[ ]Paternity and Continuitymust make a guilt offering, signaling that they may have had an inces-
tuous relationship. In the first t wo cases, the child is recognized as the
child of the deceased. In the third case, the child is legitimate, but his
or her paternity remains uncertain; analysis of talmudic sugyot indi-
cates that this uncertainty will have a significant impact on the child’s
claims to family property.
If paternity of the child of a levirate union was assigned to the de-
ceased, the assertion that “the child [who may be the child of the de-
ceased or of the levir] is legitimate” would be unnecessary. The child’s
paternity — and legitimacy — would be determined by his being born
to the widow of the deceased. Whether the child had been fathered by
her husband before his death, or afterward by the levir, the child would
be recognized as the child and heir of the deceased. It might still be the
case that the levirate union had been unnecessary, but there would be
no need to protect the child from the stain of illegitimacy. Nor would
the complications surrounding inheritance arise, since the child would
be the heir of the deceased regardless of who sired him. It is only be-
cause the Mishnah assumes that the child of a levirate union is the legal
offspring of the levir that such a clarification is necessary. This assump-
tion distinguishes rabbinic constructs of levirate from those found in
other societies.
The assignment of paternity to the levir rather than the deceased
determines the child’s inheritance rights with respect to the estate of
his mother’s first husband. As the children of the deceased’s brother,
the offspring of a levirate union have no precedence in inheriting the
deceased’s estate. The strongest claims, given that the deceased has no
recognized issue, would be those of his father and brothers.
Under rabbinic law, a man who marries the widow of his childless
brother becomes the sole heir to the estate of the deceased. The widow
is granted no portion of the estate; she does not even collect her mar-
riage settlement upon the death of her first husband, because she is
not released to remarry. After the levirate union, her original marriage
settlement remains a lien on the estate of the deceased, and she is not
entitled to a second settlement from the levir. The deceased’s other
brothers have no claim on any part of the estate; they are displaced by
the levir. While in other cultures that practice levirate the children of
a levirate union are accounted to the deceased, that is not the case in