Yevamot

from one house.  Nor must he take one In levirate marriage and thereby exempt the other, for it is possible that the levirate bond is not as binding as actual marriage, and the two sisters-in-law would thus be coming from two houses.  From this it clearly follows that he  is in doubt.  And should you reply that Biblically one of the widows may indeed be taken in levirate marriage and the other is thereby exempt, but that this procedure had Rabbinically been forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of the assumption that where two sisters-in-law came from two houses  one may be taken in levirate marriage and the other is thereby exempt without any further ceremonial;  surely [it may be pointed out] R. Simeon's reason is because of his doubt as to the validity of the levir's ma'amar!  For it was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages, 'If the ma'amar of the second brother is valid he  is marrying the wife of the second; and if the ma'amar of the second is invalid he is marrying the wife of the first'! — Said Abaye to him:  Do you not make any distinction between the levirate bond with one levir and the levirate bond with two levirs? It is quite possible that R. Simeon said the levirate bond is like actual marriage in the case of one levir only  but not in that of two levirs. Does R. Simeon, however, recognize such a distinction?  Surely it was taught: R. Simeon has laid down a general rule that wherever the birth  preceded the marriage  the widow is neither to perform halizah nor to be taken in levirate marriage. If the marriage  preceded the birth  she may either perform the halizah or be taken In levirate marriage. Does not this apply to one levir?  And yet It is stated 'she is neither to perform halizah nor to be taken in levirate marriage'!  — No; it applies to two levirs.  But in the case of one levir,  may she in such circumstances also  either perform halizah or contract levirate marriage? If so, instead of stating, 'If the marriage preceded the birth she may either perform halizah or be taken in levirate marriage' the distinction should have been drawn in this very case itself,  thus: 'This applies only to the case of two brothers.in.law but with one brother-in-law she may either perform halizah or be taken in levirate marriage'! — The entire passage dealt with two brothers-in-law. What, then, is meant by the general rule?  And a further objection  was raised by R. Oshaia: If there were three brothers and two of them were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughter's daughters or to a woman and her son's daughter, behold these  must  perform the halizah  but may not be taken in levirate marriage.  R. Simeon, however, exempts them.  Now, if it be assumed that R. Simeon is of the opinion that the 'levirate bond' has the same force as actual marriage, let [the third brother] take the first widow  In levirate marriage and let the other  be thereby exempt.  R. Amram replied: The meaning of 'exempt'  is that he exempts the second widow,  But has it not been taught: R. Simeon exempts them both'?  -Raba replied: The second of the one pair and the second of the other pair.  Raba, however, was mistaken [in the interpretation] of the four pairs.  For, in the first instance, we have twice the word 'or',  and, furthermore, [if Raba's interpretation were the correct one]  it should [have read], 'R. Simeon exempts the four'.  Furthermore, it was taught: R. Simeon exempts both  from the halizah and from the levirate marriage, for it is said in the Scriptures, And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to he a rival to her,  when they become rivals to one another  you may not marry even one of them!  But, said R. Ashi: If they  had become subject [to the levir] one after the other, the law would indeed have been so.  Here,  however, we are dealing with the case where both become subject to him at the same time; and R. Simeon shares the view of R. Jose the Galilean who stated, 'It is possible to ascertain simultaneous occurrence'. R. Papa  said: R. Simeon differs  only where the levirate marriage  took place first, and the birth  afterwards; he does not differ, however, when the birth  occurred first, and the marriage  took place afterwards; and both these cases  are required on account of the Rabbis,  and  [a stronger case is given after a weaker] 'not only this  but also that'. It was taught in agreement with R. papa  and in contradiction to R. Oshaia: If one of two contemporary brothers died without Issue, and the second intended to address a ma 'amar to his deceased brother's wife but before he was able to do so a third brother was born and he himself died, the first widow is exempt  as 'the wife of the brother who was not his contemporary', and the second  may either perform the halizah or be taken in levirate marriage. If, however, he  addressed a ma'amar to the widow and subsequently a third brother was born, or if a third brother was born first and he  addressed the ma'amar to the widow subsequently, and died, the first widow is exempt  as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' while the second  must perform the halizah,  though she may not be taken in levirate marriage.