Warning: This Dvar Torah may upset people with strong feminist
views.
Parshas Matos-Masai begins with a topic that, on first read,
might seem troubling to a modern-day woman. After one verse (30:3) stating that
a man who makes a vow is required to uphold that vow, the Torah goes into a
rather detailed explanation of the vows of women and, some might say, how easily
those vows can be nullified.
Bamidbar 30:4 begins with basic terminology: v’eesha ki
tidor neder – If a woman makes a vow… but the first example is quickly
explained to be a woman still living in her father’s house for reason of her
youth. This woman, living in her father’s house, can make a vow or a self-imposed
obligation and must keep it…unless her father objects (30:6) that day. If she has
taken it upon herself while single and then gets married, her new husband can
nullify that vow (30:9). Verses 11-17 describe the similar rules that apply to
a married woman making a vow or a self-imposed obligation but in more detail,
details that offer us great insight into the importance of communication in
marriage.
The husband of a woman who makes a vow has the ability to
nullify the vow of his wife, but only if he does so within the day of hearing
of her vow. This, it should be pointed out, is an interesting use of language.
The nullification does not have to occur on the day the vow was made, but
rather on the day that her husband learns of the vow. She is not, it appears,
under an obligation to tell her husband about her vow, which allows her time to
lay down the foundations for him to understand her actions so that when he does
learn of them, he will not object.
The Torah is then very explicit: “If her husband offers no
objection from that day to the next, he has upheld all the vows or obligations
she has assumed: he has upheld them by offering no objection on the day he
found out” (30:15).
The Torah goes to great length stressing that the husband has
one day to object to the vow or self-imposed obligation. If he objects two
weeks later, or even two days later, he shall bear the guilt for every time his
wife does something contrary to her vow or obligation.
The Torah wants marriage and family to succeed. It
recognizes a dynamic in the pairing of male and female for him to seek a sense
of being respect and her to seek affection and “protection” (yes, this is a
broad generalization and a far more complicated discussion). The husband is
given the role of head of the house because he needs that respect. That role
does not mean he is greater/she is lesser. It is practical in that, until most
recent history, a man’s role was to be protector and provider. He needed a
strong sense of importance to do his job well, a sense of others depending on
him. This need has not changed, even in the world of white-collar jobs and two
income families. Torah philosophy consistently defines the masculine as the
giver, and the giver thrives on being needed and respected for his efforts.
The feminine, on the other hand, is the receiver and thus
the one who feels fulfilled by being given to. These definitions create the dynamic
brought to fruition in halacha for a “Head of the Household.” This dynamic is
precisely the issue at play in the question of vows, and the unstated solution
to a sense of restriction is communication.
It is easy to see the subject in these pasukim as seconding
women, except that there are some very specific words that show it is not about
women per se but about a woman’s place in her family. The first halacha stated
above is for a woman living in her father’s household due to her youth. This
may set off concern to the modern-day reader, but the actuality is clarified in
the Shulchan Aruch: “After six months of adulthood (physical maturity as defined
by halacha), she is fully independent, and the father no longer has authority
over her vows” (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 234:1). One could see the time when
the father can restrict her vows as the tumultuous time period of early adolescence,
which to many parents might make sense.
Bamidbar 30:10, set in-between the young bride whose husband
nullifies vows she made in her youth and the vows of a wife, states: “The vow
of a widow or of a divorced woman, however, whatever she has imposed on
herself, shall be binding upon her” (30:10). They are the same category as a
woman not living under her father’s household.
A woman is not seen as less capable or less reliable than a
man in determining her future. Rather, the Torah is here recognizing that the
role of Baal HaBayit (Head of the House) is given to the man. He is set as the
captain of the ship so that he may best fulfill his role of giver, as protector
and provider. To maintain this dynamic, the Torah restricts ways in which a
woman might undermine her husband but, at the same time, limits the ways in
which a man might manipulate his wife. And this leaves us at a critical juncture
in which reading deeper provides a valuable lesson. If a wife wants to make a
vow that will affect the household (and that covers most things since each
member of a household is a cog in its functioning), she should discuss it with
the head of that household. If a husband does not like changes made by his wife
by having taken a vow, he cannot just nullify it once it has been accepted;
rather, he must speak to her in order that she agrees to nullify it for
herself.
And, thus, we come to the age old lesson on the importance
of communication.
I wish you all a beautiful Shabbas.
No comments:
Post a Comment