Date: Mon Sep 25 2006 - 15:09:51 AST
WUNRN
http://www.wunrn.com
UN Study focus of WUNRN
Juridical Aspects
A.1.International Convenant on Civil & Political Rights
B.1.CEDAW
Factual Aspects
C.Status in the Family
Full UN Study text: 2.Practices Linked to Marriage & Divorce -
(i)LEVIRATE
134."An originally Jewish mythology requires that where there is no male
descendent, a widow
must marry her brother-in-law.
135.This originally Hittite and Assyrian practice is also found in
Congo, Burkina Faso (until recently)
Kenya, Chad, and Cameroon.........
136.In Senegal and in some Sioux tribes, an unmarried sister must marry
her deceased sister's
husband. ...."
D.2.Cruelty to Widows
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=293&letter=L&search=Levirat
e
JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.COM
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE
By Solomon Schecter Joseph Jacobs
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: Geiger, in Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1862, pp. 19-39.S. S. J
__________________________________________________________________
