Levirate Marriage and the Family[ ]k. Rava said to him: If she had acquired it while married, everyone
agrees that his claim is greater than hers.
l. Rather: Both [rules in the mishna] are dealing with a case in
which she acquired the property while awaiting the levir. The
first [rule applies] when he has not made a declaration, and the
second [rule applies] when he had made a declaration.
m. For Rava is of the opinion that for the School of Shammai,
declaration has the force of absolute betrothal and questionable
marriage — absolute betrothal, in that it eliminates [the
possibility of levirate marriage with] her co-wife, and
questionable marriage, in that it allows him to share in her
property [even if she dies before the marriage takes place].^78The Bavli offers four amoraic interpretations of the mishna, each pro-
posing a resolution of the problem caused by the apparent contradic-
tion. Ulla’s interpretation [B – F] posits that the force of ziqqa, the bond
bet ween t he lev i r a nd h is sister-i n-law, is deter m i ned by her relat ionsh ip
to the deceased: if they were betrothed when he died, she is in a state of
“uncertain” betrothal, but if they were already married, the relationship
between her and the levir is one of “questionable marriage.” A betrothal
that is not clearly established affords the “husband” (in this case, the le-
vir) no rights over the woman’s property; a doubtful marriage does give
him some claim over her property if she dies, leading the mishna to rec-
ommend a division of the property between the claimants.
This understanding of ziqqa is problematic. Regardless of the cir-
cumstances that existed between a man and his wife before his death,
the procedure for affirming or dissolving a levirate bond is the same:
declaration followed by levirate marriage or halitza. How can we distin-
guish between levels of ziqqa if the protocol for responding is identical?
Rabbah’s reading of the mishna [H] resolves this problem by explain-
ing that, in both cases, the woman acquired property while married to
her now-deceased husband. Simply put, the levirate bond creates an
“incomplete” union between a levir and a yevama. A yevama enjoys con-
trol over her property because it is clearly hers (even a married woman’s
property is legally hers, although her right to control it is limited by her
husband); the levir’s claim is not strong enough to override her control.
In death, the woman’s claim is transferred to her family, but the claim-