Levirate Marriage and the Family[ ]levir and yevama, possibly living in close proximity, are aware that a
sexual relationship between them is strictly forbidden. On the other
hand, they also know that if the woman’s husband were to die child-
less, not on ly wou ld t hey be per m it ted to have a sex ua l relat ionsh ip, t hey
would be expected to initiate such a relationship. This knowledge may
have caused some strain on relationships between in-laws.^44 It may also
explain t he animosit y t he Mishna h assumes to ex ist bet ween sisters-in-
law.^45 These women, if their husbands die without issue, may become
co-wives, a relationship that is not imagined to be a happy one for the
women involved.
Preference for levirate over halitza or halitza over levirate is widely
discussed in scholarly considerations of Jewish marriage in antiquity.^46
The shift in favor of halitza has been portrayed as a response to the pref-
erence for monogamy, a preference that makes levirate difficult to real-
ize. The Bavli’s dispute may reflect cultural differences between Pales-
tine and Babylonia. Regardless of the reasons for the shift or the dispute,
this discussion underscores one of the tensions inherent in levirate mar-
riage. The primary beneficiary of a levirate union is an individual who
is not an actual party to it: the deceased. In many societies that practice
lev i rate, t he deceased, wh i le no longer physica l ly present, is a lega l pa r t y
to the union. He is recognized as the legal father of the children of the
union, and his estate is preserved for his children, both those born be-
fore his death and those born to his wife after his death.^47 Furthermore,
the deceased retains rights over his wife; she cannot legally remarry,
and a levirate union, which is not recognized as marriage, is her only
socially approved option for a sexual relationship.
In reversing these stipulations to a levirate union, in making levirate
unions almost identical to regular marriages, the rabbis, in a sense, ac-
cepted the possibility of nearly incestuous unions that have no tangible
benefits to the deceased. This may have made levirate unions more at-
tractive to men, although marriage to one’s sister-in-law may still have
been problematic for some. Ironically, having made levirate a more vi-
able option for men, rabbinic sources seem more comfortable with men
who ref use a lev i rate u n ion t ha n w it h t hose who choose it. T h is becomes
apparent in rabbinic discussions of halitza.