that there is no case in all the Scriptures, canonical or urcanonical, which justifies the vulgar meaning of bother in the Levirate law, or tolerates any infraction of Lev. xviii. 16. Nay, if the strict meaning of "brother" be insisted on, then it is quite clear that Ruth could not lay claim to Boaz. He was not her husband's own-brother; he was not even her husband's nearest kinsman; but probably claimed because not within the forbidden degrees. The "nearest kinsman" was ready enough to redeem his "brother" Elimelech's parcel of ground, which the widow was about to sell; but when he found that Ruth's hand was to go with it he drew back, on the ground that he should thus "mar his own inheritance." Why? how? would adding to his own inheritance mar it, when that addition would wholly pass away from him if he refused Ruth? Nor could any expected second family mar the claims of the first, as they could but claim their ancestral property—being reckoned as Mahlon's children, i.e. the first husband's. It could not then be in regard to property the inheritance would be marred; and we have no intelligible explanation of it except in the penalty denounced in Lev. XX. 20, 21. for an unlawful marriage, "He shall be childless;" which probably applied to other near unions, as well as with a brother's wife, and which must have been the case here.
The negative testimony of scripture is irresistibly substantiated by the most ancient traditionary law of the Jews—the Mishna. There is no dispute that the Mishna is the most exact representation of ancient Jewish opinion. In the treatise entitled Yehamoth the precept Yeboom or obligation to marry the widow of a childless deceased brother, and the ceremony of Chalitzah in the case of him who refuses, are discussed, with indeed the various cases arising out of Deut. xxv. 5-10. Throughout the treatise the general names "sister-in-law," "brother-in-law," are applied to the parties whatever may be the degrees of their relation. The word "brother" is used with the same latitude. The name "rivals" is applied to the several wives of one man. This is to be noticed in order to avoid confusion.
"In their introduction to this book of the Mishna, in the English translation executed by them, Mr. De Sola and Mr. Baphall (both of them Jews, and following here a prefatory tract of Maimonides their commentator) have remarked that when circumstances exit which would render such marriage unlawful; as, for instance, if the parties were related to each other within the degree of consanguinity prohibited by the Holy Law to intermarry, the precept of zeboom is superseded, and even the ceremony of Chalitzah is unnecessary; and that when the brother-in-law cannot marry the widow on account of near affinity, he may not marry any of the other wives of his deceased brother, who in the technical term of the Mishna are called rivals. (Galloway). Mr. G. gives the words of Maimonides in the Latin translation of Surenhusius, from which it may be seen that he read in connection and verses 17 and 18 of Lev. xviii.[1]
The most negligent may preceive that the law in Deut. xxv. cannot be absolute—that it must have many exceptions. And the Mishna specifies fifteen classes of women, who, in consequence of being within the forbidden degrees, are released, and release their "rivals" from
- ↑ Since writing the preceding words I have observed what Allen says in his "Modern Judaism" (p 417, ed 1816.): By the practicse of the mondern Synagogue, this part of the law is, in fact, entirely abolished: the rabbies oblige their disciples invariably to refuse compliance with the precept; and nothing remains of the original institution, except the ceremony of releasing both parties from connection which is never permitted to be formed."
