• ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    To add to this, the most closely related passage in the bible is in Genesis 38, where this guy Onan was ordered to have children with his brother’s widow so the child could inherit his brother’s estate.

    This seems to me a bit outside your usual family obligations, and so did the guy because while he engaged in sexual intercourse, he “spilled his seed” on the ground to avoid fulfilling this familial duty.

    God didn’t think much of that and killed him on the spot.

    The tale is usually linked more to the “sin” of contraception, but it seems like a much more pragmatic story: it’s best you knock up your brother’s widow than have everyone start a war over the spoils.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      his brother’s widow

      Tamar is an interesting character in her own right, and worthy of being named.

      After this, she’s supposed to marry Judah’s (Onna’s dad’s) third son, but considering he just lost two, he doesn’t want it to go through. He sends her home to her parents and blows her off when she asks when the marriage is going to happen. (The Bible has a lot of verses about leaving parts of your field unharvested for widows. Not having a husband = hellish poverty.)

      She eventually gets fed up with this, disguises herself as a temple prostitute, Judah shows up, has sex with her, and gives her a family emblem as an IOU.

      Later, she ends up pregnant, so the village elders drag her before Judah for punishment (he’s her father-in-law still technically.) They are going to put her to death, and Judah asks her who knocked her up. She produces his family emblem, and he has to be “well, you got me, I guess I have to take care of you.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        39 minutes ago

        Ok that’s one fucked up family. Out of all of them, god only saw fit to smite one of them? Sheesh.

    • luciferofastora@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I always read it as being about defying the law (backed by divine enforcement):

      His father commanded him to “… fulfill [his] duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for [his] brother”, which implies that this was considered a legitimate obligation. His transgression, then, was that he pulled out “to keep from providing offspring for his brother”, actively refusing to fulfill that obligation. In that reading, it’s a tale about obeying the orders and customs of your elders.

      Of course, these don’t have to be exclusive: “These norms exist for a reason, so you should damn well obey them.”

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        41 minutes ago

        Well the article says that

        the brother of a man who died without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. However, if either of the parties refuses to go through with the marriage, both are required to go through a ceremony known as halizah, involving a symbolic act of renunciation of their right to perform this marriage.

        So, permitted and encouraged, but not forced into it. Except by god it seems.

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Fun fact: In the Indigenous Australian society I’m most familiar with, if you’re a man and your brother dies, his wife is now your wife, and you have his familial obligations. This is to ensure that his family will be cared for.