Hubbry Logo
YibbumYibbumMain
Open search
Yibbum
Community hub
Yibbum
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Yibbum
Yibbum
Yibbum
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Judaism
Star of David
Movements
Philosophy
Texts
Law
Holy cities/places
Important figures
Religious roles
Culture and education
Ritual objects
Prayers
Major holidays
Other religions
Related topics

Yibbum (pronounced [jibum], Hebrew: ייבום) is the form of levirate marriage found in Judaism. As specified by Deuteronomy 25:5–10, the brother of a man who died without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. However, if either of the parties refuses to go through with the marriage, both are required to go through a ceremony known as halizah, involving a symbolic act of renunciation of their right to perform this marriage.

Jewish law (halakha) has seen a gradual decline of yibbum in favor of halizah, to the point where in most contemporary Jewish communities, and in Israel by mandate of the Chief Rabbinate, yibbum is prohibited.

In the Hebrew Bible

[edit]
Judah and Tamar, by school of Rembrandt (1650s). An early example of a levirate-type practice is the biblical story of Judah and Tamar

The Torah prohibits sexual relations by a man with his brother's wife,[1] but yibbum is an exception to this rule. The surviving brother is given a choice to take his responsibility as a goel by fulfilling the yibbum obligation, or to perform halizah, though the latter choice is described by the verse disfavorably. The brother who agreed to marry his sister-in-law would be the sole benefactor of his brother's estate instead of splitting it with the family. The offspring of the levirate union would be seen as a perpetuation of the deceased brother's name. Yibbum is permissible only when the dead brother had no children at all.[2]

Although the stated intent of the levirate law as expressed in Deuteronomy is to provide an heir so that the deceased brother's name "will not be obliterated from Israel" (Deuteronomy 25:6), such laws effectively provided protection for widows as well. At the time the Torah was written, if a woman did not have a husband because of widowhood, she had no one to provide for her any longer and she would be disgraced, if not likely die of starvation.[citation needed] Children were also a means of continued provision, since they are commanded to care and show respect for the elderly as they move further along in years. A childless widow was without both means of provision. Although quite contrary to modern day sensibilities, even becoming a second wife to a brother-in-law, as indicated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, was better than living on the streets at the mercy of those around her. Under Torah, men had a responsibility to the women around them, which included life-sustaining provisions (i.e. food, shelter, and comfort). Those of honor were beholden to their responsibility to protect the defenseless.

Yibbum had significant economic implications for the parties involved: the first child born to the brother's widow would be deemed the heir of the deceased brother, and able to claim the deceased brother's share of inheritance. If the deceased brother was the firstborn son, his inheritance was a double share. However, if the deceased brother were childless, the living brother would be entitled to inherit an increased share; or if he is the oldest surviving son he would be entitled to a double share of the increased share.[3]

Levirate-type marriages other than yibbum

[edit]

A detailed account of a levirate-type marriage in the Hebrew Bible is the unusual union of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar found in Genesis 38:8. The case is not strictly a case of yibbum as Judah was Tamar's father-in-law, and also the case pre-dates the biblical obligation. It may be a reflection of contemporaneous Middle East practices. Tamar's earlier marriage to Onan, however, did conform with the specific circumstances describing the requirements of yibbum outlined in Deuteronomy, as Onan was the brother of Tamar's deceased husband Er.

Another example of an analogous arrangement to yibbum is recounted in the Book of Ruth. After the death of her husband, Ruth is noticed and welcomed by her husband's kinsman, Boaz. After Ruth is rejected by an anonymous Ploni Almoni, Boaz marries her. In this case as well, the kin in question would not have been subject to the biblical levirate marriage obligation, as neither Ploni Almoni nor Boaz were brothers of Ruth's late husband.

Laws of yibbum and halizah

[edit]
Yibbum
Halakhic texts relating to this article
Torah:Genesis 38 Deuteronomy 25:5–10 Ruth 3–4
Babylonian Talmud:Yevamot; Gittin 34b-37b
Mishneh Torah:Yibbum V'Chalitza 1:3
Shulchan Aruch:Even HaEzer 156-157

Halakha (Jewish law) has a tradition around yibbum. These laws were first recorded in the Mishna and Talmud in Yevamot, and were later codified by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah. The subject is considered one of the most intricate in Jewish law, partly because of the complication that arise from multiple brothers and multiple wives. Yibbum is an exception to the biblical prohibition for a man to have sexual relations with "his brother's wife" found for example in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21. (See Incest in the Bible.)

When yibbum applies

[edit]

The obligation for yibbum is found at Deuteronomy 25:5–10, which requires that when a married man dies without having any children, male or female, from any relationship (including pre-marital and extra-marital), his widow and his brother must perform either yibbum or halizah. For the laws of yibbum only brothers that share a common father are considered brothers.[4] In the event of several brothers in the family, the eldest surviving brother has the first right of yibbum.[5] In order for yibbum to apply, all of the following conditions must be met:

  1. The brothers share a common father [6]
  2. The dead brother had no surviving children, male or female, from any relationship,[7] at the time of his death [8]
  3. The brother performing yibbum was born before his brother's death [6]
  4. The brother performing yibbum is not forbidden, other than by her marriage to the dead brother, to marry any of his dead brother's widows (e.g. if any of them is his daughter, yibbum does not apply to him at all)(and in the Talmudic discussion of such a case the other wives are referred to as tzarat habat, the "daughter's rival")[9]
  5. The brother performing yibbum is physically capable of fathering children[10]
  6. The widow is or was physically capable of bearing children[11]
The Widow (1882-83) by Anders Zorn. The widow has to remain unmarried until yibbum or halizah has been performed.

Even if some of the brothers do not meet all the conditions to be eligible for yibbum, as long as there is one that does, yibbum applies to him. If there is no brother who meets all of the conditions, neither yibbum nor halizah applies,[12] except if the widow is forbidden to marry the brother as a result of a prohibition not involving the punishment of kareth (spiritual excision)[clarification needed], in which case halitzah would apply.[13]

[edit]

It is forbidden for any of the widows to remarry until yibbum or halizah has been performed.[14] If the deceased left multiple wives yibbum may only be performed with one of them, at which time the remaining wives are permitted to remarry. Likewise, if yibbum is not performed, halizah is only performed with one of the widows,[15] after which all of them may remarry.[16]

If all surviving brothers are still children, the widow must wait until one reaches halachic adulthood, at which time he can perform yibbum or halizah. Similarly, if the brother is missing, the woman is required to wait until he is located. This can lead to a situation similar to an agunah.

How yibbum is performed

[edit]

According to biblical law, there is no need for a marriage ceremony between the widow and the deceased's brother as they are already bound by divine decree,[17] thus, they need only cohabit to perform yibbum. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that the couple perform a marriage-like ceremony called maamar,[18] recite the marriage blessings (sheva brachot) and write a prenuptial agreement (ketubah).[19]

Only one brother may perform yibbum. The oldest brother is given preference, but if he refuses, the brother who is second in line can perform yibbum,[20] and if a brother performed yibbum out of turn, it is nevertheless valid.[10] After one brother performs yibbum or halizah, none of the brothers may marry any of the other widows.

Other laws

[edit]
19th century Ketuba or Yibbum from New Zealand, including a promise to take care of the bride if the husband dies before any children are born.

Because there is a general prohibition on a man marrying his brother's wife, anytime that a yibbum is not required (for example, the deceased had a child), levirate marriage is forbidden. Likewise, anytime that there is a doubt whether yibbum is required, it is also forbidden and halizah is required.[21]

The Samaritans followed a slightly different course, which may indicate an earlier custom; they practised yibbum only when the woman was betrothed and the marriage had not been consummated.[22] Karaite Judaism appear to have followed the same practice, and Benjamin Nahawandi as well as Elijah Bashyazi favored it.[23]

History

[edit]

The rabbis in the time of the mishnah added formal marriage requirements, such as the necessity of betrothing the deceased brother's wife in front of two competent witnesses by giving to her money or an object having certain money value, and of writing out a ketubah (marriage contract),[24] but over the centuries the performance of levirate marriage (yibbum) declined in favor of halizah (the act of refusal).

By Talmudic times the practice of levirate marriage was deemed secondary in preference to halizah by some of the rabbis, because of the brother's questionable intentions;[25] indeed, to marry a brother's widow for her beauty was regarded by Abba Saul as equivalent to incest.[26] Bar Kappara also recommends halizah.[27] A difference of opinion appears among the later authorities, with Isaac Alfasi, Maimonides,[28] and the Spanish school[29] generally upholding the custom, while Rabbeinu Tam and the Northern school prefer halizah.[30] A change of religion on the part of the surviving brother does not affect the obligation of the levirate, or its alternative, the halizah.[31] Additionally, if the surviving brother is married, Ashkenazim, who follow the takkanah of Gershom ben Judah abolishing polygamy, would be compelled to perform halizah.

Today, yibbum is a rare occurrence among Jewish communities, most claiming that if the intent is not purely for the sake of pro-creation, the act would thereby become marred and tantamount to an act of whoredom. Therefore, it was made virtually non-existent with other communities. Orthodox Jews in modern times have generally upheld the position of Rabbeinu Tam and perform halizah rather than yibbum. Yemenite Jews, though orthodox, practised yibbum until the en masse Aliyah of Jews to Eretz Israel in the last century.[32][33] In 1950, the Rabbinate of Israel, along with the Chief Sephardic Rabbi, forbade its practice amongst the Yemenites, citing a need for "uniformity amongst the Jewish groups," and only permitted those who were already married through levirate marriage from outside the country.[34] Conservative Judaism formally retains it. Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism have abolished it.

[edit]

Yibbum forms the plot of the Hallmark movie Loving Leah.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Yibbum

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Yibbum (Hebrew: יִבּוּם), the mandated by Jewish law, obligates the brother of a deceased man who died without progeny to wed the , ensuring the continuation of the deceased's lineage through any son produced from the union. This practice originates from Deuteronomy 25:5–10, which commands the surviving brother to "take" the to perpetuate his brother's name in , thereby addressing both familial extinction and the 's social vulnerability in . The procedure involves a formal akin to standard Jewish wedlock, with the resulting attributed halakhically to the deceased brother for and naming purposes. If the brother refuses yibbum, the alternative rite of chalitzah—wherein the widow removes his shoe and spits before him in a ceremonial declaration—releases both parties, freeing the widow to marry elsewhere while exempting the brother from further obligation. Rabbinic authorities historically viewed yibbum as the preferred fulfillment of the mitzvah, yet concerns over consanguinity, emotional strain, and potential disputes have led to its near obsolescence in modern observance, particularly among Ashkenazi Jews, where chalitzah predominates under institutional rabbinic guidance. In Sephardi and some contemporary Orthodox contexts, select authorities still endorse yibbum when feasible, emphasizing its Torah-mandated status over secondary considerations. The practice underscores Judaism's emphasis on familial perpetuity and redemptive continuity, though its rarity today reflects adaptations to evolving social structures without abrogating the underlying halakhic framework.

Biblical Foundations

Scriptural Mandate

The scriptural mandate for yibbum () is prescribed in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 of the , which stipulates that if two brothers dwell together and one dies childless, the must not marry a stranger outside the family. Instead, the surviving brother is required to take her as his and perform the levirate duty, with the firstborn son from this union succeeding to the deceased brother's name and to prevent his lineage from being extinguished in . This obligation applies specifically when the deceased left no , emphasizing the preservation of the line through the brother's intervention, as the text commands: "Her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her." The resulting is reckoned as the heir of the dead man, maintaining patrilineal continuity and estate rights within the . In cases of refusal, the brother must appear before the elders at the town , where the widow publicly challenges his unwillingness to "build up [his] brother's house." If he persists, she executes chalitzah (חליצה) (loosing) by removing his and in his face, exempting him from the but affixing the derogatory title "the house of him that hath his loosed" to his , underscoring the social disgrace attached to evasion. The frames this institution as a divine imperative to safeguard familial and tribal in ancient Israelite , where threatened ancestral remembrance and land holdings under the broader framework of laws.

Pre-Levirate Narratives

The primary pre-levirate narrative illustrating the underlying custom of yibbum appears in Genesis 38, depicting events among the family of Judah prior to the Mosaic codification in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Judah, the fourth son of , takes a Canaanite wife who bears him three sons: Er, the firstborn; , the second; and Shelah. Er marries Tamar but dies childless due to his wickedness, prompting Judah to direct to unite with Tamar in a levirate-like union to produce an heir for his deceased brother, thereby preserving the family line. complies initially with cohabitation but deliberately avoids impregnating Tamar, spilling his seed to prevent offspring that would not be his own, an act deemed wicked and resulting in his death by divine judgment. Judah then withholds his youngest son Shelah from Tamar, citing the boy's youth as pretext while fearing further loss, leaving Tamar in widowhood without fulfillment of the familial duty. Tamar, determined to secure descendants for the line of Judah, disguises herself as a prostitute at Enaim and seduces Judah, who unknowingly impregnates her with twins Perez and Zerah; upon revelation, Judah acknowledges her righteousness in pursuing the seed's continuity more justly than he had. This account evidences a pre-Torah custom of brother-in-law obligation to raise up seed for a childless deceased sibling, akin to later yibbum, though enacted here through paternal rather than strictly fraternal means due to the absence of surviving brothers. Scholars interpret Genesis 38 as a exemplifying an ancient Near Eastern levirate practice adapted in Israelite tradition, predating formal legislation and highlighting tensions in and widow protection without explicit legal mandate. The story's placement interrupts the cycle, underscoring its thematic role in tracing Judah's lineage, which leads to Perez as of King David. No other distinct biblical narratives precede Deuteronomy's stipulation, positioning Tamar's resolve as the foundational exemplar of the obligation's rationale.

Theological Rationale in Torah

The theological rationale for yibbum is explicitly articulated in Deuteronomy 25:5–10, which mandates that if brothers reside together and one dies childless, the surviving brother must marry the to produce an heir who "shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of ." This provision underscores a core concern with preserving the deceased's lineage and identity within the covenantal of , where erasure of a name signifies the of familial posterity and participation in the national inheritance promised to the tribes. The firstborn son from this union is reckoned as the offspring of the deceased, effectively extending his existential and memorial continuity through progeny, rather than allowing the to remarry externally, which could dilute tribal or familial cohesion. This rationale aligns with broader emphases on procreation and inheritance, as seen in the command to "" (Genesis 1:28; 9:1), but yibbum uniquely prioritizes posthumous rectification of childlessness to avert the spiritual and social void of name extinction. Unlike surrounding ancient Near Eastern customs, which often served economic or proprietary ends such as retaining bridewealth within the , the frames yibbum in terms of Israel's distinct covenantal identity, where individual names contribute to the enduring before . Refusal incurs public humiliation via (Deuteronomy 25:9–10), reinforcing the obligation as a divine imperative tied to communal honor and fidelity to law. Rabbinic , while building on the text, identifies no additional explicit theological layers in the verses themselves beyond lineage preservation; later interpretations, such as those linking it to or rectification of the deceased's spiritual incompleteness, derive from Talmudic expansions rather than the Pentateuchal mandate. The 's formulation thus presents yibbum as a mechanism for causal continuity—ensuring offspring bear the deceased's name in legal and ritual contexts—without invoking esoteric metaphysics, prioritizing empirical familial perpetuation within Israel's theocratic framework.

Preconditions for Obligation

The obligation of yibbum (levirate marriage) in applies only when a man dies without leaving any —sons or daughters—from any prior or current relationship, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 25:5–6, which mandates the surviving brother to marry the to perpetuate the deceased's name. This condition requires that no offspring exist at the time of death; a born posthumously does not retroactively exempt the , though it suspends the obligation pending confirmation of viability and legitimacy. Illegitimate (e.g., from forbidden unions) do not sever the yavam's (levir's) duty, as they lack inheritance rights under biblical law, per Talmudic analysis in Yevamot 62b. The brothers must share a common father for the obligation to bind; maternal half-brothers incur no such requirement, as derived from the Torah's phrasing "his brother's wife" implying paternal lineage (Yevamot 17b). This paternal criterion ensures the continuity of the father's house (beit av), aligning with inheritance laws in Numbers 27:8–11, where tribal affiliation follows the father. The must be the deceased's legally wedded at , ineligible for without resolution of the levirate bond, and free from additional marital prohibitions relative to the yavam (e.g., not his mother, daughter, or other arayot relations under ). Pregnancies by the deceased prior to exempt her entirely, as the potential child fulfills the procreative intent; doubts about legitimacy or timing necessitate (release ritual) rather than yibbum to avoid invalid unions (Yevamot 34a). The yavam must be an adult male capable of fulfilling marital obligations, though the theoretically binds even minors or those with physical impediments, with deferred or altered via (Yevamot 105b). Multiple brothers share the obligation sequentially, with the eldest typically prioritized, but any refusal triggers halizah for all. Converts or freed slaves lack this tie unless full siblings under Jewish law.

Execution of Yibbum

The execution of yibbum requires the yavam (surviving brother of the deceased) to unite with the (childless ) through (bi'ah), which biblically effects the and fulfills the obligation outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5–6. Unlike standard Jewish marriage (nissuin), which rabbinically emphasizes kiddushin via a ring, coin, or followed by under a , yibbum dispenses with prior betrothal formalities; the act of bi'ah alone creates an irrevocable bond under scriptural law, though later rabbinic practice may incorporate elements like a after the union. This procedure occurs privately without mandated witnesses or public ceremony, as the biblical prioritizes the procreative outcome over ritual display, aiming to perpetuate the deceased's name through offspring. If multiple eligible brothers exist, the devolves first upon the eldest, who also inherits the deceased's estate, but yibbum performed by a younger brother is valid if the senior declines. Upon , the couple assumes full spousal rights and duties, with the firstborn son legally reckoned as the heir of the yavam's deceased brother for purposes, ensuring continuity of the family line.

Halizah Procedure and Effects

The halizah ceremony, derived from Deuteronomy 25:7–10, serves as the ritual mechanism to dissolve the levirate obligation when the surviving brother (levir) refuses to perform yibbum. In the biblical account, the childless approaches the elders of the city and declares her brother-in-law's unwillingness to perpetuate her deceased husband's name in ; the levir then acknowledges his refusal to marry her. The widow proceeds by removing his right —specifically, a shoe with straps, which the levir must have worn for at least four cubits prior—and spitting on the ground before him, accompanied by the declaration: "Thus shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house." Rabbinic elaborates on this procedure, requiring it to be conducted before a beit din of three qualified judges in a public venue, such as a courtyard, during daylight hours excluding Sabbaths, festivals, or evenings to ensure validity akin to proceedings. The community provides a designated shoe to avoid disputes over ownership or prior use; the uses her right hand to loosen and remove it entirely from the levir's foot. She then spits visibly on the floor in his presence and recites the prescribed formula three times, emphasizing the refusal to establish offspring for the brother. The ceremony typically occurs after a three-month waiting period following the husband's death to confirm the absence of , and both parties must be mature and competent. Upon completion, nullifies the levir's obligation to marry the , freeing her from the yevamah status and permitting her to remarry any eligible Jewish man, thereby resolving the levirate bond. The levir receives the appellation "family of the unsandaled one" (pesu'el), a denoting his refusal, though it carries no ongoing legal penalty beyond release from yibbum. However, the assumes the status of a chalutzah, rendering her permanently prohibited from marrying a (priestly descendant), as rabbinic interpretation extends the ritual's disqualifying implications from the levir to her eligibility for priestly union. This effect underscores halakha's prioritization of ritual purity in priestly lineage, with the chalutzah designation persisting even if yibbum were hypothetically performed later by another brother.

Prohibitions and Exceptions

Yibbum is prohibited when the yevamah is forbidden to the yavam by a biblical incest law (arayot) in addition to the standard prohibition on relations with a sister-in-law, rendering her ineligible as a true yevamah; neither yibbum nor chalitzah applies, and her co-wives are similarly exempt. The Mishnah in tractate Yevamot (1:1–2) lists fifteen such categories, including the yavam's mother, daughter, paternal or maternal sister, father's sister, mother's sister, son's daughter, and brother's daughter—relations prohibited under Leviticus 18 and 20. These cases typically arise from invalid or forbidden marriages by the deceased, such as consanguineous unions overlapping with the yavam's prohibitions. A serving as yavam is disqualified from yibbum, as the yevamah's status as a (almanah) violates the prohibition against a marrying a (Leviticus 21:7), a negative commandment that supersedes the positive of yibbum. In such instances, chalitzah must be performed to release the yevamah. Similarly, prior actions by a yavam, such as issuing a get to the yevamah, disqualify her from yibbum not only with that yavam but also with his brothers, though she remains forbidden to others until chalitzah. The yibbum obligation requires patrilineal brotherhood; it does not apply to maternal half-brothers, as the levirate tie derives from shared paternal lineage under Deuteronomy 25:5. Full brothers or paternal half-brothers trigger the duty, but maternal half-brothers exempt the yevamah without rite. No obligation exists between brothers who converted as adults, since halakhah disregards their pre-conversion non-Jewish father's kinship for yibbum purposes. Certain yevamot may perform yibbum but not chalitzah, including minors, deaf-mutes, or the mentally incompetent, as they lack capacity for the latter's verbal requirements; their co-wives follow suit if yibbum occurs. Conversely, levirim disqualified for yibbum—minors under thirteen, deaf-mutes, or the insane—impose no obligation; if all brothers are so disqualified, the yevamah requires no chalitzah and may remarry freely. Invalid ma'amar or relations by a minor yavam (aged nine and one day or older) can further prohibit yibbum with co-wives or brothers under specific sequences.

Historical Implementation

Biblical and Second Temple Periods

The biblical mandate for yibbum appears in Deuteronomy 25:5–10, which requires a surviving brother to marry his deceased brother's childless to perpetuate the deceased's name upon his inheritance. This law addresses the social and economic vulnerabilities of s and ensures lineage continuity in ancient Israelite society. A narrative precursor to the formal law is found in Genesis 38, where Judah instructs his son to provide offspring for Tamar, the widow of his brother Er, reflecting an early customary obligation akin to yibbum, though Onan refuses and faces divine disapproval. Scholars note this account as evidence of pre-Torah practices rooted in familial duty to maintain inheritance and progeny. The illustrates the implementation of levirate principles during the Judges period (c. 1200–1020 BCE), with marrying Ruth after a closer relative declines the responsibility, combining redemption of land with the perpetuation of the family line through the child Obed. This episode demonstrates yibbum's integration with go'el (redeemer) customs, emphasizing communal oversight at the . In the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE), yibbum persisted as a recognized legal institution within , as reflected in contemporary discussions of law. The records a hypothetical scenario posed by to , involving seven brothers successively fulfilling levirate s with one , underscoring the practice's familiarity and theoretical application in first-century Jewish debates on . Direct archaeological or documentary evidence of frequent yibbum marriages from this era is limited, suggesting it remained a scriptural rather than a commonplace event, potentially influenced by evolving social structures and preferences for the alternative release.

Talmudic and Geonic Era

The , redacted around 500 CE, devotes its Tractate Yevamot—comprising 16 chapters—to the intricacies of yibbum, including preconditions such as the requirement for the deceased to have no surviving offspring and the levir's obligation to either marry the widow or perform . This extensive treatment reflects yibbum's ongoing legal and social relevance amid the Jewish communities of Sassanid Persia, where the academies of Sura and served as centers of scholarship. Rabbinic debates, such as those in Yevamot 39b, weighed yibbum as the primary biblical against as a permissible release, with the majority view affirming yibbum's precedence while acknowledging practical exemptions for minors, converts, or cases of coercion. The , compiled circa 400 CE, similarly analyzes these laws but introduces greater emphasis on the widow's welfare, expanding exemptions to prioritize her consent over strict obligation to the deceased. Historical records of actual yibbum performances during the Talmudic era (circa 200–500 CE) remain sparse, suggesting infrequent implementation amid evolving dynamics and rabbinic concerns for the levir's autonomy, as evidenced by discussions framing as a safeguard against unwanted unions. Nonetheless, the tractate's citation of contemporary scenarios, including disqualifications for priestly post- (Yevamot 2a–b), implies occasional adherence to the institution in line with mandates (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). In the subsequent Geonic era (circa 589–1040 CE), the —spiritual leaders of the Babylonian academies—reaffirmed yibbum's superiority over in responsa addressing real-world queries from communities. Sherira Gaon (d. 1006 CE), for example, ruled that certain conditional stipulations in betrothal contracts did not nullify the yibbum obligation, underscoring its enduring validity. Similarly, Yehudai Gaon (d. circa 760 CE), author of Halakhot Gedolot, integrated Talmudic precedents to enforce levirate ties, prohibiting the widow from remarriage without resolution. These rulings, disseminated via the academies' epistles, maintained yibbum as the default in Babylonian Jewry, though logistical challenges in scattered families likely favored in many instances, as inferred from the responsa's focus on procedural disputes rather than widespread celebrations of yibbum unions. The era's emphasis on centralized authority helped preserve the practice's theoretical primacy, bridging Talmudic codification to medieval adaptations.

Medieval to Early Modern Practice

In medieval Ashkenazi communities, rabbinic authorities increasingly favored halizah over yibbum due to concerns over potential illicit relations between the widow and levir prior to formal marriage, which could violate prohibitions against relations with a brother's and produce mamzerim (children of forbidden unions ineligible for certain Jewish statuses). Rabbenu Tam (c. 1100–1171), a leading Tosafist, argued that the risks of such premarital cohabitation outweighed the biblical preference for yibbum, effectively prohibiting the practice in favor of ritual release via . This stance aligned with earlier Talmudic reservations and was codified in subsequent Ashkenazi responsa, rendering yibbum rare by the 13th century. Sephardic scholars, in contrast, maintained yibbum as permissible and often preferable during the medieval period. (1138–1204), in his , ruled that yibbum fulfills the Torah's intent more directly than halizah, as it perpetuates the deceased's lineage through procreation, while halizah merely exempts the parties from obligation. This view reflected a stricter adherence to Deuteronomic law amid fewer communal disruptions in Sephardic lands under Islamic rule, where family structures supported such unions without the same fears of unregulated intimacy. By the early (c. 1500–1800), the divergence persisted: , including those in , universally required halizah to avoid lineage complications, with yibbum viewed as halakhically invalid under local customs. Sephardic communities, particularly in the after the 1492 expulsion from , continued occasional yibbum performances, interpreting the as lineage-preserving rather than merely preservative, though refusals by levirim often necessitated halizah. Instances of levir refusal to perform either rite led to legal writs for release, as documented in 18th-century cases where absent or unwilling brothers-in-law prolonged widows' status. Overall, yibbum's implementation declined across both groups due to , smaller sizes, and rabbinic emphasis on practical avoidance of disputes, but it remained theoretically viable in Sephardic halakhah until later bans.

Rabbinic Evolution and Debates

Early Preferences for Yibbum

In the biblical framework outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5–6, yibbum is presented as the primary obligation for the surviving brother of a childless deceased man, aimed at perpetuating the deceased's name through offspring reckoned to him, with serving as a secondary rite only if the brother declines the marriage. This establishes yibbum as the default mechanism for levirate continuity, reflecting an early normative preference rooted in familial and lineage preservation. Talmudic analysis in Bavli Yevamot 39b reinforces this priority through the view of the Chachamim (sages), who maintain that yibbum constitutes the preferred fulfillment of the levirate over , interpreting the Torah's phrasing as indicating an affirmative commandment rather than mere permission. This stance aligns with the straightforward (plain meaning) of Deuteronomy, where yibbum actively raises up the deceased's seed, whereas addresses refusal. codifies this in , Hilchot Yibbum ve-Halitzah 1:2, affirming yibbum's precedence when circumstances permit, as it directly accomplishes the Torah's intent of progeny attribution to the original husband. Early rationales for favoring yibbum emphasize causal benefits, including the economic and of the widow by providing a immediate familial tie and household integration, as articulated by commentators like Rabbeinu Bachya on Deuteronomy 25:5, who describe it as an act of (kindness) to both the widow and the deceased. Similarly, Sforno on Deuteronomy 25:6 underscores how yibbum ensures the child bears the deceased's name, maintaining patrilineal integrity without adoption-like artifice. In pre-Talmudic and early rabbinic contexts, such as practices inferred from narratives like Genesis 38, yibbum was enacted when brothers were available and motivations aligned with observance, prior to later concerns over relational discord. This preference persisted in Sephardic traditions into the medieval era, as reflected in Even Ha-Ezer 165:1, where yibbum remains viable absent disqualifying factors.

Shift Toward Halizah

In the Talmudic era, a minority opinion emerged favoring halizah over yibbum, articulated by Abba Shaul in Yevamot 39b, who argued that halizah takes precedence to avoid potential violations of the prohibition against marrying a sister-in-law (eishet ach) if the levir's motives were impure rather than solely fulfilling the mitzvah. The majority view of the Chachamim maintained yibbum as biblically preferable, yet this dissenting position laid the groundwork for later shifts by highlighting risks of unintended forbidden unions. Medieval rabbinic authorities amplified this preference, particularly among Ashkenazi scholars. (c. 1100–1171), in his to Yevamot 39b, endorsed Abba Shaul's stance, arguing that better safeguards against lust-driven marriages that could retroactively invalidate the levirate obligation. This view gained codification in the 16th century through Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) in his glosses to the (Even HaEzer 165), establishing as the normative Ashkenazi practice amid concerns over the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom (c. 1000 CE), which banned and complicated yibbum for married levirim. Sephardi authorities, such as (, Hilchot Yibbum ve-Halitzah 1:2) and Rabbi Yosef Karo (, Even HaEzer 165:1), upheld yibbum as primary when feasible, reflecting divergent communal customs. The shift culminated in the 20th century with widespread abandonment of yibbum. In 1950, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Chief Rabbis of issued a joint ruling prohibiting yibbum in favor of halizah, citing persistent risks of improper intent and societal changes rendering levirate unions impractical. This consensus, reinforced by Israel's 1977 anti-polygamy laws, aligned practices across Orthodox communities, though some Sephardi rabbis like critiqued it and permitted yibbum in rare cases of pure intent. Today, halizah is the standard resolution, with approximately 15–20 ceremonies performed annually in .

Key Authorities and Rationales

(c. 1100–1171), a leading Tosafist and grandson of , marked a pivotal shift among Ashkenazi authorities by preferring over yibbum, citing risks of halakhic invalidity such as the potential for the levir to have clandestine relations with the before formal , which could result in mamzerim (children of forbidden unions) whose status would undermine the lineage preservation intent of yibbum. His view emphasized practical safeguards against disputes over paternity and familial tensions arising from the inherent tension between yibbum's allowance and the Torah's general prohibition on a brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16). This stance influenced communal takkanot (enactments) in Ashkenazi communities to mandate , prioritizing the release of the from levirate bonds over the marriage obligation. Subsequent Ashkenazi decisors, including the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel, c. 1250–1327), reinforced this preference, arguing that better aligns with cautionary principles amid evolving social conditions where yibbum could exacerbate conflicts or fail to genuinely extend the deceased's name due to biological variances between brothers. The Rema (Rabbi Moses Isserles, 1520–1572), in his gloss to Even HaEzer 165:1, codified the Ashkenazi custom of requiring even in cases where yibbum might technically fulfill the , underscoring rationales of avoiding coerced unions and ensuring the widow's prompt remarriage freedom to mitigate economic hardship. These authorities did not deem yibbum biblically invalid but elevated as the superior practical to prevent ancillary prohibitions and promote social stability. In contrast, Sephardic tradition, as articulated by in Yibbum va-Chalitzah 1:2, upheld yibbum as the primary mitzvah for its direct role in progeny continuation, with as a secondary release only if refused. However, even Sephardic poskim like the (Even HaEzer 165:1) acknowledged contextual exceptions, reflecting broader rabbinic debates on balancing biblical intent against real-world risks of discord or invalid offspring. The Ashkenazi rationales gained traction over time due to empirical observations of yibbum's rarity and complications in medieval Europe, where demographic and economic factors amplified concerns over forced sibling-in-law unions.

Contemporary Observance

Prevalence in Modern Communities

In contemporary Orthodox Jewish communities worldwide, yibbum is virtually never performed, with serving as the standard and preferred resolution to the levirate obligation. This shift reflects longstanding rabbinic concerns over potential halachic issues, such as the uncertain status of children born from yibbum in cases of doubt regarding the deceased's lineage or the levir's fitness, which could lead to prohibitions on future marriages. Major Orthodox rabbinic bodies, including those in , endorse exclusively, and Israeli civil law mandates it for releasing the widow from the bond, effectively precluding yibbum in practice. Among , yibbum has been eschewed for centuries in favor of , a position codified by medieval authorities like and upheld without exception today. Sephardi and Mizrahi communities historically showed greater openness to yibbum, but even there, it has become obsolete due to assimilation of Ashkenazi stringencies and modern social norms. continued the practice sporadically until the mid-, particularly prior to and during their mass immigration to in the 1940s and 1950s, after which rabbinic oversight aligned with broader preferences for . No verified instances of yibbum have been documented in mainstream Jewish communities since the early , rendering its prevalence effectively zero amid an estimated 15 to 20 annual ceremonies in alone. Non-Orthodox streams, such as Conservative and , reject the levirate obligation entirely as an archaic custom incompatible with egalitarian principles, further limiting any residual observance to isolated ultra-Orthodox fringes where halachic might theoretically permit but does not demonstrably occur. This near-total abandonment underscores a pragmatic evolution prioritizing familial over the biblical ideal of lineage continuity through yibbum.

Rabbinic Consensus Today

In contemporary , the practical rabbinic consensus favors halizah—the ceremonial release—over yibbum, despite the biblical prioritization of in Deuteronomy 25:5–10. This shift reflects longstanding concerns articulated by medieval authorities like , who argued that yibbum risks complications such as the potential invalidation of offspring as mamzerim (children of forbidden unions) if the marriage dissolves due to later impediments. In 1950, both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis of , and Isaac HaLevi Herzog, issued a joint ruling declaring preferable to yibbum in modern circumstances, citing the diminished spiritual efficacy of levirate unions amid prevalent familial discord and genetic uncertainties that could undermine lineage continuity. This position has been codified in Israeli rabbinical court procedures, where is required before a childless may remarry, effectively sidelining yibbum except in extraordinary cases. Major Orthodox institutions, including Chabad-Lubavitch and affiliates, endorse this approach, emphasizing halizah's reliability in freeing the widow without entangling the levir in potentially unstable marital obligations. While some isolated communities, such as certain Yemenite groups, occasionally perform yibbum under strict supervision, these instances are exceptional and do not alter the broader consensus that prioritizes halizah to safeguard halakhic integrity. Non-Orthodox streams, like Conservative and , reject both practices as outdated, viewing them incompatible with egalitarian norms, though this lacks halakhic authority in traditional circles. In contemporary Jewish observance, yibbum is virtually extinct, having been supplanted by in virtually all cases due to rabbinic preferences aimed at avoiding halakhic uncertainties, such as disputes over offspring status and prohibitions under Ashkenazi custom (, Even HaEzer 165:1-5). Among Sephardic communities, where yibbum retained theoretical validity longer, it remains exceedingly rare, with now standard even though figures like (Sephardic , 1973–1983) permitted it for consenting parties. In , the Chief Rabbinate's 1950 edict by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic chief rabbis explicitly banned yibbum, requiring to release the for ; this ruling, codified in responsa like Heichal Yitzchak (Even HaEzer 1:5), reflects broader concerns over familial discord and inheritance complications. The practice's obsolescence is evidenced by the limited scale of levirate proceedings overall, with rabbinic courts performing only 15–20 ceremonies annually as of recent data. 's 1977 prohibition on (Penal Law Amendment) further precludes yibbum when the levir is married, channeling all cases toward . Documented instances of yibbum in the 20th or 21st centuries are absent from public records, though historical accounts note its occurrence among until their mass immigration to in the mid-20th century, after which predominated even in those circles. Isolated refusals by levirim to perform —creating an agunah-like —remain rare but highlight residual tensions, resolved only through rabbinic intervention rather than yibbum. Legally, holds no civil recognition in , where rabbinic courts under the Chief Rabbinate control and , enforcing as the operative procedure for levirate release; uncorroborated yibbum would not exempt the from status without subsequent halizah. In the diaspora, secular jurisdictions disregard yibbum entirely for , treating it as a religious rite without legal effect, while Orthodox batei din discourage it in favor of halizah to align with prevailing consensus.

Underlying Purposes

Lineage Preservation

The biblical commandment of yibbum in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 explicitly aims to preserve the deceased brother's lineage by ensuring his name endures through posterity. If brothers dwell together and one dies childless, the surviving brother is obligated to marry the , with their son "succeed[ing] in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not blotted out from ." This mechanism attributes the son's legal identity, , and patrilineal descent to the deceased, preventing the erasure of his familial line in a where tribal and affiliations determined land allocation, social standing, and covenantal continuity. Rabbinic sources affirm this as the core rationale, viewing yibbum as a means to "revive the genealogical right of the deceased brother"—his name and potential heir—rather than merely providing for the . In the (Yevamot 4a), the obligation underscores perpetuating the dead man's memory via who inherit his estate and bear his name, countering the existential threat of in ancient Israelite agrarian life, where unclaimed land reverted risks diluting tribal holdings under laws (Leviticus 25). This —assigning the levir's biological progeny to the deceased—prioritizes nominal continuity over strict biological paternity, reflecting a cultural emphasis on collective familial perpetuity amid high mortality and limited population growth. Empirical parallels in ancient Near Eastern practices, such as Nuzi texts documenting adoptive heirs for childless kin, suggest yibbum's role in safeguarding lineages against extinction, ensuring economic assets like ancestral plots remained within the patriline to sustain family viability. Without such provisions, a brother's could fracture clan cohesion, as seen in narratives like Genesis 38, where Judah's failure to provide a levir for Tamar nearly severs Onan's line until intervention restores it. Thus, yibbum functioned causally to maintain demographic and proprietary stability, embedding individual fates within broader kin networks essential for in pre-modern contexts.

Familial and Economic Protections

Yibbum offered economic safeguards for the childless by obligating the levir to marry her, thereby incorporating her into his and ensuring her sustenance in a where widows without heirs were economically vulnerable. This integration prevented the widow from seeking support outside the , which could lead to or dependency on , as women in ancient held limited independent property rights. The practice aligned with broader ancient Near Eastern mechanisms, such as Emar testamentary clauses that barred widows from marrying "strange men" to avoid transferring estates externally. On the familial economic front, the firstborn son of the yibbum union succeeded to the deceased brother's name and inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:6), preserving the integrity of the family land holdings against division or loss in an agrarian context where subsistence depended on undivided plots. Without such an heir, the estate risked absorption by other kin or reversion, undermining the deceased's lineage; yibbum thus maintained property consolidation within the patrilineal group, mirroring protective customs in Hittite and Assyrian laws. These provisions extended to broader familial protections by reinforcing networks, offering the a male guardian against or exploitation, and sustaining stability through continued labor and support structures inherent to extended in ancient .

Causal Role in Ancient Society

In ancient Israelite society, yibbum functioned causally to safeguard familial by mandating that the childless marry her deceased husband's brother, with any firstborn son attributed legally to the dead man for purposes of property succession, thereby confining the estate to the patrilineal kin group and averting transfer to external parties. This preserved the integrity of land holdings in a system where tribal allotments were perpetual and non-transferable outside the , as reinforced by ancillary biblical provisions against alienating ancestral portions. The mechanism countered the economic fragmentation that could arise from a childless , maintaining productive units in an agrarian economy reliant on consolidated holdings for sustenance and labor. Economically, yibbum integrated the widow into the surviving brother's household, ensuring her provision and labor contribution while forestalling her potential return to paternal dependency or indigence, a common vulnerability for women without male heirs in patriarchal structures. This dual role—granting levirate union despite general prohibitions on marriage and securing the 's maintenance—mitigated destitution and preserved household resources, drawing from precedents in ancient Near Eastern contracts that penalized widows marrying "strange men" outside the family. By channeling reproduction and support within the extended kin, it sustained demographic continuity and reduced the societal burden of unsupported individuals. Socially, the practice reinforced cohesion and ancestral perpetuity by "raising up" the deceased's name through the levir's offspring, stabilizing hierarchies and averting lineage extinction that could erode authority and obligations. Rooted in pre-legislative evident in narratives like Genesis 38, yibbum's codification in Deuteronomy addressed refusals via public shaming s, causally deterring evasion and upholding communal norms against property disputes or of bereaved units. In a tribal context emphasizing male descent, it thus perpetuated social order by aligning individual actions with collective imperatives for continuity.

Controversies and Critiques

Internal Scriptural Tensions

The obligation of yibbum prescribed in Deuteronomy 25:5–10, requiring a man to marry his deceased brother's and raise offspring in the brother's name, appears to conflict with the prohibitions against relations with a brother's in ("None of you shall approach anyone who is his close relative to uncover nakedness") and Leviticus 20:21 ("If a man takes his brother's , it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be "). The latter verse explicitly links such a union to childlessness, which negates yibbum's core aim of perpetuating the deceased's lineage through progeny. Rabbinic tradition harmonizes these texts by interpreting the Levitical bans as applying to adulterous relations during the brother's lifetime or outside the levirate context, designating yibbum as a divinely ordained exception that overrides the general prohibition. Thus, intercourse with a sister-in-law remains forbidden by Torah law except as fulfillment of the yibbum mitzvah. Scholarly examinations, particularly those employing source criticism, identify deeper tensions between the Deuteronomic (D) stratum and the Priestly (P) material in Leviticus and Numbers. P's framework, including Leviticus 22:13 (where a childless widow of a priest returns to her father's house without levirate reference) and Numbers 27:8–11 (granting daughters inheritance rights to preserve tribal holdings), prioritizes direct patrilineal or female-mediated continuity over fraternal marriage, potentially viewing yibbum as incompatible with concerns over incest or polygyny. The Palestinian Talmud (Y. Nedarim 3:2) concedes the discord's opacity, stating it transcends human resolution, underscoring unresolved interpretive strains within the Torah.

Rabbinic Disputes on Efficacy

Rabbinic literature acknowledges a fundamental tension in biblical texts regarding yibbum's capacity to fulfill its stated purpose of perpetuating the deceased brother's name through . Leviticus 20:21 prescribes as divine punishment for a man marrying his brother's wife, directly undermining Deuteronomy 25:6's goal of producing an heir "who shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead," as the union would ostensibly yield no progeny. The (Nedarim 3:2) references this apparent contradiction between Leviticus 18:16's general on brother-in-law and Deuteronomy's mandate, deeming the esoteric and unresolved in plain discourse. This highlights early rabbinic awareness that yibbum may not causally achieve lineage continuity if interpreted through Priestly legislation, which appears to repudiate the practice outright. Tannaitic disputes further probe yibbum's legal and procreative efficacy in edge cases. The (Yevamot 1:3) records Beit Shammai validating yibbum performed on multiple co-widows from different brothers, deeming both the union and offspring fit, while Beit Hillel invalidates them as adulterous, rendering the children mamzerim ineligible to perpetuate the name legitimately. Similarly, in scenarios involving prohibited relations (e.g., levir or impure intent), Abba Shaul in Babylonian Yevamot 39b equates flawed yibbum to incestuous unions, questioning its spiritual validity and capacity to "raise up seed" biblically. These views underscore causal doubts: if the union fails halakhic scrutiny, it cannot reliably transmit inheritance or name, prioritizing chalitzah to avoid defective heirs. Medieval authorities intensified scrutiny, often favoring chalitzah due to yibbum's practical inefficacy in ensuring perpetual lineage amid risks and genetic realities. (, Yibbum 1:2; 4:25) upholds yibbum as biblically primary for name preservation but concedes chalitzah's sufficiency when yibbum risks mamzerut or non-procreation, as the rite severs ties without presuming offspring. Rashba and others, influencing (Even HaEzer 165:1), deem chalitzah preferable outright, citing yibbum's failure to guarantee heirs—evident in cases of or levir refusal—thus rendering it causally unreliable for the Torah's intent in eras without patriarchal land inheritance pressures. This shift reflects empirical rabbinic realism: legal attribution of paternity notwithstanding, biological discontinuity undermines true perpetuation, with chalitzah providing cleaner resolution.

Modern Secular Objections and Rebuttals

Modern secular objections to yibbum primarily center on its perceived infringement on individual and , particularly for the , who may face social or familial to participate despite the availability of chalitzah as an alternative release mechanism. Critics argue that the biblical mandate, even if optional in practice, treats the as an instrument for perpetuating male lineage rather than prioritizing her agency, echoing broader concerns about as a vestige of patriarchal control in pre-modern societies lacking state welfare systems. This view posits that yibbum reinforces gender hierarchies by obligating family intervention in personal reproductive decisions, potentially exacerbating power imbalances between the levir and yevamah. Additional critiques highlight tensions with contemporary norms on and family structure, as the union between a and her brother-in-law contravenes taboos prevalent in , regardless of biblical permission. frameworks further contend that any cultural practice implying coerced inheritance of spouses undermines to , drawing parallels to documented abuses in non-Jewish levirate where widows report economic dependency and loss of . These objections often frame yibbum as incompatible with egalitarian principles, dismissing its ritualistic elements as insufficient safeguards against subtle in close-knit communities. Rebuttals emphasize the institution's historical causality in ancient agrarian societies, where childless widowhood risked destitution and lineage extinction without modern social safety nets; yibbum empirically served as a familial mechanism, ensuring economic continuity and preventing land fragmentation critical for tribal survival. In Jewish halakhah, the practice is not coercive—the yevamah holds the right to initiate chalitzah, which rabbinic authorities overwhelmingly favor today to avert disputes, rendering forced participation verifiably absent in documented cases. Critics' anachronistic applications overlook this provision and the rarity of yibbum post-Talmudic era, with no peer-reviewed evidence of systemic harm in Jewish contexts, as preferences shifted due to evolved social conditions rather than inherent ethical flaws. From a causal realist perspective, objections conflate ancient exigencies with modern individualism, ignoring how yibbum's decline aligns with emergence, not moral condemnation.

References

  1. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558049/jewish/Levirate-Marriage-Yibbum-and-Chalitzah.htm
  2. https://www.sefaria.org/topics/levirate-marriage
  3. https://tzofia.org/explaining-the-mitzvah-of-yibum/
  4. https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/understanding-yibbum-and-chalitzah-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter
  5. https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.25.5-10?lang=bi
  6. https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-levirate-law-a-marriage-contract-clause-that-became-legislation
  7. https://enterthebible.org/passage/deuteronomy-255-10-levirate-marriage
  8. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0296.xml
  9. https://www.thetorah.com/article/tamars-extraordinary-risk-a-narrative-not-a-law-of-yibbum
  10. https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/tamar-bible
  11. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/levirate-marriage-and-halitzah/
  12. https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/ketuvim/megillat-ruth/levirate-marriage-megillat-ruth
  13. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5618854/jewish/Why-Yibum-Levirate-Marriage-and-Chalitzah.htm
  14. https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-priestly-repudiation-of-yibbum
  15. https://outorah.org/p/6140/
  16. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960624/jewish/Yibbum-vChalitzah-Chapter-Six.htm
  17. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7105-halizah
  18. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/halitzah-the-ceremonial-release-from-levirate-marriage/
  19. https://outorah.org/p/13203/
  20. https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Yevamot.2.3
  21. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/3741/kohen-gadol-yibum
  22. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/levirate-marriage-and-halizah
  23. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960623/jewish/Yibbum-vChalitzah-Chapter-Five.htm
  24. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/105874/when-can-the-brother-of-a-man-who-died-childless-do-neither-yibbum-nor-chalitzah
  25. https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/theres-no-fatherhood-for-non-jews
  26. https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Levirate_Marriage_and_Release.6-8
  27. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/levirate-marriage/
  28. https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/vayeshev-yibbum-levirate-marriage-ancient-israel
  29. https://lawrenceschiffman.com/second-temple-period-rationales-for-the-torahs-commandments-josephus/
  30. https://biblehub.com/q/Evidence_for_Mark_12_20_practice.htm
  31. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030908920402800402
  32. https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.39b
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/nashim.21.188
  34. https://www.academia.edu/378975/_Levirate_Marriage_and_the_Family_in_Ancient_Judaism_by_Dvora_E_Weisberg
  35. https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/grappling-with-the-recalcitrant-ach-mumar-part-one-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter
  36. https://www.religiousrules.com/Judaismwomen03spouse.htm
  37. https://escholarship.org/content/qt1px4s6gf/qt1px4s6gf_noSplash_5fde8c4bddd5125dcc9efeb98b4b79de.pdf
  38. https://www.brandeis.edu/hornstein/sarna/americanjewishcultureandscholarship/awritofrelease.pdf
  39. https://sites.americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/2011_63_01_00_doc_sarna.pdf
  40. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960619/jewish/Yibbum-vChalitzah-Chapter-One.htm
  41. https://etzion.org.il/en/talmud/seder-nashim/massekhet-yevamot/mitzva-yibbum-and-mitzva-chalitza
  42. https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/05/levirate-marriage-today/
  43. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/105876/how-common-are-levirate-marriages-today
  44. https://thebiblesays.com/en/commentary/deu%2B25:5
  45. https://www.kesherjournal.com/article/the-redemptive-seed-type-scene-in-the-davidic-narrative-arc-raising-up-seed-for-david-as-yibbum-in-2-samuel-712/
  46. https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-the-truth-about-naming-the-first-son-from-yibbum/
  47. https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/ketuvim/megillat-ruth/perpetuating-name-levirate-marriage
  48. https://journals.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ASSRJ/article/download/4880/3026/12731
  49. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781614512639-016/html
  50. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ancient-origins-for-yibbum-and-textual-novelty-from-their-halachik-dichotomy/
  51. https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Yevamot.1.3
  52. https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.39b?lang=bi
  53. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/11/610
  54. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/levirate-marriage-in-the-state-of-israel-ethnic-encounter-and-the-challenge-of-a-jewish-state/6993F2FA7031869E56BB5B050F6F95E2
  55. https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/5/3/759/5311751
  56. https://www.ide.go.jp/library/Japanese/Publish/Reports/InterimReport/2016/pdf/B16_ch01.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.