Moshah spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Daughters of Tisraelah, saying: This is what the Eternal has directed: A woman who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to impose a restriction on herself, she shall not profane her word; all that exits her mouth she shall do…. The vow of a widower or of a divorced man, however, whatever he has imposed on himself, shall stand. And if a man vows a vow to God or imposes a restriction on himself while in his wife’s household his wife heard, and was silent about it, not constraining him, his vows shall be upheld and all the restrictions he imposed on himself shall stand. But if his wife annulled them at the time of her hearing about it, all that went out of his lips, his vows or self-imposed restrictions shall not stand, his wife has annulled them and God will grant pardon him. Every vow, every oath, and every self-imposed restriction, his wife may uphold, and his wife may annul it….
If you read those
lines and thought, “What was that?” your question is in order. According to the
Masoretic text, Parashat Matot (Numbers 30) begins:
2And Moses spoke to the heads of the
tribes of the Israelites, saying, “This is the thing that the Eternal[1]
has charged: 3Should a man take a vow or make an oath to the Eternal, to take upon himself a binding
pledge, he shall not profane his word. According to all that issues from his
mouth he shall do…. 11And if she vowed in her husband’s house or
took upon herself a binding pledge by oath, 12and her husband heard
and remained silent to her, he did not restrain her, all her vows and every
binding pledge that she took upon herself shall stand. (Translation: Robert
Alter)
At top of the page,
I quoted Toratah – the Regendered Bible, Yael Kanarek and Tamar Biala’s rewriting
of the Hebrew Bible, reversing the genders of all characters, which shine a
bright clear light on the Bible’s deeply patriarchal framework. The assumptions
of that frame are especially conspicuous in this section on vows.
In ancient times,
all life was organized according to households, and the father of the family
was responsible for everyone and made all decisions on essential matters,
especially economic ones. Therefore, the issue of vows—which often included bringing
sacrifices (which could be quite expensive)—was considered an area in which
supervision was required.
Recent research[2]
argues that this is not a mere matter of gender, but of socioeconomic status (which
in the past was reserved for men) and that the Hebrew word “איש ish”
refers to “a participant whose involvement defines the depicted situation.” Therefore,
in the new JPS Gender-Sensitive translation of Numbers 30:3 reads: If a householder makes a vow to the Eternal or takes an oath imposing an
obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all
that has crossed his lips.” A footnote even suggests that a “householder” might
annul the vow of an adult male dependent.
Either way, how
can we relate to things in a society in which all adults are equally independent
(at least in theory)?[3] The
Toratah version is just as discriminatory as the Masoretic version.
In another
context, Rabbi Ethan Tucker (President and Rosh
Yeshiva of Hadar NY), suggests that we read these passages not as relating to
men and women, but to “principal” partners and “adjunct” partners (in any
gender combination), assuming that every household has one partner who is more oriented
towards “external” and financial affairs and one who is more focused on the
home. That might be true in many cases for the years when there are small
children, but this is not a rule I would want to apply to a couple for their
entire life.
What other options are there? In
my understanding, there are three egalitarian possibilities.
 |
| The first page of BT Nedarim (ms. Vatican, National Library of Israel website) |
One option would be to treat all adults as independent principals, like men in the Biblical period, so that all vows and commitments they make – even a rash, impulsive moment – must be kept. This is an egalitarian reading, but it could destroy the entire household with one reckless statement. I do not recommend it. [4]
A less dangerous option would considering all adults adjunct partners, like women in the Biblical period. Thus all vows and commitments would be subject to spousal approval. This leaves less chance that temporary rashness will “break the bank,” but the opening for intra-marital power games remains open.
In my opinion, the desirable option
would be for adult partners in a household to behave as true partners and not
make vows or take on obligations without consulting the other, in advance, not
retroactively. This would honor the seriousness of vows and the importance of keeping
our word, while respecting the equal status of all adults.
An expanded source sheet on subject, which
page also includes sources for our obligation to renew the words of the Torah
in accordance with moral progress.
[1] The Ineffable
Name is translated “the Eternal,”
regardless of the original translator’s usage.
[2] Stern, David, The Noun ’îš in Ancient Hebrew: A
Marker of Essential Participation
Stern, David, The Situating Noun in Ancient Hebrew: A New Understanding of איש
[3] I am deliberately
not referring to the case of adolescents. The need for responsible adults to
supervise their actions remains valid, regardless of gender.
[4] Cf. Prof. Aaron
Koller: “It is all well and good to celebrate the personal and individual faith
that animates some people’s lives, but a society cannot afford to allow
individuals’ sense of religious devotion to take precedence over the welfare of
others” in Unbinding Isaac (JPS, 2020)
