In fulfilling the duty of the lAvir in the patriarchal age the surviving brother had to make great sacrifices. He had not only to renounce the perpetuating of his own name through the first-born son ((Jen. xxxviii, 9), and mar his own inheritance (Ruth iv, 6)^but, what was most galling, he was obliged to take the widow whether he had an inclination for any such marriage or not, as the Levir in the patriarchal age had no alternative. Now the Mosaic law removed this hardship by opening to the man a door of escape : '• But if the man like not
to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate of the elders and say. My husbanci's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the Levirate duty. And the elders of the city shall call him, and speak unto him. But if he still persist and say, I like not to take her, then shall his brother's wife come in to him in the pres- ence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face and say. So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house ; and his house shall be called in Israel the house of the bare- foot" (Deut. xxv, 7-10). Thus the Mosaic gamology docs not impose it as an inexorable law, but simply en- joins it as a duty of love, which the Levir might escape by submitting to censure and reproach. Of this he could not complain, for he not only neglected to perform to- wards his deceased brother the most sacred offices of love, but, by refusing to do so, he openly declared his dislike to the widow, and thus publicly insulted her. The sj-mbolic manner in which she took away in the public court his right to her and his deceased brother's possession, has its origin in the fact that the possession of property was claimed by planting the foot on it. Hence, when the transfer of property was effected by an amicable transaction, the origmal owner signified the renunciation of his rights by taking off his shoe and giving it to the new possessor (Ruth iv, 7, 8). A simi- lar custom obtained among the Indians (Benarj-, De Ilehrceorum Leviratu, Berol. 1835, p. 14) and the ancient Germans (Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthumer, p. 156). In the case before us, however, where the privilege of possession was not renounced by a mutual understand- ing, but involved insult both to the deceased brother and the surviving widow, the outraged sister-in-law snatched the right from him by pulling off his shoe.
3. That this patriarchal law — which, as wc have seen, was incorporated in the jNIosaic gamology — continued in its full force after the Captivity, is evident from Mat- thew (xxii, 25-27), Mark (xii, 19-23), and Luke (xx,28- 33). From the question put to our Saviour in these passages, it will be seen that it was incumbent upon each surviving brother in succession to perform the duty of the Levir. There were, however, cases where this duty could not be performed, about which the Mosaic law gives no directions whatever — e. g. when the de- ceased brother's widow w^as a near relation of the Levir and came within the proscribed degrees, of which the Mishna {Jehumoth, i, 1) gives fifteen cases ; or when the latter was a child when his brother died and left a widow without issue (ii, 3) ; and if he were on this or any other account exempt from the obligation to marry one of the wido^vs, he was also from the obligation to marPi- any of them (i, 1); it is also implied that it was only necessary for one brother to marry one of the wid- ows in cases where there were several widows left. Tlie marriage was not to take place within three months of the husband's death (iv, 10). The eldest brother ought to perform the duty of marriage ; but, on his declining it, a younger brother might do it (ii, 8 ; iv, 5). The chulltsah was regarded as involving future relationship, so that a man who had received it coiUd not marry the widow's relations within the jirohibited degrees (iv, 7). Special rules are laid do\\n for cases -where a woman married under a false impression as to her husband's death (x, 1), or where a mistake took place as to wheth- er her son or her husband died first (x,3), for in the lat- ter case the Levirate law would not apjjly ; and, again, as to the evidence of the husband's death to be pro- duced in certain cases (cap. 15, 16). There can. there- fore, be no question that the administrators of the law in the time of the prophets and at the advent of our Sav- iour had to define and supplement the Levirate law. As the space of this article does not ]iermit us to enumerate these important definitions and enactments, we mjist refer to the Mishna, Tract Jehumoth, which derives its name (n'T^-'^) from the fact that it embodies these laws. These descend into trivial distinctions — e. g. that
MARRIAGE
V87
MARRIAGE
the shoe Ti-as to be of leather, or a sandal furnished with a heel-strap; a felt shoe, or a sandal without a strap, would not do {Ytbcan. xii, 1, 2). The challtsah was not valid when the person performing it was deaf and dumb (xii, 4), as he could not learn the precise formula which accompanied the act. The custom is retained by the modern Jews, and is minutely described by Picart (Ce- 7-hnonies Rdigieuses, i, 243). It receives illustration from the expression used by the modern Arabs in speaking of a repudiated wife : " She was my slipper. I have cast her off" (Burckhardt, Notes, i, llo). It only remains to be remarked that the fear lest the performance of the duty ofLevir should come into collision with the law of consanguinity, made the ancient rabbins declare that (ainib Cnip nri^bn) the ceremony of taking off the shoe is preferable to marrying the widow, and thus vir- tually set aside Levirate marriages. As this ceremony, which is called Chalitsah (n^Ji^n from V^PI, to draw out, to pull off), supersedes the ancient law, the rabbins gave very minute orders about the manner in which it is to be performed. The ceremony is performed in tlie synagogue after morning prayer, in the presence of three rabbis and two witnesses, attended by others of the congregation as auditors and spectators. The Levir and wi low are called forward, and after being questioned by the principal rabbi, and avowing his determination not to marry her, the man puts on a shoe of a peculiar form and made for this purpose, and the woman repeats, " My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel ; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother." To which the Levir replies, " I like not to take her." Upon this declaration the widow un- ties the shoe with her right hand, takes it off, throws it on the ground, and spits before him, saj-ing in Hebrew, '• So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house ; and his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed ;" when the persons present exclaim three times, " His shoe is loosed !" This concludes the ceremonv, and the rabbi teUs the widow that she is now at liberty to marry whom she pleases.