[ ]Levirate from the Hebrew Bible Through the Mishnahh i s .”^18 Onan is unwilling to father children for his deceased brother.^19 In
Deuteronomy , the community and the widow voice their disapproval
of the levir’s choice. In Genesis , there is clear narrative disapproval of
Onan’s refusal to provide his brother with an heir; we read, “What he did
was displeasing to God, and God took his life as well.”^20 Judah himself
acknowledges the injustice he committed in withholding Shelah from
Tamar, but there is no indication that he believes the injustice was per-
petrated against the deceased; it is Tamar whom Judah identifies as the
righteous, that is, wronged, party.
There are differences between the practice of levirate marriage man-
dated in Deuteronomy and the events described in Genesis . In Deu-
teronomy, the brother of the deceased is responsible for carrying out le-
virate marriage; in Genesis, it is Judah as the father of the deceased who
makes — or avoids making — the arrangements for the levirate union.
Deuteronomy presu mes a scena r io i n wh ich t here a re on ly t wo brot h-
ers, one deceased and one living; Genesis suggests that if there are
multiple surviving brothers, the levirate obligation can devolve on each
of them in turn. Genesis offers no mechanism to dissolve the levirate
bond; we are left with the sense that Tamar might be forced to remain
a widow in her father’s household indefinitely, unable to marry outside
of Judah’s family. Finally, Genesis suggests that, in lieu of a brother,
another male relative might serve as the surrogate for the deceased.
There are scholars who argue that Genesis reflects an earlier
stage of levirate law in ancient Israel than does Deuteronomy. In this
earlier stage, a father could impose levirate marriage on his surviving
son or sons, and refusal to perform levirate marriage was punishable by
death. In this reconstruction, the laws of Deuteronomy would indicate
a “softening” of the law; there is now a choice between levirate mar-
riage and public humiliation, and the choice is now the brother’s, not
the father’s.^21
I am reluctant to read too much into the differences between these
two passages. One is framed as casuistic law, whereas the other men-
t ions law or custom in t he contex t of a stor y. Ma ny of t he dif ferences ca n
be explained as incidental. In Genesis , Judah was alive and function-
ing as the head of his family. In many cases, the need for levirate mar-
riage might not arise until after the father’s death and thus would be left
to the surviving brother. Judah’s role as surrogate for his deceased son