What is a vow?
- A vow (neder) involves a promise to give something to God. It is most commonly a sacrifice, but it may be a dedication of oneself, as in the nazirite vow, or of some person or thing.
- In biblical narrative, vows are always conditional, i.e. “If you do this, then I will give that.”
- In Numbers 30 the vow entails practicing a certain kind of self-denial
Main Takeaways from Numbers 30:
- The patriarchal authority figure can annul it, but only on the day that he hears it, not thereafter (vv. 4-6).
- If a woman passes from the domain of the father to that of a husband, and the vow is intact since her father did not annul it, the husband may still annul it, but only when he first hears of it (vv. 7-9).
- If she is widowed or divorced, her vow cannot be annulled (v. 10).
- If she makes a vow while married, her husband can annul the vow, but only when he first hears of it (vv. 11-15).
- If the husband or father compel her to break the vow after the first day, they bear her guilt (v. 16).
Money
Baruch Levine on Numbers 21-36 (Anchor Bible)
It would appear that Numbers 30 was aimed at restricting the traditional right of women to make verbal commitments that involved cost and value.
It would appear that Numbers 30 was aimed at restricting the traditional right of women to make verbal commitments that involved cost and value.
Oath vs. Vow
וליתני כינוי שבועות בתר נדרים איידי דתנא נדרים דמיתסר חפצא עליה תנא נמי חרמים דמיתסר חפצא עליה לאפוקי שבועה דקאסר נפשיה מן חפצא
The Gemara answers: Since it taught the case of vows, whereby an object becomes forbidden to one, it taught also the case of dedications, whereby an object becomes forbidden to one. This is to the exclusion of an oath, whereby one prohibits himself from making use of an object. In the case of an oath, unlike a vow or a dedication, one prohibits himself from performing a particular action rather than declaring an object to be forbidden.
(In)dependence
(א) כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ לֹא בִרְשׁוּת אָב וְלֹא בִרְשׁוּת בַּעַל.
(1) כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה [BUT THE VOW OF A WIDOW AND OF ONE WHO IS DIVORCED] EVERYTHING WHEREWITH SHE HATH BOUND HER SOUL SHALL STAND AGAINST HER — because she is not under the control of a father or under the control of a husband.
They affect her husband
גמ׳ נדרי ענוי נפש הוא דמפר שאין בהן ענוי נפש אינו מפר והא תניא (במדבר ל, יז) בין איש לאשתו בין אב לבתו מלמד שהבעל מפר נדרים שבינו לבינה אמרי הלין והלין מפר מיהו ענוי נפש מפר לעולם אבל אין בהן ענוי נפש כדאיתה תחותיה הויא הפרה מכי מגרש לה חייל עלה נדרה בדברים שבינו לבינה שאין בהן ענוי נפש אבל יש בהן ענוי נפש לא חייל עליה נדרה
GEMARA: The Gemara raises a question with regard to the ruling of the mishna: Is it only vows of affliction that he can nullify, whereas vows that do not involve affliction he cannot nullify? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse “These are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter” (Numbers 30:17) teaches that a husband can nullify any of his wife’s vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, even if they do not involve affliction? The Sages say in response: In fact, he can nullify both these and those. There is, however, a difference between them. When he nullifies vows of affliction, he nullifies them forever, i.e., the vows remain nullified even if they subsequently divorce. But when he nullifies vows that do not involve affliction but merely impact upon their relationship, then, while they are married and she is under his authority it is an effective nullification, but when he divorces her, her vow takes effect upon her, i.e., his nullification is no longer effective. As stated, this is referring to vows concerning matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, that do not involve affliction. However, if he nullifies a vow that affects their relationship and also involves affliction, her vow does not take effect upon her even after she leaves her husband’s authority.
Controlling Ambiguity
Prof. Francis Landy
Numbers is preoccupied with boundaries: the organization of the camp by tribe (chs. 1-2); dividing between priests, Levites, and regular Israelites (Num 3-4, 8); removing people with skin disease from the camp (5:1-4), the enclosure of the Tabernacle in God’s cloud and fire (9:15-23); and the boundaries of the Promised Land (ch. 34)....[In light of this,] why did the author of Numbers 30 feel the need to remove control of vows from daughters living with their fathers and married women? Claudia Camp argues that Numbers is concerned with the ambiguous status of women in an exclusively male priestly lineage: “they are, by birth, of the ‘right’ lineage and yet, by gender, ‘not-Us’.”[19] The female nazirite is the antithesis of its carefully constructed symbolic world. Her wild hair associates her with that other figure of female subversiveness, the sotah, whose sexuality is the object of male suspicion and desire, and brings her to the very heart of the sanctuary.
Numbers is preoccupied with boundaries: the organization of the camp by tribe (chs. 1-2); dividing between priests, Levites, and regular Israelites (Num 3-4, 8); removing people with skin disease from the camp (5:1-4), the enclosure of the Tabernacle in God’s cloud and fire (9:15-23); and the boundaries of the Promised Land (ch. 34)....[In light of this,] why did the author of Numbers 30 feel the need to remove control of vows from daughters living with their fathers and married women? Claudia Camp argues that Numbers is concerned with the ambiguous status of women in an exclusively male priestly lineage: “they are, by birth, of the ‘right’ lineage and yet, by gender, ‘not-Us’.”[19] The female nazirite is the antithesis of its carefully constructed symbolic world. Her wild hair associates her with that other figure of female subversiveness, the sotah, whose sexuality is the object of male suspicion and desire, and brings her to the very heart of the sanctuary.