Talk:Levirate marriage

message: 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)
thread_title:  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mitzvah?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title: removal of much material in Judaism section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combine this page with similar articles! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "if there were no children, in order to continue the line of the dead husband" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  cut lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mistaken description of Levirate marriage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: H8 and Cate not a Levirate marriage

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: The second paragraph of Levirate marriage#Judaism 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)
thread_title:  Not Yibbum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified