2Sa 13:12 | KD | STEP | Tamar attempted to escape by pointing to the wickedness of such a desire: “Pray, do not, my brother, do not humble me; for they do not such things in Israel: do not this folly.” The words recall , where the expression “folly” ( nebalah ) is first used to denote a want of chastity. Such a sin was altogether out of keeping with the calling and holiness of Israel (vid., Lev 20:8.). “And I, whither should I carry my shame?” i.e., shame and contempt would meet me everywhere. “And thou wouldst be as one of the fools in Israel.” We should both of us reap nothing but shame from it. What Tamar still further said, “Now therefore, I pray thee, speak to the king, for he will not refuse me to thee,” is no doubt at variance with the law which prohibits marriage between step-brothers and sisters ( , ; ); but it by no means proves that the laws of Leviticus were not in existence at the time, nor does it even presuppose that Tamar was ignorant of any such law. She simply said this, as Clericus observes, “that she might escape from his hands by any means in her power, and to avoid inflaming him still more and driving him to sin by precluding all hope of marriage.” We cannot therefore even infer from these words of hers, that she really thought the king could grant a dispensation from the existing hindrances to their marriage.

‏ 2 Samuel 13:12

Tamar attempted to escape by pointing to the wickedness of such a desire: “Pray, do not, my brother, do not humble me; for they do not such things in Israel: do not this folly.” The words recall Gen 34:7, where the expression “folly” (nebalah) is first used to denote a want of chastity. Such a sin was altogether out of keeping with the calling and holiness of Israel (vid., Lev 20:8.). “And I, whither should I carry my shame?” i.e., shame and contempt would meet me everywhere. “And thou wouldst be as one of the fools in Israel.” We should both of us reap nothing but shame from it. What Tamar still further said, “Now therefore, I pray thee, speak to the king, for he will not refuse me to thee,” is no doubt at variance with the law which prohibits marriage between step-brothers and sisters (Lev 18:9, Lev 18:11; Lev 20:17); but it by no means proves that the laws of Leviticus were not in existence at the time, nor does it even presuppose that Tamar was ignorant of any such law. She simply said this, as Clericus observes, “that she might escape from his hands by any means in her power, and to avoid inflaming him still more and driving him to sin by precluding all hope of marriage.” ^{▼▼Josephus adopts this explanation: “This she said, as desirous to avoid her brother’s violent passion at present” (Ant. viii. 8, 1).}

We cannot therefore even infer from these words of hers, that she really thought the king could grant a dispensation from the existing hindrances to their marriage.