Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 102:8

כיצד עשה מאמר כו':

and yet R. Simeon stated that such cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the second levir. ');">¹⁹</span> has no validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously because the kinyan had been effected by the cohabitation of the first. Thus it follows that a ma'amar also (cohabitation and ma'amar having equal validity) effects kinyan. ');">²⁰</span> Ben 'Azzai? — For it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated, 'A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each one of whom had addressed to the widow only one ma'amar. ');">²¹</span> and one sister-in-law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each levir is entitled to a ma'amar. V. supra 51a. ');">²²</span> but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second ma'amar has no validity, because by the first ma'amar the levir had already effected the kinyan of the sister-in-law to whom he had addressed it. ');">²³</span> R. Nehemiah? — For we learned, R. NEHEMIAH SAID: WITH COHABITATION AS WITH <i>HALIZAH</i> WHETHER IT TOOK PLACE AT THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE, OR AT THE END, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT. Now, an invalid cohabitation has been given by the Rabbis the same force as a ma'amar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in both cases, divorce alone is not enough to sever the levirate bond, halizah also being required. ');">²⁴</span> and yet it was stated, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously because the cohabitation like a ma'amar had constituted a kinyan. ');">²⁵</span> HOW&nbsp;… IF A LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR etc.

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 102:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.