Levirate marriage is viewed as a holy duty in the Bible

According to Biblical law, the brother of a deceased childless man is required to marry his brother's widow. The Bible therefore does not offer a childless widow the right to marry a husband of her choice. Her feelings are obvious ignored in the biblical text. She is only allowed to marry her brother-in-law. This type of marriage is known as "Levirate Marriage". The levirate law is specified in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The brother of a man who dies without a son had an obligation to marry the wife who was left, and "the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead." The purpose of the levirate marriage ordinance was to enable a man who died before fathering an heir to obtain one and so perpetuate his name and estate. Levirate comes from the Latin word "levir" meaning husband's brother. In the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible we read:

Levirate law - An injunction that if a married man died without children, it was the duty of a brother or other near relative to marry the widow, and the son of the union would be reckoned to be the son of the first husband [ Deut. 25:5-10 ]. The law did not forbid a man to be married twice [ Deut. 21:15-17 ] , but it was possible for a brother or kinsman to relinquish his right to marry a widow by taking off his shoe and giving it to a neighbour [ Ruth 4:7 ] . [1]

Levirate marriage is clearly encouraged in the Bibe. The law regarding levirate marriage is found in Deuteronomy 25, between the directive "....You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing..." and the directive to cut off the hand of a woman who seizes a man by his genitals to save her husband [Deuteronomy 25:11-12 ] . The law is outlined in six verses and simultaneously underscores the importance of levirate marriage:

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child [ the Hebrew word here is "ben" which litery means "son" ] , 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. And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, 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. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and [if] he stand [to it], and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, 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. [2]

One should pay close attention to the expression: "her husband's brother shall go in unto her" which tells us that levirate marriage was consummated by one act of sexual intercourse between the levir and chidless widow [ no new wedding ceremony was performed nor required by the law ]. Robert Jamieson, Andrew Fausset, and David Brown moreover explain the rest of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 very well in their commentary:

5-10. "...the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother . . . shall take her to him to wif e-.."-This usage existed before the age of Moses [ Genesis 38:8 ]. But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory [ Matthew 22:25 ] on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow [ Ruth 4:4 ], by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother's name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly [ the gate of the city ]; and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe--a sign of degradation--following up that act by spitting on the ground-- the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated. [3]

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 clearly ignores a widow's personal choice. She is not able to remarry a man of her own choice [ this option is not even discussed in the biblical text, neither does the text acknowledge the possibility that the widow would reject her levir ]. Deuteronomy focuses on the needs of the deceased, not the childless widows. According to Deuteronomy, the primary goal of levirate marriage is to provide the deceased with an heir. Levirate union is therefor unnecessary when a man is survived by a son. It is not clear whether levirate marriage is mandated when the deceased leaves a daughter. Numbers 27 and 36 allow a daughter to inherit if her father has no sons. This would suggest that, if levirate marriage is intended to secure an heir for a man after his death, such unions would be unnecessary if any child survived the father. If, however, levirate marriage was intended to provide a man with an heir who would carry on his "name", that is, his lineage, a daughter might not obviate the need for levirate marriage since any children she might produce would be accounted to the lineage of her husband. The text of Deuteronomy 25.5 litery reads: "and leaves no son [ the Hebrew word for son is "ben" ] ." Given that a man's name and clan were perpetuated through the male line, we could assume that the Hebrew word "ben" is to be understood exclusively. This is confirmed by Millar Burrows in the Journal of Biblical Literature:

The desire to preserve the name of the dead was the primary motive of levirate marriage from time immemorial. That in any case this was true of the Israelite custom seems to me almost certain. The right of every man to have a son, presupposed by levirate marriage as it appears in the OT, is constantly assumed or asserted in other passages. A wife's first duty is to bear her husband a son ; is she is barren she may give him her handmaid to fullfil this essential function for her [ Genesis 16:1 , 30:3-9 ] Other expedients also may be adopted. One case is recorded in which a man who had only daughters gave one of them to his slave in order to get a son through her [ 1 Chronicles 2:34 ] . The Levirate shows that a man's right to have a son holds good even after his dead.

Why was it thought to be essential that a man should have a son ? An important factor, doubtless, was man's natural dread of annihilation and his craving for some kind of immortality. In part what was desired was simply to be remembered. But the continuance of the name meant more than that. To the Israelite the "name" included practically what we call the "self". The extinction of the self, his own life, was what a man avoided by having a son [ see especially Isaiah 66:22 ]. Moreover, according to a widespread notion of the ancient world, a man's life after death depended upon the due performance of ancestral rites by his descendants. Perhaps as has often been supposed, the practice of levirate marriage grew out of ancestor-worship, its original purpose being to provide a son to Carry on the cult [ So, e.g. , Stade , Gesch. Israels, 1, 394; Meek, Hebrew Origins, 58n. ]. That the peoples from whom the Israelites were descended had once practised ancestor-worship is by no means improbable; in fact there are reasons for believing that it was still practised by the Israelites themselves within historical times [ Deuteronomy 26:14 ]. It is therefor entirely likely that the levirate had some connection with ancestor-worship among the Hebrews. Wether it grew directly out of ancestor-worship or merely found in that practice a secondary motivation is a question which we are not in a position to answer. [4]

Millar Burrows points out that the law of levirate marriage was put into the Bible by men and for men ! Judith Romney Wegner [ Associate Professor of Religion ] has written a good book which deals with this topic called: "Chattel or Person ? The Status of Women in the Mishnah". Nina L. Collins in her review of this book writes:

It is taken for granted by many modern feminists that women of the past were oppressed by their men. The assumption is examined by Judith Wegner in relation to the Jewish women of the Mishnah. She has chosen an excellent source. The Mishnah records excerpts from some 300 years of religious-legal debate reflecting the life of Jewish society in Palestine from the first century BCE to the end of the second century CE. It is thus inevitable that an examination of the Mishnah will reveal important details concerning the social and legal status of women of that time.

Judith Wegner approaches her task systematically. Each section begins with a brief review of the Scripture that inspired the mishnaic debate. This is followed by meticulous, explanatory translation of the relevant mishnaic texts. Better translations are unlikely to be made and the book is worth consulting for their sake alone. Then follows a detailed analysis of the theme, whose consistent clarity is a pleasure to read. Time and again the insights that emerge illuminate the text, which strongly suggests that the conclusions are correct.

Jewish women of the Mishnah, the author concludes, fall into three classes, each class containing two contrasting groups, in accordance with the 'analogical-contrastive' method of exegesis used in the Mishnah. These groups are [ 1 ] minor daughter under 12 '/2 v. adult daughter over 12 '/2 > [ 2 ] wife v. divorcee, [ 3 ] levirate widow v. widow with [ at least ] one son. The differentiating feature of each group is the ownership of her sexuality. The sexuality of the minor daughter, wife and levirate widow was not owned by woman herself, but always owned by a man [ unless he had died ] , that of the minor daughter by her father, that of the wife by her husband, and that of the levirate widow by the levir. The other women of each pair ? the adult daughter, the divorcee and the widow ? are the owners of their own sexuality, which they can dispose of as they wish, for example, by arranging their own marriages. These women are thus 'autonomous' in this respect. By contrast, for example, the marriage of the minor daughter must be arranged by her father, the wife cannot initiate a divorce [ although there are some ingenious ways divorce might be engineered ? such are the wiles to which women were forced ] , and the levirate widow can neither marry the man of her choice nor remain single, unless she has been released by the principal levir. [5]

The future of a childless widow was therefore decided by her levir. She must either marry her brother-in-law or be released from marriage by him. This last option is widely known among the Hebrews as "Halitzah". Halitzah [ literally ] "....taking off..." the shoe is the rite by means of which a widow whose husband has died without issue is released from the bond of levirate marriage by her brother in law. Halitzah is mentioned and described in Deuteronomy 25:7-10 which reads:

And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, 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. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and [if] he stand [to it], and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, 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. [6]

A childless widow who did not want to enter into levirate marriage could ask her levir to perform and / or agree with the ritual outlined above [ Halitzah ] by which she would be released from him. If the levir agrees everything is fine, but if he disagrees and is not willing to release her by Halitzah she would have a problem ! As has been pointed out by Judith Wegner [ Associate Professor of Religion ] : "the levirate widow can neither marry the man of her choice nor remain single, unless she has been released by the principal levir" [ see Judith Wegner: "Chattel or Person ? The Status of Women in the Mishnah" ]. Moreover one should remember that the biblical text itself strongly discourages a levir to perform halitzah. The purpose of halitzah was to put the levir publicly to shame for refusing to do his duty of marrying his brother's widow. A true believing levir would therefor very likely not reject his "holy" duty as outlined above in the Bible. In this case the childless widow would be required to enter into levirate marriage with her levir. If she is still [ despite her religious requirememt ] not willing to enter into levirate marriage with her levir [ by not letting him perform sexual intrercourse with her ] she would become an "agunah" [ a woman chained to a dead marriage for the rest of her life ]. The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance in their publication [ journal ] : " Guide to Jewish Divorce and the Beit Din System" write:

1. What is an Agunah ? An agunah is a woman chained to a dead marriage. Historically, this term referred to a woman whose husband had disappeared with no witnesses to his death and his body was not found. The term is frequently used today to include a woman who is mesorevet Get, that is, one whose husband refuses to give her a Get even though his whereabouts are known....

3. Are there other circumstances in which a woman may find that she is an Agunah ? Yes. If a woman's husband dies and no children had been produced through their marriage, the deceased husband's brother is required to marry her in a special levirate marriage ceremony. It is the current practice in most communities, for the brother to perform the ritual of "halitzah" releasing his sister-in-law from marrying him. If the brother refuses to release the woman by performing halitzah, she is an agunah and cannot remarry. Under these circumstances, a rabbi must be consulted. [7]

Islam came to abolish these customs. Allah Allmighy in the Holy Qu'ran condemns and forbids levirate marriage:

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. [8]

In Sunan Abu Dawud moreover we read that this verse was revealed to forbid all forms of levirate marriage:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: About the Qur'anic verse: "It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the woman [ of your deceased kinsmen ] , nor [ that ] ye should put constraint upon them." When a man died, his relatives had more right to his wife then her own guardian. If any one of them wanted to marry her, he did so; or they married her [ to some other person ] , and if they did not want to marry her, they did so. So this verse was revealed about the matter. [9]

Quranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary on this verse [ Qur'an 4:19 ] writes:

Among many nations, including Arabs in the Days of Ignorance, a step-son or brother took possession of a dead man's widow or widows along with his goods and chattels. This shamefull custom is forbidden. [10]

Something which the Bible views as a "duty" and "holy tradition" is condemned and forbidden by Allah Allmighty in the Holy Qur'an. Islam views levirate marriage as something shamefull and offensive towards women ! Islam abolished levirate marriage and came to protect women against such cruel traditions !

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

References and Notes:

[1]

Levirate Law - Oxford Dictionary of the Bible by W.R.F. Browning [ NY: Oxford University Press, 1996 ]

[2]

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 [ King James Version ]

[3]

Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson Fausset and Brown [ Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan 1961 ] , p. 159

[4]

Millar Burrows , "Levirate Marriage in Israel" , Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 59, No. 1 [ Mar. , 1940 ] , pp. 31-32

[5]

Nina L. Collins, Journal of Semitic Studies [ 1995 ] , "reviews" , Volume XL, Number 1, p. 146

[6]

Deuteronomy 25:7-10 [ King James Version ]

[7]

JOFA, "Guide to Jewish Divorce and the Beit Din System" [ 2005 JOFA ] , p. 16 , see: "section B, Frequently Asked Questions, VII. Agunah"

[8]

The Holy Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa [ chapter 4 ] , Ayah [ verse ] 19 [ Translation Abdullah Yusuf Ali ]

[9]

English translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage [ Kitab Al-Nikah ] , Book 11, Number 2084

[10]

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an" , note 527 , p. 190 [ Eleventh Edition, 2004, Amana Publications ]