Yevamot 52

חמשה נמי למיתה דתרי לא חיישינן

the same applies to five brothers also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two of whom who were married to two sisters died and three survived. In this case also, if provision is to be made against the possibility of death, no levirate marriage should be allowed to any of the three survivors, since it might happen that two of the survivors would also die and the last and only surviving brother would be precluded from levirate marriage and halizah because the widows would then be his wife's sisters. ');">¹</span> -The possibility that two might die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for the death of two'. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא בר רב הונא אמר רב שלש אחיות יבמות שנפלו לפני שני אחין יבמין זה חולץ לאחת וזה חולץ לאחת ואמצעית צריכה חליצה משניהם

need not be taken into consideration. Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Emden. Cur. edd., 'Raba'. ');">³</span>

אמר ליה רבה מדקאמרת אמצעית צריכה חליצה משניהם קסברת יש זיקה והויא לה חליצה פסולה וחליצה פסולה צריך לחזור על כל האחין

son of R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If three sisters who are sisters-in-law fell to the lot of two brothers who are their brothers-in-law, one of the brothers participates in her <i>halizah</i> with one, and the other brother participates in the <i>halizah</i> with the other, but the third,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the middle one'. ');">⁴</span> requires <i>halizah</i> from both. Said Rabbah to him: Since you say that the third widow requires submission to <i>halizah</i> by both brothers, you must be holding the opinion that a Ievirate bond exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 162, n. 3' ');">⁵</span>

אי הכי קמייתא נמי

and that the <i>halizah</i> is of an impaired character,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each brother may only participate in halizah with the widow but may not, as she is the sister of his haluzah (v. Glos.). marry her. Such a halizah is not of the same validity as one which is the alternative of a permitted levirate marriage. ');">⁶</span> and that as an impaired <i>halizah</i> it must go the round of all the brothers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate bond between the widow and the other brothers cannot be dissolved by such a halizah with one of them. [Me'iri seems to have had a shorter and smoother text:&nbsp;… that a levirate bond exists and that an impaired halizah must go the round of all the brothers'.] ');">⁷</span>

אי דנפול בבת אחת הכי נמי לא צריכא דנפול בזו אחר זו

but if so, [the same should apply to] the first [two sisters] also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they, like the third, are subject to the Ievirate bond, and with them also only halizah, but not levirate marriage may take place, and their halizah also is consequently of an impaired character. ');">⁸</span> — If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the three sisters. ');">⁹</span>

נפלה חדא חלץ לה ראובן נפלה אידך חלץ לה שמעון

had become subject [to the levirs] at the same time the law would indeed have been so;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah would have had to be performed by every one of them with every brother. ');">¹⁰</span> [the statement of our Mishnah, however,] was required only in the case where they become subject [to the Ievirs] one after another. When the first sister became subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage. Reuben<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first brother. Reuben was Jacob's first son (Gen. XXIX, 32). ');">¹¹</span>

נפלה אידך חלץ לה האי מפקע זיקתו חלץ לה האי מפקע זיקתו

participated in her <i>halizah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was a proper halizah since at that time he could have married her if he wished. ');">¹²</span> when the second came Under the obligation. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second brother. Simeon was the second son of Jacob. (Cf. Gen. XXIX, 33)' ');">¹³</span>

והאמר רב אין זיקה לדברי האומר יש זיקה קאמר

participated in her <i>halizah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This also was a proper halizah since he could marry her if he wished. She is no longer the sister of his zekukah (v. Glos.) since the first brother had already performed with that zekukah proper halizah and had thereby severed the levirate bond between her and Simeon as well as between her and himself. ');">¹⁴</span> when the third came under the obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage is no more possible since, in the case of each brother, she is the sister of his haluzah, while exemption from halizah cannot be granted because the prohibition to marry the sister of one's haluzah is only Rabbinical and cannot supersede the Biblical precept which requires halizah where no levirate marriage takes place. ');">¹⁵</span>

ושמואל אמר אחד חולץ לכולן מכדי שמעינן ליה לשמואל דאמר חליצה מעליא בעינן דאמר שמואל

if the one brother participated in her <i>halizah</i> he removed his own levirate bond,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which otherwise could not have been severed. V. previous note. ');">¹⁶</span> and when the other participated in the <i>halizah</i> he likewise removed his own levirate bond. But, surely. Rab said that no levirate bond exists!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 17b. ');">¹⁷</span> — This statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reported supra by Rabbah b. R. Huna. ');">¹⁸</span> he made in accordance with the opinion of him who maintains that a levirate bond does exist. Samuel, however, stated that one brother participates in the <i>halizah</i> with all of them. But consider: We have heard Samuel say that a proper <i>halizah</i> is required for Samuel said: