English translation — תצא ב

A.

The Gemara says¹

: "Whoever vows, even though he fulfills it, is called a sinner,

R' Zevid said: What is the verse? 'And if you refrain from vowing, there will be no sin in you'²,

behold, if you did not refrain, there is sin."

Also one learns³

from a gezerah shavah "refrain, refrain" — "It is written here: 'For you refrain from vowing'⁴

and it is written there⁵

'There the wicked cease from raging' — that "Whoever vows⁶

even though he fulfills it⁷

is called a wicked person."

Both teachings are brought down for halachah in the Shulchan Aruch⁸

"Whoever⁹

vows, even though he fulfills it, is called a wicked person and is called a sinner"¹⁰

The Rambam however a)

does not bring down in Hilchos Nedarim the above-mentioned teachings¹¹.

b)

brings down a third statement of our Sages, of blessed memory¹²

Regarding the deficiency of vowing — at the end of Hilchos Nedarim the Rambam says: "Whoever vows is as if he built a private altar, and if he transgressed and vowed, it is a mitzvah to seek absolution for his vow."

And it requires explanation: Why does he not bring the aforementioned studies from verses,

but rather "All who vow etc." — on which he does not bring a verse¹³?

Also one must understand: the matter,

that one should refrain from vowing,

the Rambam already says earlier,

in Hilchos De'os¹⁴,

where he speaks about how a person's conduct should be in general regarding worldly matters — from which one must separate and from which one must not — and this is his language: "Therefore the Sages commanded that a person should not refrain himself except from things that the Torah alone forbade,

and he should not forbid himself by vows and oaths regarding permitted things.

Thus said the Sages¹⁵

'Is it not enough for you what the Torah forbade, that you also forbid upon yourself other things?'"

It is not smooth: why does he not bring there the deficiency in Nedarim of the aforementioned maamarim,

that "whoever vows etc. is called a sinner

(a transgressor),

as if he built a private altar"?

—which is indeed stricter than the claim "not enough for you" etc.

B.

One will understand this through the explanation of the words of the Rambam in the aforementioned halacha: "Whoever vows is as if he built a private altar,

and if he transgressed and vowed, it is a mitzvah to seek absolution for his vow so that there should not be a stumbling block before him."

The source of the halachah,

is the statement of Rabbi Nathan that is brought several times in the Talmud¹⁶,

and R. N. concludes "and one who fulfills it is as if he offered a sacrifice upon it"¹⁷.

It is not understood: why does the Rambam also not bring the conclusion of the statement which further brings out the magnitude of the sin if one does not ask about the vow

(and consequently - fulfills it),

that when one fulfills the vow¹⁸

- it is as if one offers a sacrifice on a private altar¹⁹?

Further: in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch²

it is that²¹

brought down²²

The Radbaz<sup>23</sup>

explains,

that the continuation of the maamar of R"N "והמקיימו כאילו הקריב עלי׳ קרבן" the Rambam interprets in this manner,

that "if he is afraid lest he come to a stumbling block and fulfills his vow and does not ask about it, it is as if he offered a sacrifice upon it,

but if it is certain to him that he will not come to a stumbling block, if he wishes to fulfill, he should fulfill."

But it is seemingly not smooth to learn thus in the Rambam,

a)

From the plain language of the Rambam "כל הנודר כאילו בנה במה ואם עבר ונדר מצוה להשאל על נדרו כו'" it implies,

that just as the beginning speaks about every manner of vow

("כל הנודר"),

so too the continuation "אם עבר ונדר",

means that in any manner,

both in the case of "afraid lest etc." and also in the case of "it is certain to him etc."<sup>24</sup>.

b)

How can it be that he will not come to a stumbling block — since our Sages of blessed memory said in their Mishnah²⁵

"Do not trust in yourself,"

and they asserted to place themselves in a test²⁶.

c.

Superficially, one can answer this based on the precise language of the Rambam "Whoever vows is as if he built a private altar" — not as in several places in the Talmud²⁷

(and similarly in the Shulchan Aruch²⁸)

where it says "whoever vows" simply — what must be said is the intention of the Rambam in this:

The Rambam continues and concludes the halacha,

that "And if he transgressed and vowed, it is a mitzvah to seek absolution for his vow etc. In what matters is this said? In vows of prohibition, but vows of consecration, it is a mitzvah to fulfill them etc."

From the fact that the Rambam makes a distinction between vows of prohibition and vows of consecration only in the second case of "And if he transgressed and vowed",

that regarding vows of prohibition it is "a mitzvah to seek absolution for his vow" and "vows of consecration, it is a mitzvah to fulfill them and not to seek absolution for them except under duress" — and not regarding the first case of "Whoever vows"

(initially)

— it is proven,

that the first matter

(of "Whoever vows is as if he built a high place")

is not only regarding "vows of prohibition" but also regarding "vows of consecration".

that the statement of Rabbi Nathan speaks even about vows of charity,

because "even though it is a mitzvah to give charity, nevertheless when he vows and obligates himself with a vow, it appears as if he is adding to the commandments of the Holy One, blessed be He, as if the Holy One, blessed be He, did not complete His statutes in what He commanded us"].

And therefore the Rambam is precise "all who vows" — to include also vows of consecration³⁰.

According to this is also answered why the Rambam does not bring the continuation of the statement of R. N. "and the one who fulfills it is as if he offered a sacrifice upon it": since that "all who vows is as if he built a high place" means also vows of consecration — then if the Rambam would have continued "and the one who fulfills it is as if he offered a sacrifice upon it",

it would have been in contradiction to the ruling in Rambam "in what matters are these said? In vows of prohibition, but vows of consecration it is a mitzvah to fulfill them and one should not ask about them except under duress, as it is said 'vows to the Lord I will pay'."

Since that the fulfillment of the vow is "as if he offered a sacrifice upon it" — how can one say regarding vows of consecration "it is a mitzvah to fulfill them"?

And based on this it is also resolved why the Rambam does not bring down "one who vows is as if he built a private altar" in Hilchos De'os,

because there he speaks about abstinence from worldly matters and vows of prohibition; but about vows of consecration — he does not speak there].

It remains, however, not understood: Since also vows of consecration are "as if he built a private altar" — why does the Torah say that one should leave the "stumbling block before him"

(the "private altar"),

and not nullify it,

by asking [a sage] concerning his vow

(as with vows of prohibition*³⁰)?

4.

And we must explain all this:

As an introduction — the matter of "as if he built a bamah" the Rambam says — and so it stands in the Gemara — only regarding nedarim

("all who makes a neder"),

but not regarding shevuot

"he who makes a neder or he who makes a shevuah etc."

Moreover: in Hilchot Deot,

where the Rambam speaks

(as above)

about the deficiency of forbidding to oneself things that are permitted,

he includes nedarim and shevuot together].

And as is proven at the end of Hilchos Shvuos,

where the Rambam says: "And it is a great goodness for a person not to swear at all" and he continues "And if he transgressed and swore

(according to his language regarding a vow at the end of Hilchos Nedarim: And if he transgressed and vowed)

he will be distressed etc."

And he does not say about this "as if he built a bamah".

The Rogatchover³²

explains this: "For regarding an oath, which is a prohibition on the person and the prohibition does not take effect on any object, it is not applicable to say 'as if he built a bamah'³³

for the prohibition is the oath and not something else."

The explanation of this:

In this the reason of the matter,

why one says that one who makes a vow is "as if he built a bamah",

says the Ran³⁴

: "It seems to me that this is why we compare him to one who builds a bamah, because it enters the mind of the vower that he is doing a mitzvah,

for the Merciful One prohibited him in matters of prohibition and he also prohibits upon himself."

And on this one says "He errs,

for on the contrary, he is like one who builds a bamah, for although the Merciful One commanded him to offer sacrifices inside,

He commanded him not to add to it to build a bamah and to offer outside,

so too, although the Merciful One prohibited to him forbidden things, when he adds to what the Merciful One prohibited, he transgresses,

as in the manner .

that they said in the Yerushalmi in the chapter Potechin³⁵

Is it not enough for you what the Torah prohibited, but you also prohibit upon yourself other things."

This setup can be interpreted in two ways — in what the deficiency and sin of the one who vows consists: a)

In the action of the person,

That he prohibits matters that the Torah did not prohibit.

b)

In the object,

In that through his vow an object of prohibition was created,

That the Torah did not prohibit.

or from the side of the object acted upon].

And also regarding vows to give charity,

And in general vows of consecration — although there no object of prohibition is created,

one can learn the deficiency

(In continuation of the words of the Prishah³⁶

mentioned above section 3)

in two ways

(In the manner mentioned above regarding vows of prohibition)

: a)

That this is from the aspect of the essence of the vow — the action of the person,

whereby he adds to the commandments of the Holy One, blessed be He,

(He obligates himself in charity and the like)

which the Almighty did not obligate him; b)

That this is from the aspect of the affected object — a new status of obligation of charity has been created

(and the like)

upon his assets

(In the manner mentioned above regarding vows of prohibition,

that he created an object).

5.

Based on this, the precision of the language will be sweetened

(the Sh”M and the Rambam)

“as if he built a bamah” — not as in the Shulchan Aruch,

where the wording is “as if building a bamah”³⁷

which is to be explained:

"as if he builds a bamah",

emphasizes the deficiency in the person who engages in building undesirable

(which can bring him³⁸

to the prohibition of offering on a bamah³⁹)

The Rambam says however that this is "as if he built

(and it becomes a reality — hotzah —)

bamah" he created an object

(which is a qualification³⁸

for an offering)

forbidden.

According to this, the language of the Rambam is also precise: "And if he transgressed and vowed, it is a mitzvah to seek annulment for his vow, so that there should not be a stumbling block before him."

For at first glance: According to this explanation of the Radbaz

(the above section 2)⁴⁰,

that the stumbling block is if he will transgress his vow,

the Rambam should have said "so that he should not come to a stumbling block"⁴¹,

or

(in the language of the Gemara⁴²)

"so that he should not come to a mishap",

and the like.

But with this the Rambam emphasizes,

that this is

(not from the aspect of the person,

that he will come to mishap and stumbling block,

but a)

coming into being of an object,

of a

("so that there should not

be a stumbling block before him"; it⁴³

becomes a stumbling block before him — the forbidden object that he created through his vow.

And the reason that the Rambam teaches thus — is because of the very thing that the Gemara says that

("as if he built a private altar")

Only regarding a vow,

and not regarding an oath: if because of the action of the person,

there is also regarding an oath.

6.

According to this, the difference between the words of the Rambam in Hilchos Deos and in Hilchos Nedarim is also understood:

In Hilchos De'os, the Rambam speaks about this

(actions of)

the person,

which includes several matters: beginning from the general conduct of separation from the ways of the world in a manner that "he should not eat meat nor drink wine nor marry a woman etc. and the like of them",

and that "it is an evil way and it is forbidden to go in it.

One who walks in this way is called a sinner, for it says about a nazir etc."; and likewise in particular matters "that a person should not refrain himself except from things that the Torah alone has forbidden him" as above,

in which vows and oaths are equal

(as the Rambam continues there),

because in the separation of the person from "permitted things" — there is no difference in what manner this is done⁴⁴

In contrast, in Hilchos Nedarim, the Rambam speaks about the deficiency from the side of the object,

and that he has made a thing forbidden.

Therefore he says specifically there that "it is as if he built a private altar" and not by oaths as above.

And this is also the reason that the Rambam does not bring here "All who vows even though he fulfills it is called a sinner" or "is called a wicked one",

because in Hilchos Nedarim the Rambam speaks only about the novelty and special concept regarding vows — namely that the vower creates an object of prohibition

(and therefore "All who vows is as if he built a bamah" as above),

but that which "is called a wicked one" and "is called a sinner",

name and description of the person,

which is not a special concept regarding vows,

and in the manner that the Gemara⁴⁵

says that "All who fasts is called a sinner".

And the content of this concept

(the sin regarding vows from the perspective of the person)

the Rambam indeed brings in Hilchos Deos,

that "One who walks in this way

(he separates himself from worldly matters)

is called a sinner",

and continuing from this: "Therefore the sages commanded etc. and he should not forbid himself with vows and oaths regarding permitted things etc.

(And included in this rule are those who fast constantly etc. and the sages forbade that a person afflict himself with fasting⁴⁶)

7.

Based on all this, one will also understand the difference between vows of prohibition and vows of consecration.

By vows of prohibition,

through his vow an object of prohibition was created,

and consequently he made an object,

a "stumbling block before him."

And therefore "it is a mitzvah to seek absolution for his vow so that there should not be a stumbling block before him";

But not so with vows of consecration,

his vow created

(not an object of prohibition,

but on the contrary)

a status of obligation of charity

(and similarly with other consecrations)

; and therefore the object is not a matter of "stumbling block before him" — on the contrary,

it is an object of a mitzvah,

"it is a mitzvah to fulfill them."

And this is also the precise point in the comparison to "as if he built a bamah": building a bamah if he builds it initially not for a forbidden act — is not a prohibition⁴⁷.

It is only a preparation⁴⁸

for actions on a bamah which can be a prohibition

(offering a sacrifice)

or a mitzvah

(a place of honor for his father and his teacher,

reading the Torah,

saying words of awakening from a "high" place — as the language of the verse⁴⁹

: upon a high mountain go up to you etc. lift up with strength your voice etc.,

and the like)

or a matter of permission and ordinary.

And therefore the Rambam does not bring here the explicit verse

"That which is gone out of your lips you shall keep and do as you have vowed",

that it is a positive commandment from the Torah that he should fulfill his vow,

as the Rambam says earlier

only because it is "vows to the Lord"

that is

(not his own prohibition and obligation,

but that is)

became a matter for the Lord

therefore it is — "I will pay".

8.

Regarding the matter of the oath

7 of Consolation — the oath

of the Supreme One to bring Jews into the Land of Israel,

and in general about the redemption

this is a matter that the Supreme One promised,

and moreover — bound Himself, as it were, with an oath,

and moreover: through this it opened up in the object of the world — since the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He, is considered an action,

it is — from the side of the existence of the world "it demands that Jews should enter into the Land of Israel,

and that the true and complete redemption should come through Mashiach our righteous one.

And therefore,

as soon as Jews will do teshuvah, then "immediately they will be redeemed"⁵⁶,

and there are no obstacles and delays G‑d forbid from anything in the world,

on the contrary — the world itself demands that the redemption should come,

and may it come speedily in our days, literally.

(Based on the sichah of 21 Menachem Av 5744)