Inheritance Laws and Charitable Giving
in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Ancient Civilizations
John W. Welch, Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah
October 4, Joseph Smith Memorial Building, Salt Lake City, Utah
A. Family life, roles and rights of children, succession to the paternal estate, wills, intestate succession,
practices of adoption, and principles and purposes of inheritance in pre-technical societies and in ancient
Near Eastern and ancient Mediterranean cultures.
*1. R. Westbrook and B. Wells, Every Day Law in Biblical Israel (WJK, 2009)
2. Raymond Westbrook, ed., A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (Brill, 2003)
3. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Hendrickson, 1998)
B. Special circumstances, constraints, ethical and theological factors arising in ancient Israelite society
arising out of biblical law and religion.
*1. Ze’ev Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (BYU Press, 2001)
2. Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOT, 1991)
3. Leo G. Perdue and others, Families in Ancient Israel (Westminster John Knox, 1997)
C. Precedents established in classic cases in the Bible involving inheritance.
1. Esau and primogeniture in Genesis
*2. The daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27 and 36)
*3. Protection of the rights of the eldest son of the primary wife (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
4. Testamentary blessings of Israelite fathers to their sons (Genesis 49)
D. The application of inheritance principles in the Book of Mormon
*1. The case of Lehi and the division of his posterity into seven tribes (2 Nephi 1-4)
*2. Bequests and transfers by Benjamin (Mosiah 1) and Alma (Alma 37)
E. Theological utilization of legal principles of inheritance in the New Testament
1. Earthy and heavenly inheritance in the parables of Jesus and in New Testament epistles
2. Francis Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons (Academic Books, 1984)
F. Practical applications of biblical principles dealing with giving and inheritance
1. Vows and consecration
2. Tithing and Temples
3. Gifts of surplus in the Temple’s chamber of secrets
4. Care for the poor, widows, orphans
5. Leon Epsztein, Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible
(SCM Press, 1986)
David L. Barker, Tight Fists or Open Hands? Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament
Law (Eerdmans, 2009)
Richard H. Hiers, Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law (T&T Clark, 2009)
Jonathan Burnside, God, Justice, and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible
(Oxford University Press, 2011)
A. Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 101-104.
Testamentary Powers
The ancient world has the concept of a last will and testament, but not in the modern sense. A father’s power to
make a will was severely restricted, especially as regards capital assets such as land. Because his sons had vested
rights to equal inheritance shares, a father could not simply disinherit one son or give family property to an
outsider. He did, however, have limited powers to dispose of assets within the circle of potential heirs. He could
assign certain property to one share or another, rearrange the shares among heirs, especially by transferring the
firstborn’s share to a younger son, and include daughters and wives among the heirs. What he could not do in
principle was to give away property to persons beyond the members of the patriarchal household.
Testaments exploiting these limited powers are well represented among ancient Near Eastern legal
documents, with arrangements of remarkable complexity. The following example is from fifteenth-century Nuzi
(Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research X, no. 21):
Tablet of the allocation of Ziki son of Akkuya: he has fixed the allocations of his sons Ellu and Arziza.
Thus Ziki declares:
“As regards all my fields, Ellu is my eldest son, and he shall take a double inheritance-share; Arzizza is the
younger son and he shall take according to his share.”
Thus Ziki declares: “I have given my houses and fields in Nuzi to my eldest son, Ellu.
“I have given my stable which is among the large buildings together with its vehicles, to Arzizza,
and Arzizza may open its entrance to the street. I have given my storehouses [?] in upper Nuzi beside the
storehouses [?] of A. to Arzizza.”
Thus Ziki declares: “My son Shennima has taken the fields, houses, and all the property of my
brother Shurihil; therefore Shennima shall not be included as heir to the fields, houses, and property of my
father Akkuya. He shall not divide their property with Ellu and Arzizza.
“Ellu and Arzizza shall divide my storehouses [?] in upper Nuzi beside the storehouses [?] of B.
Ellu shall take a double portion and Arzizza shall take according to his share.
“Of slave-girls, each one shall take according to his share.”
Then Ziki Declares: “If Shennima presses claims against Ellu and Arzizza concerning my fields,
houses, and property, Shennima shall pay Ellu and Arzizza two mina of gold.”
Thus Ziki declares: “On this day I have made a disposition and this tablet is a tablet; any other
tablet is no tablet.”
And thus Ziki declares: “Whichever of my sons sells a field or a house shall forfeit his fields and
houses.”
(nine witnesses and scribe)
This tablet was written after proclamation in Nuzi at the city gate.
A testament was the prime means of transferring property to wives and daughters. A husband could make
a gift to his wife that could theoretically disenfranchise his sons, although most such bequests were designed only
to support her during widowhood, the property then reverting to the primary heirs. In order to strengthen the
widow’s position against the other heirs, the testator could also assign a different status to her. Thus testaments
from Nuzi and Emar give the widow the status of “father” or of “father and mother.” An Egyptian testator adopts
his widow as his daughter (Gardiner 1941):
Year one, third month of summer, day twenty, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
Ramses.
On this day, proclamation to [the god] Amun of the accession of this noble god, he arising and shining
forth, and making offering to Amun. Thereupon Nebnefer, my husband, made a writing for me, Nenefer,
the musician of [the god] Seth, and made me daughter of his, and wrote down for me all that he possessed,
having no son or daughter apart from myself:
“All profit that I have made myself with her, I will bequeath it to Nanefer, my wife, and if any of my own
brothers or sisters arise to confront her at my death or thereafter and say: ‘Let my brother’s share be given
[to me]...’”
Before many and numerous witnesses: [names] “Behold, I have made the bequest to Nanefer, my wife, this
day before Huyyeremw, my sister.”
Similar precautions are adopted by testators for their daughters, whom they sometimes adopt as sons in
order to protect them better from the claims of other heirs, although it was not strictly necessary.
Some of these powers are documented in the Bible, where a father contemplating death is said to “give
orders regarding his house” (2 Sam. 17:23; 2 Kgs. 20:1; Isa 38:1). To begin with, the father could shift the
firstborn’s extra share from his biologically eldest son to a younger son. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 recognizes this
right while placing limitations on it. The text envisions a situation where the one wife is “loved” and the other is
“hated”, and where the eldest is the son of the “hated” wife. In this situation, the father could not deprive the
firstborn son of the extra share in favor of the younger. The text seems to confirm that fathers could, in general,
grant the status of firstborn son to a younger son, but forbids such action in this specific situation. The question
then becomes how to understand this situation and, more particularly, how to understand the terms “loved” and
“hated”. Most scholars assume that the terms refer to a general preference that the husband has for one of his
wives and not for the other. Others have suggested more specific meanings: “hated” means “divorced”
(Rabinowicz 1953), or “hated” means demoted from first-ranking wife, and “loved” means promoted to firstranking wife (Szubin and Porten 2001).
The political history of the settlement in the promised land at times represents the preeminence of the two
tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in terms of inheritance. AS the sons of Joseph, they should theoretically have
been entitled to only a half-share each, and yet they each received a full share. The explanation in Joshua is purely
pragmatic: being numerous, they require more land (Josh 17:14-18). The explanation in Chronicles, however, is
that Jacob transferred to Joseph the firstborn Reuben’s extra share because Reuben had slept with his father’s
concubine (1 Chr. 5:1). Reuben’s offence is recorded in Genesis 35:22, and in the so-called “Blessing of Jacob”
he is stripped of his firstborn status for the same reason (Gen. 49:3-4). In Genesis 48:21, a slightly different
version, is offered: the dying Jacob gives Joseph an extra gift as his favorite son. Taking all these sources into
consideration, the situation seems to have been that a father could transfer the extra share to a favorite son, but
would not normally deprive his firstborn of the privilege without cause.
A father could designate his daughters as heirs with equal rights to their brothers, as Job did, although it
may have been intended as dowry, since he continued to live long after the gift ( Job 42:15). As a husband, he
could give his wife a bequest, as is hinted in Jeremiah 3:19. The verse also suggests that the husband adopted his
wife as a daughter, a legal maneuver known from the Egyptian Adoption Papyrus.
Finally, a father could remember his illegitimate sons. Abraham gave his sons by his concubines gifts, not
land, in his lifetime and sent them away (Gen. 25:5-6).
B. Ze’ev W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (Provo: BYU Press, 2001)
Chapter 12: Succession
1. Freedom of Disposition
The law of succession is in fact a part of family law, which in turn is a result of the
prevailing social structure. We have seen that in patriarchal society all the functions of the family
vested in the father, including the full management of the family property.1 When the father died,
there arose the need for a new leader to guide the family in religious, military, and economic
matters. In order to prevent a split of the group, the father used to appoint the worthiest of his sons
to succeed him in the patriarchal office. In Hebrew law, then, succession by will preceded
succession by law.2
In general, the leadership passed to the firstborn son who fulfilled all the deceased’s
functions. Originally the whole estate devolved upon him.3 However, the power of leadership did
not pass automatically, but had to be conferred by the father in a special blessing: “Be lord over
your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you” (Genesis 27:29, 37).
Under the patriarchal system, a father was free to choose a younger son as his successor if he
found the eldest unworthy of the office. One example is the disinheritance of Reuben (Genesis
49:3–4; 1 Chronicles 5:1); another, appointment of King Solomon instead of his elder brother
Adonijah (1 Kings 1:17–18; 2:15).4
Even the law of Deuteronomy 21:16–17 regulating the right of the firstborn still speaks of
“the day on which one causes one’s sons to inherit,” referring to an oral testament. This was perhaps
the first limitation on the ancient freedom of disposition, obliging the father to respect the right of
his firstborn by giving him a double portion. A will was also called “the command given to one’s
sons” or “to one’s house” (Genesis 49:29, 33; 2 Samuel 17:23; 1 Kings 2:1; 2 Kings 20:1) and
included moral as well as material dispositions.5
Job 42:15, indeed, mentions a testamentary disposition that gave equal shares to both
daughters and sons, but this was certainly an exception to the general rule of succession. Genesis
15:2–3 (Abram and Eliezer) and Proverbs 17:2 (“a wise servant . . . shall have part of the
inheritance”) also refer to testamentary dispositions in favor of slaves, including probably the grant
of their freedom. The marriage deeds of Elephantine provided for the mutual rights of the spouses in
the absence of children. This is again a kind of testamentary arrangement. Among these papyri are
some specific gifts in contemplation of death.6 Tobit 8:21 and 14:13 show the bride’s parents
promising their son-in-law an inheritance as a dowry, while Ben Sira 33:20 advises the owner of
property against handing it over during his lifetime to “son, wife, friend or brother.” Other donations
are referred to in Judith 8:7, Jubilees 45:16, and Testament of Job 45–46.
Assuming that freedom of testation existed in Hebrew law, we must ask why Abraham had to
make gifts to the sons of his concubines and to “send them away from Isaac his son, while he yet
lived” (Genesis 25:6), and why Jacob had to adopt his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh
(Genesis 48:5, 22) in order to confer upon them the right to inherit a share of his estate together with
his sons. These passages seem to indicate a tendency toward limiting the patriarchal power of free
disposition, although this right was never abolished.
2. Legal Succession
It is possible to understand the origins of the Hebrew law of succession by referring to the
word naḥalah, which meant both “real property” and “inheritance.” As in Greek law,7 every private
estate was considered by the Hebrews after the settlement to have been allotted by Moses and
Joshua to a particular house or family. The main function of the rules of succession was to preserve
this original distribution among the different tribes, clans, and families.
The law of levirate (Deuteronomy 25:5), for instance, was based upon the assumption prevailing
shortly after the settlement that only male heirs could be successors. Brothers still lived on an
undivided estate, distribution having taken place only on a clan level. The firstborn expected from a
levirate marriage was said to be the only one to “succeed to the name” of the deceased. This
corresponds perhaps to the former rule of universal succession mentioned above.8
Another stage is represented by the law of primogeniture (Deuteronomy 21:15–17). The
distribution of the land had proceeded as far as household level, and there was no justification for
the exclusive right of the firstborn. He was, however, still entitled to a double share in his father’s
estate.9 Even this rule did not make the firstborn legal heir to a double share, but merely required the
father to give this to him by will. The transaction was effected by an acknowledgment of the
firstborn as such, reminiscent of the formulae of adoption and dismission from the rights of
succession.10 The application of this rule to “all that he has” shows that personal as well as real
property was included in the estate.11
The remainder of the estate was divided in equal shares among the deceased’s sons. The
dismission of the sons of the concubines described in Genesis 25:5–6 proves that they were
considered heirs equal to the chief wife’s sons and excluded only in this particular case. The same
rule probably applied to the sons of a bondwoman, if the father so decided (Genesis 21:10–13; 30;
49), while the son of a prostitute, it seems, did not inherit (the sons of Gilead could expel Jephthah,
Judges 11:1–2).12
Finally, daughters were entitled to inherit in default of sons provided that they married within
the clan (Numbers 27:1–11; 36). These passages reflect the tribal system as it existed shortly after
the settlement. According to the demand of Zelophehad’s daughters, the order of succession was
fixed. Sons inherited according to law; in default, the estate was “transferred” to the daughters; and
in their default, it passed in turn to the deceased’s brothers, uncles, or generally to his kinsmen.
Though similar to the Athenian epiklerate, the Hebrew law of female succession allowed the heiress
to choose her own husband, her choice being limited, however, to members of her clan.13
No mention is made of the father’s right to inherit the estate of a son who predeceased him,
the explanation being that the family estate could not have been owned by the son during his
father’s lifetime.14 In the Aramaic papyri, on the other hand, both father and mother are referred to
as possible heirs.15
The widow was not granted any right in the inheritance, neither was the daughter allotted a
share where sons survived.16 We have mentioned above the marriage contracts from Elephantine,
which provided for the rights of the surviving spouse in default of children. While the widower was
appointed heir, the widow seems to have enjoyed a mere life interest, sometimes durante
viduitate only. Biblical law, on the other hand, did not ordinarily allow a woman any portion in the
family property, in order to prevent its passing to another family. This is also the reason for the
absence of a provision making the widower heir to his deceased wife’s property.17
The law of succession did not provide for the right of a creditor to demand satisfaction from
the estate, although this right must have existed at least so long as the sons themselves could be
seized in distress. A corresponding clause is usually included in the Aramaic papyri.18
Notes: 1. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, 25.
2. For Roman law this theory has been established by Bonfante, Scritti Giuridici 1 (Turin, 1926), 101ff.; compare
Max Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht (Munich: Beck, 1955–59), 1:82; Ze’ev W. Falk, “Testate Succession in
Jewish Law,” Journal of Jewish Studies 12 (1961): 67.
3. Compare Egyptian law in Erwin Seidl, Einführung in die ägyptische Rechtsgeschichte bis zum Ende des neuen
Reiches (Glückstadt: Augustin, 1951), 57. On the Hebrew firstborn, compare Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life
and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1926–40), 3–4:312ff.; Ephraim Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew
Marriage Laws (London: Longmans, 1944), 263ff.; Elijah S. Hartum, “Firstborn” (in Hebrew), in Encyclopaedia
Miqra’it(Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950), 2:123; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John
McHugh (London: Darton, 1961), 72; Isaac Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (1959): 38–39; Ze’ev W. Falk, “Endogamy in Israel” (in
Hebrew), Tarbiz32 (1963): 31–32.
4. Compare Codex Hammurabi 168–69; Godfrey R. Driver and John C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1952–55), 1:348; compare Ze’ev W. Falk, “Mutual Obligations in the Ketubah,” Journal of Jewish
Studies8 (1958): 215; Falk, “Testate Succession,” 67.
5. Otherwise, Reuven Yaron, Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon,
1960), 7–8.
6. Reuven Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 65ff. Compare
Codex Hammurabi 150, 165.
7. Paul Vinogradoff, Outlines of Historical Jurisprudence (London: Oxford University Press, 1920–22), 2:202–3.
8. Compare pp. 153–54.
9. See p. 172. For Babylonian parallels, compare Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 1:331.
10. David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), 5ff. See pp. 135–36,
146–47, 149, 151; compare Codex Hammurabi 170–71.
11. Compare Leviticus 25:46 applying the term naḥal to slaves.
12. Compare Codex Lipit Ishtar 25, 27; Codex Hammurabi 170–71; Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 1:332;
de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 90; Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Inheritance” (in Hebrew), in Encyclopaedia
Miqra’it, 3:790.
13. Falk, “Endogamy in Israel,” 32–33.
14. Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Israel Exploration,” Qiryat Sefer 34 (1959): 47.
15. Yaron, Introduction, 68. According to Rabbi Johanan (third century C.E.), the mother inherited her son’s
property (Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 114b), and this was also the view of the Qara’ites who referred to Ruth
4:9.
16. Compare Codex Lipit Ishtar 22; Codex Hammurabi 172, 180–82, 184.
17. For the position in Babylonian law, see Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 1:334ff. The Talmudic right of
inheritance of the widower in default of children (Mishnah Baba Batra 8:1) probably developed from a
contractual provision, such as that included in the Aramaic papyri. See Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage
Contract: A Study in the Status of the Woman in Jewish Law (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1927), 121ff.
18. Arthur E. Cowley, ed. and trans., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), 29–
32; Emil G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), 11;
Yaron,Introduction, 97.
C2. The Daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27)
8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall
cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren.
10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren.
11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to
him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment,
as the Lord commanded Moses.
C3. Rights of the Eldest Son of the Primary Wife (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
15 If a man has two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the
beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son
of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all
that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
D1. Lehi’s Division of his Inheritance into Seven Tribes (2 Nephi 1-4)
2 Nephi 1
28 And now my son, Laman, and also Lemuel and Sam, and also my sons who are the sons of Ishmael,
behold, if ye will hearken unto the voice of Nephi ye shall not perish. And if ye will hearken unto him I
leave unto you a blessing, yea, even my first blessing.
29 But if ye will not hearken unto him I take away my first blessing, yea, even my blessing, and it shall
rest upon him.
30 And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban; nevertheless, thou hast
been brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and I know that thou art a true friend unto my son, Nephi,
forever.
31 Wherefore, because thou hast been faithful thy seed shall be blessed awith his seed, that they dwell in
prosperity long upon the face of this land; and nothing, save it shall be iniquity among them, shall harm
or disturb their prosperity upon the face of this land forever.
32 Wherefore, if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for
the security of thy seed with the seed of my son.
2 Nephi 4
3 Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he
called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my
daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my firstborn, I would that ye should give ear unto my
words.
4 For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the
land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
5 But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing
upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.
6 Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from
you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.
7 Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will
be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever.
8 And it came to pass that after my father had made an end of speaking to the sons and daughters of
Laman, he caused the sons and daughters of Lemuel to be brought before him.
9 And he spake unto them, saying: Behold, my sons and my daughters, who are the sons and the
daughters of my second son; behold I leave unto you the same blessing which I left unto the sons and
daughters of Laman; wherefore, thou shalt not utterly be destroyed; but in the end thy seed shall be
blessed.
10 And it came to pass that when my father had made an end of speaking unto them, behold, he spake
unto the sons of Ishmael, yea, and even all his household.
11 And after he had made an end of speaking unto them, he spake unto Sam, saying: Blessed art thou,
and thy seed; for thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered
with his seed; and thou shalt be even like unto thy brother, and thy seed like unto his seed; and thou shalt
be blessed in all thy days.
D2. Bequests and Transfers by Benjamin (Mosiah 1) and Alma (Alma 37)
Mosiah 1
15 And it came to pass that after king Benjamin had made an end of these sayings to his son, that he
gave him charge concerning all the affairs of the kingdom.
16 And moreover, he also gave him charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of
brass; and also the plates of Nephi; and also, the sword of Laban, and the ball or director, which led our
fathers through the wilderness, which was prepared by the hand of the Lord that thereby they might be
led, every one according to the heed and diligence which they gave unto him.
17 Therefore, as they were unfaithful they did not prosper nor progress in their journey, but were driven
back, and incurred the displeasure of God upon them; and therefore they were smitten with famine and
sore afflictions, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty.
Alma 37
3 And these plates of brass, which contain these engravings, which have the records of the holy
scriptures upon them, which have the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning—
4 Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they should be kept and handed down from one
generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto
every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon.
5 And now behold, if they are kept they must retain their brightness; yea, and they will retain their
brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ.
14 And now remember, my son, that God has entrusted you with these things, which are sacred, which
he has kept sacred, and also which he will keep and preserve for a wise purpose in him, that he may
show forth his power unto future generations.
47 And now, my son, see that ye take care of these sacred things, yea, see that ye look to God and live.
Go unto this people and declare the word, and be sober. My son, farewell.
F. Vows and Oaths (Numbers 30)
1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the
thing which the Lord hath commanded.
2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his
word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in
her youth;
4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall
hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul
shall stand.
5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds
wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father
disallowed her.
6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she
bound her soul;
7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall
stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she
vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the
Lord shall forgive her.
9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall
stand against her.
10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;
11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall
stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded
out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband
hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her.
13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband
may make it void.
14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows,
or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day
that he heard them.
15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
16 These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the
father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.