 Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,191  Location: São Paulo, Brazil Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Welcome to the forum Yah Tselem! One thing I've learnt is that both Ken (kp) and Yada have pretty much covered nearly every aspect of the Torah, Prophets, and the rest, in their books. In this case I remembered kp discussing it in The Owner's Manual - Chapter 3 - Marriage, Sex and Family Ties. Quote:(79) A widow whose husband died childless must not be married to anyone but her deceased husband’s brother. "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel." (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) In ancient Israel, this mitzvah was part of the welfare system, intimate and practical, as usual. To become a widow was bad enough, but to be left with no sons to carry on the family name and provide familial support was considered a catastrophic tragedy. The widow wasn’t to remarry just anybody. God’s ideal solution was for the dead husband’s brother to marry the widow (even if he was already married, so the rules governing polygamy apply--see #73). The first son born of this union of necessity would bear the name, status, and inheritance rights of the deceased husband. This also kept the DNA--the genetic profile--of the son as close as possible to what it would have been had the dead brother been his actual father.
There were several big "ifs" attached to this mitzvah, however. First, the brothers had to have dwelled "together" with each other before the first died. Yachad comes from a word that means "unit." It’s not specified just how close this togetherness had to be, but if the guy never saw his brother except at gatherings like the Feast of Tabernacles, all bets were apparently off. Second, there was a "get-out-of-marriage-free card," so to speak. We’ll address that under #81.
(80) One must marry the widow of a brother who has died childless. "...her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her." (Deuteronomy 25:5) The scripture supporting the affirmatively stated converse to mitzvah #79 stresses that the widow was not to be looked at as a charity case, but was to be a full-fledged member of the family with all the rights and privileges of any wife, including conjugal rights. The primary idea, after all, was to ensure that the dead brother’s line continued. This whole "marry-your-brother’s-widow" concept was not new with the Law of Moses, by the way. God took this issue of genetic heritage very seriously generations before the exodus: consider the case of Judah’s son Onan in Genesis 38. Yahweh killed him (verse 10) for refusing to father a son for his dead brother Er. It’s a pretty convoluted tale, but the bloodline of the Messiah was at stake here. Judah himself unwittingly ended up fathering his own grandson (i.e., the son of his daughter-in-law), Perez (a direct ancestor of King David). Twisted but true.
(81) The widow (as in #79 and 80) must formally release the brother-in-law if he refuses to marry her. "But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’" (Deuteronomy 25:7-10) Okay, so it’s not a stoning offense. This puts the "marry-your-brother’s-widow" rule in the "strongly suggested" category. Notice that three times in the greater passage, the phrase "in Israel" or "of Israel" is used. This is a strong indication that the mitzvah was never intended to apply outside eretz Israel, or beyond the time frame of the theocratic assembly (which admittedly was designed to last more or less forever). This is one of those "Laws" that can’t possibly be kept today (if only because modern Israel forbids polygamy). If keeping the letter of the whole Law was what justified us with Yahweh, we’d all be in deep spit.
|
