Yevamot 102

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>

אמר לך רבה בר רב הונא בין לר"ג בין לרבנן סברי אין זיקה והכא בגט אחר גט ומאמר אחר מאמר קמיפלגי

— Rabbah son of R. Huna can answer you: Both according to the view of R. Gamaliel and that of the Rabbis no levirate bond exists,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While Rabbah son of R. Huna himself does not follow this view but that of the authority who maintains that a levirate bond does exist. ');">⁴</span> and their difference here extends only to the question of a divorce that followed another divorce and a ma'amar that followed another ma'amar. The Master said, 'If he addressed a ma'amar to the one as well as to the other, he gives, according to R. Gamaliel, a letter of divorce to the first, submits also to her <i>halizah</i>, and is in consequence forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second are permitted to him'. Now, consider! Since R. Gamaliel holds that there is no [validity in a] ma'amar that follows another ma'amar, the first [sister-in-law] should even be permitted to contract the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ma'amar to the second had no validity at all. ');">⁵</span>

אמר מר עשה מאמר בזו ומאמר בזו רבן גמליאל אומר נותן גט לראשונה וחולץ לה ואסור בקרובותיה ומותר בקרובות שניה מכדי קסבר רבן גמליאל אין מאמר אחר מאמר ראשונה נמי תתייבם גזירה דלמא אתי לייבומי לשניה

— A preventive ordinance had to be made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That levirate marriage shall not be contracted with the first. ');">⁶</span> against the possibility of the levir's marrying the second. R. Johanan said: R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Simeon b. 'Azzai and R. Nehemiah are all of the opinion that a ma'amar constitutes a [fairly]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Rashi, a.l. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן רבן גמליאל וב"ש ור"ש ובן עזאי ורבי נחמיה כולהו סבירא להו מאמר קונה קנין גמור רבן גמליאל הא דאמרן

perfect <i>kinyan</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is regarded as a perfect kinyan in some, though not in all respects. Cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H] supra 19a. ');">⁸</span> As to R. Gamaliel, there is the statement already mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, that a ma'amar is invalid after another ma'amar, because the first had already constituted an kinyan. ');">⁹</span> Beth Shammai? — For we learned: If two of three brothers were married to two sisters and the third was unmarried, and when one of the sisters' husbands died, the unmarried brother addressed to her a ma'amar and then his second brother died, Beth Shammai say: His wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the widow to whom he had addressed the ma'amar. ');">¹⁰</span>

ב"ש דתנן שלשה אחין שנים מהם נשואין לשתי אחיות ואחד מופנה מת אחד מבעלי אחיות ועשה בה מופנה מאמר ואח"כ מת אחיו השני ב"ש אומרים אשתו עמו והלזו תצא משום אחות אשה

[remains] with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the ma'amar he had addressed to her constituted a kinyan and she is regarded as his wife. Her sister, when she subsequently became subject to the levirate marriage through the death of her husband, could no more be married to him since at that time she was already 'his wife's sister'. ');">¹¹</span> while the other is exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even from halizah. ');">¹²</span> as being his wife's sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ed. IV, 9, supra 29a. ');">¹³</span>

ר"ש דתניא אמר להו ר"ש לחכמים אם ביאת ראשון ביאה ביאת שני אינה ביאה אם ביאת ראשון אינה ביאה ביאת שני נמי אינה ביאה והא ביאת בן תשע דכמאמר שויוה רבנן וקאמר ר' שמעון אינה ביאה

R. Simeon? — For it was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages: If the cohabitation of the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two young levirs of the ages of nine years and one day. According to the Rabbis, if two levirs of such an age cohabited successively with their sister-in-law, the widow of their deceased brother, their acts have the same force as that of a ma'amar that followed a ma'amar. As with a ma'amar the second has also the validity of a betrothal and causes the prohibition of the sister-in-law to the first, so with cohabitation, the act of the second levir causes the sister-in-law to be forbidden to the first levir also. R. Simeon, however, regards the first act only as a valid kinyan. The other consequently is invalid. V. infra 96b. ');">¹⁴</span> is a valid act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Effecting a kinyan. ');">¹⁵</span> that of the second cannot have any validity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The kinyan of the first would not admit it. ');">¹⁶</span>

בן עזאי דתניא בן עזאי אומר יש מאמר אחר מאמר בשני יבמין ויבמה אחת ואין מאמר אחר מאמר בשתי יבמות ויבם אחד ר' נחמיה דתנן ר' נחמיה אומר אחת בעילה ואחת חליצה בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף אין אחריה כלום והא ביאה פסולה דכמאמר שויוה רבנן וקתני אין אחריה כלום:

if, however, the cohabitation of the first has no validity, then that of the second also has no validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 96b. ');">¹⁷</span> Now, the cohabitation of one who is nine years of age has been given by the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 96b. ');">¹⁷</span> the same force as that of a ma'amar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 339, n. 10. ');">¹⁸</span>

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.