Saturday, January 16, 2021

On Leviticus 18:17-18

A traditional interpretation is one that takes this verse “at face value,” that is, it is, talking about a literal mother/sister relationship. Consider the following from Old Testament scholar Baruch Levine:

 

18. Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister Hebrew li-tsror reflects the noun tsarah, “rival wife,” which, in turn, derives from the verb ts-r-r, “to assail, attack.” In polygamous marriages, the interests of the several wives inevitably conflicted.

 

and uncover her nakedness in the other’s lifetime The syntax requires clarification. The literal sense is “to uncover her nakedness (that is, the wife’s sister’s nakedness) in addition to her, during her lifetime (that is, the wife’s lifetime).” The preposition ʿal in this statement has the same meaning as ʿal nashav, “in addition to his wives,” in Genesis 28:9. Marrying two sisters would create an extremely unhealthy rivalry. The prohibition continues so long as the first sister remains alive, even if she had been divorced from the man in question. It is not certain why the text dispenses with the rule of permanent prohibition in this case. (Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 122)

 

However, it is possible that this text is, unlike v. 17, more of a general warning against polygamy, not merely marrying a mother and her sister. Arguing the “likelihood that the traditional interpretation of Lev. 18:18 is wrong” and that the text “in fact, offers a general (ethical) prohibition of polygyny” under normal times (cf. Jacob 2:23-30 in the Book of Mormon) Gordon Hugenberger offered the following justification for such a reading:

 

The operative expression אשׁה אל־אחתה (lit., “a woman to her sister”) is used everywhere in the Old Testament in the distributive sense of “one to another” and nowhere else refers to literal sisters. Likewise, the masculine equivalent אישׁ אל-אחיו (lit., “a man to his brother”) invariably has an analogous distributive sense, “one (man) to another,” and does not refer, except by coincidence, to literal brothers (i.e., Gen. 42:21, 28; Exod. 16:15; 25:20; 37:9; Num. 14:4; Isa. 9:18 [ET 19]; Jer. 13:14; 23:35; 25:26; and Ezek. 24:23). Indeed, had it been the intention of Lev. 18:18 to prohibit a man from marrying two women who were literal sisters, it could have been done so with considerably less ambiguity by the use of the conjunction “and [וִ],” rather than the preposition “to [אֶל],” that is, woman and her sister [אשׁה אחתה].” the grammar of this expression would then be precisely analogous to that of “a woman and her daughter” [אשׁה ובתה],” the phrase employed by the author in the immediately preceding verse, where he forbids sexual relations with a woman and her daughter (cf. also Lev. 20:14). It appears likely that it was the awareness of this usage which already led the Zadokites and the Qumran community in the first century B.C., as well as the much later Karaites, to interpret Lev. 18:18 as an explicit prohibition against polygyny . . . What is perhaps even more striking, the justification offered in vs. 18, “to be a rival to her [לצרֹר . . . עליה],” far from emphasizing the intrinsic perversity of this wrong, is quite general and applicable to any bigynous marriage . . . the same root, צרר, “to be a rival” or “to be hostile,” is used in 1 Sam. 1:6 to describe the discordant relationship between Peninnah and Hannah, who need not have been literal sisters . . . Such a prohibition against polygyny ought not be dismissed as out of character for the Holiness Code because of its impossible idealism. Rather, it compares favourably with a number of other equally idealistic provisions, such as the prohibition against hatred in Lev. 19:17f.! The fact that Lev. 18:18 and many other “idealistic” stipulations lack criminal sanctions suggests that these may have been intentionally ethical, rather than legal norms. Putting this somewhat differently, Lev. 18:18 can be categorized as a lex imperfecta, a law which prohibits something without thereby rendering it invalid (reflecting a society which would have lacked the requisite means of enforcement in any case). (Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics and Developed from Malachi [Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994], 115-16, 117, 118)

 

However, the interpretation of v. 17 is pretty much accepted as one to be taken "at face value":

 

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

 

Brian Hales, commenting on this and related texts, noted:

 

The Torah includes further restrictions against taking multiple wives, some of which were clearly not held by the earlier patriarchs. For example, the Israelites were commanded to not marry sisters or a “woman and her daughter” (Lev. 18:17-18). In contrast, Jacob married sisters, Rachel and Leah. Abraham’s marriage to Sarah, his half-sister, would have also violated the law of Moses (Gen. 20:12) (Apparently Joseph Smith practiced a similar form of plural marriage, being sealed to a mother and a daughter [Patty Bartlett Sessions and Sylvia Sessions Lyon] and two sets of sisters [Eliza and Emily Partridge and Sarah and Maria Lawrence]).

 

Not only was polygamy allowed and regulated in the Torah, but in at least one situation, it was actually commanded: “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother not her” (Deut. 25:5). If a man died childless, his brother was to marry his widow and raise up children to him. Thus, if a deceased husband’s brother was previously married, then marrying his brother’s widow would create a polygamous union. This commandment, known as a “levirate” law, is recorded in the Torah as being initiated before Moses received the law known by his name. The situation occurred when Onan was commanded to marry the widow of his brother Er (Gen. 38:8). Apparently, the living brother could refuse (Deut. 25:6-10), and later directives have been interpreted as contradictory by some interpreters (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). However, the levirate law was apparently still valid in Jesus’s day, as some Sadducees, posing a question on the resurrection, posited an extreme example of it (Matt. 22:23). (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 3: Theology [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013], 34-35)