5. Mose 25:9

STRIPES MUST NOT EXCEED FORTY. (Deu. 25:1-19) if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten--In judicial sentences, which awarded punishment short of capital, scourging, like the Egyptian bastinado, was the most common form in which they were executed. The Mosaic law, however, introduced two important restrictions; namely: (1) The punishment should be inflicted in presence of the judge instead of being inflicted in private by some heartless official; and (2) The maximum amount of it should be limited to forty stripes, instead of being awarded according to the arbitrary will or passion of the magistrate. The Egyptian, like Turkish and Chinese rulers, often applied the stick till they caused death or lameness for life. Of what the scourge consisted at first we are not informed; but in later times, when the Jews were exceedingly scrupulous in adhering to the letter of the law and, for fear of miscalculation, were desirous of keeping within the prescribed limit, it was formed of three cords, terminating in leathern thongs, and thirteen strokes of this counted as thirty-nine stripes (Co2 11:24).

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, Eph 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.…

Here is, I. A law to moderate the scourging of malefactors (Deu 25:1-3). II. A law in favour of the ox the treads out the corn (Deu 25:4). III. For the disgracing of him that refused to marry his brother's widow (Deu 25:5-10). IV. For the punishment of an immodest woman (Deu 25:11, Deu 25:12). V. For just weights and measures (Deu 25:13-16). VI. For the destroying of Amalek (Deu 25:17, etc.).

25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).