IDuteronomi 25:9

Izhibhalo Ezingcwele

9 afike kuyo umkamfi lowo phambi kwamadoda amakhulu, ayikhulule imbadada elunyaweni lwayo, ayitshicele ebusweni, aphendule athi, Makwenjiwe nje kwindoda engayi kuyakha indlu yomntu ozalana nayo.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

loose his shoe: Pulling off the shoe seems to express his being degraded to the situation of slaves, who generally went barefoot; and spitting in or rather before (biphney) his face, was a mark of the utmost ignominy. Ruth 4:7, Ruth 4:8, Isaiah 20:2, Mark 1:7, John 1:27

spit: Numbers 12:14, Job 30:10, Isaiah 50:6, Matthew 26:67, Matthew 27:30, Mark 10:34

So shall: Genesis 38:8-10, Ruth 4:10, Ruth 4:11, 1 Samuel 2:30

Gill's Notes on the Bible

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders,.... The time and place being appointed the evening before by three Rabbins, and two witnesses, as Leo of Modena says p; of which she was apprized, and ordered to come tasting:

and loose his shoe from off his foot; his right foot, which was thus done;

"they bring him a leather shoe, which has a heel, but not sewed with linen (linen thread), and he puts it on the right foot, and binds the latchet on his foot, and stands, he and she, in the court; he fixes his foot on the ground, and she sits and stretches out her hand in the court, and looses the latchet of his shoe from off his foot, and pulls off his shoe, and casts it to the ground q:''

this he suffered to be done to show that he gave up his right to her; and he was so used by way of reproach, to signify that he deserved not to be reckoned among freemen, but among servants and slaves, that went barefooted, having no shoes on: and in the mystical sense of it, as Ainsworth observes, it spiritually signified, that such as would not beget children unto Christ (or preach his Gospel for that purpose), it should be declared of them that their feet are not shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Christ, Ephesians 6:15;

and spit in his face; in a way of contempt, as a token of shame and disgrace; but the Jewish writers generally interpret this in a softer manner, as if it was not in his face, but in his presence, upon the floor, and seen by the judges r:

and shall answer and say, so shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother's house; that is, in this contemptuous and shameful manner shall he be used.

p Ut supra, sect. 4. (Leo Modena's Hostory of Rites, &c. l. 1. sect. 4.) q Maimon. ut supra, (Yebum Vechalitzab, c. 4.) sect. 6. r Ibid. sect. 7. Targum & Jarchi in loc.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The law of levirate marriage. The law on this subject is not unique to the Jews, but is found (see Genesis 38:8) in all essential respects the same among various Oriental nations, ancient and modern. The rules in these verses, like those upon divorce, do but incorporate existing immemorial usages, and introduce various wise and politic limitations and mitigations of them. The root of the obligation here imposed upon the brother of the deceased husband lies in the primitive idea of childlessness being a great calamity (compare Genesis 16:4; and note), and extinction of name and family one of the greatest that could happen (compare Deuteronomy 9:14; Psalms 109:12-15). To avert this the ordinary rules as to intermarriage are in the case in question (compare Leviticus 18:16) set aside. The obligation was onerous (compare Ruth 4:6), and might be repugnant; and it is accordingly considerably reduced and restricted by Moses. The duty is recognized as one of affection for the memory of the deceased; it is not one which could be enforced at law. That it continued down to the Christian era is apparent from the question on this point put to Jesus by the Sadducees (see the marginal references).

Deuteronomy 25:5

No child - literally, “no son.” The existence of a daughter would clearly suffice. The daughter would inherit the name and property of the father; compare Numbers 27:1-11.

Deuteronomy 25:9

Loose his shoe from off his foot - In token of taking from the unwilling brother all right over the wife and property of the deceased. Planting the foot on a thing was an usual symbol of lordship and of taking possession (compare Genesis 13:17; Joshua 10:24), and loosing the shoe and handing it to another in like manner signified a renunciation and transfer of right and title (compare Ruth 4:7-8; Psalms 60:8, and Psalms 108:9). The widow here is directed herself, as the party slighted and injured, to deprive her brother-law of his shoe, and spit in his face (compare Numbers 12:14). The action was intended to aggravate the disgrace conceived to attach to the conduct of the man.

Deuteronomy 25:10

The house ... - Equivalent to “the house of the barefooted one.” To go barefoot was a sign of the most abject condition; compare 2 Samuel 15:30.

Clarke's Notes on the Bible

Verse Deuteronomy 25:9. And loose his shoe — It is difficult to find the reason of these ceremonies of degradation. Perhaps the shoe was the emblem of power; and by stripping it off, deprivation of that power and authority was represented. Spitting in the face was a mark of the utmost ignominy; but the Jews, who are legitimate judges in this case, say that the spitting was not in his face, but before his face on the ground. And this is the way in which the Asiatics express their detestation of a person to the present day, as Niebuhr and other intelligent travellers assure us. It has been remarked that the prefix ב beth is seldom applied to פני peney; but when it is it signifies as well before as in the face. See Joshua 21:44; Joshua 23:9; Esther 9:2; and Ezekiel 42:12; which texts are supposed to be proofs in point. The act of spitting, whether in or before the face, marked the strong contempt the woman felt for the man who had slighted her. And it appears that the man was ever after disgraced in Israel; for so much is certainly implied in the saying, Deuteronomy 25:10: And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.