Responsa for Yevamot 184:8
א"ר ינאי בחבורה נמנו וגמרו אין קדושין תופסין ביבמה אמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי לא משנתנו היא זו דתנן האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר לאחר שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שתמות אחותיך או לאחר שיחלוץ ליך יבמיך אינה מקודשת א"ל אי לאו דדלאי לך חספא מי משכחת מרגניתא תותיה
harlotry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By such a marriage she becomes forbidden to marry the levir as if she had played the harlot; but no letter of divorce is required. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> in accordance with the ruling of R. Hamnuna.For R. Hamnuna stated: A woman who, while awaiting the decision of the levir, played the harlot, is forbidden to marry the levir. And if you prefer I might say: [The reading is]. in fact, as has been originally stated, that betrothal with her is invalid but marriage with her is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that she requires a letter of divorce. Cf. p. 630, n. 17. and the following note. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> since her case might be mistaken for that of a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she married in accordance with the decision of a court on the evidence of one witness who testified that her first husband was dead. As the woman in this case requires a letter of divorce, it was ordained, as a preventive measure, that in the case spoken of in our Mishnah also a letter of divorce shall be required. the validity spoken of extending, however, to this requirement and no further. In the case of betrothal no preventive measure was enacted since in this case also no letter of divorce is required. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> R. Jannai said: A vote was taken at the college and it was decided that betrothal with a sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 630, n. 16. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Since B has been prevented, by death, from fulfilling his promise, he never became obligated to pay the 20*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks to A. Consequently his heirs owe nothing to A.
This question was also sent to R. Meir by his father, R. Baruch, who was one of the judges in this case.
SOURCES: Cr. 31; Pr. 50; Pr. 939; L. 355; Mord. B.M. 247; cf. Jacob Weil, Responsa 105; ibid. 142.