“Let us start by examining the Pentateuch, Peter’le.”
“The law in point is set out in chapter 25 [verses 5-10] of Deuteronomy. When a man dies childless, his brother should marry the widow in order to produce an offspring in the deceased brother’s name, thereby preserving his lineage. If the surviving brother refuses, a formal public ritual (ḥalitza) releases both parties from this obligation.”
“Quite a narrow principle, isn’t it?”
“Isn’t it ever? Further, it applies only if the two brothers ‘lived together’, which has been liberally construed as living during the same time or era.”
“Does this principle affect the dead brother’s wife”
“It does. She is not allowed to ‘marry out’, unless the surviving brother has refused to levirate. In modern times as well as in antiquity this principle has been circumvented by asking the surviving brother to refuse to levirate, whereupon she is set free.”
“Has this doctrine applied in any event described in the Bible?”
“It has. The case of Jehudah and Tamar, discussed earlier on, is a case in point.”
“How about Ruth?”
“It refers to a custom broader than the norm codified in Deuteronomy. Ruth treats the surviving wife as acquired with the redeemed land, even if the Go’el [redeemer] is not the deceased’s brother. I am not aware of any other Biblical episode giving effect to this custom.”
“Agreed, Peter’le. Neither Ploni nor Boaz was Maḥlon’s brother. Further, as the latter had no surviving brother, Ruth was free to marry out of the clan or tribe. Her decision to marry Boaz (who was no longer young) was ḥésed. And Boaz treated it as such. Well, how would you summarise the distinction between the legal principle and the customs applied in Ruth?”
“In Deuteronomy, levirate marriage is a narrowly defined legal obligation; in Ruth, it is transformed into a voluntary, ethical act grounded in ḥésed.”
“Well said. Let us now proceed to the next point, namely the removal of the shoe.”