Does Father know best?

Have you ever wondered where the much bandied about "silence is consent under the law" maxim came from? Well if you guessed, this week's parashah, Matos, then you probably don't need this refresher. But if you guessed that Pope Boniface VIII and/or Sir Thomas More's speech in his own self-defense, then you're probably historically much closer.

After ending last week's parshas Pinchas with reviewing the various offerings that are brought for Shabbos and the holidays, the Torah then moves to the subject of nedarim, shevuos, and issarim, which roughly translate, though not well, into vows, oaths and bonds.

A neder becomes a personal (or household-level) change to the general halakhah. For instance, the Nazirite "vow" to abstain from cutting ones hair and to abstain from wine is a neder; though it is perfectly acceptable for the general public to get a haircut and drink wine, a Nazirite that does so is subject to punishment. Most Jews are more familiar with nedarim from the annual annulment of them comprised of the Kol Nidrei prayer on Erev Yom Kippur. Shevuos are oaths taken while bearing witness in a legal proceeding, while issarim are also less restrictive bonds to abstain from something. (Shevuos and issarim, by the way, are also annulled each year as part of the Kol Nidrei ( Kol nidrei, va'issarei, . . . u'shevuos . . . ), so no worries there.)

In the end, Judaism has mixed feelings about nedarim. Wise King Shlomo said in Koheles: Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. (Eccl. 5:4) In fact, the Nazirite neder requires that a sin offering be brought upon fulfilling the vow. This is an interesting review of some of the dichotomous feelings about nedarim and asceticism in general.

This is all well and good, but can you get to the old guy in a powdered wig? Verily, I shall, my dear reader. You see, for all the promise of gender equality from last week's portion and Tzelophehad's daughters, this week's opener starts off with a patriarchal smackdown on women's rights.

While in verse 30:3, if a man makes a vow, oath or bond, it is binding - no questions asked (except for a rescission by a Beis Din - Rabbinical court). But the next thirteen verses (vv. 4-16), concern what happens when a woman makes a vow or bond (tacitly stating that a woman would not be able to testify in court with an oath). There are several cases that are considered:

1) If a girl "in her youth" living "in her father's house" (Num. 30:4-6)

2) If a girl living "in her father's house" who is "married" (Num. 30:7-9)

3) A widow or divorcee (Num. 30:10)

4) A married woman "in her husband's house" (Num. 30:11-16)

The only case in which all vows and bonds are legally binding is in that of a widow or divorcee, that is, whenever there is not a man around to potentially overrule her. In each of the other three cases, her father (case 1) or her husband (cases 2 & 4) can annul the vow within a specified time-period (24 hours for cases 1 & 2; or until sundown for case 4). But, if the father (or husband) "is silent to her" (וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ) about the vow, then the vow is valid and can never be annulled (outside of a Beis Din ruling as with a man's neder).

In reality there is a fifth unstated case, which is a girl who is living in her father's house but is no longer "in her youth" (which the Rabbis concluded only encompassed the ages between 11 years and 1 day and 12 years and 1 day). In this case, since by 12 years, the girl would be bas mitzvah and legally responsible for her own actions, her father has no ability to remove a vow or bond. Upon marriage, however, the annulment powers transfer to the husband, albeit with a shorter rescission period (until sundown, rather than 24 hours).

Further, it must be understood that according to Judaism, while men are subject to all 613 mitzvos, time-specific commandments are not mandatory for women. The intent is certainly to prevent a woman from voluntarily taking on too many mitzvos at the expense of child-rearing, family raising, etc. So while if a woman voluntarily attempts to follow all of the time-specific commandments, there is no repercussion for falling short here-or-there. However, this is no longer the case if, for instance, the woman made a neder to follow these optional mitzvos. Clearly, this justification is no less gender-biased or replete with "Father knows best"-ism than the text itself, but it is important to note that there is no imperative for a father or husband to strike the would-be nedarim.

While our parashah's verse is used as a means of limiting the misogynistic power of fathers and husbands, the macro-lesson here is clear (though no longer specifically socially acceptable in the case of nullifying female vows): If you do not like what you hear, speak up! That's part of the impetus for this blog. Speak out! Get active! Remove yourself from the silent (consenting) majority!