Levirate Marriage and the Family[ ]like a “normal” widow in that her freedom to remarry is compromised
by her bond with the levir; this bond may also affect her right to control
her property. In contrast to other widows, the levirate widow cannot de-
mand her marriage settlement; in some sense, the estate, as represented
by the deceased or his brother(s), has a claim on her rather than the re-
verse. The Mishnah seeks to clarify when such a levirate bond exists and
how t hat bond ca n be for ma l i zed t h roug h lev i rate ma r r iage or d issolved
through halitza. The lev irate w idow is t hen t ra nsferred f rom her limina l
state to a “normal” state, whether that status is “wife” or “widow.” After
halitza, the yevama is treated like any other widow, in that she may re-
marry and collect her marriage settlement from her husband’s estate,
which is inherited by his male kin, his brothers, or his father.
Because the Mishnah views halitza as a “solution” to the levirate
bond, its understanding of halitza differs from that set forth in Deuter-
onomy. The Torah presents halitza as a means of mortifying a man who
neglects his familial responsibilities. While the acts that comprise the
rite as described in the Mishnah may be embarrassing for the levir, the
sages are focused on the rite’s effect on the woman, not its efficacy in
encouraging the levir to perform levirate marriage. The Mishnah un-
derstands halitza to be a vehicle for establishing the status of a levirate
widow. It apparently sees no shame in a man’s deciding to perform
halitza rather than levirate marriage. On the contrary, because in some
cases levirate marriage is not possible, halitza is often the only way to
resolve the levirate obligation, to clarify the woman’s status and allow
her to marry again.
Just as biblical discussions of levirate offer no information about the
frequency of levirate in ancient Israel, the laws of the Mishnah cannot
answer questions about the extent to which levirate occurred in Late
Antiquity. Scholars are divided on this question, some asserting that
levirate was practiced in the tannaitic period and others arguing that
it was not.^78 However, I see no evidence of clear, consistent privileging
of levirate marriage or halitza in early rabbinic literature. Although it
is true that there are references to individual rabbis who supervised
halitza but few references to cases in which rabbis oversaw couples
entering into levirate unions, such evidence is inconclusive; a levirate
union does not require judicial approval or intervention, while halitza
does. A more nuanced approach to the texts suggests that the tannaim