[ ]Conclusionout their consent.^7 The independence of the adult son, as acknowledged
by t he Mish na h a nd later rabbi n ic docu ments, does not suppor t t he idea
that adult sons lived with their parents and submitted to the authority
of their fathers. Michael Satlow argues that Palestinian discussions of
marriage reflect Greco-Roman beliefs that the purpose of marriage was
the creation of a household (oikos) and that it was marriage that indi-
cated a man’s entrance into adulthood.^8 It seems reasonable to suppose
that while adult children were expected to honor their parents, provid-
ing for them in their old age, and may have had strong economic ties to
family members, every adult married man was, at least in the eyes of
rabbinic law, an independent householder.
It is against the backdrop of rabbinic constructs of the family that
we must consider the rabbis’ reshaping of levirate. Rabbinic discussions
surrounding levirate marriage reveal an attempt to mediate between the
claims of the dead and the claims of the living, between the responsibili-
ties placed on the individual by his or her family and the desires of the
individual. Most formulations of levirate marriage privilege the claims
of t he dead over t hose of t he liv ing. A ma n’s rights over his w ife cont inue
after his death, obliging her in some cases to remain a widow (or to re-
main the wife of the deceased) and, through a levirate union with one of
her husband’s brothers or kinsmen, to provide children for her dead hus-
band. The deceased’s kinsmen also assume responsibility for him; one
of them is expected to “take over” the widow, either through marriage
or as a sexual partner, and father children on behalf of the deceased. In
most cases, lev irate offers t he lev ir few or no benefits. The children born
of the levirate union are legally the offspring of the deceased, not of the
levir. In some cases, the widow remains on her husband’s property and
provides the levir with none of the labor a woman is expected to perform
for her husband. The deceased’s property is held in trust for the children
of the levirate union, and the levir has no interest in it.
Small wonder that the Hebrew Bible indicates a disinclination on the
part of men to enter into levirate. Onan understood that the children
he fathered on Tamar would not be accounted to his lineage and was
reluctant to impregnate her. Elimelech’s nameless kinsman knew that
assuming responsibility for Ruth and any children she might have, as
well as for the property left by Elimelech and his sons, would threaten
his ability to preserve his own estate. Deuteronomy acknowledges that