Notes[ 1 ]Genesis, see Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict and Conti-
nuity in Genesis (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991 ).
. Gen. 38 :1.
1. Ian Cairns, Deuteronomy: Word and Presence (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B.
Eerdmans, 199 ), 16 – 18.
. It should be noted that discrepancy between narrative and law in the He-
brew Bible is not unique to levirate marriage. For example, Jacob marries two
sisters, forbidden in Lev. 18 : 18.
3. The same conclusion might be drawn from the Book of Ruth.
4. Lev. 18 : 16.
5. Lev. :1.
6. This is the solution employed by the rabbis.
. For a discussion of this dispute, see Leila Leah Bronner, “A Thematic Ap-
proach to Ruth,” in Athalya Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Ruth (Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993 ), 165 – 16.
8. Some scholars argue that Ruth may represent an earlier or later stage of
the development of levirate marriage. See Davies, “Inheritance Rights, Part ,”
66 – 6; Thomas Thompson and Dorothy Thompson, “Some Legal Problems in
the Book of Ruth,” Vetus Testamentum 18 ( 1968 ), 9 – 99 ; and Susan Niditch, “Leg-
ends of Wise Heroes and Heroines,” in Douglas A. McKnight and G. M. Tucker,
eds., The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press,
1985 ), 45 – 453.
9. Burrows, “Levirate Marriage in Israel,” – 8; Monica Wilson, “Nyakyusa
Kinship,” in Radcliffe-Brown and Forde, eds., African Systems of Kinship and
Marriage, 1 3.
3. Ruth 3 : 1.
31. Ruth 1 : 11 – 13. The scenario described by Naomi is problematic in any event.
Any sons she would have, were such a thing possible, would be only half-broth-
ers to Mahlon and Chilion, sharing the same mother but not the same father.
Such brothers would be exempt from levirate according to later traditions, since
only paternal brothers have such an obligation. Furthermore, these would not
be brothers who “dwelled together” and would thus be exempt on additional
grounds. We should probably read Naomi’s words as encouragement to her
daughters-in-law to return to their families of origin; she stresses that she has no
hope of providing husbands for them.
3. Ruth 4 :1.
33. There is some ambiguity in the meaning of Ruth 4 : 5. This ambiguity arises
from a difference between the qeri and ketiv traditions of the Masorah. The qeri
“qanita” suggests that the kinsman who redeems the property must also marry
the widow, but the ketiv “qaniti” would imply that Boaz intends to marry Ruth
even if the other kinsman redeems the property. For a discussion of this ques-
tion, see Bush, Word Biblical Commentary: Ruth/Esther, – 9.
34. Ruth 4 : 6.
35. Davies, “Inheritance Rights, Part ,” 58 – 6 .
36. It is surely not coincidental that these unions, irregular as they may be,
culminate in the birth of direct male ancestors of King David. This is particu-
larly significant in the Book of Ruth, which concludes with a genealogy tracing
David’s ancestry back to Boaz and Ruth.
3. Ruth 4 : 11.
38. Gen. 46 :1; Num. 6: 19. The Bible does not use the words “without children”
in referencing the death of Onan, but it is clear that he had no offspring.