Yevamot 100

אחת יבמה אחת ליבם אחד ואחת שתי יבמות ליבם אחד כיצד עשה מאמר בזו ומאמר בזו צריכות שני גיטין וחליצה מאמר בזו וגט לזו צריכה גט וחליצה מאמר בזו ובעל את זו צריכות ב' גיטין וחליצה מאמר בזו וחלץ לזו הראשונה צריכה גט

AND THE LAW IS THE SAME WHETHER THERE IS ONE SISTER-IN-LAW TO ONE LEVIR OR TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW TO ONE LEVIR. HOW?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How are the obligations of the levirate carried out where there is one levir and two sisters-in-law? ');">¹</span> — IF THE LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO THE ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sister-in-law. ');">²</span> AND A MA'AMAR TO THE OTHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sister-in-law. ');">²</span>

גט לזו וגט לזו צריכות הימנו חליצה גט לזו ובעל את זו צריכה גט וחליצה גט לזו ומאמר בזו צריכה גט וחליצה גט לזו וחלץ לזו אין אחר חליצה כלום

TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One for each woman, in accordance with the view of the Sages in our Mishnah that a ma'amar after a ma'amar is valid. ');">³</span> AND ONE <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With either. The halizah with one exempts her rival. ');">⁴</span> ARE REQUIRED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage, however, is now forbidden since one must not build two houses'. V. supra. ');">⁵</span> IF HE ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO ONE AND GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO THE OTHER, [THE ONE] REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage with her must not be consummated on account of the divorce of the second; hence the necessity for a divorce to annul the ma'amar which the halizah cannot do. ');">⁶</span>

חלץ וחלץ או חלץ ועשה מאמר נתן גט ובעל או בעל ובעל או בעל ועשה מאמר נתן גט וחלץ אין אחר חליצה כלום בין יבם אחד לשתי יבמות בין שני יבמין ליבמה אחת

AND [THE OTHER MUST PERFORM] THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To sever thereby the levirate bond which a letter of divorce cannot do. ');">⁷</span> IF HE ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO ONE AND COHABITED WITH THE OTHER, BOTH REQUIRE LETTERS OF DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the ma'amar and the cohabitation respectively. The second widow may not be retained in matrimony owing to the bond of the ma'amar with the first. ');">⁸</span> AND [ONE MUST PERFORM] THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other becoming thereby exempt from the levirate obligations. The divorce alone does not set the second free because the cohabitation with her was not the performance of a legal commandment but an unlawful act. ');">⁹</span> IF HE ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM THE OTHER, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE FIRST TO OBTAIN A LETTER OF DIVORCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halizah of this second cannot annul the force of the ma'amar of the first. ');">¹⁰</span>

חלץ ועשה מאמר נתן גט ובעל או בעל ועשה מאמר ונתן גט וחלץ אין אחר חליצה כלום בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף

IF THE LEVIR GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER, <i>HALIZAH</i> IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halizah is performed by one who thereby exempts the other. V. Gemara infra. ');">¹¹</span> IF HE GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND COHABITED WITH THE OTHER, [THE SECOND] REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is forbidden to the levir on account of the divorce of the first. ');">¹²</span> AND MUST ALSO PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Divorce alone is not enough since the cohabitation was unlawful (cf. supra note 3). ');">¹³</span> [IF HE GAVE] A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO THE OTHER, [THE SECOND] REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND [ONE OF THEM MUST PERFORM] THE <i>HALIZAH</i>. [IF HE GAVE] A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM THE OTHER, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halizah of the second sets both widows free; and the divorce of the first is of no consequence. ');">¹⁴</span>

והבעילה בזמן שהיא בתחלה אין אחריה כלום באמצע ובסוף יש אחריה כלום רבי נחמיה אומר אחת בעילה ואחת חליצה בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף אין אחריה כלום:

IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM THE ONE AND FROM THE OTHER, OR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> [FROM ONE] AND ADDRESSED [TO THE OTHER] A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER; OR IF HE COHABITED WITH THE ONE AND WITH THE OTHER, OR COHABITED [WITH THE ONE] AND ADDRESSED [TO THE OTHER] A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR SUBMITTED TO HER <i>HALIZAH</i>, NO ACT IS VALID AFTER THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf p. 329, n. 4. The relatives of the second widow are permitted to him as if he had not acted at all after the first halizah. ');">¹⁵</span> [THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW] WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR TO TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW OR TWO LEVIRS TO ONE SISTER-IN-LAW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the two levirs performed the above mentioned acts with the same widow. ');">¹⁶</span> [IF THE LEVIR]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was only one levir and one sister-in-law. ');">¹⁷</span> SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same sister-an-law. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בגט אחר גט ומאמר אחר מאמר אבל גט אחד ביבמה [ומאמר אחד ביבמה] מהני מ"ט

A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER; OR IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i>, NO ACT IS VALID AFTER THE <i>HALIZAH</i>, WHETHER [IT WAS PERFORMED] IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between a ma'amar and a divorce. If, e.g., he gave a letter of divorce to one, submitted to halizah from the other and then addressed a ma'amar to one of them. ');">¹⁹</span> OR AT THE END.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After a ma'amar and a divorce. The halizah is invariably valid, and any ma'amar addressed subsequently has no validity at all, and the widow requires no divorce. ');">²⁰</span> IN THE CASE OF COHABITATION, IF IT TOOK PLACE FIRST NO ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT HAS ANY VALIDITY; IF IT OCCURRED, HOWEVER, IN THE MIDDLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If. e.g.. he divorced one, cohabited with the other and addressed a ma'amar to a third, in which case the cohabitation, owing to the previous divorce, was unlawful. ');">²¹</span> OR AT THE END<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he divorced one, addressed a ma'amar to the other, and then cohabited with one of them. V. supra n. 7. ');">²²</span>

אמור רבנן גט ביבמה מהני משום דמהני בעלמא דאי אמרת לא מהני אמרי גט להוציאה וחליצה להוציאה ומדגט לא מהני חליצה נמי לא מהני ואתי למיבעל אחר חליצה

SOMETHING VALID<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate bond. ');">²³</span> STILL REMAINS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, in the first case (v. supra n. 7), the relatives of the last widow are forbidden to him, and in the second case (v. supra n. 8), halizah is required, since the levirate bond cannot be severed by a letter of divorce. ');">²⁴</span> R. NEHEMIAH SAID: WITH COHABITATION AS WITH <i>HALIZAH</i>, WHETHER IT TOOK PLACE IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE, OR AT THE END, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After cohabitation a letter of divorce without halizah is enough, and betrothal of the other after cohabitation with the first is invalid. ');">²⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Their difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of R. Gamaliel and the Sages in our Mishnah. ');">²⁶</span>

ומאי טעמא אמור רבנן מאמר ביבמה מהני משום דמהני בעלמא דאי אמרת לא מהני אמרי מאמר לקנות וביאה לקנות ומדמאמר לא מהני ביאה נמי לא מהניא ואתי למיבעל אחר ביאה

concerns only a letter of divorce after another letter of divorce and a ma'amar after another ma'amar, but one letter of divorce to one sister-in-law or one ma'amar to one sister-in-law is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorce prevents subsequent levirate marriage under the prohibition of 'that doth not build' etc. (v. supra p. 328, n. 4, second clause); and the ma'amar prevents the levirate marriage of a rival under the injunction, 'a levir may build one house but not two houses', and necessitates also a letter of divorce should it be desired to cancel the ma'amar. ');">²⁷</span> Why did the Rabbis say that a letter of divorce to one sister-in-law is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Pentateuch, surely, only halizah was prescribed and the prohibition under 'that doth not build' should apply to the prescribed ceremony only! ');">²⁸</span> — Because it is also valid elsewhere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the release of all married women. ');">²⁹</span> For should you suggest that it is not valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that the levir may marry the widow even after he gave her a letter of divorce. ');">³⁰</span>

ומ"ט אמור רבנן ביאה פסולה יש אחריה כלום

it might be argued that since a letter of divorce serves to release a woman and <i>halizah</i> serves to release a woman, as the letter of divorce is of no effect,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra n. 4. ');">³¹</span> so is the <i>halizah</i> also of no effect, and thus one would come to consummate marriage after <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus infringe a Pentateuchal prohibition. ');">³²</span> And why did the Rabbis say that a ma'amar with one sister-in-law is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding levirate marriage with her rival. Since, according to the Pentateuch, acquisition of the sister-in-law is effected by the consummation of the levirate marriage, that consummation only should have had the force of forbidding marriage with the rival. ');">³³</span> — Because it is valid elsewhere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual betrothal between man and woman, which is as binding as the consummation of marriage. ');">³⁴</span>

אמרי אי ביאה אחר הגט היא גזירה ביאה אחר הגט משום ביאה אחר חליצה ואי ביאה אחר מאמר היא גזירה ביאה אחר מאמר משום ביאה אחר ביאה

For should you say that it is not valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that after a ma'amar had been addressed to a sister-in-law her rival may be married. ');">³⁵</span> it might be argued that since a ma'amar serves the purpose of acquisition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual betrothal between man and woman, which is as binding as the consummation of marriage. ');">³⁴</span> and cohabitation serves the purpose of acquisition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 7. ');">³⁶</span> as a ma'amar is of no effect,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without subsequent cohabitation. ');">³⁷</span>

ומ"ט אמור רבנן האי חליצה פסולה אין אחריה כלום אמרי מאי לגזור נגזור חליצה אחר הגט משום חליצה אחר חליצה כל כי הני תחלוץ ותיזיל

so is cohabitation also of no effect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless there was also a ma'amar. ');">³⁸</span> and one would thus consummate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a rival. ');">³⁹</span> after an act of cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one of the widows. Such a marriage. however, would infringe (v. supra note 1) a Pentateuchal prohibition. ');">⁴⁰</span> And why did the Rabbis say that after an invalid cohabitation something<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate bond. ');">⁴¹</span>

ליגזור חליצה אחר מאמר משום חליצה אחר ביאה אטו חליצה אחר מאמר מי לא בעיא גט למאמרו חליצה אחר ביאה נמי בעיא גט לביאתו

lingers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah being required in the case of the second widow in addition to the letter of divorce. V. supra p. 330, nn. 6 and 7. ');">⁴²</span> — It might be replied that if it is a cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one sister-in-law. ');">⁴³</span> after a letter of divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the other. ');">⁴⁴</span> a preventive measure was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 332. n. 16. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אמר רבא

against cohabitation after <i>halizah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were a letter of divorce alone, without halizah, permitted, it might have been assumed that as unlawful cohabitation is so effective it might also be effective enough to annul a previous halizah. ');">⁴⁶</span> and if it is a cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one sister-in-law. ');">⁴³</span> after a ma'amar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the other. ');">⁴⁴</span> a preventive measure had to be made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 332, n. 26, and p. 330, nn. 2 and 3. ');">⁴⁷</span> against cohabitation after cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It might have been assumed that as unlawful cohabitation has the force of validity even after a ma'amar which is a legal kinyan, it has also the same force after a kinyan that had been effected through lawful cohabitation. Acting on this argument one would infringe the prohibition of marriage with one's brother's wife. ');">⁴⁸</span> And why did the Rabbis say that after the invalid <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Performed after a divorce or a ma'amar. ');">⁴⁹</span> nothing lingers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the levir subsequent to such a halizah address a ma'amar or give a letter of divorce to a third sister-in-law his act would have no validity whatsoever. ');">⁵⁰</span> — It may be replied: What kind of preventive measure could have been enacted! Should <i>halizah</i> after a letter of divorce be forbidden as a preventive measure against <i>halizah</i> after <i>halizah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that a levir does not submit to the halizah of two sisters-in-law in succession, and two levirs do not submit in succession to the halizah of one sister-in-law. ');">⁵¹</span> Under such circumstances, surely, <i>halizah</i> might well be indefinitely continued!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And none will be the worse for it. ');">⁵²</span> And should <i>halizah</i> after a ma'amar be forbidden as a preventive measure against <i>halizah</i> after cohabitation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it be not assumed that halizah without a letter of divorce is sufficient after an act of cohabitation. ');">⁵³</span> Surely [it may be replied] is not in the case of <i>halizah</i> after a ma'amar, a letter of divorce required in respect of one's ma'amar? So also in the case of <i>halizah</i> after cohabitation, a letter of divorce is required in respect of one's cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The implication of 'nothing lingers after an unlawful halizah' is the invalidity of all subsequent acts. Any previous act such as ma'amar or cohabitation is valid, and a letter of divorce to annul it is certainly required. ');">⁵⁴</span> Raba said: