Commentary for Yevamot 102:2

אמר לך רבה בר רב הונא בין לר"ג בין לרבנן סברי אין זיקה והכא בגט אחר גט ומאמר אחר מאמר קמיפלגי

— Rabbah son of R. Huna can answer you: Both according to the view of R. Gamaliel and that of the Rabbis no levirate bond exists,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While Rabbah son of R. Huna himself does not follow this view but that of the authority who maintains that a levirate bond does exist. ');">⁴</span> and their difference here extends only to the question of a divorce that followed another divorce and a ma'amar that followed another ma'amar. The Master said, 'If he addressed a ma'amar to the one as well as to the other, he gives, according to R. Gamaliel, a letter of divorce to the first, submits also to her <i>halizah</i>, and is in consequence forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second are permitted to him'. Now, consider! Since R. Gamaliel holds that there is no [validity in a] ma'amar that follows another ma'amar, the first [sister-in-law] should even be permitted to contract the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ma'amar to the second had no validity at all. ');">⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 102:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.