.gif)
…Oh no. Wait.
God blamed the men for their sins. I thought about this when someone on Twitter (X) not too long ago had recently pointed out that the book of Hosea warned us that the women who are prostitutes will not be punished because of the men whom are entering them. In other words, the women will not be punished for their sins because the men are actively enabling and aggravating those sins.
Similarly was the sin of Tamar: because her in-law father did not give her her in-law brother Shelah to secure her levirate right, she needed to prostitute herself and uncover the nakedness of her husbands’ father. Remember that both brothers of Shelah died before him, and that the middle son of Judah at the time died because he attempted to get around fulfilling his levirate duty. Thus (as Torah tells us) did her in-law father say of her, “She is more righteous than I.”
Similarly in only its shared vein is the sin of Moses in regard to circumcision. When יהוה sought to kill Moses, יהוה sought to kill Moses and therefore put the blame on Moses. Thus does Torah tell us that Zipporah circumcised her son and told her husband, “You are a husband of blood to me” as she threw the foreskin at his feet.
In other words, Zipporah was not blamed for not having her son circumcised on the eighth day. Moses was blamed for not having Zipporah’s son circumcised on the eighth day, although Zipporah clearly had to rectify her husband’s wrong because her husband took no action whatsoever to rectify his wrong.
What is the lesson here for men, then?
(Emphasis and explanation mine)
“If you look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery with her in your heart.”
Even though Tamar sinned out of desperation, and Judah looked at her with lost in his heart. In the same way, even if a woman provokes or entices, the man is responsible for what he does. This is also why Solomon ultimately puts the onus on his son to not sin when a woman does actually provoke or entice with malice. Solomon learned from the sins of his father Judah (even though he would certainly have sins of his own). This is also why יהוה moved Hosea to prophesy against the men whom exploited women by encouraging them to prostitute themselves (cf. Hosea 4:14).
This is additionally why, in between Judah’s and Solomon’s respective generations, Moses was punished when one of his sons was yet to be circumcised: “To whom much is given, much is required” (cf. Luke 12:48).
Moses was the head of the household, and much was required of him because much was given to him. Yet, Zipporah did what was required of Moses because Moses did not do as was given to him.
In other words, whether through sexual sin, or non-sexual sin, a man is required to answer for his sins instead of blame the woman when he sins — even if the woman herself sins, and especially when the woman does not sin.
Of course, there are cases in which the reverse is absolutely true — as was the case of the wife of Potiphar and Joseph. In the case of the wife of Potiphar and Joseph, the Egyptian wife of Potiphar had power over the Hebrew Joseph, whose boss was the Egyptian Potiphar. Also being single, Joseph as a Hebrew slave of Potiphar had less status than the free-by-comparison and married wife of Joseph’s Egyptian enslaver. Even then, Joseph did not use the discriminations against him based on his ethnicity, marital status, and lack of freedom to sin with Potiphar’s wife.
There are other examples. Nonetheless, here is the sum of the examples: leader must serve and take responsibility for his sins instead of put them on his wife and/or other women. When the man sins (excepting those very-rare cases in which he possesses even less power than Joseph, and the woman truly causes him to stumble), the man must take responsibility for his sins (and those very-rare cases in which he possesses even less power than Joseph usually involve a physical or another disability — or an equivalent factor — that deprives him of all power and therefore all culpability).
