In reading this interesting portion, I was puzzled about what seems to be a very old- fashioned way of looking at men and women. The first verse in the section says that a man is expected to keep all of his vows and obligations. Every promise that crosses his lips must be adhered to. The Rabbis have commented, by the way, that the promise has to cross your lips before you are bound to it. Just thinking to yourself silently that you are going to do a certain thing isn't enough. You have to say it out loud before you are truly obligated.

It's right that a man should keep his word. But the portion goes on to say that if a married woman makes a vow, and her husband learns of it in time, he can cancel it. She doesn't have to keep her word--she is off the hook. And if a girl who is still in her father's house "because of her youth" makes a vow or a promise, her father could cancel it if he catches it in time. This rule applied to girls between the age of Bat Mitzvah and marriage, which in Biblical times wasn't very long at all --18 months or so-- since girls married very early. But during that brief period of time, if a tweenage girl made a promise her father didn't like, he could cancel it.

The next verse says, however, that a widow or divorced woman (and by implication, any single adult woman) is expected to keep her word no matter what. Nobody can get her off the hook. To my view, that does not seem fair. Why should there be a difference? Why aren't certain women required to keep their word? I went to the rabbinic sources and commentary to try to find an answer.

What I found was a great deal of discussion about the difference between a vow and an obligation. (In Hebrew the word neder means "vow." On Yom Kippur we talk about "all vows" - Kol Nidre.) A vow is something that you promise to do. An obligation on the other hand is something that you promise not to do. For example, "I promise that I will go to Temple every week for the next year." That is different from "I promise that I won't eat shrimp any more," a negative obligation. The Rabbis argue back and forth about what that means and what the differences are. There is a difference between something that has to be done at a particular time, and those that are not time-bound. For example, we are supposed to go to Temple on each of the major festivals, at certain times of year. The rabbinic discussion goes on and on.

But what about the different treatment of men and women in this passage? Why are all men expected keep their vows, but married women are not? None of the traditional sources even addressed the question, much less offered an answer. So I asked Rabbi Allison Bergman Vann to help me find some modern commentary by women writers. Maybe they knew a way to make this ancient text have meaning and relevance for us as modern Jews. She gave me several books and articles to consider.

In an article titled "The Jew Who Wasn't There," Rachel Adler talks about women being "peripheral" Jews. In traditional Judaism, women were excluded from being counted in a minyan. Their testimony in a Jewish court was not admissible. That's not so different from our experience in modern times--it was only in the last several decades that women in our country were considered legally capable of entering a contract. There is more equality now, but back then women had no legal authority. Women weren't even allowed to study Torah. In the movie “Yentl” one of the things Yentl wanted to do was to study Torah, like the boys and men were allowed to do. Adler makes a thorough case that women were relegated to the edges of Judaism, but she didn't give an answer to my question.

I looked at an article out of the book called Standing at Sinai by Judith Plaskow, another well respected modern Jewish feminist scholar. She explained that women were to be relieved from certain requirements that might get in the way of their domestic obligations. If a woman is busy preparing the Seder for Passover, she shouldn't have to go to the synagogue--it might take her away from the kitchen. Plaskow says, “The fact that women must observe the negative commandments (the “Thou shalt nots”) prevents them from undermining Jewish life, but they are not permitted to participate fully in the religious life of the Jewish people.” Plaskow was angry, she was upset, but she didn't have an answer to my question. I kept looking.

I remembered something Rabbi Bergman Vann had told me. A famous scholar, Rabbi Ben Bag Bag, said, “Turn it over and over, for everything is in it.” In other words, keep looking, keep trying, keep struggling. The answer is in there somewhere.

I found an article by Rabbi Stacy Offner entitled Women Speak Louder Than Words. Eureka! She had an answer! Rabbi Offner's suggestion is to take gender out of the equation. (For example, nowadays we don't refer to God as "he" or "him." God is God, without being male or female.) Suppose we look at Matot again and read the verses as if they said, "If a married person makes a vow or obligation, that person's spouse can cancel it. If a young person living at home with his or her parents makes a promise, the parents have a right to cancel it." When we take the gender indicators away, the rule applies to husbands as well as wives, to sons as well as daughters, and mothers as well as fathers.

Rabbi Offner explains, "Adults who are married have committed to a partnership. Therefore, adults must share their oaths and vows with their spouses, and their spouses are entitled to input. Matot teaches us that the vows of married persons cannot stand without spousal approval.” The point is that when somebody is in a committed relationship, whether it is between spouses, significant others, business partners, or whomever it might be, one person shouldn't be able to bind the person without some conversation. The couple should say to each other: "Is this something we ought to do? Is this right and good? Can we afford it? Do we have time?" Before committing to a course of action, each party to the relationship ought to have the right to say "No."

The same is true for parents and children. The rule shouldn't apply just to daughters and their fathers; it should be expanded to include all children and all parents. Kids don't always have enough perspective to make binding commitments, and their parents ought to be able to look at their decisions and say "Let's think about that again." And so, Rabbi Offner says, “All young people, male and female, who live in their parental home - though they may not like it all the time - are not fully independent. They need to understand that their parents have a part in all that they say and do. Matot teaches us that their vows cannot stand without parental approval.”

I think it all comes down to communication. If you're in a family, if you have a partner, if you have a spouse, if you have a parent, you need to talk about your decisions and make sure that what you're committing to is appropriate. Our prayer tonight is for us to learn to take responsibility for the words we utter. Let us learn to communicate with our partners and our families, and to take responsibility for the promises we make together. Amen.

Home