Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism

Levirate Marriage and the Family

[  ]

her before she became a levirate widow. In the case in which

you say, “Let the heirs of the husband and the heirs of the father

divide it,” the property came to her after she became a levirate

widow.

c. If property came to her before she became a levirate widow, and

produced usufruct after she became a levirate widow, it is as if it

came to her after she became a levirate widow.

d. R. Zera said: The levir in this case is a problem for the School of

Shammai, for they are uncertain if he is equivalent to a husband

or not. If he is equivalent to a husband, he should inherit all [her

property]. If he is not equivalent to a husband, he should inherit

nothing. Since it is uncertain, “Let the heirs of the husband and

the heirs of the father divide it.”

e. For the School of Hillel, it is clear that he is equivalent to a

husband and inherits everything.

f. [As for the property that the School of Hillel allots to the heirs

of her father, it is because] even his brother {i.e. the deceased} is

entitled only to the usufruct. {Such property reverts to the wife’s

family even if her husband survives her.}

g. R. Hoshaya taught: The heirs who inherit her marriage

settlement are liable to bury her.

h. R. Yose said: If R. Hoshaya had not taught that law, it would

have been a problem for us.

i. Since she has no marriage contract, she also would have no

[rights to] burial [by the levir or his heirs].

j. This is a problem: If a woman has no marriage settlement, is it

possible she has no rights of burial! A woman, even if she has no

marriage settlement, certainly has rights of burial.

k. But in this case, if she has a marriage settlement, she has rights

of burial, and if she has no marriage settlement, she does not

have rights of burial.^77

The problem addressed by the Yerushalmi [A] is an apparent contra-
diction between the two sections of the mishna. The first section allows a
yevama to do whatever she chooses with her property. This freedom sug-
ge st s t h at no m a n h a s a ny c ont rol over a le v i r ate w idow. Her power to m a n-
age her property is comparable to the power of an emancipated daughter,