Commentary for Yevamot 104:13

רבא אמר אי דאמר לה במאמר יבמין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמהניא והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאמר לה התקדשי לי בזיקת יבמין רבי סבר

he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The digger. ');">³⁶</span> had no intention at all of acquiring possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he believed the field to be his own. ');">³⁷</span> but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Betrothal by the levirate formula. ');">³⁸</span> his intention, surely, was to acquire possession!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his sister-in-law as his legal wife. ');">³⁹</span> This, indeed, could only be compared to the case of a person who digs in the estate of one proselyte and believes it to be that of another, where he does acquire possession!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his intention was to execute by his act a legal kinyan, the mistake he made as to its owner is of no consequence. Similarly, here, the mistake in the nature of the union he was contracting should not affect the legality of the kinyan which he at all events intended. ');">⁴⁰</span> No, explained Abaye, here we are dealing with a case where the levir said to her, 'Be thou betrothed to me by the ma'amar of the levirate union'. Rabbi is of the opinion that the ma'amar can only be imposed upon the levirate bond,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only where the levirate bond is still in force has the ma'amar the required validity. ');">⁴¹</span> but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where halizah had been performed. ');">⁴²</span> the <i>halizah</i> had already previously removed the levirate bond.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the invalidity of the ma'amar. ');">⁴³</span> The Rabbis, however, are of the opinion that the one is independent of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ma'amar is consequently valid even where no levirate bond exists. ');">⁴⁴</span> If, then, the levir had said to her at first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the performance of the halizah. ');">⁴⁵</span> 'Be thou betrothed unto me by this ma'amar of the levirate union', would not his <i>kinyan</i> have been valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly it would. The force of the ma'amar irrespective of the levirate bond (v. supra n. 2) would have executed the kinyan. ');">⁴⁶</span> Consequently it is now also valid. Raba said: Had he said to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the introductory formula, 'Be thou betrothed unto me'. ');">⁴⁷</span> 'By the ma'amar of the levirate union', there would be no disagreement [among the authorities] that it is valid; but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis. ');">⁴⁸</span> we are dealing with a case where the levir said, 'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate'. Rabbi is of the opinion

Explore commentary for Yevamot 104:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.