Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 102:1

רבנן סברי יש זיקה וקתני סיפא וכן אתה אומר בשני יבמין ויבמה אחת לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרבה בר רב הונא אמר רב דאמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב חליצה פסולה צריכה לחזור על כל האחין

the Rabbis are presumably of the opinion that a levirate bond does exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that, as the Rabbis disagreed with R. Gamaliel on the question of a divorce that followed another divorce, they disagreed also on that of the levirate bond. ');">¹</span> and yet it was stated in the final clause, 'And the same law applies where there are two levirs and one sister-in-law'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which the Rabbis maintain that either levir may submit to the halizah (v. supra p. 337, n. 4) and the performance of this impaired halizah exempts the other brother, ');">²</span> Must it then be said that this represents an objection to a statement made by Rabbah son of R. Huna in the name of Rab? For Rabbah son of R. Huna stated in the name of Rab: A <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character must go the round of all the brothers!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 26b. The performance of it by one brother does not exempt any of the others! ');">³</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 102:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.