws of nedarim (vows) and shavuos (oaths). It begins with a single pasuk which is the source of the institution of nedarim: "If a man takes a vow to Hashem, or swears an oath to establish a prohibition upon himself, he shall not desecrate his word; according to whatever comes from his mouth shall he do" (Bamidbar 30:3). The parashah continues with a far more extensive discussion about the laws of revoking nedarim.
The sequence and treatment of this topic in the pesukim reflects the Torah's wary stance when it comes to nedarim. The Torah's position is summed up by the Rambam at the conclusion of Hilchos Nedarim. He begins by identifying the proper use of nedarim:
13:23 - If a person makes nedarim in order to fine-tune his character traits and correct his behavior – this is beautiful and praiseworthy. How so? If a person was a glutton and [took a neder] forbidding himself to eat meat for a year or two; or if a person who was addicted to wine [took a neder] forbidding himself to drink wine for an extended period of time, or [forbidding] himself to ever become intoxicated; likewise, if a person who chased after bribes and was overexcited about wealth [took a neder] forbidding himself to accept gifts or to benefit from people in a certain region; similarly, if a person who was haughty on account of his own beauty took a neder nazir (a nazirite vow); and the same for all similar cases – all of these are paths of avodah la’Shem (divine service). Regarding these nedarim and those like them, the Sages said: “nedarim are a safeguard for restraint” (Avos 3:13).
While nedarim can be useful if used for the purposes described above, the Torah recognizes the danger they pose. For this reason, the Torah regards nedarim as an extreme measure - a tool to be used only when absolutely necessary. The Rambam continues:
13:24 - Even though these [vows] constitute avodas Hashem, a person should not be excessive in taking prohibitory vows, and he should not get into the habit of making them. Instead, he should he should abstain from those things from which one should abstain without taking a vow.Rambam concludes these cautionary remarks about nedarim by citing a strongly worded Gemara:
13:25 - The Sages said: "Anyone who makes a vow is considered as though he built a bamah (a private altar)" (Nedarim 22a). And if he transgressed and made a neder, it is a mitzvah to ask a chacham (wise man) to absolve it, so that he will not be faced with a stumbling block.
Building a bamah a serious offense. The question is: How is making a neder comparable to building a bamah? Moreover, the statement cited by the Rambam concludes by saying: "and one who fulfills his neder is considered as though he offered a korban (sacrifice) on [his bamah]." This is even more difficult to understand: even if making a neder is regarded as "bad," isn't failing to fulfill it worse? If so, how can the Gemara imply that making a neder and fulfilling it is worse than making a neder and not fulfilling it?
The Ran addresses both of these questions in his commentary on our Gemara. Here is his explanation:
It seems to me that we compare [one who makes a neder] to one who builds a bamah because the one who makes a neder thinks he is doing a mitzvah. [His reasoning is that] since the Torah prohibited certain things, he is also [is following the path of Torah by] prohibiting [additional] things for himself. For this reason [we tell him] that he is making an error. To the contrary - he is comparable to one who builds a bamah, for even though the Torah commanded us to bring korbanos inside [the Beis ha'Mikdash], it prohibited us from adding to this by building a bamah and bringing korbanos outside [of the Beis ha'Mikdash]. Here, too, even though the Torah prohibited what it prohibited, [nevertheless,] when this person adds to what the Torah prohibited, he is committing an offense. Similarly, [the Sages] said in Talmud Yerushalmi: "Isn't it enough what the Torah prohibited you, that you must go and prohibit additional things for yourself?" This is the same reason why it uses the expression of "[bringing] a korban [on a bamah]": since his korban is not favorable [in God's eyes], it is tantamount to him building a bamah and sacrificing a korban outside [of the Beis ha'Mikdash].
The Ran learns that this Gemara is only talking about someone who makes a neder which is not designed "in order to fine-tune his character traits and correct his behavior" or "as a safeguard for restraint." This individual believes that there is an inherent value in obeying the Torah's prohibitions - that restricting oneself is valuable in and of itself, not as a means of perfecting oneself. Consequently, to his mind, the more prohibitions there are to follow, the more opportunities for avodas Hashem. And since the Torah offers a mechanism by which he can create extra prohibitions, he will be able to increase his reward even more,. All he has to do is make and follow more nedarim.
According to the Ran, the Gemara's comparison to building a bamah is intended to highlight the mistake made by such an individual. Just as korbanos, per se, do not constitute avodas Hashem - or else He would have permitted them to be offered outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash - so too, keeping prohibitions, per se, is not avodas Hashem. And just as the only korbanos which find favor in God's eyes are those which are brought within the framework and parameters the Torah system, so too, the only nedarim which find favor in God's eyes are those which facilitate the Torah's objectives.
Now we can understand why fulfilling such a neder is like offering a korban on a bamah. If a person builds a bamah, he has definitely acted improperly, but at least he hasn't violated the major Torah prohibition of offering korbanos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash - an act which is not only punishable by kareis (spiritual excision), but also diminishes the sanctity of the Beis ha'Mikdash as the exclusive location for avodas ha'korbanos (the sacrificial service). Likewise, a person who makes an unnecessary neder is certainly acting improperly, but if he fails to fulfill it, then even though he violates a Torah prohibition, at least he hasn't actually augmented his avodas Hashem by creating and keeping his own prohibitions. In contrast, someone who makes unnecessary nedarim and religiously adheres to them in the same way he adheres to the laws of the Torah - such a person has diminished the sanctity of Hashem's perfect Torah by diluting the avodah-system commanded therein with his own, personal expressions of religiosity. From a halachic standpoint, a person who keeps his unnecessary nedarim is better off, but from a philosophical standpoint, he has caused more harm to his soul that a person who violated his nedarim.
There is a widespread practice of saying "bli neder" when making statements of commitment. Some people do this as a precaution against unintentionally obligating themselves nedarim, while others just do it out of habit. This is not the place to conduct an analysis of this practice. However, I have a suggestion to make. Whenever you say or hear the phrase "bli neder," think of it as an opportunity to review this idea about nedarim. Regardless of the intent of the speaker, the words "bli neder" express the Torah's philosophy of vow-making, namely, that we should strive to keep Torah without feeling the need to invent our own stringencies. "The Torah of Hashem is perfect" (Tehilim 19:8).
Now we can understand why fulfilling such a neder is like offering a korban on a bamah. If a person builds a bamah, he has definitely acted improperly, but at least he hasn't violated the major Torah prohibition of offering korbanos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash - an act which is not only punishable by kareis (spiritual excision), but also diminishes the sanctity of the Beis ha'Mikdash as the exclusive location for avodas ha'korbanos (the sacrificial service). Likewise, a person who makes an unnecessary neder is certainly acting improperly, but if he fails to fulfill it, then even though he violates a Torah prohibition, at least he hasn't actually augmented his avodas Hashem by creating and keeping his own prohibitions. In contrast, someone who makes unnecessary nedarim and religiously adheres to them in the same way he adheres to the laws of the Torah - such a person has diminished the sanctity of Hashem's perfect Torah by diluting the avodah-system commanded therein with his own, personal expressions of religiosity. From a halachic standpoint, a person who keeps his unnecessary nedarim is better off, but from a philosophical standpoint, he has caused more harm to his soul that a person who violated his nedarim.
There is a widespread practice of saying "bli neder" when making statements of commitment. Some people do this as a precaution against unintentionally obligating themselves nedarim, while others just do it out of habit. This is not the place to conduct an analysis of this practice. However, I have a suggestion to make. Whenever you say or hear the phrase "bli neder," think of it as an opportunity to review this idea about nedarim. Regardless of the intent of the speaker, the words "bli neder" express the Torah's philosophy of vow-making, namely, that we should strive to keep Torah without feeling the need to invent our own stringencies. "The Torah of Hashem is perfect" (Tehilim 19:8).
Great post and really nice takeaway at the end.
ReplyDeleteThe Ran doesn't make sense to me. How is dude learning that extra prohibitions are bad from a prohibition? Doesn't the prohibition against bamos confirm his intuition that there should be prohibitions on all bad stuff?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your question. I assume that by "dude" you're referring to the unnecessary vow-maker. If so, he is NOT learning that extra prohibitions are bad from a prohibition. He is learning that prohibitions are GOOD - and the more, the merrier. I didn't want to say this in the post itself, but I think the modern-day version of this guy is the people who take on chumrah after chumrah.
DeleteDude is the unnecessary vote maker, but we try to teach him: For this reason [we tell him] that he is making an error. To the contrary - he is comparable to one who builds a bamah, for even though the Torah commanded us to bring korbanos inside [the Beis ha'Mikdash], it prohibited us from adding to this by building a bamah and bringing korbanos outside [of the Beis ha'Mikdash]. Here, too, even though the Torah prohibited what it prohibited, [nevertheless,] when this person adds to what the Torah prohibited, he is committing an offense.
DeleteMy question is wrt "here to..." to the end of the excerpt. We try to teach him not to go crazy with extra prohibitions, but the argument seems to support him! He says, there's tons of prohibitions, so I'm gonna maintain that trend, then we say, nonono don't do that, and here's yet another lav from the Torah. But that's exactly his argument for adding Lavin! That there's tons of lavin, so he'll pick up where the Torah left off
But taking an unnecessary neder ISN'T a lav. It's discouraged, but it's not prohibited. The message we are giving him is, "It is true that the Torah allows us to create additional prohibitions for ourselves, but this is something that you should basically never do."
DeletePlus, even if it were a lav to make such a neder, I don't think your reasoning would play out, since it ignores the unique character of a prohibition which prohibits adding new prohibitions. I don't think a person would say, "Oh yeah? Well if the Torah is so against making unnecessary prohibitions, then why does it prohibit making unnecessary prohibitions?" The response would be clear: "This IS a necessary prohibition. If the Torah didn't prohibit making unnecessary prohibitions, then we wouldn't know that this is bad!" To what may this be compared? To a king who makes a law which prohibits himself from making additional laws. Even an anti-monarchist wouldn't accuse the king of abusing his power by making an additional law, since it is clear that this additional law is designed to limit his power.
I'll think about it. I don't totally understand. But I am not discouraged! I'll try again. I didn't mean to say that making the unnecessary vows was a lav. "here's yet another lav from the Torah" the lav there being the prohibition against bamos.
DeleteSo my question is, the lesson we teach dude is that the Torah's prohibitions are, in general, sufficient. Cool. But dude's Hava Amina is that the Torah has a generally pro-lav attitude. So how can he be swayed from that intuition by showing him a lav (the lav of bamos)? How is that effective didactically? Doesn't the medium (a lav) undermine the message (that dude's intuition that the Torah is pro-lav is incorrect)? It doesn't seem to be an argument which would be convincing to this particular dude
Ah. Now I think I understand your question. I shall think about it as well.
DeleteFraming it this way makes it a problem of education, but that's just how I framed the question to get it clear. The implication I mean to make, though, is that if hypothetical dude can't learn it, it's not cuz he's a hypothetical dummy, but because the idea itself is at best muddled and at worse internally inconsistent or even worse! contradictory
DeleteI'm not sure if this is a different approach or the same, but the equation of nedarim to bamah could be that just like the desire to "personalize" worship by creating your own bamah or introducing your own practices is detrimental and removes you from God, so too the nedarim are a way of introducing your own practices. By saying that the way to serve God is through "additional" means that God didn't prescribe, you are essentially creating your own form of worship, your own bamah. Whereas, when you take nedarim in order to conform your actions to the prescribed service of God, that is what the Rambam says is the proper use of nedarim.
ReplyDelete(although I disagree with your premise ill accept it for the sake of argument) but nedarim only have significance in the first place because the Torah acknowledges them. how is using a Torah construct essentially creating your own form of worship?
DeleteThe Torah gives you an avenue for personal perfection. Whether the Torah fully endorses it or not, I don't know (i.e. the machlokes of is the korban chatas for nazir because he became a nazir or he's leaving a "perfected" state). But from what I'm saying, even though the Torah allows you this avenue, using the vehicle of nedarim to essentially create a new practice is wrong. The Torah says don't eat certain things. So I'm a glutton and a way I'll use to conform myself to Torah is by taking a neder not to eat meat for a year. But if I take an open ended neder to not eat meat or that I accept some other practice on myself that the Torah didn't mandate, I'm saying this additional practice has merit or that I think this is a good method for avodas Hashem.
DeleteNice idea, but your point at the end only applies to a 'bli neder' which is about non-mitzvot.
ReplyDeleteMy experience has been that generally 'bli neder' is said with respect to mitzvot (most commonly talmud torah (e.g. 'I will finish the sugiah today, bli neder' , 'bli neder, we will learn for an hour tomorrow ') though often tzedakah as well (e.g. bli neder, 'I will donate 20$ to the shul'). I think this is a different idea, which is recognizing that things often come up which make us unable to do what we plan (e.g. the sugiah has new difficulties, or getting sick) therefore we characterize the statement as a general plan and not a commitment by saying 'bli neder', so as to avoid transgressing a neder (since with regard to learning torah a commitment has the implication of being a neder see hilchos nedarim 1:29).
Thanks. I am aware. I must admit that because I have been hanging out in a largely baal teshuvah community for the past few weeks, I probably hear "bli neder" said about non-mitzvah statements more often than you do.
DeleteSame goes for the word "minhag", which people around here love to use for ANY thing that they do on a regular basis, even though it has nothing to do with halacha or Judaism.
DeleteI was just wondering, given that we see we can be matir a neder and, if I understand Rashi correctly, we should be matir a neder, why are there so many instances in Nach where someone made a neder and wasn't matir it, even to significant detriment?
ReplyDeletedifferent reasons. Jephath, for instance, according to midrash, just didnt wanna go to Pinchas to be matir cuz of his high office and Pinchas didnt wanna go to him because of his own high office
DeleteJephtah*
Delete