Marriage with a brother's widow. This custom is found among a
large number of primitive peoples, a list of which is given by Westermarck
("History of Human Marriage," pp. 510-514). In some cases it is the duty
of a man to marry his brother's widow even if she has had children by the
deceased, but in most cases it occurs when there are no children, as among
the Hindus ("Institutes of Manu," v. 59-63). Among the Hebrews marriage
with a brother's widow was forbidden as a general rule (Lev. xviii. 16,
xx. 21), but was regarded as obligatory (Deut. xxv. 56) when there was no
male issue, and when the two brothers had been dwelling on the same family
estate. The surviving brother could evade the obligation by the ceremony
of aliah. The case of Ruth is
not one of levirate marriage, being connected rather with the institution
of the Go'el; but the relations of Tamar with her successive husbands and
with Judah are an instance (Gen. xxxviii.). If the levirate union resulted
in male issue, the child would succeed to the estates of the deceased
brother. It would appear that later the levirate marriage came to be
regarded as obligatory only when the widow had no children of either sex.
The Septuagint translates "ben" (son) in the passage of Deuteronomy by
"child," and the Sadducees in the New Testament take it in this sense
(Mark xii. 19; comp. Josephus, "Ant." iv. 8, § 23).
By Talmudic times the practise of levirate marriage was
deemed objectionable (Bek. 13a), and was followed as a matter of duty
only. To marry a brother's widow for her beauty was regarded by Abba Saul
as equivalent to incest (Yeb. 39b). Bar appara recommends aliah (Yeb.
109a). A difference of opinion appears among the later authorities,
Alfasi, Maimonides, and the Spanish school generally upholding the custom,
while R. Tam and theNorthern school prefer aliah
(Shulan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 165). The marriage was not necessary if the
brother left a child by another marriage, even if such a child were on the
point of death (l.c. 157). A change of religion on the part of the
surviving brother does not affect the obligation of the levirate, or its
alternative, the aliah (Isaac b. Sheshet, Responsa, i. 2), yet the whole
question has been profoundly affected by the change from polygamy to
monogamy due to the taanah of Gershom ben Judah (see Marriage).
The Samaritans followed a slightly different course, which
may indicate an earlier custom among the Hebrews; the former practised the
levirate only when the woman was betrothed and the marriage had not been
consummated (id. 65b). The Karaites appear to have followed the same
practise, and Benjamin Nahawendi, as well as Elijah Bashyai, favored it
Adderet Eliyahu, Nashim," p. 93a).
It has been suggested by Kalisch ("Leviticus," ii. 362-363)
that the prohibition in Leviticus is of later date than the obligation
under certain conditions in Deuteronomy, but it is equally possible that
the Leviticus prohibition was a general one, and the permission in
Deuteronomy only an exception when there was no male issue. J. F.
Maclennan ("Studies in Ancient History," i. 109-114) suggested that the
existence of levirate marriage was due to polyandry among the primitive
Hebrews, and has been followed by Buhl ("Sociale Verhaltnisse," p. 34) and
Barton ("Semitic Origins," pp. 66-67); but this is rather opposed to the
Hebraic conditions, for it would be against the interests of the surviving
brother to allow the estate to go out of his possession again. There is,
besides, no evidence of polyandry among the
Hebrews. Bibliogrphy:S.S.J
================================================================ To
leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.