Vows Offerings and What Cannot Be Re-Vowed

Sifrei Devarim turns to Vows Offerings and What Cannot Be Re-Vowed.

Next, the text explores what can and can't be brought "into the house of the L-rd your G-d." The phrase excludes the bullock of the sin-offering, specifically the red heifer. Remember the ritual of the red heifer described in (Numbers 19:3)? It wasn't brought into the Temple itself; it was slaughtered outside the encampment. This exclusion, according to R. Eliezer, emphasizes the specific requirements for different types of offerings.

Then, the Sages offer a different perspective. They say that "into the house of the L-rd your G-d" includes gold foil for the Temple. This inclusion underscores the idea that even decorative elements used in the Temple's construction are subject to these restrictions.

The discussion continues, expanding the scope even further. "For every vow" includes even a bird as an offering. Now, this might seem counterintuitive. The text presents a logical argument: If sacrificial offerings, which can be invalidated by blemishes, are not subject to "hire" and "exchange" (meaning they can't be bought with immoral earnings or exchanged for something gained immorally), then surely birds, which aren’t invalidated by blemishes, shouldn't be either. But no! The Torah explicitly says “for every vow” to include birds too.

Then comes a final nuance. What about the money paid to a harlot for abstaining from work during the act? Is that forbidden too? The text clarifies that it is the hire for the act itself that is considered “an abomination of the L-rd.” This distinction is crucial. It specifies that the prohibition focuses on the direct exchange for immoral activity, not tangential income related to it.

What does all this mean? It shows us how meticulously the rabbis analyzed the Torah to determine the boundaries of what’s considered sacred and what’s considered profane. It’s a reminder that even seemingly small details can carry significant weight when it comes to honoring our commitments and avoiding the taint of immorality. And it begs the question: How carefully are we considering the sources of our own offerings, both literal and metaphorical, in our lives today?

"for every vow": to exclude what has already been vowed. "for every vow": to include (the harlot's hire as interdicted even for) a bamah (a temporary altar).

"into the house of the L-rd your G-d" to exclude (from the interdict) the bullock of the sin-offering, (i.e., the red heifer, which is not brought into the Temple, but is slaughtered outside the encampment [viz. Bamidbar 19:3]). These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: to include (as interdicted) gold-foil (for the Temple).

"for every vow": to include (as interdicted) (even) a bird. For I would think: If sacrificial offerings, which are invalidated by blemishes, are not subject to "hire" and "exchange," then birds, which are not invalidated by blemishes — how much more so should they not be subject to "hire" and "exchange." It is, therefore, written "for every vow," to include birds. I might think that (also interdicted is) the hire (that he gives the harlot) for abstention (from remunerative labor for the time period required for the act); it is, therefore, written "for the abomination of the L-rd" (i.e., the hire forbidden is that for the act itself).