Thoughts On Taam

One of the sources in the Gemarah (Pesachim 44-45) for the din of טעם כעיקר is from the parsha of kashering kelim from the absorption of issue flavor after the battle in Midyan. It is a machlokes Rishonim if the bottle line pesak is that טעם כעיקר is a Bibical prohibition or only a Rabbinic prohibition. It is is Rabbinic why does the Torah say to kasher the vessels belonging to the Midyanim? Simply understood it was a temporary גזה"כ and that is the simple read of the Gemarah. However, the Reah cites the Ramban (cited in Aruch Hashulchan Yoreh Deah 98:10) says that even though taste imparted from food is only Rabbinic taste absorbed in a vessel must be kashered just as one must be tovel a new vessel purchased from a gentile, it is a מעלה for kelim brought into the jurisdiction of a Jew to be totally pure. (The Meshech Chachma points out the Torah introduces the law with the words זאת חקת התורה indicitating it is a גזה"כ and he asks if טעם כעיקר is always prohibited and the Torah is only prohibiting אעם לשבח what is the חוק? His starting point it to assume this parsha is a chiddush not the normal law.)

The Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah (#94) recounts a story of a live bird that flew into a pot of boiling cream. The C.S. recounts an esteemed Rabbi (he doesn't say who, I have read that tradition says it was the Haflah) ruled it is בשר וחלב and אסור בהנאה. After everything was spilled out, it was pointed out to him that it was only בשר עוף which does not create an issur hanah? He immediately responded that since the chicken entered the butter while alive and died from the heat, the boiling butter absorbed the flavor of a live animal's limb before it died, hence it is אבר מן החי which is forbidden even to a non-Jew and therefore it would not be permitted to sell to a non-Jew either. The C.S. notes that it was obvious that he had made a mistake and came up with the justification afterward to save face but Hashem protects the righteous. The C.S. notes the novelty here is assuming that even a live thing can give off טעם and he cites his student cites a proof from the Rosh in Avodah Zarah who proves there is no טעם from a cold item from the fact that Haman told Achashverosh it a fly falls in wine a Jew will remove it and drink the rest, what about טעם? We see no טעם in something cold, asks the C.S.'s student, maybe there is no טעם because the fly is alive? We see live items also give off טעם. 

The Sdey Chemed cites the Teshuvot Yad Eliezer asks on the pesak that who says the law of טעם כעיקר applies to a gentile, that is a chiddush din said to a Jew? He answers that we only need the chiddush since I would say it is less than the shiur of the issur but for goyim where there are no shiurim, I would know the law of טעם כעיקר anyway. The S.C. goes on to be מפלפל in this point. 

The question assumes that טעם כעיקר is a new halacha of issur but if we say it just tells us that the original issur extends to טעם as well, we can here it is merely expanding the boundaries of the issuim that preexist and if that is an issur that applies to a gentile, the taam will be assur as well (the Achronim discuss this chakirah at length, see לקח טוב, גר"ח מאכ"א.)

The S.C. cites the Nodeh B'Yehuda suggests we don't apply the rule of טעם כעיקר only by issurim that have malkus. I don't understand since the Gemarah applies טעם כעיקר by mitzvot as well, so why should an issur without malkus be worse? (See Zevachim 78, though there may be other ways to learn the Gemarah, he doesn't even reference it?) 

Cancelling The Vow Of Golus

The Rambam Nedarim (7:9) rules אָסַר עַל עַצְמוֹ הֲנָיַת בְּנֵי הָעִיר אָסוּר לְהִשָּׁאֵל עַל נִדְרוֹ לְחָכָם מִבְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, "if he forbade himself from benefiting from the inhabitants of a city, he is forbidden to ask the sage of the city for the repeal of his vow."  Presumably this is since it affects the one nullifying the vow he may be lean to nullify the vow improperly.  The Mishne L'melech asks  וקשיא לי מאותה הגדה דפרק הספינה דרבה בר בר חנה שמע בת קול אומרת אוי לי שנשבעתי ועכשיו שנשבעתי מי מיפר לי כו' ולפי דברי הירושלמי לא היה יכול רבה להתיר שבועה זו לפי שהיה נוגע בדבר.  How does the Gemarah Bava Bathra (74a) say that Rabba bar bar Chana should have been מפיר the oath of Hashem to put us in golus?  A few answers are recorded on portal daf yomi.  Another question is that the Gemarah uses the terminology מפיר, that is the terminology used for a husband nullifying his wife's vow, not the terminology for a chacham which is התרה?  Tosfos Bechorot (37a) says the Gemarah just uses the terminology of the possuk even though it is imprecise.  However, the Shittah Bava Bathra says אי נמי יש כח ביד צדיקים לבטל גזרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ושבועה.  What does he mean?  The Chidah understands that he means that it is not a regular din of nullifying nedarim, the Gemarah just means that a tzaddik has power over what happens in the world and Rabbah should have taken the opportunity to pray for the decree of the golus to be removed.  In his words,  דנקט מופר דיש כח ביד הצדיקים לבטל גזרת ה' ושבועה ואם כן אינו בסוג דין נדרים דהצדיקים מבטלים הגזרה אף שהם נוגעים בדבר ומשו"ה אפיקיה בלשון מופר לומר דאינו דין נדר שהנוגע אינו יכול להתיר. 

However, there is another approach.  The Midrash Devarim Rabbah (2:8) says  דָּבָר אַחֵר, אַתָּה הַחִלֹּותָ, אָמַר רַבִּי רְאוּבֵן אָמַר משֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לָמָּה אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה לִי כָּךְ, אַתָּה הִתְחַלְתָּ לָבוֹא אֶצְלִי, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ג, ב): וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ ה' אֵלָיו בְּלַבַּת אֵשׁ מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה, אָמַר לוֹ מִשֶּׁגִּדַּלְתָּ אוֹתִי אַתָּה מוֹרִידֵנִי מִגְדֻלָּתִי, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וַהֲרֵי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַתָּה הַחִלֹּותָ, כְּשֶׁבִּקַּשְׁתָּ לֹא חִלַּלְתָּ הַשְּׁבוּעָה, לֹא נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ שֶׁאַתָּה מְכַלֶּה אֶת בָּנֶיךָ בָּעֵגֶל וְחָזַרְתָּ בְּךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לב, יד): וַיִּנָּחֶם ה'  Moshe asked Hashem to violate his oath to allow him to enter Eretz Yisrael.  How could he ask Hashem to violate his oath?  Rather, what he was asking explains the Kasnot Or was that Moshe would nullify the vow.  This is based upon the Midrash Tehillim (90:4) דבר אחר אמר רבי יהודא בר' סימון בשם ריש לקיש למה נקרא שמו איש האלקים מה האיש אם מבקש להפר נדרי אשתו מפר ואם מבקש מקיים שנאמר (במדבר ל יד) אישה יפירנו וגו'. כך כביכול משה אומר להקב"ה (שם י לה-לו) קומה ה'. שובה ה.  Moshe could nullify the vow like a husband.  He was saying I will nullify your vow.  The response the Kasnot Or explain based upon another Midrash is that it was a neder made in front of Beit Din which a husband can not nullify.  In light of this, the Shittah means literally that a tzaddik can be like the husband and nullify the vows of Hashem (the Chidah does seem to entertain this idea but does not like comparing anyone to Moshe, עיי"ש.)    

Holy Speech

אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי⁠־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַֽי״י֗ אֽוֹ⁠־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל⁠־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכׇל⁠־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה.  Rashi says לא יחל דברו – כמו: לא יחלל דברו, לא יעשה דברו חולין.  What does it mean that it is a chilul of one's dibbur, is there kedusha to one's speech?  

In Tehillim Chapter 132 Dovid makes a neder אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִ֭שְׁבַּע לַֽי״י֑ נָ֝דַ֗ר לַאֲבִ֥יר יַעֲקֹֽב that he wouldn't sleep until he built the Mikdash, עַד⁠־אֶמְצָ֣א מָ֭קוֹם לַי״י֑ מִ֝שְׁכָּנ֗וֹת לַאֲבִ֥יר יַעֲקֹֽב.  Why did Dovid say his neder was to the Mighty One of Jacob?

The Midrash Berashis (70:1) says יַעֲקֹב פָּתַח בַּנֶּדֶר תְּחִלָּה לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא נוֹדֵר לֹא יִהְיֶה תּוֹלֶה אֶת הַנֶּדֶר אֶלָּא בוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ כְּתִיב (תהלים קלב, ב): אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַה' נָדַר לַאֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב, לַאֲבִיר אַבְרָהָם וְלַאֲבִיר יִצְחָק אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא נָדַר לַאֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב, תָּלָה אֶת הַנֶּדֶר בְּמִי שֶׁפָּתַח בּוֹ תְּחִלָּה.  Since Yaakov was the one to initiate a neder, so Dovid made the neder evoking his name.  Both Yaakov and Dovid both made a neder regarding building the Mikdash.  Why did they make a neder about building the Mikdash?

The Chofetz Chaim in his intro. explains that it was the sin of lashon harah that caused the Mikdash to be destroyed.  אַךְ לִבְסוֹף יְמֵי בַּיִת שֵׁנִי גָּבְרָה שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע בֵּינִינוּ, בַּעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ הָרַבִּים, וּבַעֲבוּר זֶה נְחֱרַב הַבַּיִת וְגָלִינוּ מֵאַרְצֵּנוּ כִּדְאִיתָא בְּיוֹמָא (דף ט') וּבִירוּשַׁלְמִי (פרק א' הלכה ה' דיומא) (הֲגַם שֶׁהַגְּמָרָא נָקטָה שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם, הַכַּוָּנָה הוּא עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע גַּם כֵּן, שֶׁיּוֹצֵּאת מִצַּד הַשִּׂנְאָה, דְּאִי לָאו הָכִי לֹא הָיוּ נְענָשִׁים כָּל כָּךְ, וְהַיְנוּ דְּסִיֵּם שָׁם לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁקָּשָׁה שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם כְּנְגֶד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְזֶה מָצִּינוּ בַּעֲרָכִין (דף ט"ו) גַּבֵּי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. וְעוֹד מִגּוּפָא דִּשְׁמַעְתָּא דְּיוֹמָא מוּכָח כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ, מִדְּפָרִיךְ שָׁם וּבְמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן וְכוּ' וְדוֹקְרִים אֶת חַבְרֵיהֶן וְכוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם).  Why is it this sin that leads to the destruction of the Mikdash? 

The Sfas Emes (5635) says yes, one's dibbur is kodesh because it comes from one's breath which is the source of one's neshama.  The Sfas Emes (5634) adds that the continuation of the possuk, כְּכׇל⁠־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה follows.  If one's words are not desecrated, then one's words will be accepted ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה. כי כחן של ישראל רק בפיהם כי כתיב ויפח באפיו נשמת (רוח) חיים. ולכן בכח האדם ע"י דברי תורה שמוציא מפיו להטות עצמו אליו ית'. ולכן מצוה לקרות שמע בכל יום ב"פ וכן שאר ברכות ותפלות שתקנו חז"ל   

The Mikdash is the place of connection between the gashmi and the ruchni in this world.  In order to express the desire to make this a reality, Yaakov and Dovid expressed this through a neder, through using their רוח ממללא.  The Mikdash comes it to existence through the usage of one's רוח ממללא, of one's spark of kedusha correctly and it is destroyed when one's words become misused (based upon a shmuz by R' Elefant.)

Your Own Torah

The Parsha opens וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל⁠־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה י״יֽ.  Rashi says זה הדבר – משה נתנבא בכה אמר י״י כחצות הלילה וגו׳, והנביאים נתנבאו בכה.  The word זה is used to express a level of clarity of Moshe's prophesy.  Why is this mentioned specifically in the parsha of nedarim?  Why does the parsha not open with the traditional opening of וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר?  

The Ishbitzer says that since a nedar is something that one voluntarily takes upon themselves it can't be expressed as a command from Hashem.  הענין שלא נאמר בפרשת נדרים וידבר ה' אל משה כמו בכל המצות, כי כל המצות הם נוהגים תמיד אבל נדרים הוא בינה בלב האדם שיבין בדעתו שמזה הדבר צריך להגדיר עצמו לשעה זו ואחר כן יהיה מותר לו, ולכן לא כתיב וידבר ה' אל משה שזה אינו מצד שהשי"ת אוסר על האדם רק ממה שהאדם בעצמו מבין בדעתו ובחכמתו, וזה נקרא וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות.

The parsha of nedarim teaches us that besides the general Torah for all there is the specific Torah for each individual.  It is up to a person to pick up on what is needed for his/ her life out of the context of a specific command and incorporate that as past of their own Torah.

The Mishna Chagigah (10a) says הֶיתֵּר נְדָרִים — פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר וְאֵין לָהֶם עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ.  Rav Tzadok (Machshavot Charutz #12) identifies the פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר s part of the halachot that exist between the lines of the Torah.  The words on the page are the halachot that are for all time, ridged and set in place.  Then there are halachot of the spaces, these are not etched in stone and it is up to the Chachamam through תורה שבעל פה to interpret and derive these laws. The heter of nedarim depends on the nature and intent of the one making the neder and hence there is not a precise rule that can be spelled out.

In an article, Rabbi Yehuda Cooperman elaborates on a Midrash that the idea of hataras nedarim was to a certain extent initiated by Moshe Rabbenu. The Torah is not not telling us merely the level of prophesy of Moshe to extol his greatness over other prophets.  What the Torah is informing us is the channel that Moshe Rabbenu was in tune with was that of a clear perception of what Hashem wanted.  It was this perception that gives him a license to be able to perceive the idea of hataras nedarim.  And it is only through that power of intuition which is passed on to the Chachamim of the future generations that such a halacha is possible.  That is what allowes the halacha of empty space to become a reality.

Kasher Yourself

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֶלְעָזָ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶל⁠־אַנְשֵׁ֣י הַצָּבָ֔א הַבָּאִ֖ים לַמִּלְחָמָ֑ה זֹ֚את חֻקַּ֣ת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה י״י֖ אֶת⁠־מֹשֶֽׁה אַ֥ךְ אֶת⁠־הַזָּהָ֖ב וְאֶת⁠־הַכָּ֑סֶף אֶֽת⁠־הַנְּחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ אֶת⁠־הַבַּרְזֶ֔ל אֶֽת⁠־הַבְּדִ֖יל וְאֶת⁠־הָעֹפָֽרֶת

Chafetz Chayim on the Torah:

In his intro. to Likutay Halachot (in the footnote) the C.C. says an interpretation on the possuk in reference to learning Torah (I copied the words from the Yalkut Lekech Tov for the typeset is clearer.)

With this idea we can explain why the possuk says חוקת התורה and not the chok of kashering or something like that, for these pessukim hint to the the chok of the Torah, the chok that Torah is able to be machshir a person.

Improper Requests

The Gemarah Taanis (4a)  שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן שלשה שאלו שלא כהוגן לשנים השיבוהו כהוגן לאחד השיבוהו שלא כהוגן ואלו הן אליעזר עבד אברהם ושאול בן קיש ויפתח הגלעדי אליעזר עבד אברהם דכתיב (בראשית כד, יד) והיה הנערה אשר אומר אליה הטי נא כדך וגו' יכול אפי' חיגרת אפי' סומא השיבו כהוגן ונזדמנה לו רבקה שאול בן קיש דכתיב (שמואל א יז, כה) והיה האיש אשר יכנו יעשרנו המלך עושר גדול ואת בתו יתן לו יכול אפי' עבד אפילו ממזר השיבו כהוגן ונזדמן לו דוד יפתח הגלעדי דכתיב (שופטים יא, לא) והיה היוצא אשר יצא מדלתי ביתי וגו' יכול אפילו דבר טמא השיבו שלא כהוגן נזדמנה לו בתו

Rav Yitzchak Eizik Chaver says this is alluded to in the possuk in the beginning of the parsha, אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי⁠־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַֽי״י֗ אֽוֹ⁠־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל⁠־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכׇל⁠־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה.  The word איש can be ר"ת for the three people, אליעזר, יפתח, שאול the possuk continues לא יחל דברו , their request was granted properly but for 1 of them ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה, the request as is with its implications was followed.  

There are various interpretations as to why is it that Yiftach did not obtain a successful outcome as Eliezer and Shaul.  One interpretation is that what Eliezer and Shaul said was a way of asteraining a shidduch which is not within a person's ability to determine 100% in any case as opposed to Yiftach who was choosing to offer a korban, he should have ascertained that it would be proper.  

Tosfos asks why did the Gemarah not say that Eliezer may have also ended up with a mamzeres or shifcha?  Tosfos gives 2 answers, either that  דגבי אליעזר לא שייך עדיין ממזרת דהא לא נתנה תורה or דגבי אשה לא דייק עלמא אלא ליופי.  The Achronim understand the first answer of Tosfos is following the opinion that the Avos did not keep the entire Torah (at least regarding marital issues.)  However, the language of Tosfos, לא שייך, indicates not that it didn't matter but that mamzers did not exit before the giving of the Torah.  It sounds like mamzeret can only exist if there is a concept of eishus which did not exist before the giving of the Torah (akin to the Briskor Rav that Yaakov could marry 2 sisters for that is an issur that comes from a chalos eishus which didn't exist yet.)  The צ"ע is that the answer of Tosfos is presumably addressing shifcha as well and the concept of shifcha did seem to exist for according to the Midrash that is the reason Yitzchak did not marry the daughter of Eliezer?  The second answer of Tosfos is also a פלא, was the sole concern of the search of Eliezer to find a beautiful woman?  

Rashi at the end of the Gemarah says ובאגדה קא חשיב כלב בהדייהו אשר יכה את קרית ספר ולכדה וגו' ורבי יונתן דלא חשיב ליה דבגמרא פשיט ליה להאי קרא בהלכות שנשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה כדאמרינן בתמורה (דף טז.) ואין לחוש שתשרה רוח הקדש על עבד ועל ממזר כדאמרינן בנדרים (דף לח.) שאין שכינה שורה כו' מפי רבי.  The Maharatz Chayus asks what does Rashi mean,אין לחוש שתשרה רוח הקדש על עבד ועל ממזר, what does this have to do with רוח הקודש, this is פלפול which is learning which anyone can do?  I heard in the name of Rav Moshe Brown that there are three categories of learning.   There are halachot derived from limmudim and severah that anyone can derive on their own.  On the opposite extreme there are halacha למשה מסיני which can't be derived from logic and requires ruach hakodesh which would not be given over to a mamzer or eved.  There is a middle ground as well and that is what the Gemarah is Temurah is discussing where it is a הלכה למשה מסיני which was reinstated from sevarah but that is not an independent sevarah that one would naturally come to on their own but but come from Divine inspiration, a form of ruach hakodesh, as the Rambam Bava Bathra 12 discusses and Rashi is saying that form of ruach hakodesh is not privy to an eved or mamzer either.   

Give Thanks

Hashem commands Moshe to kill the Midyanim but Moshe gives the job over to Pinchas.  How could Moshe give the job over to Pinchas if he had a direct command to kill the Midyanim himself?  The Midrash (22:4) says וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם משֶׁה (במדבר לא, ו), אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה: נְקֹם נִקְמַת, אַתָּה בְּעַצְמְךָ, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת אֲחֵרִים, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְגַּדֵּל בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְיָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁאֲנִי מֵצֵר לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה בִּי טוֹבָה.  But Hashem still gave over the command to Moshe, so how could he give the command of the war to someone else?  Rav Chayim Shmulevetz says that hakarat hatov is such a self-understood principal that Moshe understood that built into the command of Hashem was this obligation of hakarat hatov and he should put someone else in charge of the war. 

The Gemarah Berachot (48b) says that Chazal enacted to say the beracha of הטוב והמטיב for the fact that those killed in Betar did not emit a foul stench and that they got to be buried.  Why was this the inspiration for this beracha?  The Meshech Chachma Ekev explains that the first blessing of ברכת המזון were established when Yisrael was well established in their own land, seeing the daily miracles of the Mikdash.  After that life was destroyed, it appeared that Yisrael may be lost in the exile especially after their revolt was squashed.  The ability to give proper dignity to the dead was an indication that even as the nation appeared to be lying dormant, G-d was still watching over His people.  The fact that we are sustained even as we are pushed to the curb is itself reason to give thanks.  The Gemarah Berachot (20b) says that because Klal Yisrael says ברכת המזון even when they are not satiated, not ושבעת, therefore Hashem is נושא פנים to them.  Why is it this detail more than any additional stringency or hanhaga that Klal Yisrael has adopted which causes נושא פנים?  Because of the fact that we give thanks to Hashem even when one does not have the ability to eat until satiated, we merit that Hashem acknowledges our thanks.  It is easy to be cognitive of the good in one's life when all is good but to see the good in the destruction is a tall order which Klal Yisrael adapted.   

Facilitators Of Crime

The Rambam (איסורי ביאה 12:10) says that a yisrael who has relations with a gentile woman, the gentile woman gets killed הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶהֱרֶגֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ כִּבְהֵמָה. וְדָבָר זֶה מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לא טז) ".הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" (במדבר לא יז) "וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ  Why does the Rambam need to jump to this verse in this week's parsha and not cite the fact that Pinchas killed Kazbi?  The Or Hachayim in fact, at the end of Balak ask why was Kuzbi killed and suggests along the lines of the Rambam that the woman gets killed because she caused a תקלה for Zimri.  So, why does the Rambam not cite that possuk?  Rav Moshe Feinstein says that the rule of the Rambam is a greater chiddush than the killing of Kuzbi and therefore he can't prove his law from there.  Kuzbi was killed in the middle of the act, she was caught red handed, there it is understood she gets killed for being a participant in the averah.  The Rambam is telling us a din that the woman gets killed even if the act is over, it could even be years later, if she is tracked down, she is killed because she caused the sin.  For that the Rambam has to cite our parsha, that there was a command to kill the Midyanite women.  This is why Moshe got angry at the army for not killing the woman, for they aren't being killed because of the din of מלמחה, in which they may be spared, they are being killed for causing an averah.  

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 35) suggests that when a gentile is killed because they caused a sin, they are not killed according to the rules of a gentile violating one of the 7 mitzvot with one witness and judge, rather they are killed according to the rules of an animal engaged in bestiality which is also killed for causing a sin, which requires two witnesses and 23 judges.  If that is correct, where were the 23 judges at the time of Kuzbi's killing?  It's the same idea.  That requirement is only when the woman is being killed later on due to her action.  However, during the act she is killed as a partner in crime just as the Jewish man.  

The Maggid Mishne asks how can the Rambam prove from this parsha the din that the woman gets killed because she caused a sin, all the woman were killed in the war, not only those that did a sin, so it was a gezerat hakatuv to kill all of them?  Rav Chayim Feinstein explains that the Rambam understands the woman in totality were wiped out because there was a national plot to cause Yisrael to sin.  In that situation, we no longer look at each specific woman to determine if they sinned, but rather the entire nation gets wiped out.  However, we see the reason for their death penalty is because of the women that cause Yisrael to sin.

Holy Words

The Seforno at the beginning of Mattos says וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות... זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ – כשאמר בהר סיני ״ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, וחללת״ (ויקרא י״ט:י״ב), היתה הכוונה שהאיש הנודר או נשבע ״לא יחל דברו״, כי בחללו דברו הוא מחלל את ה׳. אבל האשה שאינה ברשות עצמה, לא תהיה מחללת אם יפר המיפר.  Why is violating one's neder considered a chillul Hashem?  His dibbur is mechullul but how is that a chillul Hashem when there is no mention of G-d's name in a neder?

Rabbenu Yona on Pirkay Avot (1:17) says שהיו החכמים הקדושים עושים עצמן ככלי שרת שאין משתמשין בהם דברים של חול.  The Shem Mshmuel (first piece) says that is why there is an issur of בל יחל on one's neder because it creates kedusha, "בילקוט בשם ספרי זוטא ישראל בבל יחל ואין או"ה בבל יחל, להבין הטעם י"ל עפי"מ שאמר כ"ק אבי אדומו"ר זצללה"ה בטעם הנדרים שיהי' בכחו של אדם לעשות בדיבורו הדבר קודש שיעשה הוי' וצורה חדשה בהדבר, עפ"י דברי הר' יונה דמי ששומר פיו נעשה פיו כלי שרת, ע"כ כמו שכלי שרת מקדשין את המנחה הניתנה לתוכה, כן הדיבור היוצא מפיו הוא קדוש ובכן יכול לקדש את הדבר עכתדה"ק."  (See there what he elaborates based upon this.)  The Pardes Yosef brings a remez to this from the parsha of tuma in Chukas (19:15) וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא, any mouth that is not closed off from forbidden words is tamah for one can't speak bad things and contain Torah.

In light of this we can understand the Seforno (a little) that one who is mechellal their word it is like a chillul of kodesh which is a chillul Hashem.  In the words of the Sukkot Dovid:

In what is a stretch beyond the halachik meaning but brings out the point, in the sefer Minchas Machvas siman 223 he wants to say על דרך מוסר an answer to a question raised by the Briskor Rav in the name of his brother Rav Moshe.  He asks why is the lug shemen of the metzorah only liable for meilah after it becomes kadosh in a kli sharash (see Rambam Meilah 2:10) as opposed to every mincha where the issur meilah is immediate?  He suggests 

We read in the haftorah of Nachamu in Yeshayahu (40:2) דַּבְּר֞וּ עַל־לֵ֤ב יְרוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙.  The golus and geulah of Egypt was dependent on the tikkun of dibbur as the kabbalists explain so too the final geulah requires a tikkun of dibbur, דברו, by speaking about Yerushalayim we may help fix our tongues. 

Keep Thy's Word

The Gemorah in Nedarin (2b) says that an issur neder is an issur cheftzah.  The Ran and Rosh disagree if the Gemorah is teaching us the nature of neder or the terminology of neder is expressed as an issur on the cheftzah.  The question is neder purely an issur cheftzah or is there an element of issur gavrah as well?

The source for such an idea that it may be an issur gavrah would seem to stem from the language of the possuk, אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַֽי״י֗ אֽוֹ־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכׇל־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה.  The issur is described as a desecration of the person’s speech. 

The Minchas Chinuch (368:4) assumes in a situation where a person accepts upon himself nezirut for less than 30 days or for only one of the prohibitions of nezirut, where he is established as a complete nazir for 30 days, that there is no violation of בל יחל because the Torah imposed upon him the additional stringencies but he never accepted it upon himself.  He clearly assumes that the issur is to violate one’s word, not the cheftzah of the neder. 

The Rambam (Laws of Nedarim 10:12) holds that if one forbids person B from receiving benefit from him and then person B benefits, it is person A, that made the neder that gets the punishment.  The Ran (Nedarim 15a bottom,) disagrees, and holds it is person B who gets punished for they violated the neder.  Clearly, the Ran holds the issur is to violate the cheftzah of the neder, not the violation of one’s word, not like the Minchas Chinuch.  However, the Rambam holds it is upon the one taking the neder to make sure his/her word is upheld.  He may hold like the Minchas Chinuch but we aren’t forced to say so.  He may hold the one who made the neder is the one responsible for it, but his/her responsibility isn’t limited to what was only explicitly stated in his/her neder.

Keep Your Word

The possuk at the end of the parsha of nedarim sums up the laws: אֵ֣לֶּה הַֽחֻקִּ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה י״י֙ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בֵּ֥ין אִ֖ישׁ לְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ בֵּֽין־אָ֣ב לְבִתּ֔וֹ בִּנְעֻרֶ֖יהָ בֵּ֥ית אָבִֽיהָ.  However, what is ignored is the basic law itself that one must keep their neder.  Why? 

The Mishne L’melech Melachim (10:7) brings a machlokes in the Yerushalmi Nazir (9:1) if a gentile is obligated in בל יחל דברו.  The Mishne L’melech asks that we find many times that gentiles have to keep their word?  The Avnei Nezer Yorah Deah (306) explains that it is a סברא that one must keep their word and that is incumbent upon gentiles as well.

Based upon this we understand that the chiddush of the Torah is the din that a neder can be canceled; the need to fulfill one’s neder is self-understood (see Likutay Sichos volume 13.)

Doubled Over

Rebbe Meyer in the Mishna in Kiddushin (62a) derives from the תנאי בני גד ובני ראובן the need for תנאי כפול, we don’t assume מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.  The simple understanding of this din would be that Rebbe Meyer also agrees that one can figure out the other side of the תנאי by one’s self but it’s a גזירת הכתוב that תנאי requires תנאי כפול.  However, the Gemorah in Nedarin 11 assumes the din of Rebbe Meyer applies to a neder as well.  There is on תנאי there, so why would Rebbe Meye require תנאי כפול?  The Achronim prove from here that it’s not just a din in תנאי, it’s a din in speech; when one’s dibbur is affecting a din, it must be clear from both sides.

However, the Gemorah in Shevous (36b) proves from the issur of a kohan that drank wine serving in the mikdash, which is expressed in the Torah as if they don’t drink, they won’t die, that we say מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו even according to Rebbe Meyer regarding issurim.  That is a proof from the lashan haTorah, it has nothing to do with dibbur, yet the Gemorah still assumes according to Rebbe Meyer we don’t say מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, so we see it’s just a straight din that we don’t assume מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.  However, if that is the case, what it the reason of the Gemorah in Shevous’s difference between issur and monetary issues, that only regarding monetary issues Rebbe Meyer doesn’t hold of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן?  Possibly, we can understand in light of Tosfos in many places (ex. Kiddushin 6b) that Rebbe Meyer agrees if there is an אומדנא דמוכח that you don’t need a תנאי כפול.  How is this possible if Rebbe Meyer doesn’t hold of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן?  The peshat is that Rebbe Meyer also agrees there is reason to assume מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן but its not strong enough to affect a din.  However, if it’s completely obvious that you mean מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, then even Rebbe Meyer agrees there is no need to spell it out.  Based upon this, we can understand that the bar of birrur necessary to affect a din is higher regarding monetary issues more than issur.  This approach may be the peshat in Tosfos (Shevous) that Rebbe Meyer agrees regarding a harsh issur that we don’t say מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.  What is the difference if it’s a harsh issur?  To initiate a greater issur, you need a greater bar of birrur.

The problem is in other Rishonim.  They all ask why does Rebbe Meyer need כפל regarding נדר, it’s issur?  The Ran Nedarim )16a) says because it’s an issur cheftzah it’s regarded as monetary.  The Ritvah says there may be a loss of money because of the neder.  Why does this manner, we are dealing with issur, the bar of measurement should be the rules of issur, where we rely upon birrurim?

Tevilas Kelim

The possuk (31:23) כׇּל־דָּבָ֞ר אֲשֶׁר־יָבֹ֣א בָאֵ֗שׁ תַּעֲבִ֤ירוּ בָאֵשׁ֙ וְטָהֵ֔ר אַ֕ךְ בְּמֵ֥י נִדָּ֖ה יִתְחַטָּ֑א וְכֹ֨ל אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹֽא־יָבֹ֛א בָּאֵ֖שׁ תַּעֲבִ֥ירוּ בַמָּֽיִם.  Rashi says: ורבותינו דרשו מיכאן שאף להכשירן מן האיסור הטעין טבילה לכלי מתכות, ומי נדה הכתובין כאן דרשו מים הראויין לטבול בהן נדה, וכמה הן? ארבעים סאה.  His source is from Avodah Zarah (75b.)  However, the Gemorah says even new vessels acquired from a gentile require dunking in a mikveh, so what does Rashi mean that the dunking is להכשירן מן האיסור? 

The Rishonim in Avodah Zarah debate this point regarding if one can dunk the vessel and only remove the issur afterward or does one have to remove the issur first.  Many Rishonim say the removing of the issur must precede the tevilah so that it won’t be like טובל ושרץ בידו and they cite a Yerushalmi that tevilas kelim is to take the vessel out of the טומאה of the gentile and come to kedushas Yisroel.   Tosfos and the Rosh say that this tevilah isn’t to remove any issur, so one can be toval first.  Tosfos and the Rosh seem to be right; what is peshat in the other Rishonim and the Yerushalmi?

The Ritvah explains that even new vessels require tevilah since סופן להשתמשש באיסור ויצאו לקדושה.  He seems to be saying even though the vessels weren’t actually used, the fact that they are defined as כלי סעודה under the jurisdiction of a gentile already gives it tumah.  Based upon this we understand the Rishonim that its considered טובל ושרץ בידו.  That may be the explanation of the Rashi here as well.

This is Rav Hirsch’s explanation of the din: זוהי אפוא ההלכה האמורה כאן: כלי אוכל של מתכת, שעוברים מבעלות נכרי לבעלות יהודי, טעונים טבילה אפילו אם הם טהורים מכל טומאה ולא בלעו שום איסור. זוהי הלכה של קדושה, ותכליתה ללמד את ישראל שאפילו ההנאה החושנית ממאכל חייבת להיות מקודשת. אולם מאחר שהלכה זו מוגבלת לכלי אכילה של מתכת, ממילא הרעיון העולה במחשבה על ידי טבילה זו הוא בעל משמעות מיוחדת.

כלי מתכת מייצג את שלטונו הרוחני של האדם על הארץ ועל חומריה. לא רק צורת הכלי אלא גם החומר שלו מעיד על שלטון זה. מאידך גיסא, אכילה היא פעילות המשרתת את טבעו הגופני־חושני של האדם. כלי מתכת המשמש לאכילה מייצג, כשלעצמו, את צדו הרוחני של אדם העומד בשירות טבעו החושני. אולם תחת ממשלת התורה, גם חייו החושניים של האדם מופקעים מתחום הכפייה הגופנית, והם מסורים לרשות פעילותו המוסרית בת־החורין, שהיא היא עבודת ה׳.

לפי זה, ניתן להבין היטב מדוע התורה מחייבת בטבילה דווקא כלי אוכל של מתכת הבאים לרשותו של יהודי. כך גם ניתן להבין היטב מדוע טבילה זו קרויה גם ״התחטא״, שכן תכליתה להחיות ולחזק את תודעת החירות המוסרית, שאינה אלא היכולת להימנע מחטא. כך אומרים חז״ל (ירושלמי, עבודה זרה ה, טו): ״לפי שיצאו מטומאת הנכרי ונכנסו לקדושת ישראל״.

Missing The Point

The Mishna in Bikkurim (1:10) brings a machlokes if bikkurim can be brought from עבר הירדן.  According to Rebbe Yose they can't be brought from עבר הירדן.  It is a debate in the Yerushalmi if his reason is that its not considered ארץ זבת חלב ודבש or because it says אשר נתתה לי but they took the portion by asking for it.  True this derasha of אשר נתתה לי is only written by bikkurim, but it begs the question of why would they be obligated in all of the mitzvot that apply to crops but exempt from bikkurim?

Explains Rav Unertman:

The episode of the tribes asking for the land is met by Moshe with anger.  He compares them to the meraglim trying to dismay everyone else from entering the land.  Why was Moshe so harsh, they just made a sensible request because they had a lot of livestock, they wanted to remain in grassy lands?  Rav Dovid Solevetchik explains that being sensible was the mistake.  We weren't given Eretz Yisreol because of its greater physical nature and makeup; because it has superior fruits.  We were given the land that has the ability to give spiritual growth to its inhabitants.  By taking into consideration their mundane needs, the tribes of Reuban and Gad showed they missed the boat.  In that vein they were similar to the meraglim who were also afraid of a fight because they thought the conquest of Eretz Yisroel was עפ"י טבע, when in deed it was not. 

Eretz Yisroel isn't ours as just a land to call our own, it is the land that enhances, improves and intensifies our connection to Hashem.