Nedarim and Individuality

The first section of this week’s Parsha concerns the Dinim of Nedarim. The power of one’s speech and intentions are manifest in these halachos: if someone makes a Neder, proclaiming that he will not partake of a certain item, or gain Hanah from a person, that item or person becomes Assur to him like any other Issur in the Torah.

In out times, these Halachos do not seem to be as relevant; we are not in the habit of taking Nedarim. In fact, after the Churban Bais HaMikdash, there was a Takana from R’ Yochanan Ben Zakkai not to make Nedarim any more. This is the reason that we generally refrain from making promises, and even in the case that we are being Menadev to Tzedaka we say “Bli Neder.”

However, as with the rest of Sefer Bamidbar, the relevance of the actual Halachos should not be a factor in our relationship to them. Rather, we must find a way to take a lesson from these Halachos that is applicable to our own lives.

The Gemarah in Nedarim says in the name of R’ Nosson: “Kol HaNoder Kilu Boneh Bamah, V’hamikaymo K’ilu Maktir Aleha: One who makes a Neder is akin to one who builds a Bamah, and one who keeps the Neder is akin to one who brought a Korbon upon that Bamah.”

What is the connection between Nedarim and bringing a Korban on a Bamah?

Before answering this question, we must understand the negative aspect of a Bamah. After all, if a person feels the urge to bring Korbonos from his own home, to create his own private Bais HaMikdash—if his intentions are pure and L’shem Shamayim—why should it matter if he is in the Makom Hamikdash or not?

Let us look at this question in a way that will affect us during the period of Bein HaMetzarim, in which we currently find ourselves.

We know that Bayis Rishon was destroyed because of the three Aveiros Chamuros: Giluy Arayos, Shefichas Damim and Avodah Zarah. Bayis Sheni, however, was destroyed because of Sinas Chinam.

Many wonder about the comparison between the causes of Churban HaBayis. The three Aveiros that caused the destruction of the Bayis Rishon are the most Chamur in the Torah, the only ones for which we are responsible to give up our lives rather than committing them. How can that be compared to Sinas Chinam, internal discord? Obviously unconditional Ahavas Yisroel is an important part of Am Yisroel’s existence, but how can it be equal to the lack of Shmiras HaMitzvos that destroyed the Bayis Rishon.

Furthermore, Chazal tell us that the Galus after Churban Bayis Rishon had a set time: seventy years. After that we were allowed to return and build a new Bais Hamikdash. In the case of Churban Bayis Sheni, however, the Galus will last until we are able to repair the rifts caused by Sinas Chinam and live in harmony. It therefore seems that Sinas Chinam was a greater cause of destruction, causing an interminable Galus!

The Nisivos Shalom explains as follows.

Bayis Rishon was destroyed as a punishment for Klal Yisroel committing those terrible Aveiros. Because of these transgressions, they were no longer Zoche to the Bais Hamikdash. The term of seventy years was a Tikkun for those Aveiros, and after that they were allowed to return and rebuild.

The Churban Bayis Sheni was much different.

Achdus, unity, was central to the very existence of the Bais Hamikdash. The Tzivuy to build a Mishkan was said in the plural form: “ViAsu Li Mikdash: And you (plural) should build a Mikdash.” The same is true of the Aron HaKodesh—the essence of the Bais HaMikdash—as the Passuk says: “ViAsu Aron: And you (plural) should make the Aron.”

The Nesivos Shalom explains that because this is true, because Achdus in Klal Yisroel is such an integral part of the existence of the Bais HaMikdash, when we were not united—when Sinas Chinam reigned—the Bais HaMikdash could not stand. The Churban was not as much a punishment for the Sinas Chinam as an outgrowth and result of it. Because that is true, the Bais HaMikdash cannot possibly be rebuilt until we eliminate Sinas Chinam and can act in a manner of “VeAsu”.

The Bamah stands opposed to the unity of the Bais HaMikdash. When the Bais Hamikdash is standing, if one is to build a private Mizbeach he is removing himself from the Klal, and excluding himself from the Achdus of the Bais HaMikidash.

The Maharal explains that this is the connection between Nedarim and a Bamah.

When a person makes a Neder, he creates his own personal Issur. In effect he is saying “that which is allowed to others, is not okay for me.” He is putting himself on a higher plane. In this way he is separating himself from the rest of Klal Yisroel, and it is akin to building a Bamah: both serve to remove a person from the greater Klal.

The upshot of this explanation of the Maharal is that making a Neder is a negative action, something that a person should stay away from.

The Talilei Chaim asks: if making a Neder is not what the Torah wanted from us, than why does the mechanism of Nedarim even exist?

When someone makes a Neder, it is more than just a promise, and if he breaks that Neder, he is doing more than merely breaking his word. The Neder creates actual Issur: if a person makes a Neder not to eat chicken, than it is Assur for him to eat chicken and if he does so he violates that Issur.

If the Torah did not want us to create additional Issurim upon ourselves—for, as the Maharal explains, it creates division among us—than why allow a person to create Issur? If I say that a table is a cow, the table does not get the Dinim of a cow, why should Nedarim be any different?

Looking back at the words of the Nesivos Shalom, we see something interesting. While the Tzivuyim of the Mishkan and Aron we given in plural form, using the words VeAsu, the other Kaylim were given using the singular. For example, the Torah says: “V’Asisah Menorah: “And You (singular) Should make the Menorah.” Similar terms are used with regard to the Shulchan, Mizbeach and even the Kapores, which was placed atop the Aron HaKodesh.

Chazal tell us that each of the Kaylim represented a different Middah or Koach. For example, the Gemarah says that one who wishes to Daven for Chachma should face north and one who wishes to Daven for wealth should face south. The Siman for this, says the Gemarah, is that the Menorah is in the north and the Shulchan is in the south. The connection seems to be that each represented these Midos and Kochos in their own way.

Perhaps that is the message of the Pessukim. The Bais Hamikdash—and the Aron—had to be built on Achdus. If Klal Yisroel is not united, they cannot stand. But if that unity exists, there is also room for us—as individuals—to pave our own way. One can choose the north or the south, the Kochos of the Menorah or those of the Shulchan—as long as the foundation of Achdus exists.

The Talilei Chaim says that the same is true of Nedarim.

When one uses a Neder as a tool to remove himself from the Klal, to set himself apart as more special or better than others, the Torah equates him with one who uses a Bamah. Just as the Bais HaMikdash is built upon Achdus, so is the Torah—which had to be received “K’ish Echad B’lev Echad.” When one uses his own judgment to create Issurim, it is as if he has removed himself from the very sense of equality on which the Torah is based.

However, if one recognizes that he has strength and weaknesses and uses a Neder to compliment these, he is not removing himself from the Klal. He would never think that someone else is less than he because they did not make the same Neder, rather he would recognize that they each have different paths in Avodas Hashem.

This is why the Torah created a concept of Nedarim. While a Neder can sometimes be used as a way to separate oneself from the Klal, they can also be used constructively—to enhance our individual Avodah.

We all have our own path in life, and sometimes we have difficulty remembering that there are various ways for people to be close to Hashem. As long as one is acting L’shem Shamayim they can choose the path of any of the Kaylim—but the foundation of Achdus must be there.

What better time can there be to take the message of Nedarim to heart and reignite our own sense of Ahavas Chinam—so we may merit seeing the Binyan Bais HaMikdash as a joint Klal—in the truest sense of “V’aSu Li Mikdash.”