Reference for Yevamot 105:15

אלא איידי דתנא התרת יבם אחד ויבמה אחת תנא נמי שתי יבמות ויבם אחד ואיידי דתנא שתי יבמות ויבם אחד תנא נמי שתי יבמין ויבמה אחת:

IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM THE ONE AND FROM THE OTHER, OR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 350, n. 6. ');">³⁸</span> Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349, n. 11. ');">³⁹</span> 'no act is valid after cohabitation'. But our Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349. n. 12. ');">⁴⁰</span> — [The statement on] the permissibility of the sister-in-law marrying anyone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349, n. 13. ');">⁴¹</span> was preferred by him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349, n. 14. ');">⁴²</span> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR TO TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW etc. According to R. Johanan who ruled that the whole house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the brothers of the deceased including the levir who submitted to the halizah. ');">⁴³</span> stands under the prohibition of a negative precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the levir and the other brothers (v. supra n. 13) are forbidden by the negative precept 'that doth not build' to marry the halizah or her rival. V. supra 10b. ');">⁴⁴</span> it is intelligible why it was necessary to inform us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the statement that a ma'amar is invalid after halizah. ');">⁴⁵</span> that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves the penalties of a negative precept is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had not this been indicated it might have been assumed that a betrothal of a woman forbidden only by a mere negative precept is legally valid. ');">⁴⁶</span> according to Resh Lakish, however, who ruled that all the house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 351, n. 13. ');">⁴⁷</span> is subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any one of the brothers married the rival of the haluzah, or if any of them (other than the levir who participated in the halizah) married the haluzah herself; the prohibition in all these cases being that of marriage with 'a brother's wife' which is punishable by kareth. The prohibition of the levir who participated in the halizah to marry the haluzah herself is, of course, even according to Resh Lakish, only that of a negative precept (v. supra 10b). ');">⁴⁸</span> was there any need to inform us that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves <i>kareth</i> is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a ruling is surely obvious! ');">⁴⁹</span> — Resh Lakish can answer you: And even according to your conception was it necessary to tell us in the final clause, which speaks of the case where the LEVIR COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, that there was no validity in a betrothal with a married woman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a ruling is surely obvious! ');">⁴⁹</span> But the fact is that as he taught concerning the permissibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that there is no validity in the betrothal. ');">⁵⁰</span> of one levir and one sister-in-law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruling which was necessary, even according to Resh Lakish, since he also, like R. Johanan, subjects the marriage between the levir who submitted to the halizah and the haluzah to the penalty of a negative precept only (v. supra n. 3). ');">⁵¹</span> he also taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir. And since he taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir, he also taught concerning two levirs and one sister-in-law.

Jastrow

Jastrow