Mattot-Masei: What is Truth? Between an Oath and a Vow

by Rav Moshe Leib HaCohen Halbershtadt, Founder and Director of YORU Jewish Leadership, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

This week's Torah reading is a double portion, Mattot and Mas'ei (beginning in Bamidbar 30,2 until the end of the Book, chapter 36). Mattot begins with a set of laws given to Moshe Rabbeinu regarding vows: "If a man makes a vow to G-d, or swears to prohibit something to himself - he may not violate his word; whatever comes out of his mouth, he shall do."

The Medrash Tanchuma says that this mitzvah is a type of warning from G-d: "Be very careful with vows (nedarim); do not violate them, for whoever does so, will end up violating oaths (sh'vuot) – which is like denying the existence of G-d, and will never be forgiven, as is written, 'G-d will not cleanse he who takes His name in vain'" (Sh'mot 20,6).

Why are vows and oaths so severe that their violation appears to be worse than a regular lie? And what about oaths is worse and graver than vows, that violating the former is like denying G-d?

The Medrash Bamidbar Rabba (22,1) quotes Jeremiah 4,2: “You will take an oath: As the Lord lives, in truth, in justice and in righteousness” (4,2). The Medrash says that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: "Do not think it is permitted for you to take an oath in My name, even a truthful one. You are permitted to swear in My name only if you have all these attributes: You are G-d-fearing, you serve G-d exclusively, and you cleave to G-d." Two verses in Deuteronomy (6,13 and 10,20) link "permission" to take an oath with the traits of fearing G-d and serving Him [and one of the verses also adds "cleaving to G-d"].

The Medrash continues to say that we must be G-d-fearing like Abraham, Job, and Joseph. Abraham – as G-d told him: “For now I know that you are God-fearing” (B'reshit 22,12); Job, as is written about him: “A virtuous and upright man, fearing God” (Job 1,8). And Joseph, as he told Pharaoh, “It is G-d that I fear” (B'reshit 42,18).

The Medrash also cites verses regarding the importance of serving G-d exclusively, explaining that we must devote ourselves to Torah and to engaging in mitzvot, and have no other work. And finally, the third trait: “To Him you shall cleave” (Deuteronomy 10,20) – the Medrash asks: "How can a person cleave to the Divine Presence? Is it not stated that "the Lord your God is a consuming fire” (ibid. 4,24)?  Rather, the verse means: Anyone who marries his daughter to a scholar who studies Bible and Mishna, and engages in commerce, and benefits [the scholar] from his property – he is the one about whom it is stated: “To Him you shall cleave.”

The Medrash concludes that only one with these qualities is permitted to take an oath." To back this up, the Medrash recounts an incident involving King Yannai, "who had two thousand cities - and all of them were destroyed due to oaths that were fulfilled. How so? One person would say to another: ‘I swear that I am going to such and such place, and I will drink something in such and such place,’ and then they would go and fulfill their oath - and the cities were destroyed. If this is the punishment for taking a true oath, how much more so for one who takes a false oath."

This strong point also raises a strong question. We know that the Torah permits us to take an oath or make a vow, and merely requires us to make sure to fulfill them. Why the does the Medrash indicate that one is not permitted to swear even for truth? And if it is in fact such a grave sin, even leading to the destruction of 2,000 cities of King Yannai, why is it permitted for one who fears G-d and marries his daughter to a Torah scholar whom he supports?

Let us first understand the difference between oaths and vows. The Yalkut Shimoni says that making a vow is like vowing in the life of the king, while taking an oath is like swearing upon the king himself. Homiletic support for this is brought from the words of Elisha the Prophet to his mentor Eliyahu (Kings II 2,2): "By the life of G-d, and by the life of your soul."

The Ramban to this chapter in Bamidbar states simply: "Every vow is to G-d, and every oath is 'by' G-d."

Let us delve further. We know that it is forbidden to lie. If one says he will do something, even without a vow or an oath, he is obligated to keep his word, for the Torah commands, "From words of deception stay away" (Sh'mot 23,7). Regarding those who do not keep their word, our Sages taught: "He who punished the generation of the Flood, and the generation of the Tower of Babel, and the people of S'dom and Amora, and the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds – He will be punish those who do not keep their word" (Bava Metzia 48a, Shulchan Aruch C.M. 33,4).

What is added to the prohibition by making a vow or taking an oath?

The Sefer HaChinukh, which explains in detail all 613 Torah mitzvot, says the following, in one of the mitzvot (#74) having to do with speaking falsehood:

"… falsehood is abominable and vile in the eyes of all. There is nothing more disgusting than it, and malediction and curse are in the house of those who adhere to it. This is because the blessed God is a truthful God, and everything with Him is true. Blessing is found only upon those who try to emulate Him: to be truthful, like He is truthful, and to be merciful and do kindness, as these are His attributes as well. But anyone whose deeds are the opposite of His good traits and who act with deception, the opposite of His traits will similarly always rest upon them. The opposite of blessing is malediction; the opposite of the joy and peace and enjoyment with Him is worry, strife and pain… Therefore the Torah warned us to distance ourselves much from falsehood, as is written, "From words of deception stay away." The Torah did not simply say it is forbidden, but rather that we must stay far from it, something it does not mention in the other warnings - due to it being very vile…"

A person makes a vow when he wishes to strengthen his commitment and add a measure of obligation to that which he has said he will do. The problem is that this implies a denial of the fact that he is obligated to keep his word even without a vow. When he takes an oath, which is "by G-d," the problem is even greater – for G-d is a G-d of truth, and if he dares not to comply with what he swore to do, there is no greater denial of G-d than this; by violating his word, he is actually declaring that he does not believe in G-d and sees no need to fulfill his commitment that he took in His name! And on the other hand, even if he does fulfill his oath, why did he feel the need for such a powerful additional obligation in order to do the right thing? It shows the weakness of his attribute of truth, as if without the oath he would not feel obligated to keep his word.

We are thus left with the original question: Since taking an oath is so negative and indicates a weakness in one's propensity to truth, why is a G-d-fearing person who cleaves to the Divine Presence permitted to take an oath?

The answer is: On the contrary! Precisely his being a "man of truth" is what explains why he is taking this oath! For in the above verse the Torah links together "G-d-fearing, men of truth," showing that they are one and the same. And one who "cleaves to G-d," as in the examples above (marrying his daughter to a Torah scholar, etc.), thus cleaves to the G-d of truth, and is certainly someone who will always keep his word – even without an oath or vow.

When he takes an oath, then, he is not doing it to strengthen himself, but rather to make a declaration. He is stating that he keeps his word not only because he is upright and honest, or because that is the logical thing to do as one who lives with others – but because his attribute of truth is another expression of his attachment to G-d. Thus, his oath is not a weakness, but an add-on of strength!

We see that two people can do the exact same thing, and while for one it is forbidden, because it expresses weakness in his commitment to truth and closeness to G-d – for the other it is permitted and welcome, because it manifests a powerful measure of truth and added nearness to Hashem.

Pinhas: Covenant of Peace to a Zealous Hero

by Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon, Rabbi of the Gush Etzion Regional Council, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Last week's Torah portion ends with Pinchas killing a sinning couple, and this week's portion - Pinchas, Bamidbar 25,10–30,1 - ends with G-d giving him His "covenant of peace." This requires explanation!

The Torah originally told us that the Israelites had been sinfully drawn to the Moavite women, resulting in a massive and lethal Divine plague. To make matters even worse, Zimri, a leading member of the Tribe of Shimon, publicly took a Midianite woman – and Pinchas killed them both; this stopped the plague. The Torah then states, at the beginning of this week's portion: "Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon the Priest reversed My anger against the Children of Israel, in being zealous for My sake… Therefore say: 'I hereby give him My covenant of peace.'"

Why does Pinchas receive such a covenant? How are we to understand the turn of events in this story?

Rashi explains that there is in fact no connection between a covenant of peace and what Pinchas did – but there is certainly a connection between the covenant and the result of what Pinchas did. Rashi says that when G-d gave him a covenant of peace, it means that it "should be a covenant of peace for him; just as a man owes gratitude and favor to someone who did him a kindness, so too, here G-d expressed to him His sentiments of peace."

That is, Pinchas did a type of kindness for G-d, according to Rashi, and in reward for this Kiddush Hashem (Sanctification of G-d's Name), he received a covenant of peace with G-d. The idea apparently is that Pinchas created a Kiddush Hashem in the world, and thus received a reward in kind. As similarly explained by the Alshekh: "He received this covenant for having publicized and sanctified My name before all."

On the other hand, other commentaries - the Chizkuni and the Ibn Ezra - explain that there is a direct connection between the actual act that Pinchas did and the reward he received. Since there was a real fear that Zimri's relatives would seek to kill Pinchas in revenge, G-d appeased him by saying that he need not be afraid, because He would protect him and ensure his welfare, his peace. As the Chizkuni explains, "The covenant of peace means that Pinchas need not fear the relatives of Zimri and Cozbi [the Midianite harlot]."

 My esteemed teacher and Rabbi, the late Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (Rosh Yeshivat Har Etzion and son-in-law of Rav Soloveitchik) once explained that Pinchas was a man totally involved in pursuing peace. The Prophet Malachi said about him that G-d's "covenant was with him, life and peace" (2,5). But despite his peace-loving nature, he recognized that there are times of crisis when other types of actions are called for – actions of war. Pinchas knew how to act correctly and to fight even when others did not.

However, performing this deed of zealotry still left a concern: Perhaps it would somewhat diminish Pinchas’ sensitivity. This fear is reinforced by the words of the Ramban, who wrote that even the most ethical person loses something of his morality by being involved in war. There is thus a fear that perhaps Pinchas would no longer be on the same spiritual level as before. G-d therefore promised to "give him My covenant of peace" – a Divine promise that Pinchas would definitely return to the same spiritual state he had been in, and that the act of killing would not mar his exalted character.

To this we can add: The image of the Priest is one of peace; this is why the Priests bless the Nation of Israel with peace, as in the third part of the Priestly Blessing: "Yisa Hashem Panav, May G-d raise His countenance towards you and give you peace." Pinchas assumedly drew his nature of peace from his grandfather, Aharon HaCohen, who was known as a "lover of peace and pursuer of peace" (Pirkei Avot 1).

As mentioned, even a man of peace must sometimes go out and make battle. Even a man of peace knows that enemies – those of Israel and those of G-d – must be fought and struck down. Even a man of peace knows that one who has pity and compassion on terrorists is actually a criminal himself, one who fights against peace, not only at home but also around the world. Sometimes one must actually fight for peace!

The fact that great demands are made upon Priests is alluded to by the law that only those who are "perfect," that is, with no physical defect [as outlined in the Talmud and Halakhah], are fit to serve as Priests in the Holy Temple service. Our Sages stated (Kiddushin 66b) that the word shalom (peace) in the phrase "My covenant of peace," is written with a broken letter vuv, and thus can be read without the vuv as "shalem," meaning "complete." In short, the priests must be "complete."

Pinchas manifests completeness. He received, "My covenant of shalom/shalem, peace/completeness." He is a man of peace who, as a close descendant of Aharon, loves peace. knows how to make peace between people, and knows that the efforts to attain peace sometimes require extreme means that actually destroy and remove that which is bad from the world.

May it be G-d's will that we all merit to receive the blessing of peace: "May G-d raise His countenance towards you and give you peace." 

Balak: Bilam [No Nation] and Balak - Dealing with Domestic Strife

by Rav Haggai Londin, Rosh Yeshivat Holon and author of a series of books on the writings of Rav Kook, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

An answer to those who demand condemnations of idealistic residents of Judea and Samaria: The latter are dedicating their lives to the Nation of Israel and we must kiss their hands.

Of late [during the height of the opposition to the proposed judicial reform as well as some unruly protests by residents of Judea and Samaria], I have received a small number of calls from people demanding (!) that I and other rabbis publicly condemn what they call the "settler disturbances." I explained to them gently that first of all, I don't work for them... And secondly, I said that their timing was perfect, just as we are about to read Parashat Balak (Bamidbar 22,2-25,9) and the story of the Gentile prophet Bilam, the Moabite king Balak, and their desire to curse Israel.

What’s the connection between Balak and the complaints against the "settlers"? Let us explain.

The story begins when King Balak of Moav hires Bilam to curse the entire holy nation. Bilam is a type of old-style wizard whose name tells us much about him: Bli-am means "without a people," that is, one who is focused on his own personal interests and is detached from any broader national context. People of that ilk tend to curse - lekalel, from the same root as kal (lightweight) - and make light and low of everything.

There are different types of "no nation" people: They can be those who threaten to remove their kippah (yarmulke) and cease being religiously observant if their brand of morals is not adopted by rabbis; or they can be IDF officers in the reserves who declare one day, "This is not my country" if the judicial reform passes; and they can be formerly observant Jews (datlashim, in the vernacular) who strangely invest efforts in maligning the homes and schools in which they were raised, under the illusion that this will bring peace to their conflicted souls.

What these tiresome Bilams don't realize is that after they're finished being embraced by the progressives, they will remain alone in the darkness. The Jewish nation, the Jewish tradition, and the Jewish state will continue along without them – and perhaps it is better that way.

Bilam references himself as sh'tum haayin, which has various explanations – but the Talmud explains it to mean "blinded" (Niddah 31a, Sanhedrin 105a). That is, this man with no nation, no family, and no circle of belonging has only a partial and bitter viewpoint, focusing constantly on the deficiencies that certainly exist in Israel and in the world, but missing time after time the entire picture. That's how it is when one looks at reality with a scowl; he'll only see a partial slice thereof.

Bilam is also called a "magician" (Yehoshua 13,22). There is something very magical in feeling that you're always right, and in yelling at your own people and telling them how wrong they are.

So much for curses, klalot. The word for blessing, on the other hand, is bracha, from the same root meaning "to graft," to connect a branch to the earth so that it will take root and sprout a new tree. One who does so takes a broad view that focuses on the good, and on the overall picture of the place to which he belongs, and therefore grows good things. 

Looking Inward

In Bilam's first attempt to curse Israel at the request of Balak, he says of the people of Israel (Bamidbar 23,9): "For from the top of the mountain rocks I see [Israel], and from the hills I behold him. Behold, a people that dwells alone and is not counted among the nations. Who can count the dust of Jacob or [the hordes of] Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, but let my end be like his."

The Three Stages of Goodness
The Sages say that the "rocks" refer to our Patriarchs and Matriarchs, the forebears of the nation. Bilam recognizes the goodness that is at the root of the people of Israel in their foundational source. Similarly, when people seek a point of innocence and happiness in their lives, they often find it in their happy childhood, which attests to the positive source of their lives. As the years pass, there are setbacks and wrong turns, but life at its source remains good. Even grim, cynical people can usually not avoid smiling to themselves upon seeing a baby – because the starting point of a person reflects his goodness, the inner point that gets lost over the course of life. Bilam, too, find the goodness in the roots of reality, and his "accursed" view becomes one of blessing.

Bilam's second attempt is recounted in chapter 23, verses 19-25. He has moved on from reflecting on Israel's years of babyhood, and now focuses on its adolescence, which also features blessing. Bilam is now looking at the period of time when Israel has left its infancy behind, has escaped from Egypt, and is moving on toward being G-d's holy people. Despite all the troubles and even sins, the broad perspective shows us that the world, and the Jewish people, are moving up and improving. There is more blessing and more light.

Finally, on Bilam's third attempt (24,3-9), he tries a new approach: "Bilam saw that it was good in the eyes of G-d to bless Israel." He still looked for sins of Israel that he could focus on, but this too ended with a blessing: "How goodly are your tents, Yaakov." Our Sages explain that he saw how Israel's tents were set up such that no door faced the door of any other, for reasons of modesty. This expresses a third way of identifying the "inner point" – not just by looking at the source, not just by looking at the history, but by looking at Israel's way of life and its daily mores. This is a view of modesty, of convergence. That is, as opposed to the external, outward, critical, intellectual view, one can look inward at his own private tent and see all the goodness that he has built up to that point.

In the lives of every one of us, there are moments that we experience a Bilam-like way of looking at things. It can come, for instance, during adolescence, when we realize that our parents aren't as perfect as we always thought. This leads us to fear that we may have actually lived our lives in error. It can also happen on a national level: New immigrants to Israel arrive with Zionist fervor, until gradually this exciting feeling is at least partially eroded by the difficulties of absorption, leading them to suspect that they were tricked.

Spiritually, too: At the beginning of one's path, he meets up with the great light of Torah study, is entranced by his Torah-scholar rabbis and teachers, and is greatly enthralled. At a later stage, however, he realizes that things are not perfect – and some then react with an instinct to "slaughter sacred cows" and to say that everything is corrupt and depraved.

This is of course a grave mistake! Yes, there is certainly much complexity in the world, including hypocrisy and evil intentions. But fundamentally, the world is good; it is Divine. Despite all that is bad, ultimately everything leads to goodness and blessing.

Practically speaking, in terms of current events: The public known as the "settlers" of Judea and Samaria is the most wonderful sector living in Israel today. They are pioneers, men of Torah, army officers, and much more, who dedicate their lives to the great and just truth of Jewish settlement and control of the Biblical and strategic areas of Judea and Samaria. We should kiss the hands of every single one of them. Yes, there are some who do not respond particularly calmly when they witness their friends being murdered by Palestinian terrorists, they sense that law enforcement appears to be insufficient. If one behaves criminally, he must fact the legal consequences – but the actions of individual few and far between cannot reflect on the entire public.

What is important now is to strengthen our resilience and our faith. The words of Bilam after his moment of clarity help us understand faith: 'How goodly are your tents, O Jacob.' That is, how much goodness there is in our people, how much determination, how much courage! There is also a 'no' – no to breaking the law, no to anarchy. But above all, there is a 'yes'! Yes to continue settling and building, yes to add another thousand housing units in Eli and Ariel and Shavei Shomron, yes to ignore the Bilams in our midst, and yes – we will prevail thanks to the settlers. Thank you, heroes of Judea and Samaria; you are our saviors!

Hukat: The Torah - On Beyond our Intellect

by Rav Avraham Shapira zt"l, former Chief Rabbi of Israel and Rosh Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

This week's Torah portion is Chukat (Bamidbar 19,1-22,1), where the word "Chukat" refers to the unexplained decree (chok, pronounced ḥoke) of the Red Heifer and its laws.

That is, even though we do not and cannot understand the reasons that the Torah commanded us to burn a red cow and sprinkle its ashes in a special mixture to purify us from the impurity of death, we must still fulfill it.

While the details of the Red Heifer are spelled out here in Parashat Chukat, it was originally commanded us just after the Splitting of the Red Sea, in a place called Marah. The Torah tells us in Parashat Beshalach: "It was there that He gave them a decree and a law, and there He tested them" (Sh'mot 15,25); Rashi explains that this refers to the decree of the Red Heifer.

The laws spelled out in Chukat were given nearly a year later, on the eighth day of the Levites' miluim inauguration period [on Rosh Chodesh Nissan according to most opinions]. The next verse after these laws immediately takes us 38 years later, towards the end of the Israelites' 40-year sojourn in the desert. (Rashi explains why the Red Heifer was written just before that which happened nearly 40 years later.)

We can add that the Torah thus teaches us, at the end of this long period, that all the mitzvot are a type of "decree and law," and they must all be fulfilled as a form of bearing the yoke of Torah. As the Sages of the Medrash teach: "The mitzvot were given just to refine Israel." And the Rambam emphasized at length (at the end of the Laws of Me'ilah) the importance of fulfilling even the mitzvot that we do not understand.

Regarding the end of the miluim week, the Torah states: "As [was done] on this day, G-d commanded to do…" (Vayikra 8,34) – and the Gemara (Yoma 3) derives that this is referring to the Red Heifer. That is, the emphasis of the Red Heifer is to "do," even without understanding, as we thus accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The laws of the Red Heifer in Parashat Chukat also include the laws of the circumstances that render a person impure. These laws begin with the words (19,14), "This is the Torah – the law – [of] one who dies in a tent [and how this impurity is imparted to others]." From the fact that the word "Torah" is used here regarding one who dies, the Sages derive homiletically that "Torah study cannot endure if one does not 'die' over it" - i.e., he must devote himself totally and whole-heartedly to Torah learning.

This guidance is derived particularly from the passage of the Red Heifer, and applies to the entire Torah as well – for the Red Heifer passage is a prototype of how to fulfill all the mitzvot: by accepting the yoke of Torah. One aspect of accepting this yoke is by working very hard to study and understand the Torah's words, to "die" over it. This is why the Torah begins here by saying, "This is the decree of the Torah" (19,2), and not, "This is the decree of the Red Heifer" – because we must study Torah in this unquestioning but intense manner regarding all the mitzvot.

In Tractate Shabbat (p. 88a-b) we learn:

"A certain heretic said to Rava: "You [Israelites] are an impulsive nation, acting without thinking: Why did you say [Sh'mot 24,7] naaseh v'nishma, that you will keep the Torah before even hearing what it involves?" Rava answered him: "We walk with integrity and simple trust of G-d, as is written, 'The integrity of the upright will guide them' (Proverbs 11,3)."

Rava made clear to the heretic that for us, fulfilling the Torah is not an intellectual pursuit that we do only if we understand it, but rather because it is G-d's will.

The Talmud (Kiddushin p. 31) cites a famous incident in which the Sages of Israel wished to pay 60 myriads for precious stones for the High Priest's breast plate, but the Gentile seller's son did not agree to wake up his father even for such an extravagant sum. Later, G-d merited the Gentile with the birth in his herd of a Red Heifer – for which the Sages paid the same 60 myriads that the seller had "lost" earlier. It is said in the name of the author of the K'tzot HaChoshen that the Gentile was willing to sacrifice a large sum for the mitzvah of honoring his father – a mitzvah that is easily understood – while the Sages sacrificed for the mitzvah of Red Heifer, a decree whose reason was not given to us to understand with human logic.

May G-d grant us the privilege of serving Him with all our hearts and to walk with simple trust in His decrees, Amen.