Yevamot 101

Chapter 101

א מ"ט דר"ג דמספקא ליה גט אי דחי אי לא דחי מאמר אי קני אי לא קני גט אי דחי אי לא דחי אי קמא דחי בתרא מאי קעביד אי קמא לא דחי בתרא נמי לא דחי

1 What is R. Gamaliel's reason?1 — Because he was in doubt whether a letter of divorce does, or does not set aside [the levirate bond, and whether] a ma'amar does, or does not effect a kinyan.2 'Whether a letter of divorce does, or does not set aside the levirate bond': If the first3 does set aside [the levirate bond], what purpose could the latter serve?4

ב מאמר אי קני אי לא קני אי קמא קני בתרא מאי קעביד ואי קמא לא קני בתרא נמי לא קני

2 If the first3 does not set aside [the levirate bond], the latter also does not set it aside. 'Whether a ma'amar does, or does not effect a kinyan': if the first5 does effect a kinyan, what purpose could the latter serve?4 And if the first5

ג איתיביה אביי ומודה ר"ג שיש גט אחר מאמר ומאמר אחר הגט וגט אחר ביאה ומאמר ומאמר אחר ביאה וגט

3 effects no kinyan, the latter also does not. Abaye raised the following objection against him: R. Gamaliel, however, admits that 'there is [validity in] a letter of divorce after a ma'amar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the ma'amar was addressed to one of the widows and the letter of divorce was subsequently given to the other, the first also is forbidden levirate marriage, while the relatives of both are forbidden to the levir. ');">6 in a ma'amar after a letter of divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a letter of divorce was given to one of the widows first, and a ma'amar was subsequently addressed to the second, a letter of divorce must also be given to the second in order to annul thereby the force of the ma'amar. ');">7 in a letter of divorce after cohabitation and a ma'amar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was addressed to one of the widows prior to the cohabitation with the second that preceded the letter of divorce to the third. The validity of the letter of divorce causes the prohibition to the levir of the relatives of the third widow. ');">8

ד ואי מספקא ליה לר"ג תהוי כביאה דלכתחלה ותקני דהא תנן הבעילה בזמן שהיא בתחלה אין אחריה כלום

4 and in a ma'amar after cohabitation and a letter of divorce'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given to one of the widows prior to the cohabitation with the second that preceded the ma'amar addressed to the third. The ma'amar constitutes a kinyan, and the relatives of the third widow are forbidden to the levir, while she herself can be released by a letter of divorce only. ');">9 Now, if R. Gamaliel was in doubt,10 the cohabitation11 should be regarded as if it had taken place at the beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the act that follows it, whether it be the delivery of a letter of divorce or the addressing of a ma'amar, should in any case be invalid: In the case of a ma'amar, cohabitation, and divorce, if the ma'amar with the first was valid and effected kinyan, the cohabitation with the second was obviously invalid and much more so the letter of divorce that was given to the third. If, on the other hand, the ma'amar to the first was invalid, the cohabitation with the second widow that followed was obviously valid and there could consequently be no validity in the letter of divorce that was subsequently given to the third. Similarly in the case of divorce, cohabitation and ma'amar, if the letter of divorce given to the first widow was valid the cohabitation that followed had no validity and much more so the ma'amar that came last. If, on the other hand, the letter of divorce given to the first widow was invalid, the cohabitation with the second widow that followed was obviously valid and consequently there could be no validity in the ma'amar that was subsequently addressed to the third widow. In both cases, then, cohabitation which took place between the other two acts should be as valid as if it had taken place at the beginning. ');">12

ה אלא אמר אביי לעולם פשיטא ליה לר"ג בגט דדחי ומאמר דקני מיהו אמור רבנן הא יבמה בחד צד מהני בה גט ובחד צד מהני בה מאמר גט אחר גט לא דחי דהא דחה ליה קמא ומאמר אחר מאמר לא קני דהא קני ליה קמא גט אחר מאמר ומאמר אחר הגט האי מילתא קא דחי והאי מילתא קא קני

5 and thus constitute a kinyan; for surely we have learnt, IN THE CASE OF COHABITATION, IF IT TOOK PLACE FIRST, NO ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT HAS ANY VALIDITY! But, said Abaye, though obvious to R. Gamaliel that a letter of divorce does set aside the levirate bond and that a ma'amar does effect a kinyan,13 the Rabbis have nevertheless ruled that with the sister-in-law a letter of divorce is partially valid and a ma'amar is partially valid. Consequently, a letter of divorce after another letter of divorce does not set aside the levirate bond since this14 was already set aside by the first,15

ו ורבנן כל חד וחד תקינו ליה רבנן גט ומאמר ביבמה

6 and a ma'amar after a ma'amar does not constitute a kinyan since this kinyan16 has already been constituted by the first;15 with a letter of divorce after a ma'amar, and a ma'amar after a letter of divorce, however, the one act17 sets aside18

ז והאי ביאה פסולה עדיפא ממאמר וגריעא ממאמר עדיפא ממאמר דאילו מאמר אחר מאמר לא מהני ואילו ביאה אחר מאמר מהני וגריעא ממאמר דאילו מאמר אחר הגט קני לכוליה שיורא דגט ואילו ביאה אחר הגט לא קניא ליה לכוליה שיורא דגט

7 while the other19 effects a kinyan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. In the case of a divorce after a ma'amar, that part of the levirate bond with the first widow which the ma'amar did not effect is set aside by the letter of divorce that was given to the second. Similarly, where there are two levirs and one widow, whatever was not covered by the kinyan of the ma'amar of the first levir is set aside by the letter of divorce of the second. So also in the case of a ma'amar after a letter of divorce, whatever part of the levirate bond remained after the letter of divorce had been given to the first widow (or to one widow by the first levir) is brought under the kinyan constituted by the ma'amar that has been addressed to the second widow (or to the one widow by the second levir). ');">20 (And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages in our Mishnah. How, in view of what has just been explained — can they maintain that A LETTER OF DIVORCE HAS VALIDITY AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE, AND A MA'AMAR AFTER ANOTHER MA'AMAR? ');">21 — [They hold that] the Rabbis have instituted for every levir a letter of divorce and a ma'amar in respect of every sister-in-law.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages in our Mishnah. How, in view of what has just been explained — can they maintain that A LETTER OF DIVORCE HAS VALIDITY AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE, AND A MA'AMAR AFTER ANOTHER MA'AMAR? ');">22

ח ת"ר כיצד אר"ג אין גט אחר גט שתי יבמות שנפלו לפני יבם אחד ונתן גט לזו וגט לזו ר"ג אומר חולץ לראשונה ואסור בקרובותיה ומותר בקרובות שניה

8 But as to an invalid cohabitation23 [according to R. Gamaliel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that a letter of divorce following a cohabitation which followed a ma'amar, and a ma'amar following a cohabitation which followed a letter of divorce are valid. ');">24 it is [in one respect] of superior force to a ma'amar and [in another respect] of inferior force to a ma'amar. It is superior to a ma'amar, since whereas a ma'amar after another ma'amar is not effective,25 an act of cohabitation after a ma'amar is effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As may be inferred from the ruling concerning 'a letter of divorce after cohabitation and a ma'amar', which implies that cohabitation after a ma'amar is valid (Rashi). Cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H] and [H] a.l. ');">26

ט וחכמים אומרים נתן גט לזו וגט לזו אסור בקרובות שתיהן וחליצה לאחת מהן וכן אתה אומר בשני יבמים ויבמה אחת

9 It is inferior to a ma'amar, for whereas a ma'amar after a letter of divorce constitutes a kinyan of all that the letter of divorce has left,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For should a ma'amar, subsequent to the first, be addressed to a third widow it would be altogether invalid, R. Gamaliel invariably admitting no ma'amar after another ma'amar whether the first one was, or was not preceded by a letter of divorce. ');">27 cohabitation after a letter of divorce does not constitute a kinyan of all that the divorce has left.28 Our Rabbis taught; How [are we to understand] R. Gamaliel's statement that there is [no validity in] a letter of divorce after another letter of divorce? If two sisters-in-law have fallen to the lot of one levir, and he gave a letter of divorce to one as well as to the other, he submits, in accordance with R. Gamaliel's statement, to halizah from the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he could certainly submit to halizah from the second, the letter of divorce to whom is invalid, and thereby exempt the first also. He is advised, however, to submit to halizah from the first because by so doing he averts the prohibition to him of the second widow's relatives who, had he submitted to her halizah, would have become forbidden to him as the 'relatives of his haluzah'. The prohibition to him of the relatives of the first as 'relatives of his haluzah' is of no practical consequence since they are already, owing to the divorce he had given her forbidden to him as the 'relatives of his divorcee. ');">29 and is forbidden to marry her relatives,30

י כיצד אמר ר"ג אין מאמר אחר מאמר שתי יבמות שנפלו לפני יבם אחד ועשה מאמר בזו ומאמר בזו רבן גמליאל אומר נותן גט לראשונה וחולץ לה ואסור בקרובותיה ומותר בקרובות שניה וחכמים אומרים נותן גט לשתיהן ואסור בקרובות שתיהן וחליצה לאחת מהן וכן אתה אומר בשני יבמים ויבמה אחת

10 though the relatives of the second one are permitted to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is neither his haluzah nor his divorcee, the halizah not having been performed by her and the letter of divorce that was given to her being invalid. ');">31 But the Sages said: If he gave a letter of divorce to one and to the other, he is forbidden to marry the relatives of both32 and he submits to halizah from either of them. And the same law applies where there are two Ievirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And each of them gave a letter of divorce to the one sister-in-law. According to R. Gamaliel, halizah is performed with the first levir and the second levir is permitted to marry her relatives; while according to the Rabbis her relatives are forbidden to both levirs and the halizah is performed with either of them. ');">33 and one sister-in-law.

יא אמר מר נותן גט לזו וגט לזו ר"ג אומר חולץ לראשונה ואסור בקרובותיה ומותר בקרובות שניה לימא תיהוי תיובתא דשמואל דאמר שמואל חלץ לבעלת הגט לא נפטרה צרה

11 What did R. Gamaliel mean by his statement that34 there is no [validity in] a ma'amar after another ma'amar'? If two sisters-in-law have fallen to the lot of one levir, and he addressed a ma'amar to the one as well as to the other, he gives, according to R. Gamaliel, a letter of divorce to the first, submits also to her halizah, and is in consequence forbidden to marry her relatives,35 though the relatives of the second are permitted to him.36 The Sages, however, said: He gives letters of divorce to both, and the relatives of both are forbidden to him,32

יב אמר לך שמואל כי אמרי אנא אליבא דמאן דאמר יש זיקה ור"ג סבר אין זיקה

12 while he submits to halizah from one of them. And the same law is to be applied where there are two levirs and one sister-in-law.37 The Master said, 'If he gave38 a letter of divorce to one as well as to the other, he submits, according to R. Gamaliel's statement, to halizah from the first and is forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second are permitted to him'. Must this be assumed to present an objection against a ruling of Samuel, since Samuel stated, 'If he submitted to halizah from the one39 who had been divorced,40

יג ומדר"ג סבר אין זיקה

13 her rival41 is not thereby exempt'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 27a. A halizah performed by one whose levirate bond had been weakened by divorce cannot sever the levirate bond of the other which had never been weakened by divorce and had retained therefore its full force (v. supra n. 2). This is contradictory to R. Gamaliel's view according to which the halizah of the first, though it followed her divorce which had weakened her levirate bond, is effective enough to exempt her rival whose levirate bond retained its full force, since her divorce was invalid and might be regarded as never having taken place. ');">42 — Samuel can answer you: What I said was in agreement with him who maintains that a levirate bond exists,43 while R. Gamaliel holds the opinion that no levirate bond exists.44 Since R. Gamaliel, however, is of the opinion that no levirate bond exists,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter