Talk:Levirate marriage

I've replaced "increasing influence of Western women's rights" with the phrase "increasing awareness of women's rights." I have done this because of a tendency to dismiss women's rights movements in developing nations because they are "Western-influenced" and therefore invalid. this occurs even when the feminists in question are born and raised in the developing world. It is perhaps a small point, but I see the value in using more neutral language. 24.80.159.9 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitzvah?
An anon keeps trying to readd that this is a "Mitzvah". This seems unlikely and would require a source. Otherwise, please remove it on sight. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed considered a mitzvah. For this reason, the Halizah rite is still required to anull the obligation of levirate marriage. However, I think that piece of information rightly belongs on the Yibbum page. --Eliyak 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of two sections -- please help improve them
Recently some substantial new info has been added, apparently from non-English sources. At first I was so pleased to see new material that I reorganised the article into sections to cope with its expansion, began to tidy up the English, wikified it, etc. Unfortunately, however, on re-reading, I found the translation confusing, so I have moved the info here until it is clarified, hopefully by the original editor, or anyone with access to the books named. I am not sure of the most wiki-elegant way to do this, so will post sentence by sentence, with my queries after each, where necessary.


 * Central Asia and Huns
 * Levirate marriages were widely spread among Central Asian nomads. Chinese historian Sima Qian (145-87 BC), the author of the "Historical Notes” Shiji, described this custom in the Hunnic state of the Central Asian shanuys:
 * What is a shanuys?


 * chanyu - modern phonetic interpretation of ancient Chinese phonetic rendition of the title of Supreme Leader of the Asian Hun Empire (Barefact)


 * Suggested wording Levirate marriages were widespread among Central Asian nomads.  Sima Qian (145-87 BCE) described the practices of the Huns in his magnum opus, Records of the Grand Historian: (BrainyBabe)


 * "after a death of a father, they marry mother-in-law, after a death of a senior or younger brother they marry their wives".
 * Who marries whom? Who is the "they"?


 * This is a citation, "they" = Huns, or populace of Hunnic state, as should be clear from the introductory part of the sentense. (Barefact)


 * I'm still not clear on which Hun is marrying which other Hun. There are at least two possible  interpretations of the above.  One makes more sense to me, but I am guessing. Is either of the following correct?  1. "after the death of their father, his orphaned children marry their mother [or their father's mother-in-law, who would be their grandmother]; after the death of an older or younger brother, the surviving brothers marry all of the deceased brother's wives [i.e. the dead man had more than one wife]."  OR 2. "after a man's death, one of his relatives marries his widow; after a man's death, one of his older or younger brothers marries his widow."  We can improve the English later, but which sentence, 1 or 2, better reflects the sense of the book?  Or can you suggest another interpretation?  I realise you are saying it is a direct quotation, but as it has to be translated from Chinese to Russian to English, it is important to be careful, so I do not want to jump to any conclusions. (BB)


 * The levirate custom survived in the society of Northeastern Caucasus Huns.
 * Survived until when? Until now?


 * Caucasus Huns survived until the Arab invasion in the 7th century, when after their (Huns) destruction the leadership of the confederation passed to Khazars. Period covered by Armenian historians covers Huns from 2nd century AD to 7th century AD. Levirate custom is ascribed (by Armenian historians) as Hunnish custom. So, levirate survived from Sima Qian time (2nd century BC) to 7th century AD. (Barefact)


 * Thank you, that's clear.  Suggested wording  The levirate custom survived in the society of Northeastern Caucasus Huns until the 7th century CE. (BB)


 * Movses Kalankatuatsi points to levirate as an unusual phenomenon, telling about ordinary monogamy between Savirs.
 * Who is this person -- historian, ethnographer, scientist? Is he of the society he describes or an outsider? I understood levirate marriages to be one at a time, and therefore monogamous.  What is the contradiction?  Who or what are Savirs -- a class of person, an ethnic group?


 * Movses Kalankatuatsi is an Armenian historian, a most detailed chronicler of the Early Middle Age Caucasus. Savirs please see in WP, they were a part of the Caucasian Hun's confederation, frequently referred in the sources as Huns-Savirs. Movses Kalankatuatsi notes the general tradition of monogamy, but when forced, a levirate marriage takes place. (Barefact)


 * I think we have a divergence here about whether a levirate marriage is monogamous or not. I understood it to mean that the dead man's clan would find an unmarried man for the widow to marry, for one of two reasons (in general), either to ensure she and her children were provided for, or to ensure the clan got a child in return for the bride price it had paid, or both.  Here you seem to be saying that  it is so important that the widow stays within her husband's clan that, if no unmaried man is available, a married man will take the widow in polygyny instead.  Am I understanding you correctly?  Suggested wording:  Armenian historian Movses Kalankatuatsi states that the Sabirs, another ethnic group in the area, were usually monogamous, but sometimes a married man would take his brother's widow as a polygynous wife. (BB)


 * The article on polygany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny#History) states that it occurs in a levirate marriage. However, this article does not state that when a levirate marriage occurs, it is polyganous. Someone with expertise should clarify this article on this point. Thanks.  Jeisenberg (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Caucasian Huns were monogamous with a levirate custom.
 * Doesn't this just repeat the previous info?


 * Maybe it does somewhat, but because L.Gmyrya combines reference to Savirs first, and discourse about the Huns second, I followed her line of minute accuracy when referring to a classical source. (Barefact)


 * Again, I'm not sure which definition we are dealing with here. Does the text say they were monogamous except when a levirate marriage justified polygyny?  Or that they were always monogamous,   and one type of monogamous marriage was a levirate one?  (BB)


 * In Dagestan, the levirate survived into ethnographic modernity.
 * When exactly?


 * Good question. L.Gmyrya does not date her modernity, but 1900es would be an absolutely safe bet, and 2000es would not be too surprizing. Chechen war, for example, left hundreds of thousands widows with minor children, and I would not be surprized to learn that many of them were taken into families of surviving male relatives, as a first or second wife. To desribe "ethnographic modernity" as a period when modern ethnography described contemporary customs would bring the period to ca. 1950es. I am relaying L.Gmyrya observation. She is a native Dagestani historian. (Barefact)


 * Good answer! Suggested wording  Ludmila Gmyrya, a Dagestani historian, asserts  that the levirate survived there into "ethnographic modernity"  (from the context, probably 1950s).'' (BB)


 * Ludmila Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kalankatuatsi describes the form of levirate marriages by the Huns, when the widow could marry a brother or a son from another woman of her late husband
 * Could, or had to? (See widow inheritance.)  Did her late husband have several wives, and the widow could marry the son of a co-wife, i.e. probably much younger than her?


 * 1. Could. Hunnish women had an equal or even somewhat higher social status, and definitely had a choice. 2. Monogamy was usual, but not mandatory. Nobles had many wifes if they wanted. But economic necessity falls mostly to poorer layers, so an arranged marriage to ensure her and her kids support could come from the elders, and their first choice would be unmarried men. Strange for us, but the relative age did not matter much. Neither the previous sexual life mattered, in accordance with Chinese annals. To add spice to the situation, a (married) man could have sex with any unmarried girl, without any hiding, and without any stigma for the girl. I do not think that the answers to too detailed questions about traditions of 2000 years ago can be ever found, but we can try. (Barefact)


 * (This is really interesting! Such ancient and alien customs!) OK, I think I was confused by the "a son from another woman of her late husband". It makes more sense now.  Is the extra stuff you added also from the same source, or from other knowledge you have?  Perhaps we can incorporate some of it, as relevant, for context.  Suggested wording: Kalankatuatsi describes the form of levirate marriage practised by the Huns.  As women had a high social status, the widow had a choice  whether to remarry or not.  Her new husband might be a brother or a son (by another woman) of her first husband, so she could end up marrying her brother-in-law or stepson; the difference in age did not matter. (BB)


 * My guess is that levirate was a default option, if she would not find a suitable pertner, but because of the flocks and herds, she did not have too much time to choose, and then the family enters into the picture. For aristocracy that employed hired shepperds considerations would be different. Skilur inherited his mother-in-law, she could go back to her family, perhaps, but if she was a concubine, her better chance was to remain at the court. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gmyrya L. "Hun Country At The Caspian Gate", Dagestan, Makhachkala 1995, p.212
 * Can you provide ISBN? Was this published in English?


 * Book is in Russian, no ISBN that I know of, but the title is available, at least in US libraries. That's how I got hold of it. (Barefact)


 * I would suggest you provide the full title both in English and then in Russian, in Cyrillic, and state (in English) that you can see no ISBN on the book. I would also state that the book is available in US libraries.  I saw material deleted from another article because one editor insisted on all sources being English language (and thus checkable), which I think is a real limitation. (BB)


 * No problem with that, though the use of Cyrillic makes sense only in Russian libraries, because in the US libraries you Latinize the title anyway. I will add the title once the section is restored. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Scythia
 * Khazanov names economic reasons for the longevity of the levirate:
 * longevity until when?


 * I do not think the period is defined in absolute dating, but in relative terms. Khazanov states the longevity as a known fact, and suggests reasons for it. Ethnographically, the levirate in the nomadic societies is known for at least 2 millennia. It is nothing less thaqn lingevity on any scale. (Barefact)


 * OK, I see. Could you start by giving the author's full name, nationality (Russian, Armenian, Soviet?), and profession (historian, sociologist, etc.)? Suggested wording [Soviet] [historian] [Alexander] Khazanov gives economic reasons for the longevity of the levirate over two millenia of nomadic history.  (BB)


 * Your wording is fine, except that Khazanov was "Soviet", most likely, quite involuntarily. Lately he was publishing in English. I do not know his ethnicity, but he was working in USSR Academy of Sciences. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * inheritance of a wife as a part of the deceased’s property, necessity to support and educate children to continue the line of the deceased.
 * The second reason would suggest this is not a levirate marriage per se, designed to ensure that there is at least one child; see widow inheritance for the protection of existing children.


 * In scientific literature the custom is not described as levirate custom per se, but as levirate custom. Younger brother marries the older brother widow, following levirate tradition. Out of love, greed, philanthropy, religious motives, clan vitality, or whatever, can be stipulated, but is irrelevant Ensure at least one child may be one of the motives. I do not think that differentiation per se or not per se can and should be made. (Barefact)


 * What you are referring to, the "levirate marriage per se, designed to ensure that there is at least one child", is just one partial case of the general levirate phenomena. In different societies and different economic conditions "per se" would be different. In nomadic societies, like Beduin, Scythian, Turkic, which hired out by whole tribes as mercenaries, and the risk of death was a normal part of life, levirate served as a social security net, ethnologically ingrained as an obligatory custom for the remaining relatives. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked for help from the sociology project page, to see if anyone there can read this page and widow inheritance and suggest improvements, perhaps a merge if that is justified. Until then, I think what you suggest is pragmatic.  It would indeed be very difficult to differentiate motives at this distance in time without good written records.  But on re-reading it, I see three reasons, not two -- the inheritance of a woman as property (which does not suggest a high social status, by the way), the necessity of supporting existing children, and the importance placed on bloodline continuity if no child had yet been fathered. (BB)


 * The levirate custom was revived under a shaky economic condition in the deceased’s family.
 * Not sure what this means.


 * Loss of provider, I think. When an average family has 30-40 horses and 60-100 sheep, and no male to pasture them, it would really be "a shaky economic condition". It is just an average example. The author does not delve into definitions of "shaky". (Barefact)


 * Now it is the verb tense that is confusing me. Does it mean that the custom fell into abeyance, and in some historical periods it was never practised? Or does it mean that it was never very common, but was always available as an option in difficult times? (BB)


 * Khazanov, citing [Abramzon, 1968, p. 289 - 290] mentions that during WWII the levirate was ressurected in Central Asia. With the troubles they have there now, and in Afganistan, I would suspect that levirate is alive and kicking right now, and also in Chechnya (Ichkeria), i.e. societies with strong family/clan ties. But these are guesses only. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The relatives (children, brothers) without a family in such circumstances held it their duty to help by marrying the widow and adopting her children
 * Without a family in what sense? Without children of their own?


 * I guess generally, but there may be a multitude of other people "without a family". I know in my neighborhood under this definition would fall not only bachelors. And "relatives" are also in the eyes of the beholder. I think too much detail is too much to ask. (Barefact)


 * I can appreciate your point, that too much detail is in fact unknowable. However, it doesn't make sense to me to describe people as related, ie part of a kinship network, on the one hand, and then without a family, ie not part of a kinship network, on the other hand.  I suggest the following -- does this make sense?  In these circumstances, adult sons and brothers of the deceased man held themselves responsible to provide for his dependents.  One of them would marry the widow and adopt her children, if there were any.  (BB)


 * Khazanov А. M. “Social history of Scythians”. Moscow, 1975. p. 82
 * Again, ISBN? English original?


 * Book is in Russian, no ISBN that I know of, but the title is available, at least in US libraries. That's how I got hold of it. I think ISBN's in Russian editions appeared after 1990es. (Barefact)


 * As before -- author's full name, title in Cyrillic as well as English, statement of no ISBN. (BB)

Once again, I welcome the fact that this material has been offered to Wikipedia. It just needs some work before it can go back in the article. BrainyBabe 12:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * BrainyBabe, I want to thank you for your constructive criticism. Your detailed questioning allows me to see the contents from the outside, as a guest-reader would see them. My unswers are embedded, and I will gladly attend any additional clarifications within my abilities and time. I also wanted to add another Pulleyblank quote at some time too.


 * And I would appreciate your editing to a better form, If you do it. I hope my responses would clarify the matter. Barefact 08:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the way you put this -- "as a guest-reader would see". It is all too easy to forget who we are writing for!  Thank you for taking my detailed criticism and suggestions with good will and such attention to detail.  I think we have a little more back-and-forth tennis to play with this, but I hope most of it can go back in the article sooner or later.  The English is not very smooth yet, but let's get the facts agreed first.  And who is Pylleybank?


 * Pulleyblank, sorry. Historian, linguist, one of the experts on Chinese annals in respect to non-Chinese peoples. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you agree that my suggested wordings are correct in fact, and represent truthfully the sense of the books, please copy and paste each sentence you approve of into the article.  (It does not have to be a direct quotation.  In fact, it is more encyclopedic style to put matters into your own words, except for small fragments within quotation marks.) I can tidy up the English later.  Or, if you prefer, just write "agreed" after each correct sentence here on the talkpage, and I will do the copy-paste job.  (BB)


 * Agreed to all :-). These puny 2 sentenses can be corrected in the context. Please restore. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your 16 February 2007 response, thanks. If you do not mind comments, it appear that subdivision into sections to cope with expansion is not warranted yet, I would rv it to the initial status for now. Another reason is that geographical subdivision does not reflect the substance of the subject. Neither can it be done historically, for lack of knowledge. The closest that I can see is along Khazanov's line, cultural-economical-ethnological. Example: the motivation "in order to continue the line of the dead husband" can only apply in a forced patrilineal society, like early Hebrow, with contracted matrilineal inheritance rights, but is irrelevant for the matrilineal society that existed in the substrate Canaan prior to the migration of the Levites, though the levirate may have existed there before, entirely for economic reasons. In other words, the causes may be subdivided, but not the effect, which is indistinguishable among all geographical areas. Barefact 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Constructive comments are always welcome! Re the divisions: you may well be right that a geographic subdivision is not the most academically defensible. Your (or Khazanov's) analysis is a useful one to consider. I would argue that some subdivision is desirable, for ease of reading.  Before you made your additions, the page was of a length that the "guest-reader" could scan at a glance. With the additional information, it then became about three screenfuls, which is a lot for the eye and brain to process without any visual break.  What exactly those breaks are is open to discussion. Thank goodness for talkpages, even if this one is growing unwieldy! BrainyBabe 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked again on Khazanov's analysis, and it seems to be a most comprehensive and objective that I saw. I can offer an unedited machine translation of pages 79-80 where he discusses levirate. He gives tons of refernces too, a useful trait for this article. Once the paragraphs are restored, and somewhat edited and added, you will be in a better position to judge how to subdivide without distorting the overall integrity. Barefact 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The material, much improved I hope, has been re-added. I am not entirely happy with it, but it reads much more clearly than before. Please add book info as promised above. I remain neutral about any possible reorganisation: I'll wait and see what is offered. However, I am not neutral about "unedited machine translation" if that means poor and confusing English. Was the text that I've been struggling with above a result of machine translation? Oh dear. It has tired me out. This is all I can do. BrainyBabe 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not. My offer was to let you read what I just re-read. You did a good job of editing, I generally like it, and your respect of material is most admirable, you left a wery good feeling of the discussion, and gained my respect and gratitude. Sabirs were a subgroup of the Huns, not another ethnic group. If you would like me to present to you any other materials before posting, I will do it  gladly. How can I locate your other articles/contributions? Barefact 07:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that the material added was not a result of unedited machine translation. Thank you for your positive words on my efforts; I appreciate your patience with this as well.  If there is other material you would like me to look at before posting it to an article, I am happy to help.  I suggest that you write your draft and put it on your talkpage or the article's talkpage, and leave a note on my talkpage, drawing my attention to it.  By the way, I suggest you add the caveats to the book references here: ie no ISBN exists, but the books are in US libraries, under Russian title xxx in Cyrillic.  Good luck! BrainyBabe 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will be on the road for a week, and may not be able to provide promised reference right away, sorry. Barefact 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Title of the article
Because "levirate" is a type of marriage (BE: sometimes compulsory marriage of a widow to a brother of her deceased husband, and any other sources), the title "Levirate marriage" is a taphtology. Also, "levirate" is a noun (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/levirate), adjective is "leviratic" (ref same place). It should be "Levirate", or "Leviratic marriage", but not "Levirate marriage". I think that direct "Levirate" would be preferred, if only to facilitate Googling. Barefact 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although you have a point etymologically speaking the term I have most often heard in common usage is "Levirate Marriage". But perhaps you should go ahead and create two redirect pages. PeterMottola 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a sociology stub, it is an anthropology stub. Anthropologists study these practices, not sociologists.

removal of much material in Judaism section
I have removed the following three sentences from this section:


 * The most famous case of levirate marriage in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) is the union of the patriarch Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar as recorded in.
 * An instance involving both chalitza and yibbum is recounted in the Book of Ruth, when after the death of her husband, Ruth is rejected by an anonymous Ploni Almoni, and subsequently marries her husband's remaining kinsman, Boaz.
 * and therefore the ceremony of chalitza must be performed in front of a beth din (court of Jewish religious law).

There is a clear pointer to the main article at yibbum, and I think this level of detail, example, and terminology belongs there. (I will add it, if it does not already exist.) In my experience, if such a level of detail exists in an article which is not the main article on the subject, discrepancies and contradictions will creep in. It is best to direct readers to the most appropriate and specific resource. BrainyBabe 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Combine this page with similar articles!
It is suggested that this article "" be combined with the article Ghost marriage, inasmuch as "Levirate marriage" is either simply an equivalent term for, or is a sub-category of, "ghost marriage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0XQ (talk • contribs)
 * seems that it is other way around, "Levirate marriage" being a definite phenomenon with a distinct name, splread across Eroasia, and "Ghost marriage" is a local custom in Africa as one of ethnic instances of "Levirate marriage". The term "Levirate" is consistently used in literature to describe thins tradition. Barefact (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"if there were no children, in order to continue the line of the dead husband"
This qualification if there were no children, in order to continue the line of the dead husband is incorrect, it is a particular case only, it applies only to some traditions and some ethnicities, but is irrelevant for the description of the Levirate marriage tradition by itself. An economical levirate is a levirate not any less than petriarchal levirate. There were different traditions in the world, some of them were social, others economical, others political etc. This qualification creates a myopic view on a large phenomena. Any other opinions? Barefact (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know the exact terminological scope of the term Levirate marriage, but the etymology suggests that it should be broader than the definition this article conveys. I wasn't really happy with the current definition either. Especially that in the Arab world 'Levirate marriage' is encouraged specifically to prevent the offspring of the deceased from being raised by someone not related by blood to them. --Hakeem.gadi (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, there are different traditions in the world, and Levirate marriage results from entirely different motivations depending on traditions and situations. Barefact (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

cut lede
Tempting references in the intro, with no supporting info in the body, have to go. Any one care to chase up the assertion that the levirate was practised by Apache, Mongols, and Tibetan? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken description of Levirate marriage
The quote from the wiki page:

"Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage, i.e. that outside the clan, was forbidden."

Should be:

"Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong exogamous clan structure, i.e. that marriage inside the clan was forbidden."

There are endogmous tribes, but no such thing as endogmous clans, they are by definition exogmous.

A brother is by definition a male member of the clan who is not a father or a son. Actual father, brothers and sons are usually distinguished. In the case of Genisis 38 it is made very clear that an actual patrilineal issue is at stake and not a more extended notion of kinship. In the case of Ruth another kinsmen (aside from Boaz) might well be a clan brother of her husband.

Greg Schofield, Perth Australia (greg.schofield@iinet.net.au) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.48.42 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

H8 and Cate not a Levirate marriage
The Lead states: "Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which a woman is required to marry her deceased husband's brother." This was not the case in Catholic England, and thus the marriage of Henty VIII and Catharine of Aragon is not an example of a Levirate marriage, but a politically motivated one. In point of fact, such marriages were illegal under Catholic law, hence a special dispensation was needed from the pope for them to marry. - BilCat (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is true, but nevertheless, whatever the circumstances they still did marry, thus automatically making it a Levirate marriage by definition.

The Catholic law forbidding relatives from marrying was supposedly based on Lev 20:21, but this passage is about adultery, not marriage. The Catholic church ignored provisions for Levirate marriages in Deut 25:5-10. This is another case of Catholic interpretation and tradition superceding the Bible itself, and actually creating a problem that didn't exist in the Bible. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Marrying a woman your brother has divorced is certainly not part of a Levirate marriage! Some help on this issue from other editors would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

King Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon & Jermaine Jackson's marriage to Alejandra Genevieve Oaziaza may not strictly be in accodrdance with J ewish or Biblical laws (divorced or not), they are however Levirate Marriages' by technical definition and in essence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.75.129 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think Ukungenwa and Levirate marriage cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, and since our priority of WP:NPOV prompts us to have articles with a worldwide perspective, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. This article already has a section on the practice in South Africa and I believe any subtle nuances about ukungenwa can be covered here. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not Yibbum
The second paragraph of Levirate marriage contains "Because there is a general prohibition on a man marrying his brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16), anytime that a yibbum is not required (for example if the deceased had a child" However, a marriage to the widow of a brother who has a child is not Yibbum, and no Halitza is required. I propose the wording

"Because there is a general prohibition on a man marrying his brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16), except for Yibbum, it is forbidden even for Yibbum, and Halitzah is mandatory."

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What if there's no brother?
What happens in these societies if the deceased husband had no living brother, or if the brother was already married to another woman?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Levirate marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208001556/http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/afghanistan/EthnicityAndTribe.html to http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/afghanistan/EthnicityAndTribe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

exogamy only?!
How 'bout Kazakhstan where mariage inside of clan was prohibited as incest? The bride was from other clan and she had to marry at a brother of her husband if her husband had died, and she did not have a child (if she had a child, she was not obliged to marry at a brother).