25:1–3 The section begins with a regulation concerning judicial procedure in determining sentences, one that sets limits on the punishment that can be administered. It is similar in form to the law forbidding the transference of penalty within families in 24:16. Individuals involved in a fight might go to court so that what began as a private dispute then becomes a public case. A plurality of judges hears the case and determines punishment. If the offense is so egregious as to require physical punishment, the judges determine the actual number of strokes to be administered. The procedure is supervised by one of the judges, who counts the strokes as they are given. The maximum number is forty. The reason for this limit is that offenders are still citizens, part of the family; whatever their misdemeanor, they are not to be humiliated. Correction and deterrence are not effective if they are humiliating.

Flogging is likely the punishment for the man who maligns his bride (22:18), the only actual case given in Scripture. In that case a fine is administered in addition to the flogging. The application in a civil context is an extension of punishment carried out in a domestic context, as expressed in the case of parents’ bringing a son to civil attention (21:18–21). Its purpose is to be instructive and preventative, as is indicated by the nuance of the verb in 21:18. The Hebrew verb yasar always carries the sense of instruction. Punishment is never to be an exacting of revenge.

25:4 If mnemonic devices are in part responsible for the way Deuteronomy has been transcribed, the position of the law concerning oxen is determined by the reference to beating. “Treading out the grain” renders the Hebrew root dwsh, which describes a method of beating the kernels from the head of the stalk. This might be done with a stick; Gideon was “beating” (hobet) the stalks of grain in a wine vat so as not to be seen by the Midianites (Judg. 6:11). Harvesting of olives was done by beating the branches to knock the fruit to the ground (Deut. 24:20). A labor-saving means of threshing (dwsh) wheat was to spread the grain on a rock and, with an ox, pull a weighted board fixed with iron or stones over the stalks (cf. the threshing sledge of Amos 1:3).

Animals doing draught work normally eat as they pull. The farmer might object because it distracts the animal from working, and in this case the ox would be consuming valuable crop. The ox will not be much interested in dried straw; it will be aiming to lick up the kernels. This is another of the Deuteronomic laws that demands the respect of animals as living creatures in the world of the common. As expressed in Proverbs 12:10, a righteous man understands the desires of an animal.

25:5–10 Levirate marriage accommodates the integrity of family and the order of community in the case of the death of a son who does not yet have children to become heirs. It provides for the marriage of his widow within the family. In that way, it is related to the general topic of the chapter. In terms of mnemonic devices, there may be an association here with references to parts of the body: punishment takes place before the face of a judge, the mouth of the oxen must not be muzzled, the widow refused marriage shames the man by drawing the sandal from his foot, and the injury in the intervention of the following section involves grasping the genitals.

The requirement has been given the name “levirate marriage” from the Latin levir (“husband’s brother”). When a woman marries, she leaves her parental home and her right to the family property. The compensation for her inheritance is the dowry she takes with her. The assumption is that she is now entitled to live on the property of her husband’s family. The law begins with the condition that two brothers live together. This is a statement to the effect that the brothers are interdependent. The implication is that they have married but have not yet attained independence in their share of the family inheritance. They are still living under the protection and provision of their parents. If one of the husbands dies, his wife is the responsibility of the family. She must not be left without property or the legacy of her husband. This law requires a man to manage the property of his brother and to provide eventual heirs for that property.

This requirement was not advantageous to the surviving brother. It involved significant investment in a property that would eventually become part of another family independent of his own. The significance of this cost caused Onan, son of Judah, to prevent the pregnancy of his brother’s wife, Tamar (Gen. 38:8–10). The consequence of avoiding this obligation were grave: Onan died as a judgment from God. Judah kept Tamar as part of his household but out of fear did not fulfill the further obligation of giving her in marriage to his second son. Another example of this law is in the story of the widow Ruth. Ruth was the daughter-in-law of Naomi, who held property at Bethlehem. The nearest of kin declined to take on the obligation of caring for an additional family (Ruth 4:6)—it would endanger his own properties. Boaz then purchased the property as a redeemer, which is not the same as marrying the brother of the deceased. Each of these stories is a variation on the law given in Deuteronomy, probably indicative of variation of practice over time. Laws like this were common in the ancient Near East, though they may have functioned in variant ways.

The reason for the law is to prevent a man’s name from being blotted out (Deut. 25:6), that is, to prevent a person from losing his inheritance. The import of continuing the name is expressed by Jacob in adopting Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48:4–6. Jacob adopts the sons of Joseph as his own, and they receive their inheritance in Canaan. Jacob justifies this authority based on the recognition that the divine promise of the land of Canaan is an inheritance to his sons. Later sons of Joseph would receive an inheritance in the name of their older brothers. In the same way the sons of a levirate marriage would take the name of their deceased “father.” Preserving the name for the sake of inheritance was important. If a man only had daughters, they would receive the inheritance and become the means of perpetuating his name (Num. 27:1–11). The children may have retained the name of their mother’s father.

This is an exceptional circumstance of marriage that stands in contradiction to the general prohibition of sexual relations with a brother’s wife (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). The importance of this responsibility is indicated by the consequences of refusing to accept it. It involves a public ceremony of removing a sandal from the foot of the brother and spitting in his face. The reputation of the family remains tarnished forever via a pejorative epithet. In the book of Ruth, the relative who transfers to Boaz the right of purchasing the property of Elimelek takes off his sandal and hands it over to Boaz. In Deuteronomy 25:9 the widow removes the sandal without handing it over, which may mean that she has now seceded from the family, which has no further claim on her. This would mean the deceased brother would simply disappear from the family. Whether she spit directly in the face of the brother or on the ground in front of him, this would be a defiant and hostile gesture, expressing the humiliation felt by the widow and the emotion of her being excluded from her husband’s family.

25:11–12 The law prescribing a penalty of mutilation for injury caused to genitals may be related to the previous regulation regarding marriage, in light of the gravity in both cases of endangering the prospect of posterity. This law is remarkable in singling out a woman for inflicting this specific injury. The motives for the woman’s intervention are laudable, which makes the penalty particularly harsh. But the seriousness of the woman’s action must not be minimized. Genital injury is not only extremely painful but can be fatal.67 It is surprising that the punishment is mutilation, since this is nowhere else a penalty in biblical law. It caused great discussion among the rabbis; it may be that some of their inferences are correct. The usual punishment for bodily injury is a fine; the amount of which is stated in terms of the nature of the injury inflicted, as expressed in Exodus 21:22–25. The rabbis inferred that a fine is also meant in this instance (Sifre Deuteronomy §292). Since this injury cannot be inflicted on a woman, the fine is expressed in terms of the hand that caused the injury. The Hebrew term for hand (yad) is used also to refer to male genitals, so it is sometimes suggested that this is the female equivalent in expressing the penalty to be imposed.

25:13–16 Integrity in weights and measures pertains to every individual, not only merchants. This is the last legal requirement in the exposition of the law, and it is applicable to all Israelites. Its climactic position indicates that honesty in all transactions is critical in the maintenance of social order. Before the time of currency, money was measured by weight via a balance scale. A stone was the common means of determining the amount of silver paid (the most common metal of currency). A temptation would be the use of a lighter stone when buying and a heavier one when selling. The same would hold for measures of volume; the measure given is an ephah, a common amount that would be traded for grain equal to a tenth of a homer, a term derived from the weight a donkey could carry (c. 200 pounds [90 kg], four bushels of barley in modern weight). In volume an ephah was about three-fifths of a bushel. The standard measure of an ephah varied over time, so the temptation would be to use the standard advantageous in a transaction. The prophet Amos condemns the merchants of Israel who sell with a small ephah and a heavy shekel (Amos 8:5). When standard measures were not very precise, it was easier to be fraudulent. Amos specifies this practice (Amos 8:5) as one of the injustices that brings an end to the kingdom of Israel after Jeroboam II.

25:17–19 The attack of the Amalekites is described in Exodus 17:8–16. Amalek is the thirteenth descendant of Esau in Genesis 36. He was born to Timna, a Horite, a people indigenous to Mount Seir. The Edomites largely displaced them, making them nomads in the Sinai Peninsula. The sudden appearance of the Israelites in the Sinai was a threat to Amalekite control of oases and trade routes. They attacked Israel at a most vulnerable time. According to Psalm 83:4–9 they were among other nations who plotted to destroy Israel. They rank with the Canaanites as perpetual enemies of Israel.

The command to remember is characteristic of Deuteronomy and an appropriate close to this section on the life of the community of Israel. The name of Amalek is to be blotted out so that the Amalekites lose all rights to their territory. This command concludes a key topic of the chapter, the entitlement of property expressed by not blotting out someone’s name. The first attempt to eliminate the Amalekites was assigned to Saul (1 Samuel 15), but their removal from the territory was accomplished by David.