Yevamot 53

חלץ לאחיות לא נפטרו צרות היכא דקיימא חליצה דשמעון חליצה כשרה חליץ לה ראובן חליצה פסולה

if he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A levir whose two deceased childless brothers were survived by two widows who were sisters, each of whom had also a rival. ');">¹</span> participated in the <i>halizah</i> with the sisters, the rivals are not exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the halizah with the sisters is defective, the levir not being in a position to marry either of them. Cf. supra p. 263, n. 11, ');">²</span> how then should Reuben,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 2, ');">³</span> where the <i>halizah</i> of Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' cf. note 4. ');">⁴</span>

מאי אחד חולץ לכולן נמי דקאמר אאמצעית והא כולן קאמר כיון דרובה גביה קרי ליה כולן ואיבעית אימא כי קאמר שמואל חליצה מעליא בעינן ה"מ למיפטר צרתה אבל מפטרא נפשה פטרה

has the force of a valid <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Simeon, having participated in no halizah, the second sister is not the sister of his haluzah. ');">⁵</span> participate in an impaired <i>halizah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Reuben who had already participated in the halizah of one sister, the halizah with the second is a halizah performed by the sister of his haluzah, which is not a completely valid operation. ');">⁶</span> — By saying. 'One brother participates in the <i>halizah</i> with all of them' he also meant 'the third widow'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second brother, after he participated in the halizah with the second widow, also participates in the halizah with he third (who is now the sister of his as well as of his brother's haluzah): and there is no need, according to Samuel, for a defective halizah to go the round of all the surviving brothers. ');">⁷</span> But surely, 'All of them' was stated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How- then could the expression 'all' refer to the second and third widows only? ');">⁸</span>

גופא אמר שמואל חלץ לאחיות לא נפטרו צרות לצרות נפטרו אחיות חלץ לבעלת הגט לא נפטרה צרה לצרה נפטרה בעלת הגט

-As the majority is on his side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Simeon having participated in the halizah of two widows out of the three. ');">⁹</span> it may be described as 'All of them'. If you prefer I might say: Only in respect of exempting one's rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he actually said, 'The rivals are not exempt'. ');">¹⁰</span> did Samuel say that proper <i>halizah</i> was required; as regards exempting herself, however, [any <i>halizah</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even a defective one. ');">¹¹</span> sets her free.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the three widows mentioned above, where there are no rivals, the defective halizah is, therefore, valid even according to Samuel. ');">¹²</span>

חלץ לבעלת המאמר לא נפטרה צרה לצרה נפטרה בעלת מאמר

[To turn to] the main text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A passage from which was cited supra top of page. ');">¹³</span> Samuel said: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.p. 164, n. 10. ');">¹⁴</span> participated in the <i>halizah</i> with the sisters, the rivals are not exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.p. 164, n. 11. ');">¹⁵</span> ff with the rivals. the sisters are exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the prohibition to marry the rivals is not so severe as that of the sisters, the halizah with the former is of greater validity and force than that with the latter. Cf. supra p. 163, n. 11. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי שנא לאחיות דלא נפטרו צרות דהויא לו אחות אשה בזיקה חלץ לצרות נמי לא ליפטרו אחיות דהויא להו צרות אחות אשה בזיקה קסבר שמואל אין זיקה

If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹⁷</span> participated in the <i>halizah</i> with the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two sisters-in-law, widows of the same brother. ');">¹⁸</span> who had been divorced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the levir prior to the halizah. ');">¹⁹</span> her rival is not thereby exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A halizah after a divorce is defective, since the levirate bond had already been partially severed by the divorce that preceded it. ');">²⁰</span>

והא אמר שמואל יש זיקה לדברי האומר אין זיקה קאמר

if with the rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no letter of divorce was given to her. ');">²¹</span> the divorced woman is exempt — 22 If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹⁷</span> participated in the <i>halizah</i> with one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two sisters-in-law, widows of the same brother. ');">¹⁸</span> to whom he addressed a ma'amar, her rival is not thereby exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the halizah alone does not in this case exempt the widow; a divorce also, owing to the ma'amar, being required. ');">²³</span>

אי הכי חלץ לאחיות אמאי לא נפטרו צרות בשלמא צרה דרחל לא תיפטר דכיון דחלץ לה ללאה והדר חלץ לרחל הויא לה חליצה דרחל חליצה פסולה אלא צרה דלאה תיפטר

if with the rival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom no ma'amar had been addressed. ');">²⁴</span> the widow to whom the ma'amar had been addressed is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' infra 53a. ');">²⁵</span> In what respect are the sisters different that [by their <i>halizah</i>] the rivals should not be exempted? Apparently because [each one of them] is 'his wife's sister' through the levirate bond;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which he may marry neither of them and the halizah in which he participates is for this reason of a defective character. ');">²⁶</span> [but for this very reason] the sisters also, if he participated in the <i>halizah</i> with their rivals, should not be exempt, since those are the rivals of 'his wife's sister' through the levirate bond!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A rival taking the place of a forbidden relative, being subject to the same restrictions as the relatives, is also forbidden to be taken in levirate marriage. ');">²⁷</span>

מאי לא נפטרו צרות נמי דקאמר אצרה דרחל והא צרות קאמר צרות דעלמא

— Samuel holds the opinion that no Ievirate bond exists. But, surely, Samuel said that a levirate bond did exist!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 18b. ');">²⁸</span> -He was here speaking in accordance with the view of him who maintains that a levirate bond does not exist. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no levirate bond exists and the halizah with the sisters is consequently perfectly valid. ');">²⁹</span> why are not the rivals exempt when he participated In the <i>halizah</i> with the sisters? One can well understand why Rachel's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sister who was second to perform the halizah. Rachel was Jacob's second, Leah his first wife (v. Gen. XXIX, 23-28). ');">³⁰</span> rival is not exempt; for, as he had already participated in the <i>halizah</i> of Leah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first sister. Cf. previous note. ');">³¹</span>

אי הכי חלץ לצרות נפטרו אחיות ואצרת רחל מי מיפטרא והא תנן אסור אדם בצרת קרובת חלוצתו

and only subsequently participated in the <i>halizah</i> of Rachel, Rachel's <i>halizah</i> is a defective one;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Rachel cannot any more be married to him owing to her being the sister of his haluzah. ');">³²</span> but Leah's rival should be exempt!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leah's halizah having been perfect, since the levir could have married her if he wished. ');">³³</span> -When he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">³⁴</span> said that 'The rivals are not exempt', he meant indeed the rival of Rachel. But, surely, he used the expression 'rivals'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural. ');">³⁵</span>

שמואל נמי התחיל ולא התחיל קאמר התחיל באחיות לא יגמור בצרות דתנן אסור אדם בצרת קרובת חלוצתו התחיל בצרות יגמור אף באחיות דתנן מותר אדם בקרובת צרת חלוצתו

-Rivals generally. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the expression of 'rivals' refers only to rivals of the sister who was second to perform the halizah and not to those of the first also. ');">³⁶</span> how could the sisters be exempt if he participated in the <i>halizah</i> with their rivals? Is Rachel exempt by the <i>halizah</i> of her rival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Would the sister of a haluzah be exempt by the halizah of her rival? ');">³⁷</span> Surely we learned: A man is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 40b. As he cannot marry the rival of Rachel who is his haluzah's sister, his halizah with her would be of a defective character which, consequently, could not exempt Rachel. ');">³⁸</span> — Samuel also [is of the same opinion] but draws a distinction according to the manner In which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said'. ');">³⁹</span>

רב אשי אמר לעולם כדקאמרת ומשום דלא אלימא זיקה לשויי לצרה כערוה

one began or did not begin: If one began with the sisters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Participated in the halizah with one of them. ');">⁴⁰</span> he must not finish with the rivals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By participating in the halizah with the rival of the second sister. Such halizah would not exempt the sister. ');">⁴¹</span> for we learned, 'A man is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his haluzah';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Much more so the relative herself. The halizah, therefore, being defective, would have to be performed by both the second sister and her rival. ');">⁴²</span> but if he began with the rivals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he participated in the halizah with the rival of the first sister. ');">⁴³</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב אשי חלץ לאחיות לא נפטרו צרות הא לצרות נפטרו אחיות מאי טעמא לאו משום דקסבר יש זיקה ולא אלימא זיקה לשוייה לצרה כערוה

he may finish even with the sisters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may participate in halizah not only with the rival of the second sister and thus exempt the sister herself, but also with the second sister and thus exempt her rival. ');">⁴⁴</span> for we learned, 'A man is permitted to marry the relative of the rival of his haluzah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rachel (the second sister), being the relative of Leah (the first sister) who is the 'rival' of the haluzah, is consequently permitted to marry the levir, and her halizah is, therefore, perfectly valid and exempts also her rival. ');">⁴⁵</span> R. Ashi said: Your former assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the rivals are not exempted by the halizah of the sisters, owing to its defectiveness which is due to the existence of the levirate bond (cf. supra p. 164, n. 21). ');">⁴⁶</span> may still be upheld, and [yet no difficulty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to why the halizah of the rival of the relative of a haluzah should be more valid than that of the relative of the haluzah herself (v. supra p. 266, n. 2). ');">⁴⁷</span>

א"ר אבא בר ממל הא מני ב"ש היא דתנן בית שמאי מתירין הצרות לאחין אי הכי יבומי נמי תתייבם

arises] because the levirate bond is not strong enough to make the rival equal to the forbidden relative herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis who forbade the marriage of a zekukah owing to the levirate bond did not extend the prohibition to her rival. The halizah of the latter is, therefore, more valid and exempts also the former. ');">⁴⁸</span> It was taught in agreement with the view of R. Ashi: If the levir participated in the <i>halizah</i> with the sisters, their rivals are not thereby exempt; but if with the rivals, the sisters are thereby exempt. What is the reason? Obviously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not'? ');">⁴⁹</span> because he is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists and that that bond is not strong enough to make the rival equal to the forbidden relative herself. R. Abba b. Memel said: Who is the author of this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha quoted. ');">⁵⁰</span>

כרבי יוחנן בן נורי דאמר בואו ונתקן להם לצרות שיהו חולצות ולא מתייבמות והאמר מר לא הספיקו לגמור את הדבר עד שנטרפה השעה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אחריו חזרו ותקנו:

Beth Shammai; for we learned: Beth Shammai permit the rivals to the [surviving] brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 132, 'Ed. Iv, 8; as marriage with the rivals is permitted, their halizah also (cf. supra p. 163, n. 11) is perfectly valid. ');">⁵¹</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Baraitha quoted represents the view of Beth Shammai. ');">⁵²</span> let them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rivals. ');">⁵³</span> be taken in levirate marriage also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was only halizah mentioned? ');">⁵⁴</span>

איבעיא להו

[This is] in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri who said: Come, let us issue an ordinance that the rivals perform the <i>halizah</i> but do not marry the levir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 13b, 14b. ');">⁵⁵</span> But did not a Master say that they had hardly time to conclude the matter before confusion set in?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 15a, q.v. notes. ');">⁵⁶</span> — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: After him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan b. Nuri. ');">⁵⁷</span> they re-ordained it. The question was raised: