Yevamot

Is this an illustration of a letter of divorce after a letter of divorce?  Rab Judah replied it is this that was meant: [The illustration of] A LETTER OF DIVORCE AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE and OF A MA'AMAR AFTER AN OTHER MA'AMAR is as stated;  but  HOW IS THE RELEASE [FROM THE LEVIRATE BOND EFFECTED] where there is one levir and one sister-in-law? — IF A LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO PERFORM THE HALIZAH WITH HIM. IF HE ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND THEN COHABITED WITH HER, BEHOLD THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PRECEPT. Might it be suggested that this provides support for R. Huna? For R. Huna stated: The precept of marriage with a sister-in-law is properly performed when the levir first betroths, and then cohabits with her.  — One might read,  THIS IS also IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PRECEPT. Is not this obvious? — It might have been presumed that since a Master stated, 'If the levir addressed a ma'amar to his sister-in-law, the levirate bond disappears, and he comes under the bond of betrothal and marriage',  he  is not performing the commandment,  hence we were taught [that he does]. [To turn to] the main text. 'R. Huna said: The precept of marriage with a sister-in-law is properly performed when the levir first betroths and then cohabits with her. If he cohabited with her, and then addressed to her a ma'amar a kinyan is nevertheless constituted.' 'If he cohabited with her and then addressed to her a ma'amar is so obvious,  since he had acquired her by the cohabitation!  — Read, rather, 'If he cohabited with her without previously addressing to her a ma'amar a kinyan is nevertheless constituted'. But was it not taught that the penalty of flogging  is inflicted upon him?  — Chastisement  was meant, which is a Rabbinical penalty.  For Rab ordered the chastisement  of any person who betrothed by cohabitation,  who betrothed in the open street,  or who betrothed without previous negotiation;  who annulled a letter of divorce,  or who made a declaration against a letter of divorce;  who was insolent  towards the representative of the Rabbis,  or who allowed a Rabbinical ban upon him to remain for thirty days and did not come to the Beth din to request the removal of that ban; and of a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law's house. [You say,] only if he lives,  but not if he only passes by? Surely, a man once passed by the door of his father-in-law's house, and R. Shesheth ordered his chastisement! — That man was suspected of immoral relations with his mother-in-law. The Nehardeans stated: Rab ordered the chastisement of none of these  except him who betrothed by cohabitation without preliminary negotiation. Others say: Even with preliminary negotiation; because [such a practice is sheer] licentiousness. Our Rabbis taught: How is betrothal effected with a ma'amar? — If he gave her  some money or anything of value.  And how is it effected by a deed? — 'How is it effected by a deed'? Surely as has been stated:  If he wrote for her on a piece of paper or on a sherd, although it was not worth even a perutah,  'Behold thou art be trothed unto me'!  Abaye replied, It is this that was meant: How is the deed of the kethubah  in a levirate marriage [to be drawn up]? He writes for her. 'I, So-and-so, son of So-and-so, undertake to feed and maintain in a suitable manner my sister-in-law So-and-so, provided that her kethubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband'.  If, however, she is unable to obtain it from her first husband, provision was made by the Rabbis [that she is to receive it] from the second,  in order that it may not be easy for him to divorce her. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: What is the law if he gave her  a letter of divorce and said, 'Behold thou art divorced from me, but thou art not permitted to any other man'?  The divorce of a sister-in-law being Rabbinically valid, [shall I say that] only a divorce which is valid in the case of a married woman is valid in the case of a sister-in-law, but a divorce which is invalid in the case of a married woman is also invalid in the case of a sister-in-law,  or [had provision to be made here  against] the possibility of mistaking it for an unqualified divorce?  — The other replied: Provision has to be made against the possibility of mistaking it for an unqualified divorce.  Rabbah b. Hanan demurred: Now then,  had he given her a mere scrap of paper would he also have disqualified her?  The other replied: There [the scrap of paper] does not cause the woman to be unfit for a priest;  here, however, [the qualified divorce] does cause the woman to become unfit for a priest,  for it was taught, Neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband,  even if she was only divorced from her husband  they may not take her,  and that is what was meant by the 'scent of the divorce' that causes a woman's unfitness for a priest. Rami b. Hama said: It has been definitely  stated that if a man said to a scribe, 'Write a letter of divorce for my betrothed so that when I have married her I may divorce her' the letter of divorce is valid,  because it was in his power  to divorce her;