Yevamot 105

יש זיקה ואתאי חליצה אפקעתיה לזיקה ורבנן סברי אין זיקה מעיקרא אילו אמר לה התקדשי לי בזיקת יבמין מי לא מהני השתא נמי מהני

that a levirate bond does exist<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the validity of such a formula elsewhere is absolutely dependent on the existence of the levirate bond. ');">¹</span> but the <i>halizah</i> had previously removed that [levirate] bond.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the invalidity of the formula that followed it. ');">²</span> The Rabbis, however, hold that no levirate bond exists.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate bond does not in any way add to, or subtract from the force of the formula. ');">³</span>

רב שרביא אמר בחליצה כשירה אי דאמר לה התקדשי לי בזיקת יבמין כ"ע לא פליגי דלא מהני והכא בחליצה פסולה קמיפלגי מר סבר חליצה פסולה פוטרת ומר סבר חליצה פסולה אינה פוטרת

If, then, he had said to her at first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the performance of the halizah. ');">⁴</span> 'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate' would not his word have been valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 4. ');">⁵</span> Consequently it is now also valid.

רב אשי אמר דכ"ע חליצה פסולה אינה פוטרת והכא ביש תנאי בחליצה קמיפלגי מר סבר יש תנאי בחליצה ומר סבר אין תנאי בחליצה

R. Sherabia said: Had a proper <i>halizah</i> been performed all would agree that if he said to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the halizah, for instance, which has been performed after a divorce. ');">⁶</span> 'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate', there is no validity in his betrothal. Here, however, the dispute relates to a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi. ');">⁷</span> holds that a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character provides [all the necessary] exemption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the invalidity of the formula that followed it. ');">²</span>

רבינא אמר דכ"ע יש תנאי בחליצה והכא בתנאי כפול קמיפלגי מר סבר בעינן תנאי כפול ומר סבר לא בעינן תנאי כפול:

and the Masters hold that a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character provides no exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original bond remains and the halizah is altogether disregarded. Hence the validity of the formula after an improper halizah. ');">⁸</span> R. Ashi said: [No;] All agree that a <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character provides no exemption. Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis. ');">⁹</span> however, the dispute centres round the question whether a condition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made by the levir. If, e.g., he submitted to the halizah on the understanding that the widow would give him a certain sum of money or render him some service. ');">¹⁰</span>

חלץ ועשה מאמר ונתן גט ובעל וכו': וניתני נמי אין אחר ביאה כלום אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו תני אין אחר ביאה כלום ותנא דידן התרת יבמה לשוק עדיפא ליה:

may affect the validity of <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the condition had not been fulfilled. ');">¹¹</span> The Masters hold that a condition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the condition had not been fulfilled. ');">¹¹</span> does affect the validity of a <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the halizah is invalid (v. supra n. 3) the original bond remains and the formula is consequently valid. ');">¹²</span>

אחד יבמה אחת אחד שתי יבמות: מתני' דלא כבן עזאי דתניא בן עזאי אומר יש מאמר אחר מאמר בשני יבמין ויבמה אחת ואין מאמר אחר מאמר בשתי יבמות ויבם אחד:

and the Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi. ');">¹³</span> holds that no condition may affect the validity of a <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the condition was not fulfilled the halizah remains valid. Hence there could be no force in the formula that follows it. ');">¹⁴</span> Rabina said: [No;] All agree that a condition does affect a <i>halizah</i>. Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis. ');">⁹</span>

כיצד מאמר לזו וכו': לימא מסייע ליה לשמואל דאמר שמואל חלץ לבעלת מאמר לא נפטרה צרתה

however, the dispute is dependent on the question of the doubled condition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], a stipulation and its alternative. The classical example is the condition made by Moses with the children of Gad and Reuben: If they passed the Jordan, the land of Gilead would be given to them; if they did not pass the Jordan, they would take their share in the land of Canaan. V. Num. XXXII, 29f. ');">¹⁵</span> The Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi. ');">¹³</span> holds that a doubled condition is essential<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the levir's condition was not a 'doubled one' it has no validity. The halizah is consequently valid and the formula following it is invalid. ');">¹⁶</span>

ותיובתא דרב יוסף מי קתני חולץ חלץ קתני דיעבד:

and the Masters hold the opinion that a doubled condition is unnecessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The condition being valid, the halizah depending on it, where it is unfulfilled, is invalid. Hence the validity of the levirate formula. ');">¹⁷</span> IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since that section of our Mishnah deals not only with (a) certain acts after halizah but also with (b) certain acts after cohabitation. ');">¹⁸</span> — Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., 'Both Abaye and Raba read'. The reading that follows actually occurs in Tosef. Yeb. VII. Cf. [H] ');">¹⁹</span>

גט לזו וגט לזו כו': לימא מסייע ליה לרבה בר רב הונא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא חליצה פסולה צריכה לחזר על כל האחין מאי צריכות צריכות דעלמא:

'NO ACT IS VALID AFTER cohabitation'. But our Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why did he omit the mention of cohabitation? ');">²⁰</span> — [The statement regarding] the permissibility of the sister-in-law to marry anyone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the permissibility though halizah. ');">²¹</span> was preferred by him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence halizah only was mentioned. After cohabitation the sister in-law is permitted to one man (the levir) only. As the Tanna preferred the case of halizah to that of cohabitation and as the invalidity of any acts after cohabitation may be inferred from the invalidity of those after halizah, the Tanna did not consider it necessary to mention cohabitation at all. ');">²²</span>

גט לזו וחלץ לזו: לימא מסייע ליה לשמואל ותהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף מי קתני חולץ חלץ קתני דיעבד:

THE LAW IS THE SAME WHETHER THERE IS ONE SISTER-IN LAW&nbsp;… OR TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW. Our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which admits the validity of a ma'amar after another ma'amar in the case of two sisters-in-law and one levir, ');">²³</span> is not in agreement with the ruling of Ben 'Azzai. For it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated: A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each one of whom in turn addressed a ma'amar to the sister-in-law. ');">²⁴</span> and one sister-in-law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each levir being entitled to a ma'amar. V. supra 51a. ');">²⁵</span>

חלץ וחלץ או חלץ וכו': וליתני נמי אין אחר ביאה כלום אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו תני אין אחר ביאה כלום ותנא דידן התרת יבמה לשוק עדיפא ליה:

but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second ma'amar, contrary to the ruling of our Mishnah, has no validity because by the first ma'amar, in the opinion of Ben 'Azzai, the levir had exhausted all his rights. ');">²⁶</span> HOW?&nbsp;… A MA'AMAR TO THE ONE etc. May it be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement, THE ONE REQUIRES A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THE OTHER, but not the first to whom the ma'amar had been addressed, MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH because, obviously, halizah with the first does not exempt the second, her rival. ');">²⁷</span> provides support to a ruling of Samuel, Samuel having stated that if the levir had participated in the <i>halizah</i> with her to whom he addressed a ma'amar, her rival was not thereby exempt; and an objection to the ruling of R. Joseph?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Who stated, supra 44a, 'A man should not pour the water out of his cistern while others may require it', i.e., a levir shall not cause the disqualification, by halizah, of the widow who is not otherwise disqualified, when the halizah could well be performed by the other widow who was in any case disqualified. In our Mishnah, contrary to R. Joseph's ruling, halizah is performed by the second who would in consequence be disqualified from marrying a priest, and not by the first who is already disqualified by the divorce she had been given. ');">²⁸</span>

בין יבם אחד לשתי יבמות כו': בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר כולה ביתא בלאו קאי איצטריך לאשמועינן דאין קדושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין

— Does it state: He may participate in the <i>halizah</i>? What it states is 'had participated', implying a fait accompli.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The proper procedure, however, might still be for the halizah to be performed by the widow to whom the ma'amar had been addressed. ');">²⁹</span> A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER etc. May it be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement in our Mishnah that HALIZAH IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH, which seems to imply that each widow must perform halizah where there is only one levir and, since the Mishnah also stated THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR AND TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW OR TWO LEVIRS AND ONE SISTER-IN-LAW, that where there are two levirs and one sister-in-law halizah must be performed with both levirs. ');">³⁰</span> provides support to Rabbah son of R. Huna. For Rabbah son of R. Huna stated, 'A <i>halizah</i> of an impaired character must go the round of all the brothers'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26b, 51a. ');">³¹</span>

אלא לר"ל דאמר כולה ביתא בכרת קאי איצטריך לאשמועינן דאין קדושין תופסין בחייבי כריתות

— By IT IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH, widows generally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In similar circumstances, ');">³²</span> were meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in every case the halizah is performed by one widow only and the other is thereby exempt. V. supra p. 330, n. 5. ');">³³</span> IF HE GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM THE OTHER. May it be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that halizah is performed by the second widow and not by the first to whom the divorce had been given. ');">³⁴</span>

אמר לך ר"ל וליטעמיך סיפא דקתני בעל ועשה מאמר איצטריך לאשמועינן דאין קדושין תופסין באשת איש

provides support to the ruling of Samuel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated, supra 27a, that if the levir had participated in the halizah with her whom he had divorced, her rival is not thereby exempt. Consequently, as was stated in our Mishnah, the halizah is to be performed by the second. ');">³⁵</span> and presents an objection against the ruling of R. Joseph?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 350, n, 6. ');">³⁶</span> — Does it state: He may participate in the <i>halizah</i>? What it states is 'had participated', implying a fait accompli.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 350, n. 7. ');">³⁷</span>

אלא איידי דתנא התרת יבם אחד ויבמה אחת תנא נמי שתי יבמות ויבם אחד ואיידי דתנא שתי יבמות ויבם אחד תנא נמי שתי יבמין ויבמה אחת:

IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM THE ONE AND FROM THE OTHER, OR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 350, n. 6. ');">³⁸</span> Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349, n. 11. ');">³⁹</span> 'no act is valid after cohabitation'. But our Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349. n. 12. ');">⁴⁰</span> — [The statement on] the permissibility of the sister-in-law marrying anyone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349, n. 13. ');">⁴¹</span> was preferred by him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 349, n. 14. ');">⁴²</span> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR TO TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW etc. According to R. Johanan who ruled that the whole house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the brothers of the deceased including the levir who submitted to the halizah. ');">⁴³</span> stands under the prohibition of a negative precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the levir and the other brothers (v. supra n. 13) are forbidden by the negative precept 'that doth not build' to marry the halizah or her rival. V. supra 10b. ');">⁴⁴</span> it is intelligible why it was necessary to inform us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the statement that a ma'amar is invalid after halizah. ');">⁴⁵</span> that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves the penalties of a negative precept is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had not this been indicated it might have been assumed that a betrothal of a woman forbidden only by a mere negative precept is legally valid. ');">⁴⁶</span> according to Resh Lakish, however, who ruled that all the house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 351, n. 13. ');">⁴⁷</span> is subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any one of the brothers married the rival of the haluzah, or if any of them (other than the levir who participated in the halizah) married the haluzah herself; the prohibition in all these cases being that of marriage with 'a brother's wife' which is punishable by kareth. The prohibition of the levir who participated in the halizah to marry the haluzah herself is, of course, even according to Resh Lakish, only that of a negative precept (v. supra 10b). ');">⁴⁸</span> was there any need to inform us that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves <i>kareth</i> is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a ruling is surely obvious! ');">⁴⁹</span> — Resh Lakish can answer you: And even according to your conception was it necessary to tell us in the final clause, which speaks of the case where the LEVIR COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, that there was no validity in a betrothal with a married woman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a ruling is surely obvious! ');">⁴⁹</span> But the fact is that as he taught concerning the permissibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that there is no validity in the betrothal. ');">⁵⁰</span> of one levir and one sister-in-law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruling which was necessary, even according to Resh Lakish, since he also, like R. Johanan, subjects the marriage between the levir who submitted to the halizah and the haluzah to the penalty of a negative precept only (v. supra n. 3). ');">⁵¹</span> he also taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir. And since he taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir, he also taught concerning two levirs and one sister-in-law.