> I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case. The Talmud brought two different hypot

> I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case. The Talmud brought two different hypothetical cases. One where she was his yevama, and one where she was not. That's because there are two different laws whereby it makes a difference if sexual intercourse is considered to have occurred or not. In fact, the main topic of the tractate is the yevama case, and the non-yevama case is brought by-the-by. Summary of the laws of yevamot: If a man dies childless, his brother has an obligation to marry the widow, if they both consent. If they do not, a procedure called halitzah is performed instead. Until one or the other happens, the widow can't marry anyone else. If they do decide to marry, unlike regular marriage, there is no marriage ceremony - sexual intercourse is all that is needed to make them man and wife with all that entails. That's why it talks about "acquiring", but it's not in the sense of property rights (there are none!) - rather in the sense of being married (think about the English phrase "my wife"). Hope that clears it up. Now that Shabbat is over, the main bulk of those who learn the Talmud can join the conversation :)