Ketubot 71: On Vows and Mitzvot; Women's Agency

The very notion of a 'vow' is befuddling.  We promise G-d that we will do something - or that we will not do something.  The vow is between ourselves and G-d, and thus it is of great importance - and yet it is of little significance to others unless we include them in our vows.  We are permitted to vow anything we would like to vow.  But how can we keep a promise that is dependent on the behaviour of another person? Today's daf delves into that question through the examination of husbands and wives and their vows.

Yesterday we learned about a husband's vows about his wife and the limitations that the rabbis imposed on those vows.  Today we learn more.  Husbands should not annul their wives' vows, though they have the right to do so. However, if a woman should make a vow that would cause her own suffering or that would affect relations between her and her husband, he is permitted to annul that vow.  

But what is affliction?  One person's pain is another's pleasure.  Women might vow to abstain from sexual pleasure - but is that truly affliction?  Or is it simply a break from obligation?   The rabbis consider a woman who vows not to bathe, not to adorn herself, or not to engage in sexual relations with her husband.  He is permitted to annul these vows: mitzvot override vows; a husband is helping his wife when he annuls a vow that would interrupt their intimate relationship.  Further, vows that cause his wife affliction can be annulled.  

Of course, there is no consideration given to the possibility that a woman is purposely using a vow as a tool to remove herself from the obligation of sexual intercourse.  The rabbis even suggest that wives engage in intercourse without experiencing pleasure if they have vowed to avoid sexual pleasure. 

A new Mishna looks at husbands who vow unreasonably, according to the rabbis.  If husbands vow that their wives cannot visit their families or that they cannot visit houses of mourning, they must divorce their wives within specific time frames.  Likewise, if they have their wives perform chores that are then ridiculed (filling a bucket of water and then throwing it into the garbage), they are to divorce.  

It is fascinating to learn which annulments should warrant divorce and which annulments are reasonable.  Women have agency - they are permitted to have their own relationships with G-d, independent of their husbands.  And if husbands lead their wives to "closed doors" by impinging on their freedom to perform required mitzvot (honouring parents, tending to the dead), they do not deserve to remain married.  Even more impressive, wasting a wife's efforts and embarrassing her are seen as highly offensive behaviours, deserving of divorce.  

My take on this is based on my reading of the Talmud daily for the past two and a half years.  The importance of protecting women's agency is not couched in today's understandings of freedom or human rights.  Instead it is enacted because of the higher calling: adherence to G-d's mitzvot.  When a husband and wife encourage each other to do G-d's will (as that is interpreted and defined by our Sages), all is good.  Even if that means that a wife is being raped by her husband.  But when a husband and wife hinder each other from observing their respective mitzvot, there is no reason to stay married.

*one additional note, added later - I can't believe that I neglected to comment on the fox knowing its foxhole.  Apparently, our notes explain, the rabbis interpret one of the vows (offered by women) as neglecting to removes one's pubic hair.  Not to worry, say the rabbis, a husband knows his way around.  Sexual intercourse will not be hindered by pubic hair that might misdirect a less experienced young man.  There are other comments on women and hair removal in the Talmud - I will be watching for this window into women's lives.