Eose, with H. P. Smith, adloc, that the words ' and is vow ' were added by a scribe). In the period of the early monarchy, Absalom secured permis- sion to go to Hebron on pretext of a vow ne had made, while in exile at Geshur, that he would worship J" if He restored him to Jerusalem (2 S 15'- *). The meaning of the vow is that he would appear before J" and, since none could appear before Him empty, would otfer sacrifice to Him. Naturally, this would be ottered not at Jerusalem, but at the Jud;can sanctuary of Hebron. Each of these instances is a case of a vow intended to secure a favour, and in its essence is a commercial transaction. — A vow of unselfish devotion, which was also a vow of abstinence, is exemplified in the Psalmist's poetical description of David's vow that he would not enter his nouse, lie in his bed or sull'er himself to sleep, till he had found a place for J" to dwell in (I's 1.32-''*). Saul's taboo on eating before sundown (1 S 14**) was a vow of abstinence, imposed on others as well as himself, in order to secure victory by the help of J". An extreme form of vow is exemplified in the ban or vow of extermination on Arad (Hu 21'"^) : ' Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said. If thou wilt indeed deliver tliis people into my hand, then 1 will devote their cities.' Both cities and people were in this case destroyed (see CuRSE).
In Deuteronomy we have little legislation on vows. It is insisted that what has been thus dedicated must be eaten at the central sanctuary ( Dt 12«- "■ "• 18- 26). The hire of sacred prostitutes must not he brought into the sanctuary for any vow (Dt 2.3"). There may have been a relaxation of sentiment as to the stringency of a vow, such as may be observed in the post-exilic period ; for the legislator, while insisting that there is no religious obligation to make a vow, enjoins that, once made, the pledge must be honoured under pain of Divine displeasure.
In P we naturally have much fuller regulations. In Nu 30, which in its present form belongs to a
late stratum, both vow and bond are declared to be binding when uttered by a man. But a woman who lives in her fatlier's house or is married is in a diti'erent position. Her father or husband has a right of veto, provided that it is exercised at once. But otherwise silence gives consent, and the vow must be regarded as irrevocable. If at a later period her husband cancels it, he does so on peril of Divine punishment. A widow or a woman divorced from her husband, since she is not dependent on another, is bound by her vow. Vows and free\vill - offerings must be without blemish (Lv 22'«- 1* ? H) ; but wliile a freewill- ottering may be made from that which has some- thing lacking or superfluous, this is forbidden in the case of a vow (v."'). In this connexion it is interesting to notice that Malachi utters a curse on the deceiver who has a male in his flock and vows it and substitutes a blemished thing (I") The laws as to the discharge of vows are to be found in Lv 27, apparently a late section of P. Persons vowed to J" could not be sacrificed as Jephthah's daughter had been ; they must be redeemed. A fixed scale is laid down. Males between the ages of twentj' and sixty were re- deemed at ' fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary ' (see Money, vol. iii. p. 422), females at thirty shekels. From five to twenty years, males were redeemed at twenty and females at ten shekels ; from a month to five years, males were redeemed at five and females at three shekels ; while from sixty upwards the tariff was fixed at fifteen and ten shekels respectively. If, however, the person who made the vow was too poor to pay the redemption price, it was to be fixed according to his ability. In the case of animals no change could be made — the vow must stand as originally uttered. Not only was it forbidden to substitute a bad for a good, but also a good for a bad. If such change was made, both became holy to J". If the animal was unclean, and therefore incap- able of being used in sacrifice, it was sold at the priest's valuation, and the money given to the sanctuary. If the owner wished to redeem it, he might do so on payment of the valuation plus one- fifth. Firstlings, however, could not be vowed to J", since, as such, they alreaily belonged to Him. If devoted to J" by the ban, they were too holy to be redeemed ; and it is startling to read (Lv 27^) that men so devoted must be put to death. The law for the dedication of a house is similar to that for the dedication of animals. It was sold at the priest's valuation, or redeemed by the addition of a fifth to that price. The law as to fields is more complex and obscure. If a man vows part of his hereditary possession, the valuation is to be fixed according to the quantity of seed required to sow it, at the rate of fifty shekels the homer. If the field is consecrated immediately after the year of jubilee, this estimate is to stand ; but if some time after, then a reduction in price must be made pro- portionate to the time that has elapsed. Tlie owner may redeem it by paying tlie priest's estimate plus one-fifth. If he does not redeem it, but sells it, the right of redemption is lost, and the field instead of returning to him at the jubilee becomes the property of the sanctuary. Tlie law is far from clear. Apparently, when a field was dedicated, the owner commuted his obligation by a money payment accordiug to a fi.xed scale of valuation. But tliis by itself does not constitute him absolute owner agam : this he can become only by adding one-fifth to the valuation, as penalty for the privilege of redemption. If he pays the valuation without adding the fifth, and sells the field, he loses all claim on it, and it does not revert to him in the year of jubilee, as it would other- wise have done, but falls to the sanctuary. If