Levirate Marriage and the Family[ ]might be born to the couple, but it was the oldest child whose birth re-
solved the problem caused by the death of a childless man, the preserva-
tion of that man’s name or house among the people Israel.
In contrast to these narratives, rabbinic discussions of levirate fo-
cus on the resolution of the levirate bond between the widow of the de-
ceased and his brother. For the rabbis, the culmination of the levirate
situation is either a levirate marriage or halitza, the ritual that dissolves
the levirate obligation, freeing the woman to marry outside her hus-
band’s family. The rabbis’ interest in levirate ends at that moment, the
moment when the woman becomes the wife of her husband’s brother or
a halutza, a woman who has been released. There is no interest in the
birth of a child to a levir and his former sister-in-law, unless that child
might be the child of the deceased, rendering levirate or halitza retro-
actively unnecessary or unlawful. The focus of levirate has shifted, it
seems, from the child to the levir and the widow, from responding to the
claims and needs of the dead to determining the choices of the living.
This chapter explores the status of children born to levirate unions.
It considers the assignment of the paternity of these children and their
rights to the estate of their mother’s first husband. It also considers their
relationship to the deceased,and to their biological father, the levir, as
well as their place in their extended patrilineal family, the family of both
the deceased and the levir. Finally, it asks why the child of the levirate
union, the focus of the biblical precept of levirate, is of so little interest
to the rabbis, and what, if any, alternative vehicles for ensuring an indi-
vidual’s name and legacy were preferred in rabbinic tradition.
W hile ma ny cultures assign t he paternit y of t he children born of a le-
virate union to the deceased, rabbinic law assigns the paternity of these
children to the levir. In doing so, rabbinic law privileges the levir over
the child of levirate, bestowing the estate of the deceased on the levir. It
also negates the primary reason for levirate as stated in Deuteronomy,
ensuring that even a successful levirate union, one that produces chil-
dren, will not provide the deceased with issue or preserve his name. This
chapter argues that in modifying levirate marriage and rejecting other
strategies of continuity that could be employed on behalf of a childless
man, the rabbis indicate that their understanding of continuity and
legacy differs from that of their Israelite ancestors and neighboring cul-
tures. Family and the continuation of the family are still valued, but are