Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Is it permitted for a man to marry his dead wife's sister?
Sveta:
--- Quote from: Tag-MehirTzedek on June 30, 2013, 03:58:24 PM ---Israeli heart- You wrote that it is "FORBIDDEN". I would like a source for that. Yes Halitza is to performed in a situation where the brother (of the man who did not have children) refuses to marry her. BUT in the case that she does have a child and the father dies I don't see why it would be FORBIDDEN for her to marry his brother. I wouldn't think it would be normal yet not forbidden and the children would most definitely not be mamzerim.
--- End quote ---
Leviticus 18:16.
Also explained here: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/468337/jewish/Prohibited-Marriages.htm
--- Quote ---(e) His sister, half-sister, his full or half-brother’s wife (divorced or widowed) except for Levirate marriage with the widow of a childless brother. and the full or half-sister of his divorced wife in her lifetime.
--- End quote ---
And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred.
There are cases where a Yibbum is not required. Let's say a man and a woman were married for 50 years and never had kids. Now the widow is 95 years old, and her dead husband's brother is 97. Would there be a Yibbum required? NO. Because she is no longer able to bear children and therefore Yibbum does not apply. Likewise if a woman who can bear children becomes a widow but her brother-in-law had an accident and is known to not be able to sire children, then a Yibbum is not required either (but a chalitza is preformed according to some rulings). If a man died childless, his wife is not required to marry her maternal half-brother, because the brothers do not share the same father. And thus Yibbum is not required.
If a man had Jewish children from a previous relation and then marries a woman but then died while she never had kids, she would not be required to marry her brother-in-law because her dead husband already had children and thus Yibbum would not apply. Furthermore under Leviticus 18:16- she is NOT permitted to marry her brother-in-law anyways.
Please note, that the article from Chabad also talks about how it is prohibited to marry a sister-in-law IF the wife is alive or divorced, as we have discussed in the thread.
I'm not just making it up, I have studied and these are my conclusions based of studies and lectures, just have to gather my sources. In any events, most of my sources for this also are found in the Mishneh Torah, apart from knowing the prohibition in Leviticus. But it would be hard to pin point the exact location of where I get my information. Also, I am uncertain if a brother-in-law and the widow sharing the status of sh'niyot under Rabbinical prohibition carries the same consequences under gillui arayot such as mamzerut would. But searching about it online, I found this as well:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_13339.html
--- Quote ---marriage with his brother's widow (except in the case of the levirate widow) or divorced wife: such marriages are punishable by karet (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah, 2:1, 9; Sh. Ar., EH 15:22, 26; 44:6; see also *Levirate Marriage)
--- End quote ---
Furthermore, in Mishne Torah Chapter 1 Halacha 22:
--- Quote ---"If she gives birth [different rules apply]: If the child dies, even on the day it was born, the yavam should divorce her, [give her] a get and perform chalitzah with her. 57 [Only] then, is she permitted to marry another man. If the child lives for 30 days after its birth,58 [the child] is considered to be viable, and there is no need for a divorce, for [relations between the two are forbidden by] a severe prohibition].59
--- End quote ---
If anything we see that in case of a Yibbum, chalitza and divorce under some situations are extremely prefered, as it says "relations between the two are forbidden by a severe prohibition"
I have also found this as well: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558049/jewish/Yibum-and-Chalitzah.htm
--- Quote ---Sexual relations between a brother and sister-in-law are forbidden by the Torah unless within the context of the mitzvah of Yibum. For example, if the widow's husband did not die childless, it would be forbidden for them to marry. There is an opinion expressed in the Talmud that if the Levirate couple are intimate with each other and their intention is not to fulfill the mitzvah, rather they are attracted to each other's beauty or personality, then they have transgressed the prohibition against forbidden incestuous relations!
--- End quote ---
Tag-MehirTzedek:
"And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred."
Before I read the rest I will stop here (for now) Chalizah is not preferable. It is in the situation where if he refuses he goes through a humiliating procedure where she spitts on his shoes (which was something embarrassing especially back in the day).
Binyamin Yisrael:
What if a man has a baby with his brother's widow, and the baby grows up? Are they allowed to continue to be married and have more kids or is it once the baby is born, they are not allowed to stay together?
Sveta:
--- Quote from: Tag-MehirTzedek on June 30, 2013, 05:44:31 PM ---"And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred."
Before I read the rest I will stop here (for now) Chalizah is not preferable. It is in the situation where if he refuses he goes through a humiliating procedure where she spitts on his shoes (which was something embarrassing especially back in the day).
--- End quote ---
There is an answer for that too:
As I noted previously- in cases where the brother-in-law and the widow desire to marry because they like each other, desire each other- then they are actually going against the laws of incest. Because the Yibbum must be done for the sake of Heaven. It is like a sacrifice where the man must marry the widow ONLY to bring progeny under the name of his brother. In the past, this was preferred but today it is so rare that people would actually see it this way and not see it as a way of pleasure and love that a Chalitza is preferred. In other words, to avoid two people who do not have the right intentions, it is preferable that they do a Chalizta instead of the Yibbum.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Custom/Halitzah.shtml?p=1
--- Quote ---In the rabbinic sources the opinion is expressed that while it is clear from the biblical passage that the ideal is for the levir to marry the widow, "nowadays" he should not be allowed do so but must release her through halitzah. The reason for the change is that since levirate marriage involves a man marrying his brother's widow, an act otherwise forbidden, the levir must be motivated solely by his wish to carry out his religious obligation and it can no longer be assumed that the levir's intention is "for the sake of heaven." Another opinion is recorded, however, that levirate marriage has priority over halitzah. The difference of opinion continued for centuries, some Sephardi and Oriental communities following the opinion which prefers levirate marriage to halitzah.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---The Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel introduced the law that halitzah is always to be preferred for all Jews in the state, whatever their original practice was. Obviously, once the ban on polygamy had been established, halitzah was the only option in any event where the levir already had a wife.
--- End quote ---
A woman did have a choice to not accept the brother-in-law as her husband too. So it would have been better that the brother not suffer through the humiliation and force a woman to be in the terrible situation of becoming an agunah? In any events a Beis Din could have intervened and recommended the Chalizah. In fact, in the chapters of the Mishneh Torah, it does speak of times where the judges would recommend or not recommend a yibbum or chalitza:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960622/jewish/Chapter-Four.htm
--- Quote ---If the appropriate advice is for them to perform yibbum, they advise him2 to perform yibbum.3 If the appropriate advice is for them to perform chalitzah - e.g., she is young and he is older, or she is older and he is young4 - they advise him to perform chalitzah.
--- End quote ---
For example, would a Yibbum be preferable if the brother in law is 65 years old and the widow is 24 or vice versa? Or if he is a eunuch? Then should a Yibbum be preferable?
Binyamin Yisrael:
--- Quote from: IsraeliHeart on June 30, 2013, 04:27:36 AM ---If you think about it...if the wedding took place in Israel, the Beis Din would NOT have allowed a marriage that would produce a mamzer. So when Sharon married his dead wife's sister and it was allowed in Israel and recognized under the auspices of the Orthodox religious courts, it would be because it was allowed. Considering the first wife is dead.
--- End quote ---
Maybe they didn't have a real wedding. Sharon also buried his wife on his ranch even though Israeli law requires dead people to be buried in cemeteries. I remember hearing Kahanists say that her body should be moved to a real cemetery because Sharon removed dead bodies from the cemetery in Gush Katif to be re-buried in other cemeteries.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version