Levirate Marriage/Polygamy Angle

[SEVERUSMAX]

Set in a Biblical time frame, it might be interesting (and quite realistic) for a man who is already married to suddenly be forced to marry his sister-in-law when his brother dies and leaves her a widow. After all, there is a passage in the Torah that actually requires such things (well, on pain of being spat upon and getting a long nickname). (Sorry, Henry VIII, but the Pope didn't need to issue a dispensation on that one. You needed a divorce, not an annullment from Catherine of Aragon.)

The really fun thing is if the man doesn't mind polygamy per se, nor does his wife (she could use some help and taking care of his sexual needs, though she feels an inevitable, occasional pang of jealousy for realism's sake), but they both despise the widow. That is, until they really get to know her. She turns out to have been mostly distant and sullen because of how his brother was treating her (getting drunk and beating her). The wife gets to like her and the husband gets to really love her (though I am not sure about the girl/girl angle- it's a nice bonus, but didn't always happen in Hebrew polygamy).

 

[Athena_e19]

The story sounds like it has a lot of potential.

Reminds me of the "The Preacher Man" on the Sci-fi list. Deals with the polygamous interaction of a particular man in the future. Not as much focus on the bisexual interaction but it could be good.

I think calling this a piece of lesbian fiction would be a misnomer, unless the women both disliked their husband and found solace with each other from the difficulty of being essentially a slave in the era that they lived in.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Yeah, it's much more a polygamous, man gets ultimate fantasy come true by accident, but at first thinks it a nightmare, almost humor/satire kind of story.

The point being that polygamy is only as good as all of the spouses. If they're all good, it's fantastic. But one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch, at the risk of sounding cliche.

If the man is a better husband than his brother, and the women are both flawed, but basically wonderful ladies, it could work. Especially if he actually loves both of them.

 

[Carnevil9]

Set in a Biblical time frame, it might be interesting (and quite realistic) for a man who is already married to suddenly be forced to marry his sister-in-law when his brother dies and leaves her a widow. After all, there is a passage in the Torah that actually requires such things......

Isn't this the story of Onan? Very appropriate for Lit.......Carney

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Isn't this the story of Onan? Very appropriate for Lit.......Carney

Not exactly, but the rule was based on the same custom that Onan was expected to follow according to Genesis. Whether or not he existed is open to question. And, contrary to myth, it had nothing to do with masturbation.

 

[Carnevil9]

.....And, contrary to myth, it had nothing to do with masturbation.

Oh, I agree with you. But the etymological fact remains that "Onanism," misnomer though it is, has become a synonym for masturbation......Carney

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, I agree with you. But the etymological fact remains that "Onanism," misnomer though it is, has become a synonym for masturbation......Carney

Yeah, but you'd be supposed how many people still believe that. I got one negative comment for pointing out in a story that the Torah never condemns masturbation.

 

[mountainmommy]

Some people find it much easier to write in the current time. The story could be written as you suggested, but set in the present, with a very strict, fundamentalist family that believes in "living the Bible", as they see it.

I read a magazine article a couple of years ago written by an educated, American muslim woman- a cpa by profession- who was having her father arrange a marriage for her, to a man she had never met, and wouldn't meet until the wedding. At first her father was appalled at the idea (he was a modernized, very Western muslim), but he got more interested as he got into it.

As I read this, I was fascinated, and later it sort of turned me on- the triumph of custom and religious belief over secular tradition and "doing our own thing".

 

[Shendude]

Just a minor nit:

If I recall my chumash lessons properly, yibbum (as the Hebrew term for it is), is not a polygamous marrigae in the sense you're thinking of, insofar as sex doesn't really come into it.

It's more of a "someone has to provide for the widow, and it might as well be her In-Laws" thing.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Just a minor nit:

If I recall my chumash lessons properly, yibbum (as the Hebrew term for it is), is not a polygamous marrigae in the sense you're thinking of, insofar as sex doesn't really come into it.

It's more of a "someone has to provide for the widow, and it might as well be her In-Laws" thing.

Which part are you talking about? Because I was talking about the part about giving seed to one's brother and such. Reproducing in his name and such. My understanding from Deuteronomy and Ruth is that the man really weds his kinsman's widow. Is that wrong? Presumably, in most cases, the brother-in-law already has a wife of his own, so wouldn't that be polygyny?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

"Biblical Times" covers a long bit of history - about 3500 years. In the time of Moses, multipal wives was common among the Hebrews and most tribes. The Egyptian Pharoah's had many wives, the "first wife" usually was a sister or daughter.

This has possibilities.

 

[Shendude]

Which part are you talking about? Because I was talking about the part about giving seed to one's brother and such. Reproducing in his name and such. My understanding from Deuteronomy and Ruth is that the man really weds his kinsman's widow. Is that wrong? Presumably, in most cases, the brother-in-law already has a wife of his own, so wouldn't that be polygyny?

Yes and no.

Yes, it's polygamy, and ideally, a yibbum marriage would work out that way, but the primary purpose is to insure that the widow has a provider.

No, because while the Torah PERMITS polygamy, it in no way ENCOURAGES it, and at times is just this side of DISCOURAGING it.

You get me?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Yes and no.

Yes, it's polygamy, and ideally, a yibbum marriage would work out that way, but the primary purpose is to insure that the widow has a provider.

No, because while the Torah PERMITS polygamy, it in no way ENCOURAGES it, and at times is just this side of DISCOURAGING it.

You get me?

Interesting outlook on that. But I am curious as to how much of that is Talmudic interpretation and how much is historical, pre-Pharasaic Judaism. How would it apply to the idea in, say, the days of King Saul? Just a question.

 

[Shendude]

Interesting outlook on that. But I am curious as to how much of that is Talmudic interpretation and how much is historical, pre-Pharasaic Judaism. How would it apply to the idea in, say, the days of King Saul? Just a question.

Dunno.

I know Solomon got blasted for having too many wives, though.

However, that may have been because many of them were political marriages producing alliances with nations God Did Not Approve Of. Also, apparently, some of them were idol-worshippers.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Dunno.

I know Solomon got blasted for having too many wives, though.

However, that may have been because many of them were political marriages producing alliances with nations God Did Not Approve Of. Also, apparently, some of them were idol-worshippers.

Yes, the undercurrent was that he was involved in too many marriages of convenience with the daughter of Pharoah and others. For the emerging monotheism of the Israelite nation, that was deemed a threat and the writers clearly indicate as much. If, as is likely, the same writer wrote both Samuel and Kings, he was much more upset over the polytheistic, "heathen" gods than the polygamy thing. David, for instance, was also polygamous and only got scolded over Bathsheba (and that because of the adultery/murder issue).

Notably, the wives were accused of changing his heart. Nothing was said of the concubines.

 

[Shendude]

Yes, the undercurrent was that he was involved in too many marriages of convenience with the daughter of Pharoah and others. For the emerging monotheism of the Israelite nation, that was deemed a threat and the writers clearly indicate as much. If, as is likely, the same writer wrote both Samuel and Kings, he was much more upset over the polytheistic, "heathen" gods than the polygamy thing. David, for instance, was also polygamous and only got scolded over Bathsheba (and that because of the adultery/murder issue).

Notably, the wives were accused of changing his heart. Nothing was said of the concubines.

You're, uh, NOT supposed to have concubines though.

Well, you can't CALL them that anyways. Whether they actually ARE is a different story.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You're, uh, NOT supposed to have concubines though.

Well, you can't CALL them that anyways. Whether they actually ARE is a different story.

I thought the Torah permitted maidservants (basically slaves) to be kept as concubines. That was my understanding, although as I recall, they were to be released from bondage if dismissed from that status. I don't recall if that was Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy.

 

[Shendude]

I thought the Torah permitted maidservants (basically slaves) to be kept as concubines. That was my understanding, although as I recall, they were to be released from bondage if dismissed from that status. I don't recall if that was Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy.

This is one of those fudgy things:

IIRC, you can't OFFICIALLY have a concubine. You CAN marry a "maidservant" or War Captive (although doing so is discouraged, particularly the latter). In practice however...

It should be noted that some of the things the Forefathers did are not really allowed. For example, I don't believe you're allowed to marry two sisters. Jacob did because he didn't have a choice in the matter. I think his and earlier, Abraham's, taking what are effectively concubines falls into this category, in that Abraham and Jacob HAD to have offspring.

And again, while polygamy is officially allowed, in practice it is looked down on. I cannot think of a single polygamous marriage in the Bible that went well, either in relationships between the wives (Abraham), the husband and wives (Solomon), the resultant children (David), or some combination thereof (Jacob).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

This is one of those fudgy things:

IIRC, you can't OFFICIALLY have a concubine. You CAN marry a "maidservant" or War Captive (although doing so is discouraged, particularly the latter). In practice however...

It should be noted that some of the things the Forefathers did are not really allowed. For example, I don't believe you're allowed to marry two sisters. Jacob did because he didn't have a choice in the matter. I think his and earlier, Abraham's, taking what are effectively concubines falls into this category, in that Abraham and Jacob HAD to have offspring.

And again, while polygamy is officially allowed, in practice it is looked down on. I cannot think of a single polygamous marriage in the Bible that went well, either in relationships between the wives (Abraham), the husband and wives (Solomon), the resultant children (David), or some combination thereof (Jacob).

I'm surprised that you didn't mention Hannah and Penninah, the wives of Elkanah, and the whole issue of Hannah's infertility, thus leading to the birth of Samuel.

That is true that the inference is often negative toward polygamy, in terms of its portrayal, though express criticism is never actually given.

It is also interesting as a pagan who was raised as a Christian to discuss the matter on a smut board with someone apparently raised Jewish. Entirely different perspectives are presented here, given that I was never introduced to the Talmud as a boy, for instance, nor in any way to the Talmudic interpretation of the issue. Though, to be fair, my own parents' views on the issue aren't very different from that of the Talmud itself. Mind you, on other issues, there would have been profound differences of opinion between my family's take on things and the Talmud's. Those are no doubt to the animosity between Jesus and the Pharisees, the leaders of the surviving branch and tradition of Judaism.

Of course, what I have read of the Pharisees and the Talmud since then has been more favorable to them than what I was taught as a youth. No longer being a Christian, I am certainly more open-minded about the validity of the Pharisaic/Talmudic tradition on which modern Judaism is based than I was as a Christian. Hell, there was one point where I considered conversion to the Orthodox brand of it (a long time ago, right after I had decided that Chrisitianity was not for me). I also considered conversion to Islam, so I don't know what one would make of that.

Back on topic, this discussion is certainly going to be helpful for a backdrop if I or others should happen to write such a story. The nuances of the Jewish attitude and mindset about polygamy and levirate marriage should be most fascinating to the writer and reader, I hope. I wrote one story set among first century Jews in Galilee, but that was about the story of Joseph and Mary (whom I call Miriam in the story). I also made them relatively more relaxed about the Torah, as I understood many Galileans of the time to be.

 

[Shendude]

I'm surprised that you didn't mention Hannah and Penninah, the wives of Elkanah, and the whole issue of Hannah's infertility, thus leading to the birth of Samuel.

Well, I was only listing some examples.

That is true that the inference is often negative toward polygamy, in terms of its portrayal, though express criticism is never actually given.

Basically.

It is also interesting as a pagan who was raised as a Christian to discuss the matter on a smut board with someone apparently raised Jewish. Entirely different perspectives are presented here, given that I was never introduced to the Talmud as a boy, for instance, nor in any way to the Talmudic interpretation of the issue. Though, to be fair, my own parents' views on the issue aren't very different from that of the Talmud itself. Mind you, on other issues, there would have been profound differences of opinion between my family's take on things and the Talmud's. Those are no doubt to the animosity between Jesus and the Pharisees, the leaders of the surviving branch and tradition of Judaism.

Of course, what I have read of the Pharisees and the Talmud since then has been more favorable to them than what I was taught as a youth. No longer being a Christian, I am certainly more open-minded about the validity of the Pharisaic/Talmudic tradition on which modern Judaism is based than I was as a Christian. Hell, there was one point where I considered conversion to the Orthodox brand of it (a long time ago, right after I had decided that Chrisitianity was not for me). I also considered conversion to Islam, so I don't know what one would make of that.

It is fun, isn't it?

Back on topic, this discussion is certainly going to be helpful for a backdrop if I or others should happen to write such a story. The nuances of the Jewish attitude and mindset about polygamy and levirate marriage should be most fascinating to the writer and reader, I hope. I wrote one story set among first century Jews in Galilee, but that was about the story of Joseph and Mary (whom I call Miriam in the story). I also made them relatively more relaxed about the Torah, as I understood many Galileans of the time to be.

A few things to note, then:

One of the reasons polygamy was rare was practicality: a husband was required to provide for his wife and to treat her well (and if he didn't, her relatives were in their rights to beat the crap out of him. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, most notably a refusal to grant a divorce, community leaders were required to "convince" him to change his ways). It is hard enough to properly care for one wife. It increases by an order of magnitude when you get another, hence why normal people didn't do it, generally.

 

[yevkassem72]

Personally, I think that Islamic polygamy works better for this. Of course, there wouldn't be a requirement to marry the sister-in-law, but there might be a sense of moral obligation to do so, in order to provide for her, especially if she was a widow with children from her husband. If one thinks about it, polygamy made sense in a social security context- it was a way to provide husbands in an age where males were scarce (and in many countries, they still are). Thus, with all of the wars and poverty, widows didn't go without, because their new husbands would provide.

L. Ron Hubbard touched on this in Final Blackout, where the new military dictator, the Lieutenant, required a man to marry the girlfriends of his wife. He had two new wives, if I recall correctly, and it was the first wife's idea. He was actually reluctant, but wasn't given a choice. Now, there is another great idea.