Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism
Notes
[ 4 ]
- B. Yev. 19 b cites a baraita in which the sages assert that ma’amar without
the yevama’s consent is ineffective.
6. The insistence that ma’amar be part of “proper” levirate marriage also
parallels the amoraic distaste for betrothal through intercourse (B. Qid. 1b).
Like betrothal through intercourse, a levir’s marriage to his yevama through in-
tercourse, without any formal declaration or act, allows for a type of “private”
marriage without family or community participation or rabbinic supervision.
- M. Yev.1: 1 – 3.
6. This represents a reversal of the marriage and divorce procedures, in
which the man “betroths” or “divorces,” while the woman is “betrothed” or “di-
vorced.” This language is not incidental; the Bavli insists that in marriage and
divorce the man must be the initiator. At the same time, it is interesting that the
Mishnah, Tosefta, Bavli, and Yerushalmi all use the masculine halatz and femi-
nine haltza at roughly t he same rate, even t hough t he woman performs a ll of t he
required acts in the ritual.
- M. Yev. 1: 6.
- This division is reflected in the language of the document attesting to the
halitza, as recounted in B Yev. 39 b: “Plonit the daughter of Ploni brought her Ploni
brother-in-law before the court, and we recognized him as the brother of the
deceased by the same father. We said to him: If you wish to enter into levirate
marriage, do so; if not, stretch your right foot toward her,” The yevama “brings”
the levir to the court, but he decides what the next step will be.
- M. Yev. 13 : 1.
- M. Ket. :1.
6. The Mishnah uses the word kof ’in, which could be translated “to push,”
“to force,” or “to compel.” While the redactors of the Mishnah may have wished
to project the image of an active, strong court, there is no indication of how the
court could have forced a recalcitrant levir to do its bidding.
- M. Yev. 13 :1.
- Disapproval of levirate marriage with no intent of procreation is probably
behind Onan’s death in Gen. 38 a s wel l a s t he Tora h’s obser vat ion t hat h is act ions
were displeasing to God.
. A husband had the right to annul some of his wife’s vows when he learned
of them. It is possible that a husband would have approved of such a vow; there
is no discussion in rabbinic literature that considers whether childless men
hoped their widows and brothers would choose levirate marriage after the men’s
deaths. In fact, the assignment of the children of levirate marriage to their bi-
ological father and the bestowal of the deceased’s property on the levir rather
than the children of the union may have lessened any enthusiasm for levirate on
the part of a childless man. It is not inconceivable that a man would support his
wife’s vow under these circumstances.
1. M. Yev. 13 : 13.
. M. Yev. 4 : 4.
3. W hile in fact a levirate widow might be pleased at her brother-in-law’s de-
cision to release her, in no way is she presented as a compliant partner to his
decision.
4. Wegner, Chattel or Person? 14.
5. Rabbinic texts always refer to a woman who has undergone halitza as a
halutza, rather than an almana, and this term has implications for her future
marriage choices.
6. Wegner, Chattel or Person? 1 3.
