[ ]Levirate from the Hebrew Bible Through the Mishnahleaving children.^26 The irony of the punishment laid down in Leviticus
: is clear: a man enters into a levirate union for the express purpose
of having a child, but a union between a man and his sister-in-law for
any other purpose will be childless. Onan’s fear that his children will be
credited to Er only underscores the irony; a “successful” levirate mar-
riage might still leave the lev ir “childless,” insofar as the child he fathers
on his sister-in-law is not accounted as his.
The Book of Ruth
Scholars disagree as to whether the events described in Ruth relate to
the institution of levirate marriage.^27 While according to Boaz, in Ruth
:, the marriage will “perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his
estate,” the marriage of Ruth and Boaz does not seem mandated by the
law at Deuteronomy : – , nor does the genealogy in Ruth credit
Ruth’s son to her deceased husband’s line.^28 In some ways, the trans-
actions described resemble the redemption process for property out-
lined in Leviticus . However, there is no indication in Leviticus that
a relative who redeems property should also marry the widow of the
deceased kinsman to whom the property belonged; in fact, there is no
indication in Leviticus t hat t he or ig i na l ow ner of t he proper t y is dead.
The situation in Ruth does resemble a custom similar to levirate mar-
riage, w idow-inheritance, a custom through which a man’s heir inherits
his widow together with his property.^29 Even if what is under discussion
in Ruth – is not a levirate union, it is worth considering here, because
concerns raised by the unnamed redeemer in Ruth cou ld cer ta in ly ap-
ply to a levirate marriage as well.
In the Book of Ruth, Ruth’s marriage is seen as the solution to two
problems, a dead man’s lack of offspring and the need to provide sup-
port for two widows. It is interesting that the former motivation is
voiced by a man, whereas the latter concern is attributed to a woman.
Naomi promotes her daughter-in-law Ruth’s marriage to Boaz so that
Ruth might have a home and “be happy.”^30 While Naomi may also be
concerned about providing an heir for her dead son, she does not men-
t ion t h is concer n. Even when Naom i ra ises t he possibi l it y t hat she m ig ht
marry and have sons whom Orpah and Ruth could marry, her concern is
for the comfort of her daughters-in-law, not the preservation of the line
of her deceased sons.^31 Naomi is portrayed as having different concerns