If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, 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.
Her husband's brother shall ... take her to him to wife. This usage existed before the age of Moses (Genesis 38:8; Genesis 38:11), and seems to have originated in patriarchal times, for preserving the name and honours of the oldest son-the chieftain of the family. 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 (see the notes at Nun. 33:54; 36:9).
No betrothal was necessary nor marriage ceremonies observed: it was a succession by divine right to the wife, with all the possessions of the deceased to the child who would be the heir. In the event of the younger brother declining 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 х bªpaanaayw (H6440)], not in his face, as our version has it, but in his presence, before him (see Deuteronomy 7:24; Deuteronomy 9:25; Deuteronomy 12:14; Joshua 21:42) on the ground-the strongest expression of insult, ignominy, and contempt among Eastern people (Niebuhr's 'Travels in Arabia,'
p. 197; Monro's 'Summer Rambles in Syria,' 1:, p. 238; Dr. Edward Clarke's 'Travels;' Harmer's 'Observations,' 4:, pp. 430-440; Paxton's 'Illustrations of Scripture,' vol. 2:, p. 41). The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.