Reference for Yevamot 34:16

אי הוה אמר הכי הוה אמינא הנ"מ בחד אבל בתרי אין זיקה והא כי פליגי בתרי פליגי אלא אי אמר הכי

died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry her mother prior to the levirate marriage as if she had already been his actual mother-in-law. ');">⁵⁰</span> obviously implies that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');">⁵¹</span> is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, before levirate marriage takes place. ');">⁵²</span> let him then say, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of him who said a levirate bond exists!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 41a. ');">⁵³</span> -If he had said so it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brother, who is the only one entitled to marry the widow, and may consequently be regarded as the actual husband. ');">⁵⁴</span> but in the case of two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 97' n. 16. ');">⁵⁵</span> no levirate bond exists. But the dispute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Judah and the Rabbis, infra 41a. ');">⁵⁶</span> surely, centered round the question of two!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brothers. How then could it possibly have been assumed that the halachah referred to the case of one brother only? ');">⁵⁷</span> — But [this is really the reply]: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');">⁵¹</span> had said so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah was in accordance with the view of him who said that a levirate bond exists between the widow and the levir prior to the levirate marriage. ');">⁵⁸</span>

Jastrow