Thanks, but here the self-prohibition is attributed to the oath, not to the vow.

I don’t read it that way. It’s all prohibitions, but the oath is a prohibition on the person himself (- on the gavra). See Nedarim 2a.

What he meant was (and that’s how I read it too): “A man: 1. if he vows a vow to the Lord. Or: 2. ‘swears an oath to bind himself by a prohibition.’” And throughout the rest of the passage you get pairs of 1. “vow,” 2. “binding a prohibition on oneself by an oath,” like in verse 11. Since everywhere else in the Hebrew Bible a vow means a sacrifice, and an oath means forbidding an action, it really does make more sense to interpret the verse this way (and if the Rabbi knew only the Bible and not the Talmud, he would understand it that way too). And if so, his question still stands.

Ailon, see verse 10, from which your reading does not seem to follow, since it doesn’t say “or” there.

To Roni
That’s not a proof, because that’s the usual style of Scripture sometimes to be brief, especially if it will elaborate later, which is exactly what happens in the next verse, which continues verse 10. This is also a problem for the Rabbi’s interpretation. Meaning, even according to the Rabbi, verse 10 speaks only about an oath (a self-prohibition).

Ailon,
Maybe it’s not a proof, but it is certainly a possible direction, one that fits the plain meaning of the verse, without resorting to strained language about brevity or omitted words. So you shouldn’t be surprised that the Sages explained it that way.

To Roni. It’s not strained at all. Brevity of style (and also omitted words) is the style of the Bible. Maybe you haven’t read or studied much Bible (at least with Da’at Mikra), otherwise you’d know that this fits it very well. “Possible directions” are for weaklings (:)). I’m not surprised by the Sages. I believe in the Sages, but also in what my eyes see. And the simple plain meaning of the passage (against the backdrop of the language and thought of the whole Bible) is that there is no such thing as “prohibitory vows.” They expounded the passage. The questioner asked how the derash is written into the peshat.

Ailon,
As I understand it, the Sages understood the plain meaning differently from you, as I explained.
It’s not clear to me why you think they interpreted the plain meaning like you and only then expounded it differently, when there is no hint of such an exposition in their words (as far as I know).
This would hardly be the first time that the Sages chose a certain plain-sense interpretation, even though another interpretation was also possible.

I distinguish between the term “simple peshat,” which is just understanding biblical language (and thought) as all Bible scholars and other people today generally understand the language of the Bible in a simple way. That is because the Sages use the term “peshat” not exactly the way we use it. Many times what the Sages call “peshat” would look to us like “derash,” and vice versa (see Rabbi Breuer’s introduction to Chapters on the Festivals, and he has other examples too). I have no idea what the Sages thought, but I do understand biblical language, and “prohibitory vows” are not the simple peshat of the Bible.

Ailon,
In other words, in this case the Sages’ straightforward understanding of Scripture (their understanding of the language and thought) doesn’t seem right to you, and of course that’s legitimate. New peshatim arise every day, as is well known.
After all, quite a few of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) who focused on peshat interpreted the verses themselves as I did, and presumably that is also how the Sages understood the meaning of the words, so there is no reason to say that they were making derashot here.
In the present case this is only an interpretive disagreement anyway, and there is no practical halakhic difference if we say that something classified in the Torah as an oath is classified by the Sages as a prohibitory vow (there is no practical difference, since with vows one follows common human speech, and there is a “handle” for both a vow and an oath; and even regarding prior warning there is no practical difference, because the prohibition of “he shall not break his word” applies to both vows and oaths). If there were a halakhic practical difference, it would be decided by the majority of authorities as usual, and that is true not only regarding Torah expositions but also regarding straightforward interpretation.

With God’s help, 5 Kislev 5779

A prohibitory vow imposes an “object-based prohibition” on an object, which becomes sanctified like a sacrifice in order to forbid the person certain actions or benefits involving it. This is also reflected in the wording of the vow: “This item is konam to me,” where “konam” is a substitute term for “sacrifice.”

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

A clear example of a vow whose content is prohibition is the vow of the nazirite, who forbids himself wine, cutting his hair, and defilement through a dead body. Here too there is something like dedicating a sacrifice, in that the nazirite dedicates himself to the Lord through the nazirite vow, as it says: “he shall be holy.”

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

Not quite so simple. In the responsum of the Maharit he struggled with this point (that naziriteship is a vow) and brought three approaches: on the person, on the person as an object, and on the wine itself.

The Maharit’s conclusion is exactly what S.Z.L. wrote (it looks like he copied it from him).

To S.Z.L.
You might have thought that by now, from all my comments here on the site, you’d understand that I’m a yeshiva graduate and that at some point I sat through some introductory lesson in tractate Nedarim. Or at least page 2a. Or at least Maimonides’ introduction to the laws of vows. All of these things are known and familiar. What I want to know is how all this is written into the simple plain meaning of the passage. The mechanism of prohibitory vows as vows of consecration (analogy to a sacrifice, and not to a prohibition, for example) still doesn’t satisfy me. So you need to work harder. What I’m trying to clarify is how the Oral Torah interprets the Written Torah here. This is a general phenomenon in a considerable portion of the legal sections of the Torah. The Oral Torah, in at least 50% of the cases in terms of the details of the commandments, differs from the simple plain meaning.

To S.Z.L. and the Rabbi
I’ll explain a bit what I want: obviously in this case the Torah did not depart from the spirit of the Bible in what it calls a “vow,” which is always a sacrifice or consecration (as with Jacob: “I will surely tithe to You”) or a ban. It expanded the concept of “vow” also to refraining from benefit from objects, like refraining from benefit from sacred offerings and sacrifices, from which benefit is forbidden as misuse of holy property. But I would still like there to be some hint of this in the Bible.

For example (to show why I’m looking): the term “prince” in the portion of Leviticus, in the section about the sin-offering of a prince. According to the simple plain meaning of the term “prince” across the Torah (not the rest of the Bible!), this means the head of a tribe. And the Sages “expound” (“one over whom only ‘the Lord his God’ is above him”) that this means a king (with practical relevance regarding bringing the sin-offering of a prince, and I know there is a discussion about this somewhere in tractate Horayot. Rabbi Judah the Prince had an initial thought that maybe he had to bring the sin-offering of a prince).
And then in the book of Numbers, in the portion of Matot, it says: “And they killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi, Rekem, Tzur, Hur, and Reva, the five kings of Midian, and Balaam son of Beor they killed by the sword.”

And in the book of Joshua there is an almost parallel verse:
“And all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses struck, and the princes of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Tzur, Hur, and Reva, the chieftains of Sihon, dwellers of the land. And Balaam son of Beor, the diviner, the children of Israel killed by the sword among their slain.”

“Princes of Midian” instead of “kings of Midian.” That is apparently the source for the Sages’ exposition that this refers to a king. After learning more Bible one discovers that in Ezekiel and Zechariah and other places too, the Bible uses the word “prince” to describe a king. From this it seems that the simple plain meaning of the word “prince” is an amorphous concept with at least two appearances: 1. head of a tribe. 2. head of a people (king). And there is apparently a hierarchy between them, with the first appearance being primary and only afterward the second. Note that the Sages did not use this argument to explain that “prince” in Leviticus means king; rather, they understood that the simple meaning was indeed head of a tribe and needed an exposition to argue that here it means the second appearance. But they did not invent something new; they used a meaning, an appearance, of the word that already exists in the Bible, and only expounded that this is the appearance relevant for Jewish law.

There are other examples of this kind. Here I’m looking for some source from elsewhere in the Bible for the Sages’ expansion of the meaning of the word “vow” in the Bible.

I said I have more examples of this kind. Here’s another one: in the portion of Ki Tisa it says, “And in all that I have said to you, take heed; and the name of other gods you shall not mention; it shall not be heard on your mouth.” And the Sages make a point of saying that this means it is forbidden to cause an idolater to swear by the name of his god.

And once again in Joshua there is a similar verse: “And be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, not to turn from it right or left; not to mix with these remaining nations among you, and the name of their gods you shall not mention, nor shall you swear by them, nor serve them, nor bow to them.”

Here too I am convinced that the Sages expounded (a kind of expounding) the verse in Exodus, and that it was not merely clarification of what was already obvious. That is because the expression “to mention in the name of the Lord” (and more generally “to mention in the name of some god”) is usually used, in the simple plain meaning of the Bible, to denote prayer. From this it follows that the simple plain meaning of the verse in Exodus is a prohibition on praying to another god. The Sages expounded and expanded the expression to include, apparently, also the prohibition of causing a gentile to swear in the name of idolatry (or they understood that in this case it specifically means not prayer but causing an oath). The word “to mention” has an amorphous meaning of uttering the mentioned name. Usually the primary appearance of the word is
to call upon it by name for help and prayer. But they used the appearance in Joshua to explain that here it refers to the less common appearance of the word “mention.” (And the book of Joshua, by the way, is apparently speaking of our own swearing and not making someone else swear. Meaning, apparently the simple plain meaning of the word “make swear” there is really “swear,” and then perhaps there is yet another exposition here. In the language of the Sages, and also in other places in the Bible, “make swear” means making someone else swear, as in the portion of the suspected adulteress: “and the priest shall make the woman swear.”)

With God’s help, 5 Kislev 5779

To Ailon – greetings,

As you noted, the essence of a vow is consecration to the Lord. According to the Sages as well, prohibitory vows are a consecration of an object to the Lord, by force of which certain actions or benefits involving that object become forbidden to the person, and this fits the plain sense of the verses.

According to the plain sense of the verses, there are also vows in which a person consecrates himself to be holy to the Lord, a holiness that obligates him to unique conduct. Thus Jacob vows: “If the Lord will be with me and guard me… and I return in peace to my father’s house—then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely tithe to You.” So besides consecrating the stone and setting aside a tithe from his possessions, Jacob commits himself that the Lord will be his God, and that his life will be dedicated to the service of the Lord.

And so too the nazirite consecrates himself to the Lord, as it says, “all the days of his separation he is holy to the Lord,” and from this holiness that he imposed upon himself derive the prohibitions of shaving, drinking wine, and becoming impure through a person. (And as Sh wrote, this really is how the Maharit understood the halakhic definition of naziriteship: as an “object-based prohibition on the person,” in accordance with the plain sense of the verses. I would appreciate it if someone would enlighten me and point me to the place in the Maharit’s responsa.)

And so Hannah, in her vow, consecrates her son to the Lord when she says: “and I shall give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head.” By force of the vow she brings the boy to the house of the Lord immediately after he is weaned, and he grows up in the house of the Lord with his life holy to the service of the Lord, as she says: “and I also have lent him to the Lord; all the days that he lives, he is lent to the Lord.”

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

*) An object-based prohibition on the person apparently also exists in the case of a woman who says: “Let my hands be sanctified to their Maker.”

“Prince” can also mean a leader on a lower level than the head of a tribe. Thus regarding the spies it says “every one a prince among them,” even though they were not heads of the tribes; and so too Zimri is called “a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites,” although he was not head of the tribe but head of one of the clans.

That is to say: a prince is a leader, a person elevated and exalted above the people, whether a clan leader, a tribal leader, or the leader of the whole nation. Even a cloud is called a “prince” because it is high and lofty.

It seems to me that after the entry into the Land, throughout the Former Prophets the tribal princes are not mentioned as filling a significant role. Leadership was in the hands of the elders, the elders of the city or tribe, or in the hands of judges who arose and led the people, and later in the hands of the king.

The leadership role of the tribal princes apparently ended after they apportioned the Land to the children of Israel, and perhaps for that reason the Sages concluded that “prince” means a leader of the whole nation, just as “the anointed priest” and “the whole congregation” are positions of leadership over the entire nation.

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

It seems to me that the prohibition of causing an oath in the name of an idol is learned from the end of the verse, “it shall not be heard on your mouths,” which is in the passive form: not only should you yourselves not mention the names of idols, but you also may not cause their names to be heard indirectly through you.