the brother of a man who died without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. However, if either of the parties refuses to go through with the marriage, both are required to go through a ceremony known as halizah, involving a symbolic act of renunciation of their right to perform this marriage.
So, permitted and encouraged, but not forced into it. Except by god it seems.
I took this introductory passage to be the current tradition. The quoted bible passage makes it look like more of a mandatory thing:
[5] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child […]; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.
[7] And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me.’
[9] then shall his brother’s wife […] loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and […] say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’
Well the article says that
So, permitted and encouraged, but not forced into it. Except by god it seems.
Probably already said yes to the marriage thing, considering he got to put his peepee in her peepee
I took this introductory passage to be the current tradition. The quoted bible passage makes it look like more of a mandatory thing:
Deuteronomy 25 (Modern English)