[Avodah] Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth

[Zev Sero]

Daniel Israel wrote:

> Your point, that l'halacha no son of Naomi could be a yavam to Ruth 
> is very interesting, I never noticed.  However, I would point out 
> that in the end Ruth marries Boaz, and the Megillah/m'farshim 
> clearly connect this to yibum, even though Boaz was only a cousin.  
> So it would seem clear that there is a concept in Nach of yibum 
> even with more distant relatives.

AIUI this was more of an obligation on whoever took over Elimelech's
land to also take over his and his sons' debts, including Machlon's
moral debt to take care of his widow.



> Also note that in the story of Yehudah and Tamar, there is clearly 
> a concept of yibum, even though yibum through the father would not 
> work (in fact would be assur) min ha'Torah.  And in this case we 
> see that it really is yibum, since the yerusha is through Peretz.

But in actual yibum the yevama's oldest son has no special status at
all, despite the peshat of the pasuk.  According to the midrash halacha
that we follow, "habechor asher teled" refers to the oldest brother of
the niftar, and he is the yoresh.  After him the property goes to all
his sons equally.


> The question I would ask is why is this inyan of yibum via more 
> distant relatives not mentioned l'maaseh today (or is it and I've 
> just never heard it?)  Possible teretz: if there is a brother who 
> performs chalitzah, maybe the possibility of a distant relative 
> effecting yibum is removed.  But it that's the case, then when 
> someone has no brothers, why shouldn't we encourage a cousin to 
> marry the almanah?

Who says we don't?  It all depends on the circumstances, but it
wouldn't surprise me to hear of cases where such a shiduch was
suggested.  I do know that in the opposite case, where a woman with
young children dies, it used to be common for her husband to marry
her sister.  BH nowadays such cases don't happen often enough for there
to be a "minhag" about them.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas