• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Adding my sister as a sister-wife?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CindyW said:
Personally i dont think i would want my sister for a sister wife. Or my daughter ..
Click to expand...
Well, rest assured that you wouldn't have to worry about your husband taking your daughter for a wife, as that is clearly illegal. I don't think it's right for him to marry your sister either while you're still alive, but I seem to be the minority here. I'm open to being convinced, but it won't be easy. :D
 
Alright, Sadan.

Uchenna Mbawashante it is!

Sir BumbleBerry just went limping off "mbumbling" something about carpal tunnels all the way to his feet! :lol:

Oh, and you're RIGHT, Bryce. I'm not likely to marry Cindy's sister. Her sister's husband can whup my hindmost extremity. Most embarrasing for a 48 year old G'pappy such as myself.
 
Frankly, I don't regard the Talmud or rabbinic writings as authoritative for interpreting the written Torah. Otherwise, we might as well take Gershom's ban as law. Yeshua warned us about allowing the traditions of men to supercede the Scriptures.
 
QMCO5 said:
Frankly, I don't regard the Talmud or rabbinic writings as authoritative for interpreting the written Torah. Otherwise, we might as well take Gershom's ban as law. Yeshua warned us about allowing the traditions of men to supercede the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I'm glad, because neither do I. When did I say that I thought they were authoritative? They are nothing but commentary.
 
Otherwise, we might as well take Gershom's ban as law.
Click to expand...

Even for those that did, of course, it expired a LONG time ago...



(And, unlike some of the "additions to" Torah in the Talmud, the ostensible logic behind his ban was, sadly, unassailable on the practical level. I've heard it paraphrased as "when Christians and Jews disagree, Jews die.")
 
So, does the commandment to not marry your wife's sister while your wife is still alive have to make sense for Him to command it? Nope. Does the idea that a marriage like that is acceptable if the two women aren't rivals make sense? Perhaps.

One of the arguments put forward is that Hashem portrays Himself as someone who is married to two sisters, so if He can do it so can we. My question is whether Hashem has to portray Himself in a way that is consistent with Torah?
 
Look what I just found... comments?
Theology Questions: Sister-In-Law Marriage Incestuous While Wife Lives
Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jun 25, 2007 - 02:06 AM
Print this story E-mail this to a friend

You may not marry the sister of your wife while your wife is still living. It is incest.

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

In short, marrying two sisters at the same time is a violation of the laws against incest. You are forbidden to do it. There are some who enter into a semantic type of nonsense concerning this verse while ignoring the context. They claim that if a man doesn't set out to vex his wife by marrying her sister that he's not violating Leviticus 18:18 but that's not the point of this verse. Leviticus 18:18 is a law against committing a particular type of incest. The context in which this incest law is found is within a long list of incestuous bans.

Leviticus 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

This is speaking of after the uncle is dead. During the life of the uncle it would be adultery but this has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.

Again, this is speaking of after the brother is dead for during the life of the brother it would be adultery and this also has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Now let's look at the verse in question:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

To uncover whose nakedness? If we are using the context of the verses that precede Leviticus 18:18 then we are forced to specify that the "her" is the current wife. Like this:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [your wife], to uncover [your wife's] nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

You see, the wife of your sister is "your wife's nakedness." In other words, it is incestuous.

This case could be put on a test as follows:

Question: What is the only incestuous relationship that ceases to be incestuous after the death of your wife?

Answer: Marriage to your wife's sister.


Note: Copyright 2007 Don Milton All Rights Reserved.
All Copyright Laws Apply - Thou Shalt Not Steal
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that many on this forum agree with Don on this issue, as you can see from the first four pages of this thread. Either you agree that it means to vex her, or you don't.
 
I think most people see it as vexing her by having two sisters, as that seems to have been the case with Jacob, Rachel, and Leah.

I thought that Milton's argument about the context was very interesting. I wish that I knew Biblical Hebrew well, but I think that those who do know it very well might agree with the majority on this one. However, I will continue to research this thoroughly.

I'll post this question with Hebraic scholars, Rabbinical scholars, and anyone I know who knows Biblical Hebrew well. I'll ask them if the Hebrew structure of the verse can possibly support this idea.

However, I'm still stuck on the idea of how a court would judge the validity of a marriage if the question of whether a sister as vexed or not came into question. How would people determine whether a marriage to a husband's wife's sister was allowed or not? Have you thought about that?
 
However, I'm still stuck on the idea of how a court would judge the validity of a marriage if the question of whether a sister as vexed or not came into question. How would people determine whether a marriage to a husband's wife's sister was allowed or not? Have you thought about that?
Click to expand...
could it be that this is the reason that no penalty was listed (if i understood the previous discussion)
it was instruction/advice to be followed but not a black-and-white issue to be judged in a court of law?
only the husband could judge his own motives about whether or not he was intending to vex his wife
 
Perhaps... but, just because there wasn't a penalty listed for it doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong. For example, there is no penalty listed for eating unclean meats, but it is wrong. And, no penalty is listed for a man who marries his wife's granddaughter, though Leviticus 18:17 says it is wrong. Further, it is imperative that we determine whether it is a violation of His commandments, for the marriage would not be valid and a child born to them would be a bastard, or mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:2).
 
imperative?
the lady that posted the situation has not been on the board for 2 months.
no one else seems to be in danger of marrying a sister anytime soon and they need to stand before God if and when they do. yes, it is our place to tell them what we feel He is saying about it, but it will be their descision as to which interpretation to follow.
will any of us lambast them and call their children bastards if they believe differently than we do? i pray not
 
i think that the facts have been pretty well discussed
i will be happy to read any new ones
 
Steve,,Is it time to go with Sir Bumbleberry to get a blizzard?? . i hear he is working late tonight ...sigh

:(
 
I haven't heard anyone rebut Milton's argument. He says that the verse is specifically dealing with incest and he seems to prove it. I'm interested in how people with the idea that this verse permits marriage between sisters would answer that. I don't think as you do, so I can't make the argument that you would make against Milton.

What is the connection between whether the sisters feel vexed and the fact of incest when a man is married to two living sisters? How does their vex-less state remove the incest? Context. That passage is all about situations of incest, so how is it that there is no incest? If a man's wife dies and he marries her sister then there's no incest.
 
brYce said:
One of the arguments put forward is that Hashem portrays Himself as someone who is married to two sisters, so if He can do it so can we. My question is whether Hashem has to portray Himself in a way that is consistent with Torah?
Click to expand...

Well, let me put the question back to you, Bryce. Considering what sin has cost God, in terms of the death of His Son, etc., and His absolute antipathy for sin, are you entertaining the notion that God / Hashem EVER poirtrays Himself as sinful, even in allegory?

I believe that if you check out a variety of translations, you will find that the phrase, "to vex her" can also be validly translated as "as a rival".

This brings us back to my post at the top of the second page, to wit, that ALL of God's laws for us have Love at their core, for He is Love, and that if we start at Love, we can readily understand this command WITH it's modifying clause.

If the two sisters haven't been able to get beyond sibling rivalry in the 18+ years of their childhood, forcing them into lifelong proximity and sharing would be unloving, so don't do it. If, au contraire, they are lifelong inseparable friends who would PREFER to be together more or less constantly, forcibly separating them would be equally unloving, so don't do that! However, God / Hashem spoke to the first, as the second would not be imperative, but the first needed to be addressed, as per Leah and Rachel.

With respect, I've seen a tendency in some rabbinic sounding arguments over the years to latch onto basic statements and ignore their qualifying clauses. I personally can't see any value in that, as I decided about 12 years ago to go with the basic working hypothesis that God did NOT have Alzheimer's, despite being very old, but rather both knew exactly wat He was saying, and said exactly that. (This is not facetious. I had quite an internal fight over it but that is another story.)

That being the case, I maintain that God didn't put the qualifying clause there, "as her rival", out of a momentary lapse in lucidity, but out of precise articulateness.

As to Don Milton, I love the man, and consider him a good friend. However, like others, I don't agree with him in every particular, this subject among them.
 
If the verse was about incest then it would say that a man cannot marry sisters, period. Not that he cannot marry a sister in order to vex his wife. God isn't stupid and he wrote what he meant.

How could it be incest. It is incest for a brother to have sex with a sister or a father with a daughter. But for an unrelated man to have sex with two related sisters. That is crazy.

If it was an absolute then it would have said it absolutely, not with a qualifier there.

Bryce, you need to calm down. You are going to have a heart attack.

SweetLissa
 
sweetlissa said:
How could it be incest. It is incest for a brother to have sex with a sister or a father with a daughter. But for an unrelated man to have sex with two related sisters.
Click to expand...
Is it crazy?

A man who has a wife, who has a daughter from a previous marriage, is guilty of incest if he also marries that daughter or granddaughter. The man has zero blood relation to the daughter or granddaughter. (Leviticus 18:17)
 
Bryce, debating with you is no fun. You never ever ever let anyone else have a chance. I am not going to even read your stuff anymore.

SweetLissa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top