Yevamot

Is it not possible [that he referred] to the ruling 'DOES NOT DISQUALIFY'!  Or else [it might be argued], whence is it proved that R. Huna's explanation  is tenable? Is it not possible that R. Huna's explanation is altogether untenable and that they  differ on the ruling of R. Hamnuna who stated that 'A woman awaiting the decision of the levir, who played the harlot, is forbidden to her levir';  Rab maintaining that she 'has the status of a married woman' and is consequently prohibited  by reason of her immoral act,  while Samuel maintains that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and does not therefore, become prohibited  by reason of her immoral act? Or else [it might be replied] that they  differ on the question whether betrothal of a sister-in-law  is valid, Rab maintaining that she 'has the status of a married woman' and betrothal  with her is, in consequence, invalid, while Samuel maintains that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and betrothal  with her is, therefore, valid. But on this question  they  had already disputed once!  — The one was stated as an inference from the other. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS TOLD 'YOUR WIFE IS DEAD AND HE MARRIED HER PATERNAL SISTER; [AND WHEN HE WAS TOLD] 'SHE  ALSO IS DEAD', HE MARRIED HER MATERNAL SISTER;  SHE  TOO IS DEAD, AND HE MARRIED HER PATERNAL SISTER;  'SHE  ALSO IS DEAD, AND HE MARRIED HER MATERNAL SISTER;  AND LATER IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL ALIVE, HE IS PERMITTED TO LIVE WITH THE FIRST,  THIRD  AND FIFTH,  WHO ALSO EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS;  BUT HE IS FORBIDDEN TO LIVE WITH THE SECOND OR THE FOURTH,  AND COHABITATION  WITH ONE OF THESE DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL. IF, HOWEVER, HE  COHABITED WITH THE SECOND AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST,  HE IS PERMITTED TO LIVE WITH THE SECOND  AND FOURTH,  WHO ALSO EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS;  BUT HE  IS FORBIDDEN TO LIVE  WITH THE THIRD AND WITH THE FIFTH, AND COHABITATION  WITH ONE OF THESE DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL. A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY RENDERS  [HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE] WITH HIS BROTHERS, AND HIS BROTHERS RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM, BUT WHILE HE RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, THE BROTHERS RENDER HER UNFIT BOTH FROM THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. IN WHAT MANNER?  A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW RENDERS HER UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE] WITH HIS BROTHERS; THE BROTHERS, HOWEVER, RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM WHETHER THEY COHABITED WITH HER, ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE OR SUBMITTED TO HER HALIZAH. GEMARA. Did not all those [marriages  take place] after the death of the first wife!  — R. Shesheth replied: [By this  was meant]. AFTER THE ASCERTAINED  DEATH OF THE FIRST WIFE. A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. Does a boy of the age of nine years and one day cause unfitness  [only where his act took place] at the outset,  but if at the end  he causes no unfitness? Surely R. Zebid son of R. Oshaia learnt: If [a brother]  addressed a ma'amar to his sister-in-law, his brother of the age of nine years and one day, cohabiting with her afterwards, causes her to be unfit [for marriage with him]!  — It may be replied: Cohabitation causes unfitness  even [if it took place] at the end,  while a ma'amar causes unfitness [only if it was addressed] at the outset,  but if at the end,  it causes no unfitness. But does cohabitation  cause unfitness even [if it took place] at the end? Surely it was taught: BUT WHILE HE RENDERS HER UNFIT FROM THE OUTSET ONLY, THEY [RENDER HER UNFIT] BOTH FROM THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc!  — Something, indeed, is here missing, and this is the proper reading: 'A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY RENDERS [HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] UNFIT [FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIS BROTHERS, if his action took place] AT THE OUTSET, but they RENDER HER UNFIT FOR HIM BOTH AT THE OUTSET AND AT THE END. This is applicable only in the case of a ma'amar, but cohabitation  causes unfitness even [if it took place] at the end. IN WHAT MANNER? A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY WHO COHABITED WITH HIS SISTER-IN-LAW  RENDERS HER UNFIT FOR MARRIAGE WITH HIS BROTHERS. Has his ma'amar, however, any validity  at all?  Surely it was taught: A boy of the age of nine years and one day renders [his sister-in-law] unfit for his brothers  by one kind of act only, while the brothers render her unfit for him by four kinds of acts. He renders her unfit for the brothers by cohabitation,  while the brothers render her unfit for him by cohabitation, by a ma'amar, by a letter of divorce and by halizah!  — Cohabitation, which causes unfitness both from the outset and at the end, presented to him a definite law,  [the law of the] ma'amar, however, which causes unfitness front the outset only but not at the end, could not be regarded by him as definite. So it was also stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: He  has [the power to give] a letter of divorce.  And so said R. Tahlifa b. Abimi: He  has [the power to address] a ma'amar. It was taught likewise: He  has [the right to give] a letter of divorce  and he has [the right to address] a ma'amar;  so R. Meir. Could R. Meir, however, hold the view [that such a boy] has [the power to give] a letter of divorce?  Surely it was taught: Cohabitation with a boy of the age of nine years [and one day] was given the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult; and R. Meir said: The halizah of a boy of the age of nine years was given the same validity as that of a letter of divorce by an adult.  Now, if that were so,  it should have been stated, 'As that of his own letter of divorce'! — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: He  has [the right],  but [his divorce is of a] lesser validity.  For according to R. Gamaliel who ruled that there is no [validity in a] letter of divorce after another letter of divorce, his ruling is applicable only [in the case of a divorce] by an adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce] by an adult after that of a minor is effective,  while according to the Rabbis who ruled that a letter of divorce given after another letter of divorce is valid, the ruling applies only to [a divorce] by adult after that of an adult, or one by a minor after that of a minor, but [a divorce by] a minor after [that of] an adult is not effective.