Skip to main content

Vows Compromise Free Will - Parashat VaYetze 5779, November 16, 2018

At the opening of this week’s parasha, Parashat VaYetze, Ya’akov leaves Eretz Yisrael to find refuge in Charan from his brother, Esav. He arrives at HaMakom – The Place – to sleep for the night – the place of Ya’akov’s famous ladder dream. Morning comes. Yaakov takes the stone that he slept on, makes a monument to Hashem with it and anoints it with oil. He renames the place Beit E-l – House of Hashem. 

The Torah records that Ya’akov made a neder – a vow. Ya’akov declares, “If the Lord will be with me and will guard me on this path that I am going and will give me bread to eat and clothes to wear and will return me in peace to the house of my father … then I will give one-tenth of all that I have to Hashem.”

At first glance, Ya’akov’s vow is not appropriate. In general, the Torah looks askance on people who make vows and on the act of making vows. Our Chachamim say noder nikra cho’te – one who makes a vow is treated like a sinner. What is wrong with making a vow? 

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch explains that at worst a vow elevates trivial matters to the realm of the Divine and at best robs all discretion from the one making the vow. The Torah wants a person to measure his surroundings and make a decision about how to act. If  something is right and good, he or she should do it. If something is wrong to do, he or she should avoid it. He should not act based on a pre-determined decision that could not have been based on all factors. A vow compromises a per-son’s opportunity to exercise his free will.

Surprisingly, our Chachamim do not criticize Ya’akov for making this vow. What made his vow appropriate? 

The Midrash addresses this question. The Midrash explains that Yaakov's vow was appropriate because he vowed to do a mitzvah in a moment of existential crisis. Yaakov was leaving Israel and going into exile. He was moment of difficulty. In such moments, man is vulnerable to rash thinking and decision-making. Furthermore, his vow related to the performance of a mitzvah – it was a renewal of his commitment to do Hashem’s Will. A vow is only considered appropriate when the vow concerns the performance of G-d's Will and in made in the context of existential crisis. Although, in general, the Torah insists that we use our discretion and not abandon of free-will to the dictates of a predetermined decision, the Torah does give us authority in times of crisis to abandon discretion for the sake of renewing one's commitment to Hashem.

The Torah’s attitude on vows teaches us an important lesson about the importance of decision-making. Hashem endowed man with bechira chofsheit – free-will. Hashem endowed man with the ability to perceive wisdom. In all but the most extreme situations, the Torah wants us to engage ourselves in whatever situation we find ourselves in and use our free-will and our power of understanding to determine the best decision – not to bind ourselves to a predetermined out-come. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Seeking Opportunities to Teach - Parashat Bemidbar - May 26, 2017

This week’s parasha , Bemidbar, recalls the death of two of Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu. The Torah says, “and Nadav and Avihu died before Hashem because they brought foreign fire before Hashem in the Sinai desert; and they had no children.” The context of the incident of Nadav and Avihu is more fully treated in Sefer VaYikra. Moshe communicates Hashem’s command to Aharon and b’nei yisrael to bring ingredients for four different offerings – a chatat , an olah , a shelamim and a mincha – all for the culmination of the inauguration of the mishkan. All of the respective parties brought the proper ingredients to the mishkan in conformity with Hashem’s command. Moshe then gave Hashem’s next command of what to do with these ingredients – the result of which will be G-d’s glory appearing to the nation. Aharon and b’nei yisrael brought their respective offerings in exact conformity with Hashem’s command. Aharon lifted his hands to the nation and blessed them and then descended from pe

Unity Through Shared Purpose - Parashat Tetzaveh 5780, March 6, 2020

This coming week, we will celebrate the holiday of Purim. We know that Megilat Esther is the record of the miraculous saving of the Jewish People that occurred in Shushan and in the surrounding areas of King Achashverosh’s reign. One of the culminating themes in the  megila  is the unity within the Jewish People that was forged as a result of this miracle. This unity expressed itself in a number of ways. One of the expressions was the re-acceptance of the Torah that occurred in that generation –  kiyemu ve’kibelu . This re-acceptance included a unified acceptance of the mitzvah of Purim that was legislated by the Anshei Kinesset HaGedola – the Men of Great Assembly. Another expression of this unity is the emphasis on forging brotherhood within the Jewish People – we read the  megila  in big groups, we give money to the poor and we give food gifts to our fellow Jews. Clearly, unity is a fundamental theme of Purim. Given this focus on unity, there is a striking difference between P

Promoting Justice through Litigant Participation - Parashat Mishpatim 5776 - February 5, 2016

Parashat Mishpatim continues the Torah’s presentation, which began in last week’s parasha , of the mitzvot that were revealed to b'nei yisrael at Mount Sinai. One of the topics that is shared between the two parashiyot is the primacy of creating a judicial system with integrity. The Torah admonishes us not to testify as a group with evil people. The Torah admonishes judges to not show favoritism to a poor person. The Torah forbids judges to accept bribes. In last week’s parasha, the Torah records Yitro’s suggestion of the four qualities that a judge should have: accomplished, G-d-fearing, committed to truth and money-despising. Basing himself on the Mechilta, Rashi elaborates on the quality of commitment to truth. Rashi explains that these are trust-worthy people, and that, because it is reasonable to rely on them generally, people will listen to the judgments that they render. The first part of Rashi’s comment is easily understood – a judge must be trust-worthy. Trust-wor