[ ]From Wife to Widow and Back Againwidow, or divorcée. The second part of the mishna, however, recognizes
the right of her husband’s family to claim a portion of her property if she
dies before her status is resolved. This implies that the levirate widow is
somehow tied either to her late husband or to his brother.
Yose b. Hanina [B – C] attempts to resolve this contradiction by assign-
ing each section of the mishna to a different situation. He suggests that
the first rule applies when the property in question came to the woman
before she became a yevama. Since she had no ties to her brother-in-law
when she received the property, he has no right to manage her property
until he marries her. The second rule, according to Yose, applies when
the property came into the woman’s possession after she became a
yevama; since she was bound to her brother-in-law when she received
the property, he has a claim on it in the event of her death. This distinc-
tion leaves open the question of a levir’s right to enjoy property received
by his sister-in-law while she awaits his decision when she does not die.
Perhaps the Yerushalmi assumes that the levir will soon gain control
over the property through levirate marriage or lose it through halitza
and therefore does not press the issue. For Yose, the yevama is l i ke a w i fe,
in that the levir has a claim on her property in the event of her death and
enjoys the usufruct of her property while she is alive.
R. Zera [D – F] considers the understanding of the School of Sham-
mai and the School of Hillel based on the second part of the mishna.
A husband, he notes, would inherit all of his wife’s property. Since the
School of Shammai proposes that the property be divided between her
husband’s family and her family of origin, they must be uncertain as
to the relationship between the levir and the yevama. For the School of
Hillel, the levir is equivalent to a husband and inherits all the property
a husband would inherit. This explanation offers no clarification of the
first part of the mishna; if, according to the School of Hillel, the levir is
like a husband, why can the yevama sell and gift property?
The language of the mishna compounds the confusion surrounding
the yevama. In the event of her death, her property is claimed by “the
heirs of the husband and the heirs of the father.” As a childless, unmar-
r ied woma n, she ha s no obv ious hei rs; neit her g roup is refer red to a s “her
heirs.” Furthermore, who is the “husband” referenced in the mishna? Is
the mishna spea k i ng of t he cla i m of t he lev i r or t hat of her deceased hus-
band? Is her property being claimed by her deceased husband’s father or