daf bit: Ketuvot 82

[cellio]

If a man divorces his wife he is required to pay her ketubah. In order to ensure that he can, the rabbis require him to set aside property to cover this possible debt. Today's daf discusses the case of levirate marriage: if a man dies before his wife has had a child, the torah calls for his brother to marry her to continue the family line. When that happens, the rabbis ask, who owes her ketubah -- the new husband, or the first husband's estate? The rabbis say the first husband's estate, because the second husband did not choose to marry her ("heaven provided his wife"), but if she is unable to collect, the second husband is liable, to make it hard for him to divorce her. (82b)

(Yes, they can get out of this marriage. I wonder how much levirate marriage ever happened, or happens.)

Comments

[caryabend.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much levirate marriage ever happened, or happens.

If you watch soap operas, it must happen all the time: The wife murders her husband to marry the more attractive brother.

And consider: There wouldn't be halacha about it, if it didn't happen enough to require halacha. [Insert your own definition of enough.]

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much levirate marriage ever happened, or happens.

I'm pretty sure it's close to non-existent nowadays, given that (a) arranged marriages in general are falling out of favor and more people are expecting to marry at least somewhat for love, (b) a non-married woman has a much better chance of being able to support herself now than then, and (c) if the surviving brother is already married then this would lead to multiple wives, which most Jews no longer allow.

Since none of these reasons holds for the time of the Gemara...

[magid.livejournal.com]

For nowadays, pretty much none, given that the rabbis basically talked themselves around to ruling that levirate marriage is much less optimal than halitzah, the ceremony releasing that obligation.

(Spell check doesn't like levirate, and suggests levitate and leverage instead :-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

(c) is something I wondered about. If all of the brothers are married, does it proceed up and down the family tree until some eligible person is found?

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Nope: the law only applies to brothers, and only if the deceased brother died without any children. Besides, originally multiple wives were fine, so it didn't matter if the brothers were married or not.

[kayre]

Hmm... so if the woman married brother #2 and had a son, the son would get the estate of #1 (because that's the whole point)... and if #2 subsequently divorced her, he'd have to pay out of his own goods?

[cellio]

I think the son gets #1's estate less enough to cover the ketubah in case #2 divorces her. If that doesn't work out for some reason (property decreases in value or never was valuable enough, theft, the son somehow manages to squander it, whatever), though, then #2 is still on the hook. Belt and suspenders, except that a belt probably really did fail somewhere along the line to prompt the extra precaution.

That's my read, anyway.