Now Boaz was sixth in descent from this Perez whose mother Tamar, as quoted above, had been in much the same position as Ruth. It is interesting to read further that the son born of this marriage of Ruth and Boaz is taken by the women of Bethlehem to Naomi, saying, “_There is a son born to Naomi_,” emphasising the duty of the heiress to bear a son, not into her husband’s family, but to that of her father. The story of Ruth is not, therefore, an exact example of the custom of levirate. But it illustrates incidentally the unity of the family. The sons of Elimelech died before the family division had taken place, and the house of Elimelech their father was thus in jeopardy of extinction. If Naomi had come within the proper operation of the levirate, the next of kin ought to have married _her_, but by her adoption of Ruth as her daughter, she gave Ruth the position of heiress or ἐπίκληρος, whilst the heir born to Ruth was called son, not of Ruth’s former or present husband, but of Elimelech and (by courtesy) of Naomi, Elimelech’s widow, through whom the issue ought otherwise to have been found. § 4. Succession Through A Married Daughter: Growth Of Adoption: Introduction Of New Member To Kinsmen. (M41) But if the heiress was already married and had sons, she need not be divorced and marry the next of kin, though that still lay in her power. It was considered sufficient if she set apart one of her sons to be heir to her father’s house. But she must do this absolutely: her son must entirely leave her husband’s house and be enfranchised into the house of her father. If she did not do this with all the necessary ceremonies, the house of her father would become extinct, which would be a lasting shame upon her. Isaeus(75) mentions a case where a wife inherits from her deceased brother a farm and persuades her husband to emancipate their second son in order that he may carry on the family of her brother and take the property. (M42) In another passage(76) the conduct of married sisters in not appointing one of their own sons to take his place as son in the house of their deceased brother, and in absorbing the property into that of their husbands, whereby the οἶκος of their brother became ἔρημος, is described as shameful (αἰσχρῶς). In Demosthenes(77) a man behaving in similar wise is stigmatised as ὑβριστής. (M43) Herein lay the reason that adoption became so favourite a means in classical times of securing an heir. It became almost a habit among the Athenians who had no sons, to adopt an heir—often even the next of kin who would naturally have succeeded to the inheritance.(78)