יבמה שלשה חדשים הראשונים ניזונת משל בעלה ומעשה ידיה ליבם מכאן ואילך אינה ניזונית לא משל בעל ולא משל יבם עמד בדין (לאחר שלשה חדשים) (ריב"ש סי' ק"ד) ותבעתו לייבם או לחלוץ (לפני ב"ד) ונתרצה לייבם ואירעו אונס שחלה או שהוצרך לברוח מחמת ממון או מחמת מרדין חייב במזונותיה בלא שבועה:

The yevamah--for the first three months she is provided for from the estate of her [dead] husband, and her handiwork belongs to the yavam. After this point she is not provided for, neither by her husband nor by the yavam. If she goes to court after three months (Ribash, siman 104) and demands that he have levirate marriage with her or release her in front of the court, and he wants to have levirate marriage but an unforeseen circumstance prevents it, that he gets sick or must run away due to a financial matter or due to oppressors, he must supply her with sustenance without [her being obligated] for an oath.

If he left her pregnant, she is provided for until she gives birth. If she gives birth to a viable fetus, she is provided for as long as she is a widow, as are all women.

If she fell before a yavam who is a minor she does not receive sustenance from him until he becomes and adult. Rema: If she gave birth to a suspected stillborn, when she would be required to perform Chalitzah and not Yibum, as was explained earlier in Se'if 156 she takes her Ketubah money right away. There are those who say that she only doesn't receive sustenance from a minor yavam's property, even the dowry that she brought in for her original husband and he [the minor] seized, however if he did not take possession of her dowry, as in a case where a third party is holding it, she receives sustenance from her dowry, certainly in a case where she says that the property should be given to her possession and she would like to maintain the principal until the minor becomes an adult and she will get sustenance from the profits that they give her the money.

Her profits are her's forever, even if she receives sustenance from another source. Rema: Only after three months.

If moneys came to her while she was awaiting her levirate marriage she may sell them or give them away and these [transactions] are upheld for the man who will marry her has no claim to them until he takes her in. Even if he made a verbal commitment. This is the case if she is a widow from engagement and she came into the money while she had been engaged, she may sell or give away and these [transactions] are upheld for a brother [who will marry her after she is widowed] is no different than a husband.

The brother who will marry a widow derives no benefit from property that the widow brings into the marriage until he marries her. And those assets from which the deceased brother was allowed to derive benefit; he only gets half of the proceeds. There are those that write: that he has no proceeds at all until he marries her. REMA: And the first opinion is correct. And there are those that say that property that she brings into the marriage which she received while she was still married are equal to those assets that the first husband had benefit from and thus the proceeds are split (Ramban, Ran, in Chapter The Woman). And so too her inheritors would split them if she dies. But, in a situation where the profits are hers, she may sell her land according to her portion of the proceeds. ...

If she dies while waiting for her levirate marriage, her inheritors receive all the property she brought into the marriage and half the property that the husband was allowed to derive benefit from. REMA: So too if her levirate husband gave her a gift her inheritors inherit it. (Maharam Padua #17). And the inheritors of the husband receive her ketubah and the additions to it and half the funds she brought into the marriage. The inheritors of the husband are obligated to pay for the burial. REMA: And there are those who claim that all the properties that her husband is allowed to derive benefit from are in the possession of the husband's inheritors like the ketubah (Rabbeinu Tam and the Rosh), and they can not be removed from the inheritors if they possess them (the Ran wrote this in a responsum). All this is in a place and time when we do not force halitza, but in a place and time when we force halitza, so too if she was not fitting to be married by the brother, then there are those that say that the properties are not in the possession of the brother, and so, if she dies, he does not inherit her; therefore, in a place where we force halitza he does not inherit her according to this opinion (Maharik #91). And, as to who is called the inheritor of the husband, it requires further investigation, for there are those that say that the brother is the inheritor even if their father is still alive, and this brother is ahead of the husband and all his progeny (Mahari'u #41 and the Ran chapter The Woman and Maharam Padua #17). Yet, there are those that say that the father inherits, for as soon as the widow dies the brothers no longer have a claim, and the inheritance falls to whomever was first in line to inherit the (dead) husband (Maharik #91). And, even though logic seems to lean towards the last opinion, and so the language of "inheritors of the husband" seems to point, but the talmud and the Jerusalem talmud chapter The Woman Who Inherited, seem to state that the brother inherits the property of a widow who is waiting for levirate marriage. Thus the father has no claim on her property like the first opinion. If there are a number of brothers see #165 below.

Reuven died, and he has two wives who are entitled to marry the brother, and then one of the widows dies, the brother has no claim on the assets because the second wife is ahead of him. REMA: If there is a question as to whether or not a woman is entitled to levarite marriage and she dies, the inheritors of the husband do not inherit her, for they are doubtful and her inheritors are certain[ly entitled] (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashbatz) and doubts never force release of property in the face of certainty. ...