Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism

Levirate Marriage and the Family

[  ]

The child of uncertain status under discussion here is born within
nine months of the death of his mother’s first husband and within seven
months of her union with the levir; he could in theory be the child of ei-
ther the deceased or the levir. In each of these cases, the Bavli imagines
the child — now an adult — insisting that he is the child of his mother’s
first husband and demanding a significant portion of the family inheri-
tance. The other claimants — the levir or the sons of the levir — insist
that the child has no claim, or at best a lesser claim, on the estate in
question.^26
The Yerushalmi posits similar situations. The language of the Ye-
rushalmi is more pointed, acknowledging explicitly the clash between
the interests of the levir and his acknowledged sons, on one hand, and
the child of doubtful status, on the other.

a. If the child whose status is uncertain comes to collect his father’s

share, they say to him, “That one [the levir] is your father.” If the

levir comes to collect his brother’s share, they say to him, “That

one [the child] is his son.” What do they do? They compromise

and divide the deceased’s estate. They say that a compromise

among brothers is a loss to brothers, whereas strife between

brothers is a gain to brothers.

b.... If the mother of the child whose status is uncertain dies, the

son’s claim is certain and the husband’s claim is doubtful.

c.... If the levir died, and the child whose status is uncertain

comes to collect his father’s share, if the first [to die, that is, the

deceased husband] was poor, they say to him, “That one was

your father.” If he was rich, they say to him, “We are all brothers,

the sons of brothers. Come let us inherit the share of our father

and the share of our father’s brother.” 27

The Yerushalmi leaves no doubt that the primary concern of the par-
ties is monetary. The levir and the child of doubtful status are at odds
over the estate of the former’s deceased brother. The levir’s claim of pa-
ternity is not an embrace of his “son,” but a claim of entitlement to the
estate of the deceased. The latter’s claim to be the deceased’s sole son
and heir is not an assertion of filial devotion, but a claim to be the sole
inheritor of the deceased’s property. Moreover, “peace” or compromise
between the levir and the child disadvantages the levir’s acknowledged