Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

To vex her – literally, to bind or pack together. The Jewish commentators illustrate this by the example of Leah and Rachel Gen 29:30.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 18. A wife to her sister] Thou shalt not marry two sisters at the same time, as Jacob did Rachel and Leah; but there is nothing in this law that rendered it illegal to marry a sister-in-law when her sister was dead; therefore the text says, Thou shalt not take her in her life time, to vex her, alluding probably to the case of the jealousies and vexations which subsisted between Leah and Rachel, and by which the family peace was so often disturbed. Some think that the text may be so understood as also to forbid polygamy.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The word

sister is here understood, either,

1. Properly, so some; whence others infer that it is lawful to marry ones wifes sister after the wifes death. Or,

2. Improperly for any other woman, as not only persons, but things, of the same kind are oft called sisters and brethren, of which see plain examples, Exo 26:3; 32:27,29; Eze 1:9; 3:13; 16:45,48,49. So the sense is, thou shalt not take one woman to another. And this sense may seem more probable,

1. Because else here were a tautology, the marriage of a man with his wifes sister being sufficiently forbidden, Lev 18:16, where marriage with his brothers wife is forbidden; as also Lev 18:9,11, where he forbids the marriage of ones own sister, and cousequently the marriage of ones wifes sister, it being manifest and confessed that affinity and consanguinity are of the same consideration and obligation in these matters. Nor can this be added for explication, for then the comment would be darker than the text, nay, it would destroy the text; for then what was simply, and absolutely, and universally forbidden before, is here forbidden doubtfully and restrainedly, and might at least seem to be allowed after the wifes death; which is rejected by those who own the former interpretation.

2. Because the reason of this prohibition, which is lest he should vex her thereby, is much more proper and effectual against marrying any other woman, than against marrying the wifes sister, so near and dear a relation being most commonly and probably a means to induce them rather to love and please and serve, than to vex one another in such a relation. And therefore to take her natural sister to vex her, would seem a course unsuitable to his end or design.

3. Some add another reason, that polygamy, which Christ condemns, Mat 19:5 is either forbidden here or no where in the law. But this may admit of great dispute. And it is observable, that Christ confutes polygamy and divorces, not by any of Mosess laws, (which probably he would not have omitted, if they had been to his purpose,) but by the first institution of marriage, Gen 2:23; whence also Malachi seems to fetch his argument, Lev 2:14,15. And that law, Deu 21:15,16, may seem to intimate that God did then, in consideration of the hard-heartedness of the Jewish nation, dispense with that first ; In her lifetime: this clause is added to signify Gods allowance to marry one wife after another, when she is dead, and thereby to intimate how the word sister is to be understood.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

18. Neither shalt thou take a wifeto her sister, to vex herThe original is rendered in theMargin, “neither shalt thou take one wife to another tovex her,” and two different and opposite interpretations havebeen put upon this passage. The marginal construction involves anexpress prohibition of polygamy; and, indeed, there can be no doubtthat the practice of having more wives than one is directly contraryto the divine will. It was prohibited by the original law ofmarriage, and no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical codecan be discovered, although Mosesfrom “the hardness of theirhearts” [Mat 19:8; Mar 10:5]tolerated it in the people of a rude and early age. The secondinterpretation forms the ground upon which the “vexed question”has been raised in our times respecting the lawfulness of marriagewith a deceased wife’s sister. Whatever arguments may be used toprove the unlawfulness or inexpediency of such a matrimonialrelation, the passage under consideration cannot, on a sound basis ofcriticism, be enlisted in the service; for the crimes with which itis here associated warrant the conclusion that it points not tomarriage with a deceased wife’s sister, but with a sister in thewife’s lifetime, a practice common among the ancient Egyptians,Chaldeans, and others.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister,…. Both of them together, as Jarchi; two sisters at one and the same time; so the Targum of Jonathan,

“a woman in the life of her sister thou shall not take;”

that is, in marriage, that sister being his wife; for the sense of the Targumist can never be that a man might not take a woman for his wife, she having a sister living, but not to take one sister to another, or marry his first wife’s sister, whether, as Maimonides s says, she was sister by father or mother’s side, in marriage or in fornication:

to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness; two reasons are given, why, though polygamy, or having more wives than one, was connived at, yet it was not allowed that a man should have two sisters; partly, because they would be more apt to quarrel, and be more jealous and impatient of one another, if more favour was shown or thought to be shown to one more than another; and partly, because it was a filthy and unbecoming action to uncover the nakedness of one, or lie with one so nearly related to his wife:

besides her in her life [time]; from whence some have concluded, and so many of the Jewish writers t, that a man might marry his wife’s sister after her death, but not while she was living; but the phrase, “in her lifetime”, is not to be joined to the phrase “thou shall not take a wife”; but to the phrases more near, “to vex her in her lifetime”, or as long as she lived, and “to uncover her nakedness by her” u, on the side of her, as long as she lived; for that a wife’s sister may be married to her husband, even after her death, cannot be lawful, as appears from the general prohibition, Le 18:6; “none of you shall approach to him that is near of kin to him”; and yet it is certain that a wife’s sister is near akin to a man; and from the prohibition of marriage with an uncle’s wife, with the daughter of a son-in-law, or of a daughter-in-law, Le 18:14; now a wife’s sister is nearer of kin than either of these; and from the confusion that must follow in case of issue by both, not only of degrees but appellation of kindred; one and the same man, who as a father of children, and the husband of their mother’s sister, stands in the relation both of a father and an uncle to his own children; the woman to the children of the deceased sister stands in the relation both of a stepmother, and of a mother’s sister or aunt, and to the children that were born of her, she stands in the relation both of a mother and an uncle’s wife; and the two sorts of children are both brethren and own cousins by the mother’s side, but of this [See comments on Le 18:16] for more; some understand this of a prohibition of polygamy, rendering the words, “thou shall not take one wife to another”; but the former sense is best; polygamy being not expressly forbidden by the law of Moses, but supposed in it, and winked at by it; and words of relation being always used in all these laws of marriage, in a proper and not in an improper sense: there is a pretty good deal of agreement between these laws of Moses and the Roman laws; by an edict of Dioclesian and Maximian w, it was made unlawful to contract matrimony with a daughter, with a niece, with a niece’s daughter, with a grandmother, with a great-grandmother, with an aunt by the father’s side, with an aunt by the mother’s side, with a sister’s daughter, and a niece from her, with a daughter-in-law to a second husband, with a mother-in-law, with a wife or husband’s mother, and with a son’s wife; and several of these laws are recommended by Phocylydes, an Heathen poet, at least in a poem that hears his name; and the marriage of a wife’s sister after her death has been condemned by several Christian councils x.

s Hilchot Issure Biah, c. 2. sect. 9. t Misn. Yebamot, c. 4. sect. 13. Vajikra Rabba, sect. 22. fol. 164. 1. Peaicta, Ben Gersom in loc. u “apud vel prope eam”; so is sometimes used; see Nold. part. Concord. Ebr. p. 691. w Apud Mosaic. & Roman. Leg. Collat. ut supra. (tit. 6. a Pithaeo) x Concil. Illiber. can. 61. Aurat. can. 17. Auxer. can. 30.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Lastly, it was forbidden to take a wife to her sister ( upon her, as in Gen 28:9; Gen 31:50) in her life-time, that is to say, to marry two sisters at the same time, “to pack together, to uncover this nakedness,” i.e., to pack both together into one marriage bond, and so place the sisters in carnal union through their common husband, and disturb the sisterly relation, as the marriage with two sisters that was forced upon Jacob had evidently done. No punishment is fixed for the marriage with two sisters; and, of course, after the death of the first wife a man was at liberty to marry her sister.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

18. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister. By this passage certain froward persons pretend that it is permitted, if a man has lost his wife, to marry her own sister, because the restriction is added, not to take the one in the lifetime of the other. From whence they infer, that it is not forbidden that she should succeed in the place of the deceased. But they ought to have considered the intention of the legislator from his own express words, for mention is made not only of incest and filthiness, but of the jealousy and quarrels, which arise from hence. If it had merely been said, “Thou shalt not uncover her turpitude,” there would have been some color to their pretext, that the husband being a widower, he would be free to marry his wife’s sister; but, when a different object for the law is expressly stated, i e. , lest she, who was legally married, should be troubled by quarrels and contentions, it is plain that the license for polygamy is restricted by this exception, in order that the Israelites should be contented with one evil, and, at least, should not expose two sisters to hostile contention with each other. The condition of the first wife was already painful enough, when she was compelled to put up with a rival and a concubine; but it was more intolerable to be constantly quarrelling with her near relative. The name of sister is not, therefore, restricted, I think, to actual sisters, but other relations are included in it, whose marriages would not otherwise have been incestuous. In a word, it is not incest which is condemned, so much as the cruelty of a husband, if he chose to contract a further marriage with the near kinswoman of his wife. Nor can we come to any other conclusion from the words of Moses; for if the turpitude of a brother is uncovered when his brother marries his widow, no less is the turpitude of a sister uncovered when her sister marries her husband after her decease. But hence we plainly see the diabolical arrogance of the Pope, who, by inventing new degrees of kindred, would be wiser than God; whilst he also betrays his cunning, because from this kind of sport he made himself a fat game-bag.

Since from long custom it is established that cousins-german should not marry, we must beware of giving scandal lest too unbridled a liberty should expose the Gospel to much reproach; and we must bear in mind Paul’s admonition, to abstain even from things lawful when they are not expedient. (1Co 10:23.)

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(18) A wife to her sister.That is, a man is here forbidden to take a second sister for a wife to or in addition to the one who is already his wife, and who is still alive. This clause therefore forbids the Jews, who were permitted to have several wives, a particular kind of polygamy, i.e., a plurality of sisters. According to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, the expression sister here not only denotes a full sister by the same father and the same mother, but a half-sister either by the same father or the same mother. The marginal rendering in the Authorised Version, one wife to another, which makes this a prohibition of polygamy, and which was first proposed by Junius and Tremelius in 1575, is (1) contrary to the expressions wife and sister, which, in every verse of these prohibitions (see Lev. 18:8-9; Lev. 18:11-17), invariably mean wife and sister. (2) Whenever the phrase, a man to his brother, or a woman to her sister, is used metaphorically in the sense of one to or one with another (Exo. 26:3; Exo. 26:5-6; Exo. 26:17; Eze. 1:9; Eze. 1:23; Eze. 3:13, &c.), the words have always a distributive force, and are invariably preceded by a plural verb, and the things themselves to which they refer are mentioned by name. Thus, for instance, in Eze. 1:23, it is, their wings were straight one toward the other, which is not the case in the passage before us. (3) This rendering is at variance with the Mosaic code, which bases its legislation upon the existence of polygamy, and thus authorises it, as will be seen from the following facts. It permits a father, who had given his son a bond-woman for a wife, to give him a second wife of freer birth, and prescribes how the first is to be treated under such circumstances (Exo. 21:9-10). It ordains that a king shall not multiply wives unto himself (Deu. 17:17), which, as Bishop Patrick rightly remarks, is not a prohibition to take more wives than one, but not to have an excessive number; thus, in fact, legalising a moderate number. The law of primogeniture presupposes the case of a man having two wives (Deu. 21:15-17), and the Levitical law expressly enjoins that a man, though having a wife already, is to marry his deceased brothers widow (Deu. 25:17). Hence we find that the judges and kings of Israel had many wives (Jdg. 10:4, Jdg. 12:9; 1Sa. 1:2; 2Sa. 3:7). David, the royal singer of Israel, their best king, as Bishop Patrick remarks, who read Gods word day and night and could not but understand it, took many wives without reproof; nay, God gave him more than he had before by delivering his masters wives to him (2Sa. 12:8), and the case adduced in the previous verse plainly shows that polygamy continued among the Jews after the destruction of the second Temple (Lev. 18:10). (4) The Jews to whom this law was given to be observed in their every day life, and to whom the right understanding of its import was of the utmost importance, inasmuch as it involved the happiness of their families, the transgression of it being visited with capital punishment, have, as far as we can trace it, always interpreted this precept as referring to marriage with two sisters together. Hence the ancient canonical interpretation of it is embodied in the Chaldee Version, a woman in the lifetime of her sister thou shalt not take, in the LXX., Vulg., the Syriac, and all the ancient versions.

To vex her.That is, by marrying also the younger sister, the first, who is already the wife, would be roused to jealousy, and the natural love of sisters would thus be converted into enmity, thus precluding the occurrence of a case like that of Jacob with Leah and Rachel. (See Gen. 29:30.)

In her life-time.This limits the prohibition to her lifetime, that is, as long as the sister who was first married is still living, he must not marry another of her sisters, but he may marry her when the first one is dead. According to the authorities during the second Temple, in her lifetime also includes a woman who had been divorced from her husband, and though she is no longer his wife, yet as long as she lives he is forbidden to marry her sister. When the wife died, he was not only free to marry her sister, but in case the deceased left issue, it was regarded as a specially meritorious thing for the widower to do so. Hence the Jews from time immemorial have afforded the bereaved husband special facilities to marry his deceased wifes sister, by allowing the alliance to take place within a shorter period after the demise of his first wife than is usually the case.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

18. A wife to her sister This is a much disputed verse in the debate about marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. Our English version is supported by a whole chain of authorities of the first rank. Some contend for the marginal translation, “one wife to another,” and argue that this prohibition is directed against polygamy. The Seventy render it ’ , , a wife in addition to her sister; and the Vulgate, sororem uxoris tuae, a sister of thy wife. But it is objected that the same Hebrew expression in seven other places can have only the translation “one to another.” See Exo 26:3; Exo 26:5-6; Exo 26:17; Eze 1:9; Eze 1:23; Eze 3:13. The fact that all these have a preceding noun in the plural, which is lacking in this verse, is fatal to the marginal rendering, as well as the violent change in the meaning of “wife” and “sister” from their meaning in the previous verses. The Targums sustain our English version. Moreover, polygamy was recognised, though not expressly approved, by the Mosaic law, (Exo 21:10; Deu 21:15,) and therefore cannot be forbidden in this passage, especially in view of the fact that in Lev 18:29 the death penalty is denounced against the abominations specified in this chapter. If polygamy is prohibited in this passage, we have the following legislative contradiction and absurdity: 1.) Polygamy is pronounced an abomination which must be punished by death; and 2.) A law is enacted conserving the rights of the first wife after the marriage of the second, and another statute entitling the children of the hated wife to inherit with those of the favourite. Thus the second law supposes that the man put to death under the first law has begotten a family of children, and in advanced age is sitting down to make his will. As there can be no such collision of laws emanating from the same legislator, we are constrained to reject the marginal rendering which makes this verse a prohibition of polygamy, and to say that it forbids the simultaneous marriage of two sisters. The jealousies and rivalries incident to the polygamous household arising between sisters tenderly bound by the ties of blood when thus thrown into an unnatural and hostile attitude toward each other, turning the gentle amenities of domestic life into fiendish hate, the merciful lawgiver would prevent by this law.

To vex her This little word vex R.V., “to be a rival to” speaks volumes concerning the bickering broils and heart burnings of polygamy, especially when intensified by the soured sweetness of sisterhood. No hate is so bitter as that of angered love. In 1Sa 1:6, Peninnah is called “the adversary,” or vexer, of devout Hannah, provoking her” year by year;” therefore she wept and did not eat. The households of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exhibit the same bellum domesticum, the brand of the divine disapproval of the attempt to improve the paradisaical perfection of monogamic marriage.

In her life This means as long as she lives. The inference that marriage with a sister after the death of the first wife is legal would seem to be conclusive, as the Talmudists taught. But the Karaites and others denounced it as an abomination. “It is directly against the scope of all these laws,” says Selden, “which prohibit men to marry at all with such persons as are here mentioned, either in their wives’ lifetime or after. And there being a prohibition (Lev 18:16) to marry a brother’s wife, it is unreasonable to think Moses gave them leave to marry their wife’s sister. These words, therefore, ‘in her life,’ are to be referred, not to the first words, ‘neither shalt thou take,’ but to the next, ‘to vex her,’ as long as she lives.” On the contrary, it is stoutly alleged that this prohibition refers expressly only to the time when the wife is living, as in the case of Jacob, and that all the arguments brought to prove that marriage with the sister of a dead wife is, according to Mosaism, a sin, and the analogies on which this conclusion is based, are quite worthless. In the year 1882 Lord Dalhousie asked the opinions of the professors of Hebrew and of Greek in all the universities of Europe, their attention being specially directed to the Levitical law and to Eph 5:31. Those of one hundred professors were received. One, a professor of Greek, declines to express an opinion on what he regards as a question of Hebrew, and another is ambiguous, while the late Dr. Pusey alone states that the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife is forbidden by Leviticus chap. 18. All the other professors declare either that such a marriage is not forbidden by the portions of the Bible referred to, or that there is no prohibition of it either in the Old or the New Testament. See Concluding Note.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Lev 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].

Ver. 18. A wife to her sister, ] i.e., Any two women together: compare Eze 1:9 . Here polygamy is flatly forbidden. In which sin many of the patriarchs lived and died; not through any impiety, the Lord testifying that their hearts were upright, but merely through the mistaking of this text, as it may seem, taking the word “sister,” for one so by blood, which was spoken of a sister by nation, as those clauses, “to vex her,” and “during her life,” do evince.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

wife: or, one wife to another, Gen 4:19, Gen 29:28, Exo 26:3

to vex her: Gen 30:15, 1Sa 1:6-8, Mal 2:15

Reciprocal: Gen 29:27 – week Gen 31:50 – afflict 1Ki 11:1 – together with

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Lev 18:18. A wife to her sister The meaning seems to be, that no man should take to wife two sisters, which had sometimes been done, as we see in the example of Jacob. It may, however, signify that a man, who already had a wife, was not to take another out of mere incontinency, which would tend only to break his wifes peace; but that if he took that liberty at all, it ought only to be when his wife consented to it, as Sarah did in the case of Abrahams marrying Hagar, and Rachel in the case of Bilhah. To vex her Grotius justly observes, that as the feuds and animosities of brothers are, of all others, the most keen; so are generally the jealousies and emulations between sisters, whereof we have an example in the history of Rachel and Leah.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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

(i) By seeing your affection more bent to her sister than to her.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes