Most nedarim are discouraged by Chazal because, due to human fallibility, they are likely to be broken. Nevertheless, nedarim that are taken “laShem,” for the sake of G-d, do have a certain value. In the spirit of Nishbati ve’akayema lishmor mishpetei tzidkechah, “I swear to keep your just commandments” (Tehillim 119:106), one is allowed to incentivize oneself to perform a mitzvah or to keep away from a transgression by taking an oath or a vow.
Yet, in order to avoid the danger of the double penalty that would result from not doing the mitzvah one vowed to do and from breaking one’s vow, even nedarim laShem should be annulled. But after annulling them, one should strive to perform the mitzvah one pledged to do, or to keep away from the transgression one vowed not to do, without the neder attached, in the spirit of bli neder. That is true the meaning of “Lo yachel devaro chechol hayotze mipiv ya’aseh,” – “one must do all that proceeds out of one’s mouth.” In other words, one should honor such nedarim laShem after removing the neder from the equation.
If a woman took upon herself a neder to become a nazir and then violated the neder by drinking wine and coming into contact with the dead, but unknown to her, her husband had already annulled the vow before she violated it, she will be forgiven (See Rashi 30:6). Even though she did not technically violate her vow, because it was annulled, she intended to violate it. She was like a person who aims a loaded gun at the victim with full intention to kill, but the gun jams. So she needs forgiveness for her bad intentions. And she will get this forgiveness because she must have earned some merit in the past that saved her from the consequences of her negative intentions.
Since the husband has the power to annul his wife’s vows on the day she took them, if he does not do so on time, he is culpable (30:16). He receives her punishment when she violates her vow. By neglecting to annul the vow, he is encouraging her vow-taking disposition and anybody who incites someone else to sin deserves to be punished first. After all, what possible sadistic pleasure could anyone have from inciting someone else to sin? Chazal call a person who does this a “meisis” and they are very unforgiving toward him. Although beit din usually initiates defenses in favor of an accused, the halacha is “ein to’anim lemeisit,” that beit din does not look for reasons to acquit someone who entices another to sin.
(A possible defense in favor of the inciter might have been based on the principle “Divrei harav v’divrei hatalmid, divrei mi shomim?” – “why would one listen to the student when one knows that what he is inciting one to do is against the instructions of the teacher?” (Sanhedrein 29a). But in the same way that G-d did not initiate this defense for the snake that incited Chavah to commit the primordial sin, beit din will not initiate it for any inciter. It will punish him even before it metes out punishment to the perpetrator of the sin. Indeed the snake was punished first, even before Chavah was punished (Bereishis 2:14).)
G-d instructs Moshe that before he dies he must wage war against the people of Midian for having enticed the leaders of Israel to behave immorally with the Midianite women, an event which caused a plague that killed 24,000 Jews (Bamidbar 25:9). Although the plain meaning of the verse 31:2 is that Moshe should avenge the Midianites, “ve’acahar” “and only then,” would he die, the letter “vav” does not appear before the word “achar.” Instead the Torah says, “Nekom nikmas Bnei Yisrael me’eit haMidyanim, achar te’asef el amechah,” avenge them after you die. How can Moshe possibly avenge G-d’s honor after he is dead? The answer is that Moshe was commanded to wage a war to kill as many Midianites as possible so that it would take years for them to recover, even long after Moshe’s death (see 31:17-18). Indeed we see that Midian was so eviscerated in this war that it did not resurface as a power able to challenge Israel until the time of Gideon, about 190 years later, equal to the numerical value of the word “nekom.”
Although G-d instructs Moshe to wage a war against the Midianites to avenge the children of Israel who died in the plague, when Moshe orders the Jews to go to war he announces that it is to avenge G-d, not the Jews. Why does Moshe change the message? It was because he feared that if the purpose of the war was to be explained to the Jews in terms of avenging the Children of Israel, they would drag their feet going to battle and forgo the revenge because the sooner they would go to war, the sooner Moshe would die. For this reason Moshe changed the message and told them that it was G-d’s honor that was at stake in this war, and they had no option to forgo avenging G-d’s honor.
We are told that in this war, the Kings of Midian were killed and that Bilaam, who showed up in Midian in the war to collect his payment for causing the plague, was killed by the sword: “Ve’et Bilaam hargu bechorev” (31:8). Why does the Torah need to mention the weapon that killed him? The letter beis in the word be-chorev does not mean with a sword. It means biglal (because) of the sword that Bilaam used against the Jews. We are told by Chazal that Bilaam, who must have been well over one hundred years old at this time, formerly served as a court advisor to Pharaoh and counseled him to enslave the Jews. It was his idea to deny them straw with which to build bricks and it was his idea to kill them with back-breaking work. The Jewish foremen complained that Moshe and Aaron had done nothing to wrest from Pharaoh and his cohorts the sword of persecution which Bilaam had put in their hands, “Loseis cherev beyadam lehorgeinu” (Shemos 5:21). It was on account of this sword of persecution that Bilaam put in Pharoah’s hands, that he finally met his own death.
When the Jews returned from the war with Midian they gave thanks for the fact that the 12,000 soldiers who went to battle all came back safely, “Velo nifkad memenu ish” (31:49). In addition to the regular thanks offering, the korban Todah, that one brings when saved from danger, they also donated to the Tabernacle the jewelry they had taken as spoil from the Midianite women (31:50). Upon seeing this Moshe suspected that this was in atonement for having sinned with them again. The Jewish soldiers assured him, however, that they had not acted in this way, but they could not assure him that they had not fantasized about it. After all, Velo nifkad mimenu ish, our human urges did not leave us. They donated the jewelry to the Tabernacle in atonement for their errant thoughts (Shabbos 64a).
“Umikneh rav hayah livnei Reuven velivnei Gad,” the descendants of Reuven and Gad had lots of cattle. In those days, wealth was evaluated by the number of heads of cattle one owned (Chullin 84b). The word “rav” portrays an appetite for more, at all costs, whereas the word “kol” portrays appreciation for what one has (Bereishis 33:9 and 11).
The bnei Reuven and bnei Gad were prepared to live on the east bank of the Jordan away from the rest of the Jews who lived on the west bank and to be divorced from Jewish culture, because this was good for their business, irrespective of the negative influence the foreign culture might have on their children. And they said as much. “Gidros tzon nivneh lemikneinu veorim letapeinu – we will build pens for our cattle and cities for our children” (32:16). They worried first about the welfare of their business and only then for the welfare of their children. They flipped the prayer “Zareinu vekaspeinu yarbeh kachol – may you multiply our children and our money like grains of sand” on its head. In acceding to their request to settle on the east bank, Moshe tried to prioritize their ambitions by saying “Benu lachem arim letapeichem vegedaros leztoneichem” – “build cities for your children and pens for your cattle” (32:24). We see that even the property of the righteous was destroyed in an ir hanidachas (Sanhedrin 111b), because although they were living in the right environment for their business, it was the wrong environment for their children. And indeed, the children of Reuven and Gad were the first to be exiled from their land (Divrei Hayamim 5:26.)
These are the journeys of the Children of Israel who left Egypt (Bamidbar 33:1). Since the goal in leaving Egypt was to go to Eretz Israel, why is that not mentioned here? The answer is that the preliminary goal was to extract the Egyptian culture from the Jews. This could not happen in a few weeks. It needed 40 years and 42 encampment stops along the way. At each stop the Jews learned another lesson about how to rid themselves of their Egyptian ways. And each place at which they encamped was given a new name descriptive of the lesson they learned at each stop. For example, there was no place called Marah before the Jews arrived there, it was called something else. But it was renamed Marah (33:8) because there the Jews understood that without Torah, life is bitter (Shemos 15:22 and 23).
“Vayichtov Moshe es motzaehem lemaseihem al pi Hashem.” Our journey in life is to grow outward from our roots along the path toward the goal that G-d has destined for each of us.
