Matot-Massei: The Question of Women’s Agency and Lives under Patriarchy.

The Torah portion for July 15th is the double-portion, Matot-Massei  (Bamidbar/Numbers 30:2-36:13).  Matot, meaning tribes, runs from Numbers 30:2 to 32:42 and covers vow making as well as what the spoils of war with the Midianites are.  Massei, or journeys, is Numbers 33:1 to 36:13 and describes the Israelites journey through the desert after fleeing Egypt and the boundaries of the Promised Land.  While Matot-Massei have so much that could be discussed including war, images for the deity, and cities of refuge, this post focuses on their women. 

There are three occasions where women are specifically mentioned.  The first concerns vows and their atonement when broken.  Next, women are discussed as spoils of war.  Finally, Matot-Massei describes what to do with inheritance when there are only daughters. 

At first glance, Matot-Massei seem to suggest that women have a certain amount of autonomy and agency in terms of women’s vow-making.  Both women and girls can make vows to the deity.  Rashi’s example of a vow, that a woman might make, is that of being a Nazarite (See his commentary on verse 30:6).  It is clear from the parshah that these vows hold fast and there are atonements to be made if or when women break their vows.

However when we look closer, we see that whether or not those vows count has much to do with the actions of the men in these women’s lives.  Fathers can cancel their daughters’* vows (30:6), if they hear a vow made by their daughter while the daughter still lives at home (30:4).  If they fail to act or do not want to nullify their daughter’s vow, then the vow holds (30:5).  The same holds true when women marry; their husbands now have that power over women’s vows (30:7-8).  However, divorced and widowed women must keep their promises as they have no one (man) who can retract them (30:10).

The Torah is adamant that it is the men who decide the legitimacy of women’s vows (30:14). However, their power is limited to two ways.  First, men can only revoke vows of ‘self-affliction’ (30:14) and, second, once they decide to support or negate a vow, they cannot change their minds after the fact (30:15-16).**  

While it is not said, it seems as if these men are attempting to protect their daughters and their wives from themselves.  It reads like a form of benevolent sexism as in: don’t promise something I know that you cannot keep.  Or, I know you better than you know yourself.  Even if the father or husband act to nullify the vow out of genuine good will, this system still limits women’s agency and autonomy; it forces women to make vows secretly and subversively to be able to assure certainty when fulfilling their own wills.

The next time women are mentioned in the parshah is as the spoils of war with the Midianites (31:9).  They are taken captive and only later is it decided what to do with them.  The women are grouped into two groups: those who could have sex (proven, according to Rashi, with the use of a showplate – their faces will turn green,  31:17); and those who cannot.  Those whose faces do not turn green are kept for the men as spoils of war; the rest are killed (31:17-18).  In total, according to the Torah, there were 32,000 young girls who were kept as war spoils (31:35).

This whole situation is problematic.  Divinely-sanctioned war is unjustifiable.  Likewise, girls are no one’s property; nor are they rewards for war.  In other words, I fail to see any holiness here.  Rather, this is patriarchy and the concerns of patriarchy and in no way or shape anything divine.   I am even more disheartened when I think about the fact that wars still happen today and that women are often treated as the sexually-available spoils of war.   

The final time women are mentioned in the parshah regards inheritance.  Zalophehad has no sons but rather five daughters.  It is suggested that they inherit their father’s property.  The issue is, according to the men who approach Moses, that these women’s inheritance will then be given to their huband’s tribe as tribal affiliation travels through the male line (36:3).  This will, as a consequence, permanently weaken the divine gift within Joseph’s tribe, which should never happen.  The decision is made that the daughters must marry into their own tribe so that their inheritance stays within their tribe (36:6-7).  

Besides the idea that women are allowed to inherit property and wealth, from a feminist perspective, I want to highlight three additional details.  First, the women are expressly told that they can choose their husbands (although the men must be from their tribe, 36:6).  Second, these women are named!  Their names are: Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah (36:11).  Lastly, however, there is a difference between this story and a similar one in Joshua.  In Rashi’s commentary (36:11), he points the reader to Joshua 17:3.  In Joshua, the women are active agents, going to Joshua and demanding their inheritance.***  In this parshah, they are not.  Perhaps Rashi does not want us to forget that women are also active agents in their lives and can and should request their due.

In many ways, Matot-Massei tackles the agency of women in the context of patriarchy.  As can be expected, women’s lives are in men’s hands: men cancel their vows; decide their inheritance; and grant them no agency whatsoever by taking them as spoils of war and murdering them.  

Yet, this is not the end of the story.  Matot-Massei acknowledges women’s freedom to make spiritual vows and choose their husbands.  Here, women’s names are remembered.  Because of this, to me, Matot-Massei illustrates for us the dreadful effects of patriarchy on women and, at the same time, the perseverance of women and their agency in the face of it. 

NOTES:

*Girls over the age 11 and 1 day until age 12 and a half according to Rashi.  Before age 11 and one day, girls are considered children who cannot make vows (Rashi’s note on verse 30:4). 

** They have 12 hours give or take, not 24.  See Rashi’s commentary on verse 30:15.

*** The Oxford Annotated Study Bible (2010) describes these women as part of a biblical tradition of remembered hero(in)es in the footnote to verses 17:1-6 in the book of Joshua (343).