Albert Barnes Commentary Deuteronomy 25:5-10

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married 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 a husband`s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother`s wife, then his brother`s wife shall 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 a husband`s brother unto me. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand, 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 she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother`s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed." — Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (ASV)

The law of levirate marriage is not unique to the Jews; it is found in all essential respects the same among various Eastern nations, both ancient and modern . The rules in these verses, like those concerning divorce, merely incorporate existing long-standing customs and introduce various wise and prudent limitations and mitigations of them. The root of the obligation imposed here upon the brother of the deceased husband lies in the primitive idea that childlessness was a great calamity (compare Genesis 16:4 and note), and the extinction of a name and family one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen (Psalms 109:12–15). To prevent this, the ordinary rules regarding intermarriage are set aside in the case in question . The obligation was onerous and might be repugnant; accordingly, it was considerably reduced and restricted by Moses.

The duty is recognized as one of affection for the memory of the deceased; it is not one that could be enforced by law. That it continued down to the Christian era is apparent from the question on this point put to Jesus by the Sadducees (as indicated in the Gospel accounts).

Regarding Deuteronomy 25:5: No child—literally, “no son.” The existence of a daughter would clearly suffice, as the daughter would inherit the name and property of the father .

Regarding Deuteronomy 25:9: Loose his shoe from off his foot—This was a sign of taking from the unwilling brother all right over the wife and property of the deceased. Planting the foot on something was a usual symbol of lordship and of taking possession (Joshua 10:24), and loosing the shoe and handing it to another similarly signified a renunciation and transfer of right and title (Psalms 60:8). The widow here is directed, as the party slighted and injured, to remove her brother-in-law’s shoe herself and spit in his face . This action was intended to aggravate the disgrace considered to be attached to the man’s conduct.

Regarding Deuteronomy 25:10: The house ...—This is equivalent to “the house of the barefooted one.” To go barefoot was a sign of the most abject condition (compare 2 Samuel 15:30).