[ ]Levirate from the Hebrew Bible Through the Mishnahhe is nameless, the Bible’s reminder of his refusal to preserve the name
of the dead.^39 No man incurs a disadvantage from performing levirate
marriage, nor does refusal to do so bring any benefit. At the same time,
the end result in both cases differs from the ostensible goal of levirate
marriage; the lines of Er and Mahlon are not preserved.
The Bible and Levirate Marriage in Ancient Israel
To what extent do biblical texts suggest an evolution in the practice of
levirate marriage in ancient Israel? Can we argue that different texts
testify to different stages of the law? Was levirate marriage less likely to
occur at a later period in Israel? If so, can we assume that the decline
of levirate marriage indicates a de-emphasis on continuity or a shift in
st rateg ies of cont i nu it y? Ca n we deter m i ne what factors m ig ht have con-
tributed to the decline of levirate marriage?
Eryl Davies argues that Genesis , Deuteronomy , and the Book of
Ruth represent three stages of legal development in levirate.^40 Accord-
ing to Davies, Genesis testifies to an early period in Israel, when levi-
rate marriage was required and when the obligation fell not only on the
brothers of the deceased but on other male kin as well. Deuteronomy
: – narrows the levirate law by imposing the levirate duty only on
the deceased’s brothers. Furthermore, the phrase “When brothers dwell
toget her” may have f ur t her limited t he law, apply ing it on ly when t wo or
more brothers shared the ancestral estate rather than dividing it after
their father’s death. In the period reflected by Deuteronomy , the prac-
tice of levirate is nonobligatory; the levir may refuse to marry the widow
without incurring punishment and without giving a reason for his re-
fusal.^41 Davies sees the story of Ruth as representative of a third stage in
the evolution of levirate law. Levirate marriage is no longer obligatory
and refusal evokes no ceremony of shame. In addition, levirate marriage
can now be performed by more distant relatives, possibly in reaction
against the restrictions of Deuteronomy.
We should be cautious about establishing legal chronology on the
basis of these texts. Many scholars dispute Davies’s reading of Ruth, ar-
guing that the custom being enacted in Ruth – is not levirate mar-
riage. Furthermore, while Davies’s chronology reflects scholarly dating
of J and D as well as Ruth, we cannot be so precise in dating individual
traditions within these documents. It is also problematic to argue that