(4) If a woman makes a vow to Adonai or assumes an obligation while still in her father’s household by reason of her youth...
(5) and her father learns of her vow or her self-imposed obligation and offers no objection, all her vows shall stand and every self-imposed obligation shall stand. (6) But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of her vows or self-imposed obligations shall stand; and Adonai will forgive her, since her father restrained her. (7) If she should marry while her vow or the commitment to which she bound herself is still in force, (8) and her husband learns of it and offers no objection on the day he finds out, her vows shall stand and her self-imposed obligations shall stand. (9) But if her husband restrains her on the day that he learns of it, he thereby annuls her vow which was in force or the commitment to which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.— (10) The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, however, whatever she has imposed on herself, shall be binding upon her.—
- What do these verses say about a woman's ability to make a vow for herself?
- Who is responsible for these women and when? How does that change her vow?
(2) בנעורה IN HER YOUTH — when she is a נערה i.e., in the first state of womanhood, but not when she is a קטנה, a minor, and not when she is a בוגרת (in full womanhood); for so far as a minor is concerned, her vow is in general no vow (it is null and void ab initio), and a בוגרת is not under her father’s control so that he can annul her vows. What is a קטנה, a minor, in respect to vows? We may gather this from what our Rabbis said: a woman of eleven years and one day must have her vows investigated until she reaches the age of twelve years; if she understands in Whose name it is that she has made the vow or in Whose name it is she has dedicated the thing, her vow is a vow, but a woman of twelve years and a day does not require any investigation regarding her vow (Niddah 56b).
- What kind of vow do we think this woman is making? Why is this so concerning to the rabbis?
(ו) בַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, נְדָרֶיהָ נִבְדָּקִין. בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, נְדָרֶיהָ קַיָּמִין. וּבוֹדְקִין כָּל שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, נְדָרָיו נִבְדָּקִים. בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, נְדָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וּבוֹדְקִין כָּל שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. קֹדֶם לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ יוֹדְעִין אָנוּ לְשֵׁם מִי נָדָרְנוּ, לְשֵׁם מִי הִקְדָּשְׁנוּ, אֵין נִדְרֵיהֶם נֶדֶר וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן הַזֶּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְשֶׁם מִי נָדָרְנוּ, לְשֶׁם מִי הִקְדָּשְׁנוּ, נִדְרָן נֶדֶר וְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
(6) With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined to ascertain whether she is aware of the meaning of her vow and in Whose name she vowed. Once she is twelve years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, which is a sign of adulthood, even without examination her vows are in effect. And one examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year until her 12th birthday. With regard to a boy who is twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined. Once he is thirteen years and one day old his vows are in effect. And one examines his vows throughout the entire thirteenth year until his 13th birthday. Prior to that time, even if they said: We know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is not a valid vow and their consecration is not a valid consecration. After that time, even if they said: We do not know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is a valid vow and their consecration is a valid consecration.
- 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
The Gemara asks: If so, let the mishna teach the halakha with regard to substitutes for the language of oaths immediately after the case of substitutes for the language of vows. 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.
(1) ואשה כי תדור, “and if a woman makes a vow, etc.” A female of twelve years and over is called אשה, “a woman.” Her vows and oaths are legally valid. If she is between 11 and 12 years of age she is presumed to be a minor though she is examined if she understands the implication of a vow or an oath. If she does, she is subject to the same rules as a male between the ages of 12 and thirteen. If she is less than eleven years old she is a minor in all respects of the law. Her pronouncements have no legal standing whatever. If a female is over 12 years of age or a male over 13 years of age their vows or oaths are legally binding even if they did not know to whom [i.e. that this involves an undertaking vis-a vis G’d. Ed.] they made such commitments (Maimonides Hilchot Nedarim 11,1-3).
This entire paragraph reveals many important laws concerning vows and oaths in very few words. The legal status of women concerning vows may be divided into four categories: 1) A נערה, girl between the age of 12-12 years and six months; 2) An ארוסה, a girl betrothed but not yet having moved in with her husband. 3) A married woman (after חופה); 4) A widow.
אמר ר"י אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש (vows referring to privation of the necessities of life) – regarding the vow alone Rabbi Yossi disputes the first Tanna/teacher, and [when he] states that the benefit of washing is forbidden upon me if I shall wash today,” this is not a vow of privation of the necessities of life, for behold, it is possible for her that she will not wash today and that the benefit of washing won’t be forbidden upon her forever. But the prevention/refraining from washing for one day is not a privation of the necessities of life, for a neglected appearance for one day (by not bathing) is not considered self-neglect (see Tractate Nedarim 80a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi. But whether the father or the husband, vows of privation of the necessities of life are ones that are absolved... Just as the husband does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life, so also the father does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life. But Maimonides made the legal determination that the father absolves all vows and oaths, even those that are not referring to privation of the necessities of life, as it states (Numbers 30:6): “none of her vows or self-imposed obligations [shall stand].”
(א) וְאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר, דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, אִם אֶרְחָץ וְאִם לֹא אֶרְחָץ, אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נָפֶשׁ:
(ב) וְאֵלּוּ הֵם נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אָמְרָה, קוֹנָם פֵּרוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלָי, הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. פֵּרוֹת מְדִינָה עָלָי, יָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. פֵּרוֹת חֶנְוָנִי זֶה עָלָי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה פַרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי:
(1) And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself. Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction.
(2) Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
It would appear that Numbers 30 was aimed at restricting the traditional right of women to make verbal commitments that involved cost and value.
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 Adonai 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.
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.