Levirate Marriage and the Family[ ]marriage in order that the begotten c a ̆ k a r ı ̄ h a son might maintain
his deceased father’s image and name and administer his
propert y.^51There are several important distinctions between Zoroastrian and
rabbinic law regarding levirate marriage. While both have the same goal,
the continuation of the direct line of the deceased husband, rabbinic
law acknowledges the offspring of a levirate union as the legal offspring
of their biological father. In contrast, Zoroastrian law does not regard a
levirate union as a true “marriage”; the offspring of the union were le-
gally those of the deceased, and many of the rights and responsibilities
of marriage did not pertain to the levirate union.^52 Whereas mishnaic
law awarded the property of the deceased to the brother who accepted
t he responsibi l it y of lev i rate ma r r iage, Zoroast r ia n law ex pected a ma n’s
relative to provide him with posthumous offspring without financial in-
centive; the property was held for the offspring of the union.^53
The scope of the levirate obligation was wider in Zoroastrian law.
While rabbinic law acknowledged a levirate bond between the widow(s)
and brother(s) of a deceased, childless man, Zoroastrian law expected
the widow of a man who died without sons to enter into a levirate union
even if no agnate was available.^54 Levirate marriage could be performed
with a nonrelative; a fee was paid to a man who would serve as a surro-
gate father for a nonrelative.^55 Furthermore, a man without sons could,
in order to acquire an heir, arrange a levirate union for his wife during
h is ow n l i fet i me. In Sasa n ia n Babylon ia, “women were... held to belong
to their nearest male relatives.”^56 Although a man normally transferred
guardianship of his wife upon divorce, a man could divorce his wife
without relinquishing guardianship. Thus “a man without male issue
c[ould] make his wife to undertake a c a ̆ k a r ı ̄ h a marriage in his ow n favor
or to appoint her to assume a stu ̄ rı ̄h marriage in order to provide a de-
ceased co-religionist with a male progeny.”^57
Given the emphasis in Sasanian Babylonia on continuity through a
direct male heir, one might expect the Bavli to display a strong prefer-
ence for levirate over halitza. Still, we see in the Bavli a willingness to
allow the levir — and occasionally the yevama — to dictate the resolution
of the levirate bond. Just as the sages of the Mishnah could not ignore the
laws mandating levirate marriage in Deuteronomy, the sages of Babylo-