(For the riddles, please see back page)
Rav Chaim Kanievsky offers two explanations for this difference, one is cited in his Tama Dekra and the other is in Derech Sicha. The first explanation he says is, a father has the legal right to marry off his daughter or sell her as a servant. Because her vows may weaken her and discourage prospective husbands or masters from being interested in her, the Torah gives her father the right to revoke her vows to prevent her from infringing on his legal rights. Since the father has no such parallel ability to sell his son or enter marriage on his behalf, he was not given the right to revoke his son's vows. The second explanation he says is, because a son learns Torah, many times he will be wiser than his father and it would be inappropriate to allow the father to revoke the vows of his more learned son, whereas his daughter will always be completely subordinate to him, so he may therefore revoke her vows without any complications. Interestingly, Rav Chaim only mentioned the latter explanation orally to a close student, noting that he was reluctant to print it publicly in his sefer together with the first reason. The Me’or V’Shemesh answers: A son normally has a rebbe, and presumably the rebbe will make sure that the son doesn’t make nedorim [oaths]. A daughter, however, has no rebbe and no one to teach her not to make nedorim, therefore, the Torah gave the ability to her father to revoke her nedorim. R’ Yehoshua Ryzman shlita suggests: A son can go to a chocham and have the neder revoked. When it comes to girls, however, due to tznius and that girls are supposed to stay inside (כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה) it’s not so easy to go to a chocham, therefore, the Torah gave the ability to the father as well. (Madanay Asher and Parsha Potpourri)
R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach (cited in Halichos Shlomah, Tefillah, Perek 7, Orchos Halachah reshumos 12) writes: “Each person should be careful with something which is very common, people prepare money to give to a poor person or the gabbah who goes around collecting, and in the end the poor person or gabbah doesn’t come to this particular person. It’s very easy to violate the sin of not keeping nedorim [vows] chas vesholem, therefore, one should be careful that in his heart he has intention that the money shouldn’t be set aside for tzedokah until it reaches the hand of the poor man or the gabbah. Once it happened that a poor person walked past R’ Shlomah Zalman and he never took the money. R’ Shlomah Zalman then went to look for the poor man in order to give him the money. When he was asked why on this particular day he ran after the poor man and didn’t rely on the intention he normally has? He answered: Normally I have intention that money is only tzedokah when it gets to the hand of the poor man, however, this time, I already put the money in his hand, however, being as he was blind he never noticed, and I was unsure if in this case the standard intention I normally have would help. R’ Chaim Kanievsky (Derach Sicha, Re’ah) also held like this. They bring a story, that he once got onto a bus and a poor person came to ask for tzedokah, and before R’ Chaim could give him any money, the door closed. R’ Chaim asked the Chazon Ish what to do, and he ruled that the money should be given to another poor person. R’ Chaim understood from this pesak, that the neder to give the money to tzedokah obligates the money to be given, however, it doesn’t obligate one to give it to a specific person. R’ Chaim concludes: The entire discussion is if one decided in his heart to give, if however, one thought about it, without any concrete decision, then it doesn’t mean anything. Practically: When one hears the gabbah or poor person going around, he should have intention that he doesn’t want to give tzedokah until it gets into the collector’s hand. Then, if he can give it to the person he intended to good, if not, he can give it another person.
The Pnei Menachem asks why we don’t find anywhere that a friend must go with and he answers, with something incredible: חבר צריך לגלות מעצמו ואין צריך לצוות עליו, וחבר שצריך לצוותו אינו חבר – “A friend should go on his own accord, and shouldn’t need to be told to go. If he needs to be told to go, then he is obviously not a friend”. Something to think about this time of year when we are trying to rectify the sinas chinom which caused the churban.
Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (V’HaIsh Moshe) explains that sending brawny men to escort and guard the accidental murderer on his way to the city of refuge would not be productive. When the blood-redeemer becomes aware that the person against whom his wrath is directed is being protected by two burly men, he will simply counter by attacking with four men who are even more powerful, with the ultimate result being an all-out war. Instead, Chazal directed that the accidental murderer be accompanied by two talmiday chachomim. Their purpose was not to physically defend him, but to pacify the go’el hadam in the event that they encountered him by explaining to him that the murderer's actions were accidental, and it would be inappropriate to respond by intentionally killing him. The Gemara (Berachos 64a) teaches that talmiday chachomim possess a unique ability to bring peace to the world. The lesson that can be derived from here is that if a person attempts to resolve a dispute in a calm and peaceful manner, he significantly increases his odds of the other party responding in kind, but if he opts to pursue an approach of overpowering and defeating the other person, he will most likely end up enraging him, which will only escalate the conflict. Another important lesson to take note of during this time of year. (R’ Ozer Alport, Parsha Potpourri)
