NUM354 See [[DEUT1302]] Deuteronomy 23:24 fulfill HTBAJ 195-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM356 What is the intent of [the repetition] "oath"? To teach that epithets of oaths are considered [binding, just as] oaths. Yerushalmi Nedarim 1:12)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM357 (Continued from [[GEN1440]] Genesis 37:2 reports GATES 411) Shlomo, a"h, said (Mishlei 25:23), "A northern wind prevents (techolel) rain, and an angry countenance, a furtive tongue." What this means is that just like a northern wind scatters the clouds and prevents rain [from pouring], so too, an angry countenance prevents lashon hara. For when the teller sees the face of his listener, full of anger, the sound of his pouring words will cease. But if he sees that the listener is listening to him, he will drink iniquity like water and not withhold his mouth from lying. Tomorrow will be the same as today [Yeshayahu 56:12], for he will repeat his foolishness, constantly telling lies, and his tongue will pursue the downpour of his falsehoods. The word techolel is from the same root as chalilah ["Heaven forfend!" -- i.e., it means to prevent.]. Similarly, "He shall not violate (yachel) his word" [this verse] -- he shall not negate; and (Bereishis 4:26), "it was then that to call [in the Name of Hashem] ceased (huchal)" -- then it was prevented.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM358 Keep the laws of annulment of vows. See [[EXOD382]] Exodus 20:7 vain CHINUCH 25

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM359 It is a positive commandment to deal with cases of nullifying vows and oaths as Scripture says, When a man vows a vow to Hashem, etc. [this verse]. This means that if one who made the vow regrets it and is sorry for what has happened, he is to come to an expert scholar, or to three ordinary persons if there is no learned expert there; and he says, "I swore, or vowed, about this-and-that, and I have come to regret it. Had I known that I would suffer about the matter to such an extent, or that this would happen to me, I would not have taken the vow, or the oath." Then the scholar or the three ordinary man tell him, "Have you already been sorry for it?" Whereupon he answers, "Yes." At that they may say to him, "It is allowed for you," or "It is forgiven you," or "It is permissible for you.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM360 Scripture hereby teaches us that he takes his place for [punishment of her] sin. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in respect to God's Measure of punishment, which [relative to that of reward] is small, one who causes his neighbor to go astray takes his place [for punishment], then, in respect to His measure of good, which is [relatively] large, how much more so [is one rewarded for being instrumental in his neighbor's mitzvah]! (Sifrei)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM361 [W]e cannot tell in advance how humans will react. How then can we create an orderly society without taking away people's freedom? The answer is the act of promising. When I promise to do something, I am freely placing myself under an obligation to do something in the future. If I am the kind of person who is known to keep his word, I have removed one element of unpredictability from the human world. You can rely on me, since I have given my word. When I promise, I voluntarily bind myself. It is this ability of humans to voluntarily commit themselves to do or refrain from doing certain ask that generates order in the relations between human beings without the use of coercive force. [Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 243-4)]. "When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said" [this verse]. It is no accident that this, the second verse of Parashat Matot, is stated shortly before the Israelites approach the Promised Land. The institution of promising, of which vows and oaths to God are a supreme example, is essential to the existence of a free society. Freedom depends on people keeping their word. ... If trust breaks down, social relationships break down. Society will then depend on law enforcement agencies or some other use of force. When force is widely used, society is no longer free. The only way free human beings can form collaborative and cooperative relationships without recourse to force is by the use of verbal undertakings honored by those who make them. Freedom needs trust. Trust needs people to keep their word, and keeping your word means treating words as holy, vows and oaths as sacrosanct. Only under very special and precisely formulated circumstances can you be released from your undertakings. That is why, as the Israelites approached the Holy Land where they were to create a free society, they had to be reminded of the sacred character of vows and oaths. The temptation to break your word when it is to your advantage to do so can sometimes be overwhelming. That is why belief in God -- a God who oversees all we think, say, and do and who holds us accountable to our commitments--is so fundamental. Although it sounds strange to us now, the father of toleration and liberalism, John Locke, held that citizenship should not be extended to atheists because not believing in God, they should not be trusted to honor their word. (John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). So the appearance of laws about vows and oaths at the end of the book of Numbers, as the Israelites are approaching the land, is no accident, and the moral is still relevant today. A free society depends on trust. Trust depends on keeping your word. That is how humans imitate God -- by using language to create. Words create moral obligations, and moral obligations, undertaken responsibly and honored faithfully, create the possibility of a free society.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM362 See [[NUM317]] Numbers 25:12 covenant AMJV 274-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM363 One who causes another to sin is held responsible for the punishment that person will receive. God told Moshe to avenge the harm caused the Children of Israel by the Midianites. Twenty-four thousand Israelites died in a plague that was sent as retribution for the sin brought upon them by the Midianites. From here we see that one who causes another person to sin is held responsible for the punishment that person will receive. (Ohr Yohail, vol. 3, p. 188).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM364 We must be grateful to someone who has benefited us, even if he did not do so intentionally. When the Jewish people went to fight the Midianites, Moshe sent others but did not go himself. In verses one and two we read that God commanded Moshe to avenge the crime of the Midianites; why then did Moshe delegate this task to others? The Midrash explains that this was because Moses had lived in their midst (from the time he fled from Egypt until his return to Egypt after God appeared to him in the burning bush) and had an obligation to be grateful to them. (Daas Zkainim). During Moshe's stay, the Midianites did not go out of their way to aid Moshe, and now God decreed that they were to be punished. Nevertheless, Moshe did not join his army in battle against the Midianites out of gratitude. If Moshe was grateful even to an unintending benefactor, all the more so must we be grateful to someone who is going out of his way to help us. (Ohr Yohail, vol. 2, p. 221). If someone taught you Torah or had a beneficial influence on you, you should be extremely grateful to him. Failure to honor him properly shows a gross lack of gratitude. (Pele Yoatz, section kofuy tova). The Baal Haturim comments that Moshe did not send the princes of the twelve tribes to fight against Midian to spare the tribe of Shimon embarrassment since their prince, Zimri, had been killed. In time of war good leadership is essential. The princes would have contributed much to the war effort if they would have been present during the battle against Midian. But Moshe was willing to forgo the advantages of their assistance to save people from embarrassment. Zimri, the former Prince of the tribe of Shimon died dishonorably. He publicly committed an immoral act and Pinchos killed him. If the princes of the other twelve tribes would. have been called to lead the one thousand men from the respective tribes, the leader of the tribe of Shimon would have been conspicuously absent. The pain of embarrassment is so great that even in time of war we must be careful not to cause someone shame. (Kol Tzofayich, p. 325).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT