Parshat Nedarim, Why Here?
Adapted from Rabbi Braun’s sermon in 5769
There are a number of questions that will always be better than the answers that we can come up with but that does not mean that we should not ask the question nor does it mean that we cannot learn from the proposed answers.
Sometimes a paragraph or Parsha in the Torah is so out of place, so blatant that it demands an explanation. One great example of this phenomenon is the section detailing the laws of Nedarim, or vows, that we find in the beginning of Parshat Matot. Last week we read of the transfer of leadership from Moshe to Joshua. Next week we begin Sefer Devarim and Moshe’s farewell speeches to the people. What we should find in between those two is the finishing of the desert business and preparation for entry in the land of Israel. Primarily, that is what we find. The second section of Matot deals with the war with Midyan, that is taking care of some old business. The Torah, in what is really the end of the desert narrative, then details the arrangement with the 2.5 tribes who wish to settle on the other side of the Jordan and how that works and when they will fight to capture the land. Parshat Masei recounts some of the past travels, a little nostalgia and then details records the details of the tribal division of the land upon entry, the cities of refuge that must be set up upon entry and concludes with certain marriage laws codified to ensure a proper division of the land upon entry into Israel.
These parshiot, as they should be are all about entry into the land of Israel. And one must ask the question, what place does the parsha of vows have here? We have numerous parshiot that contain multiple mitzvoth, would that not be a better place for them?
The classic medieval commentators all address the issue but do not satisfactorily answer the question.
The Eben Ezra simply writes, it must have happened here. Any student of the Torah knows that structure and theme are often more important than mere chronology in determining where a section is placed in the torah and Eben Ezra knew that as well. This is simply his way, and he’s done it elsewhere, of telling you “I have no idea”. Honest, but not helpful.
Both Rashbam and Ramban argue that this parsha is connected not to the rest of Matot but to the end of Parshat Pinchas which details the laws of the sacrifices to be brought daily and on the holidays. That section makes reference to nidreicherm, which are voluntary vows or offerings, as well. Thus the section dealing with vows comes as a reminder to fulfill those vows in a timely fashion.
This explanation has two problems:
• That could be done in one sentence and does not really have to be done now.
• if that is the case then this should appended to the end of Pinchas and not the beginning of Matot. If Rashbam and Ramban are correct then the sages of the mesorah who broke up the parshiot were off and wrong.
Rather it seems that we should be looking for an answer that explains why this section is placed at the beginning of Matot and what it has to do with the preparation for entry into the land of Israel.
Rabbi Yonatan Grossman, teacher and author in Israel, suggests that this parsha is actually there not to complement the parsha of the sacrifices but to contrast with it. The thirty second version of his shiur is that the end of Bamidbar, starting with the story of the daughters of Zelophachad highlights a tension between what he calls divine command and human initiative. Within that structure and analysis he argues that in our service of God, there are certainly divine commands, things that we must do such as the listed sacrifices, but there is also room for human initiative in the spiritual realm and that is represented by the section of the vows, the section dealing with our choice to obligate ourselves to do something or to refrain from a particular activity.
If you accept his analysis, and there is certainly merit to it, we can easily understand why it is placed here. In the desert there was a lot of teaching and learning but it was primarily a time of divine rule and command. That was necessary in the desert in order to form the people as God’s nation etc. But there is an acknowledgment here by the Torah itself that as you enter the land and begin normal life as God’s people for all of history there needs to be a role for people to play in their spiritual lives. There needs to be a place for human initiative in their religious lives for them to thrive and prosper. There is of course a certain tension between the two and our challenge is to try and find the correct balance but that is a topic for another time.
This approach is fascinating and it explains why the vow section is part of the story of the preparations for entry into the land.
Samson Raphael Hirsch offers another explanation. His linchpin is an interesting detail glossed over by the other commentators. Hirsch points out that this section is not addressed to the people of Israel; rather it is spoken to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel. I will do a little reformulating as he lost me a little bit in some of his formulations and would say as follows.
For a society to function in its own land and to achieve its national mission both the people and its leaders must be able to trust each other and know that people will do what they have said they will do. That quality or character trait builds trust between you and your neighbors and between you and your leaders and that trust is crucial for the building of God’s society in the land of Israel.
The more that I think about it the more I appreciate Hirsch’s comments. When a leader is elected the first question we ask is “will they live up to their campaign promises, or did they just say what people wanted to here?” That question is automatically assumed, here, in Israel and elsewhere. We have an implicit distrust of our leaders, unfortunately both secular and at times even the religious ones. Imagine says Hirsch what we could accomplish, how much more we can accomplish if we actually trusted one another and had an implicit trust in our leaders? It is certainly a point worthy of consideration.
Still there is a lingering feeling that the question remains better than the answer, of anyone has a different suggestion I am still searching for that answer that blows me away.
