Deuteronomy 25:5

If brethren dwell together,.... Not only in the same country, province, town, or city, but in the same house; such who had been from their youth brought up together in their father's house, and now

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to

Brethren; strictly so called, as is evident from ,25. Dwell together; either, 1. Strictly, in the same house or family; which is not probable, because the married brother may be presumed to have left his father’ s house, and set up a family of his own. Or, 2. More largely, in the same town or city, or, at least, country. This is added for a relief of their consciences, that if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, which God foresaw would be their case, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry to the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One of them; either, 1. The first and eldest of them, as it was practised, , &c., and expounded, ; one being oft put for the first, as 2:11 . And the chief care was about the first-born, who were invested with singular privileges, and were types of Christ. Or, 2. Any of them, for the words are general, and so the practice may seem to have been, Rth 3; and the reason of the law may seem to be in a great measure the same, which was to keep up the distinction, as of tribes and families, that so the Messias might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed, so also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion. Have no child, Heb. no son. But son is oft put for any child, male or female, both in Scripture and other authors; and therefore the Hebrew no son is rendered no child here, as it is in effect, . And indeed this caution was not necessary when there was a daughter, whose child might be adopted into the name and family of its grandfather. Unto a stranger, i.e. to one of another family, as that word is oft used. Her husband’ s brother shall go in unto her, except he was married himself, as may appear by other scriptures, and by the reason of the thing, and, as some add, from the phrase of dwelling together, to wit, in their father’ s family.

Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’ s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’ s brother unto her. Ver. 5. Her husband’ s brother.] This was a special exception from that general law, but yet gave no liberty under this pretext, to have more wives than one at once.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10. .(5) If brethren dwell together.—This law is made the subject of a whole treatise in the Talmud, called Yebâmôth. The object of the law was held to be attained if the family of the dead man was perpetuated, and did not become extinct. And therefore the marriage specified was not necessarily between the brother and the brother’s wife, but might be between other representatives of the two persons in question. (See Ruth 4) The law is older than Moses. We first hear of it in the household of Judah the son of Jacob (Genesis 38:8). The violation of the law then was punished with death, not with disgrace only. But that which makes the law most memorable, is the teaching elicited from the lips of our Saviour by the question which the Sadducees raised upon it (see marginal reference). It is worth while to observe that the law itself demands that in some sense there should be a resurrection. Boaz puts it thus (Rth 4:5), “to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” Why should the name of the dead be kept up, if the dead has passed out of existence? We may well believe that this law was partly intended (like baptism for the dead, or like giving children the names of their departed progenitors) for the express purpose of keeping alive the hope of resurrection in the minds of the chosen people. (11,12) When men strive together. . . .—Another precept of humanity. In Exodus 21:22, “If men strive and hurt a woman with child,” punishment or compensation must follow. The law in this place is the counterpart of that. Men must be protected as well as women. Putteth forth her hand and taketh him.—“Him,” i.e., him that smiteth her husband. The precept is to enforce modesty as well as to protect humanity.

5–10. Of Levirate Marriage If, of brothers dwelling together, one die childless, his widow shall not marry beyond the family, her husband’s brother shall marry her, and their firstborn be the dead man’s heir and continue his name in Israel (Deuteronomy 25:5 f.). But if the husband’s brother decline this duty, even if after it is pressed on him by the elders, then, in their presence, shall the widow formally dishonour him as a recusant to the family, and the dishonour shall adhere (Deuteronomy 25:7-10).—Peculiar to D’s code, but neither in the direct address nor with D’s phraseology. It has the same opening, the same care in putting the case, the same style of introducing conditions (but if and not D’s only = rak, see on Deuteronomy 10:15) and of accumulating these, as the other marriage laws, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 24:1-4; and, like them, it brings in the elders. Probably, therefore, as we have suggested in regard to them, it is a law taken by D from a previous code. Cp. Dillmann who also points out that the terms like not to, refuseth and go up to the gate are not current in D. There is nothing to betray whether D has modified the law. Steuern. assigns it, with those other laws, to his Pl. author. Heb. had not only a special term for a husband’s brother, yabam, but a vb. derived from it, yibbem, to express his duty of marrying his brother’s widow; the adj. Levirate similarly comes from Lat. levir, husband’s brother. The use of these Heb. terms by this law proves that the practice was already established in Israel. Levirate marriage in different forms is found among many peoples. Hindoo law sanctions it in case of no male issue by the first marriage, and only till the birth of a son. But in India of course, the re-marriage of even virgin widows has always been strongly opposed (Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, trans. by Beauchamp with notes, 2nd ed. 24, 215, 358). Sometimes it is compulsory, sometimes only permissive, sometimes limited to the younger brother, sometimes enforced only where the widow has children, in order to provide for their education. In some Arab tribes ‘when a married brother dies, at the grave his surviving brother asks her relatives to give him the widow in marriage and says, “Give me compensation through her, etc.,” and his request is granted’ (Musil, Ethn. Ber. 426). No motive nor condition is stated. The custom has been traced to different origins—to the practice of polyandry, to the need of performing rites to the spirit of the deceased (for Levirate marriage and ancestor worship are often found together), and to the principle of ‘Baal-Marriage,’ that the wife was the property of her husband and so passed with the rest of his estate to the nearest of kin. The different forms of the institution among different peoples prove that it had different origins.

The law of levirate marriage. The law on this subject is not unique to the Jews, but is found (see Genesis 38:8) in all essential respects the same among various Oriental nations, ancient and modern.

OF WITH THE WIDOW OF A BROTHER WHO HAS DIED , Deuteronomy 25:5-10. 5.