נדרים והפרתן בפרשת מטות

Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: "This is the matter that Hashem has commanded." Here, Moshe is addressing the Roshai HaMatos—the leaders of the tribes—rather than the entire nation directly, which is different from the usual formula where Moshe is told to speak to all of Bnei Yisrael. Rashi explains that this was actually the standard procedure: Moshe would first teach the leaders, giving them honor by instructing them before the rest of the people, and only afterwards would he teach all of Bnei Yisrael. This is learned from a pasuk in Shemos, where it says that Aharon and all the leaders returned to Moshe, and then Moshe spoke to them, and only after that did all of Bnei Yisrael approach. The reason the Torah emphasizes this order here is to teach us a halacha about annulling vows: that a single expert (yachid mumcheh) can annul vows, and if there is no expert, then three ordinary people can do so. Although the pasuk here does not openly discuss a chacham (sage) annulling vows—it focuses more on the husband—the Gemara derives this halacha from here. There is also a discussion about whether perhaps Moshe only taught this section to the leaders, but the Torah uses the phrase "zeh hadavar" (this is the matter), which is also used in the context of korbanos outside the Mishkan, where it is clear that the instruction was given to Aharon, his sons, and all of Bnei Yisrael. So too here, the instruction was for everyone, not just the leaders. The Torah is teaching us both the order of transmission and the halacha regarding annulling vows.

Rashi explains the phrase "Roshai HaMatos"—the heads of the tribes. Moshe gave honor to the leaders by teaching them first, and only afterwards to all of Bnei Yisrael. How do we know that this was the case with other commandments as well? The Torah says in Shemos, "Aharon and all the leaders of the community returned to him, and Moshe spoke to them; after that, all of Bnei Yisrael approached." The Torah mentions this order here to teach that the annulment of vows can be done by a single expert, and if there is no expert, then by three ordinary people. One might think that Moshe only taught this section to the leaders, but the Torah says here "zeh hadavar" (this is the matter), and it also says "zeh hadavar" in the context of slaughtering offerings outside the Mishkan. Just as there, the instruction was given to Aharon, his sons, and all of Bnei Yisrael, so too here, it was said to everyone. The Yerushalmi also teaches that this was the order: first the leaders, then the people, and the reason it is mentioned here is to teach the halacha of annulling vows. Rashi discusses this elsewhere as well, regarding the order of transmission and the role of Elazar after Aharon's passing.

"Zeh hadavar"—this is the matter. Rashi explains that Moshe prophesied using the phrase "zeh hadavar" (this is the matter), while other prophets would say "ko amar Hashem" (so says Hashem). Moshe's prophecy was on a higher level, as "zeh hadavar" is a more direct and clear expression. Another interpretation is that "zeh hadavar" is an exclusion, teaching that the chacham (sage) annuls a vow using the language of "hatarah" (release), while the husband uses the language of "hafarah" (annulment), as the Torah uses these terms here. If they switch the terms—if the chacham uses "hafarah" or the husband uses "hatarah"—then the vow is not annulled or permitted; it must be done exactly as prescribed. Rashi also notes that the main source for the ability of a chacham to annul vows is a halacha leMoshe miSinai (an oral tradition from Sinai), as the pasuk here only hints at it. The Gemara learns from the phrase "lo yachel devaro" (he shall not profane his word) that there is a way to annul vows, but the main source is the oral tradition.

"Ish ki yidor neder laHashem o hishava shvuah le'esor issar al nafsho lo yachel devaro kechol hayotzei mipiv ya'aseh"—If a man makes a vow to Hashem or swears an oath to prohibit something upon himself, he must not profane his word; he must do whatever comes out of his mouth. The Torah is teaching that there are two ways a person can prohibit something upon himself: either by making a neder (vow) or a shvuah (oath). For example, a person can say, "This item is prohibited to me," or "I swear I will not eat this." Once he makes such a vow or oath, he cannot treat his words lightly; he must fulfill what he has promised. The Torah emphasizes the seriousness of keeping one's word in matters of vows and oaths.

Rashi explains the word "neder"—a vow. This refers to someone who says, "It is upon me as a konam (a substitute term for neder) that I will not eat or not do a certain thing." The Gemara equates the word "konam" with neder. If a person makes such a vow, he must not treat his word lightly. Rashi raises the question: What if someone swears to do something forbidden, like eating neveilos (non-kosher meat)? Should the rule of "whatever comes out of his mouth he shall do" apply even then? The Torah answers, "le'esor issar"—to prohibit what is permitted, not to permit what is forbidden. In other words, vows and oaths can only create new prohibitions on things that are otherwise permitted, not the other way around.

"Lo yachel devaro"—he shall not profane his word. Rashi explains that this means he should not make his words chullin (mundane or profane); he should not treat them as insignificant. In other words, he must not desecrate his words by failing to fulfill his vow or oath.

The verse says, "And a woman, if she vows a vow to Hashem and binds herself by a prohibition in her father's house, in her youth." The teacher explains that this is referring to a woman who makes a vow while she is still under her father's jurisdiction. The phrase "in her father's house" does not necessarily mean she is physically living there, but rather that she is still under his authority. This applies when she is a naira, which is from age 12 to 12 and a half. The teacher notes that Rashi will clarify this further. The verse is not talking about a minor (under 12), whose vow is not valid, nor about an adult (over 12 and a half), who is no longer under her father's authority for the purposes of annulling vows. The teacher also points out that Rashi will explain the details of these age categories and their implications for the validity of her vows and the father's ability to annul them.

On the words "in her father's house," Rashi explains that this means under her father's jurisdiction, even if she is not physically living in his house. The teacher elaborates that the phrase is to be understood in a broader sense: as long as she is under her father's authority, the laws of the father's ability to annul her vows apply, regardless of her actual residence.

On the words "in her youth," Rashi says this excludes both a minor and a fully mature woman. The teacher explains that a minor (under 12) cannot have her vows recognized at all, so the laws of annulment do not apply. A fully mature woman (over 12 and a half) is no longer under her father's authority for these purposes. Rashi brings down from Chazal that from age 11 and one day, a girl's vows are checked—if she understands for whom she is making the vow or the consecration, then her vow is valid. Once she reaches 12 years and one day, her vows are accepted without checking. The teacher clarifies that the phrase "in her youth" is to exclude a minor whose vows are not valid, but for a girl aged 11 and up, if she knows what she is doing, her vow can be valid. Once she is 12, her vow is automatically valid, and the laws of annulment apply as described.

The verse says, "And her father hears her vow and the prohibition she has imposed on herself, and her father is silent—then all her vows and prohibitions will stand." The teacher explains that if the father hears about his daughter's vow and does not object or annul it, then all her vows and prohibitions remain in force. She is obligated to keep them. The silence of the father is considered agreement, and the vows are binding upon her.

The verse says, "But if her father prevents her on the day he hears, all her vows and prohibitions that she imposed on herself will not stand, and Hashem will forgive her, because her father prevented her." The teacher explains that if the father annuls her vow on the day he hears about it, then none of her vows or prohibitions stand. Even if she does not know that her father annulled her vow and she violates it, Hashem will forgive her, since the vow was not actually in effect due to the father's annulment. The teacher notes that the verse uses the phrase "Hashem will forgive her" to indicate that even though she did not realize her vow was annulled, and she violated it, she still receives forgiveness because the annulment was effective.

On the words "if her father prevents her," Rashi explains that this means if he stops her from fulfilling the vow, i.e., he annuls it. The teacher says that the term "prevents" here means to annul or remove the vow. Rashi brings proofs from other verses where similar language is used to mean preventing or removing something. The teacher points out that the simple meaning is to prevent or remove, and Rashi brings several scriptural examples to show this usage. The teacher also notes that Rashi questions the order of the verses Rashi brings as proofs, but leaves that for further study.

On the words "and Hashem will forgive her," Rashi asks: what is the verse talking about? The teacher explains that this refers to a woman who made a vow to be a nazir, and her father (or husband) annulled it, but she did not know it was annulled and violated the vow (for example, by drinking wine or becoming impure to the dead). In this case, she needs forgiveness even though the vow was not actually in effect. The teacher notes that if someone whose vow was annulled still needs forgiveness for violating it unknowingly, then certainly someone whose vow was not annulled and violates it needs forgiveness even more. This is a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that Rashi brings out from the verse.

The verse says, "And if she will be to a man, and her vows are upon her, or an utterance of her lips by which she bound herself." The teacher explains that this refers to a woman who is betrothed (not yet fully married). Rashi will clarify that this is not talking about a married woman, since that is discussed in a later verse. In the case of a betrothed woman, both her father and her future husband have the power to annul her vows. If only one of them annuls it, the vow is not annulled; both must do so. If either one establishes the vow, it stands. The teacher elaborates that the verse is teaching the unique case of a betrothed woman, where both the father and the husband-to-be must act together regarding her vows. The teacher also notes the difference between the terms "vows" and "utterance of her lips" in the verse, and that the specifics of these expressions are discussed further in the commentaries.

Rashi explains the phrase "Ve'im hoyo tiheyeh le'ish" as referring to an arusa, a betrothed woman. He clarifies that this is not talking about a nesuah, a fully married woman. How do we know? Because later the Torah says, "Ve'im beis isha nodrah," which refers to a married woman, so here must be talking about an arusa. The Torah is coming to differentiate in this case, that both her father and her husband (meaning her betrothed) have the power to annul her vows. If only the father annuls and not the husband, or only the husband annuls and not the father, then the vow is not annulled. And certainly, if one of them actively upholds the vow, it is not annulled. Both must annul for the annulment to take effect.

Rashi explains the phrase "u'nidareha aleha" to mean that she made the vow while still in her father's house, and her father did not hear about it, so it was neither annulled nor upheld. In this case, the vow remains upon her, since neither annulment nor confirmation occurred.

This verse discusses the case where a woman's husband hears about her vow on the day he hears it and remains silent. If he does not object or annul it, then all her vows and prohibitions that she imposed upon herself stand—they are valid and binding. The teacher explains that the silence of the husband is considered agreement, and therefore her vows are established. If the husband is quiet, it is as if he is confirming the vow, and it stands. This is the Torah's way of showing that the husband's silence is considered consent, and the vow is not annulled.

Rashi comments on the phrase "v'shama isha v'gomer" to teach that if the husband upholds the vow, then it is indeed upheld. The teacher points out that this is the source that the husband's confirmation is effective and the vow stands.

This verse discusses the case where, on the day the husband hears about the vow, he annuls it—he removes it from her. The Torah says, "ve'heifer es nidrah asher aleha v'es miftas sfaseha asher osra al nafsha, v'Hashem yislach lah"—he annuls her vow and the expressions of her lips that she prohibited upon herself, and Hashem will forgive her. The teacher explains that this is talking about a case where the husband annuls the vow, but she did not know that it was annulled, and she transgresses it anyway. For example, she made a vow to be a nazirah, and then the husband annulled it, but she didn't know and drank wine or became tamei l'meisim. Even though the vow was annulled, she still needs forgiveness because she acted as if the vow was in force. The teacher elaborates that if even someone whose vow was annulled needs forgiveness, how much more so someone whose vow was not annulled and transgresses it. The Torah is teaching us the importance of being careful with vows and the process of annulment.

Rashi explains the phrase "ve'heifer es nidrah asher aleha"—you might think that even if only the husband annulled the vow, and not the father, it would be annulled. But the Torah says earlier, "binureha beis aviha," that as long as she is a naira in her father's domain, the father must also annul the vow. So, both the father and the husband must annul for the annulment to take effect. If only the husband annuls, and the father does not, the vow is not annulled. This is learned from the verse that specifies her being in her youth in her father's house.

This verse discusses the case of a widow or a divorced woman. The Torah says, "Neder almana u'grusha kol asher asra al nafsha yakum aleha"—the vow of a widow or a divorced woman, anything she prohibits upon herself, stands. The teacher explains that this is because she is no longer under the jurisdiction of her father or her husband. Once she is widowed or divorced, even if she is still a naira, her vows are binding upon herself, and no one else can annul them. The verse is talking about a woman who was widowed from marriage, not just from betrothal. If she was only betrothed and her husband died, she returns to her father's domain, and the father can annul her vows. But if she was married and is now widowed or divorced, her vows stand and are binding on her alone.

Rashi explains the phrase "kol asher asra al nafsha yakum aleha"—this is because she is not under the jurisdiction of her father or her husband. The verse is speaking about a widow from marriage. But if she was widowed from betrothal, and the husband died before marriage, she reverts to her father's jurisdiction, and the father can annul her vows. The teacher clarifies that once a woman is married, the father loses the right to annul her vows, and once she is divorced or widowed, the husband loses that right. Only in the case of a betrothed woman who becomes widowed does she return to her father's domain.

This verse is talking about a woman who makes a vow in the house of her husband. The teacher explains that now the Torah is discussing a married woman, meaning that the father is no longer involved in annulling her vows. If she makes a vow or prohibits something upon herself with a shvua, while she is already married and in her husband's house, the laws that follow will pertain to the husband's ability to uphold or annul her vows. The teacher notes that the language of the verse includes both a neder and an isur, and he points out that the verse uses the phrase, 'or she prohibits a prohibition upon herself with a shvua.' He also mentions that the duplication of the language—neder and isur—should be looked into further in the commentaries, as it may indicate two types of prohibitions or may simply be a way of expressing the seriousness of the vow.

On the phrase Ve'im Beis Isha Nidra, Rashi explains that the verse is speaking about a married woman. The teacher clarifies that this is not about a betrothed woman, but about a woman who is fully married. Therefore, the laws that follow are specifically about a married woman and her husband's role regarding her vows.

This verse discusses what happens when a married woman's husband hears about her vow and remains silent—he does not object or annul it. The teacher explains that if the husband hears her vow and is quiet, meaning he does not prevent her or annul the vow, then all of her vows and all the prohibitions she has placed upon herself will stand. She is obligated to keep them. The teacher emphasizes that the husband's silence is considered as agreement, and therefore, the vows are established and binding.

This verse addresses the case where the husband actively annuls his wife's vows on the day he hears them. The teacher explains that if the husband annuls the vows on the day he hears about them, then anything she expressed with her lips, whether a vow or a prohibition upon herself, will not stand. The Torah says, 'her husband has annulled them, and Hashem will forgive her.' The teacher notes that the phrase 'Hashem will forgive her' refers to a case where she did not know that her husband had annulled her vow, and she went ahead and violated it. Even though she is technically not guilty because the vow was annulled, she still requires forgiveness from Hashem because she acted in a way that would have been a violation had the vow still been in effect. The teacher points out that this shows the seriousness of vows and the need for forgiveness even in cases where the vow was annulled without the woman's knowledge.

This verse summarizes the laws regarding a husband's ability to uphold or annul his wife's vows, specifically those that cause self-affliction. The teacher explains that the Torah says, 'all vows and all oaths of prohibition to afflict the soul, her husband can uphold them, or her husband can annul them.' The teacher elaborates that the verse is teaching us that the husband's power to annul is limited to vows that involve self-affliction—la'anos nefesh. If the vow does not involve affliction of the soul, the husband does not have the right to annul it. The teacher notes that the specific types of vows that are considered inui nefesh are detailed in Maseches Nedarim, and only those are subject to the husband's annulment. This limitation is learned from the wording of the verse.

On the phrase Kol Neder V'chol Shvuas Isur, Rashi explains that since the Torah said earlier that the husband can annul, one might think that this applies to all types of vows. Therefore, the verse adds la'anos nefesh—to afflict the soul—to teach that the husband can only annul vows that involve self-affliction. The teacher explains that Rashi is clarifying the limitation: the husband's power is not over all vows, but only those that are considered nidrei inui nefesh, vows of self-affliction. Rashi also notes that the details of which vows are included in this category are explained in Maseches Nedarim (daf ayin tes amud alef).

This verse discusses the time frame for a husband's annulment of his wife's vows. The teacher explains that if the husband is silent from one day to the next, meaning he does not object or annul the vow until the day is over (until sunset), then he has let all of her vows and prohibitions stand. The Torah says, 'he has upheld them because he was silent on the day he heard.' The teacher points out that the verse uses the phrase mi'yom el yom—from day to day—to teach that the husband can only annul the vow until nightfall of the day he hears it, not for a full 24-hour period. Once the day ends, his silence is considered agreement, and the vows are established. The teacher emphasizes that this is a halacha: the husband only has until sunset of the day he hears about the vow to annul it.

On the phrase mi'yom el yom, Rashi explains that you might have thought the husband has a full 24 hours (me'es le'es) to annul the vow. Therefore, the Torah says mi'yom el yom—from day to day—to teach that he can only annul until it gets dark, meaning until sunset of that day. The teacher clarifies that this is to teach us that the annulment must be done before nightfall; after that, the opportunity is lost. Rashi is emphasizing that the time limit for annulment is not a full 24 hours, but only until the end of the day on which the husband hears about the vow.

This verse is discussing the case where a husband annuls his wife's vows after he hears about them. The Torah says, if he shall annul them after he has heard, then he will bear her sin. The teacher explains that this means if the husband, after hearing about his wife's vow, first lets it stand—meaning he is quiet and does not object, which is considered as agreeing to the vow—and then later changes his mind and annuls it, even if it is still the same day, he is held responsible for her sin. This is because his initial silence caused her to think the vow was valid, and she may have acted based on that assumption. Therefore, he is considered to have caused her to stumble, and he bears the responsibility for any resulting transgression. The teacher emphasizes that this teaches us a principle: one who causes another person to stumble or sin takes on the responsibility for the consequences of that action.

On the phrase "Acharai Shamo"—after he heard—Rashi explains that this means after he heard and accepted it, saying, "I want it," and then later annuls it, even on the same day. The teacher elaborates that the Torah is teaching us that if the husband, after hearing the vow, initially agrees to it (even just by being silent, which is considered agreement), and then later that same day changes his mind and annuls it, the annulment is not effective. The reason is that his initial acceptance already established the vow, and once it is established, it cannot be annulled. Even if he tries to annul it later that day, it is too late. The teacher points out that this is a unique halacha regarding vows: the moment of initial acceptance is critical, and the opportunity for annulment is lost once the vow is confirmed, even passively through silence.

On the phrase "VeNasa Es Avonah"—he will bear her sin—Rashi explains that the husband enters in her place, meaning he takes on the responsibility for her sin. The teacher explains that from here we learn that if someone causes another person to stumble, he takes on the punishment that would have been due to the other person. In this context, because the husband first confirmed the vow and only later annulled it, he caused his wife to act in a way that she thought was permitted, but in reality, it was not. Therefore, he is held responsible for her transgression. The teacher emphasizes that this is a general principle: if you cause someone else to stumble, you are held accountable for the consequences, and you take their place in terms of punishment. This is a significant lesson about the seriousness of causing others to err.

This verse summarizes the laws discussed in the previous verses. It states: "These are the statutes that Hashem commanded Moshe, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, in her youth, in her father's house." The teacher explains that this is the conclusion of the section, reiterating that these are the laws that Hashem gave to Moshe regarding the annulment of vows. It applies to the relationship between a husband and wife, and between a father and his daughter while she is still a naira (from age 12 to 12 and a half) and under her father's jurisdiction. The teacher notes that once she is married, the father no longer has authority over her vows, and once she is divorced or widowed, she is not under the jurisdiction of either her father or her husband. The verse is summarizing all the halachos of annulling vows as they apply to these relationships, as detailed in the previous verses and explained by Rashi.