Yevamot 54

בעלת הגט ובעלת מאמר איזו מהן קודמת בעלת הגט עדיפא משום דאתחיל בה בחליצה או דלמא בעלת מאמר עדיפא משום דקרובה לביאה

Between the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two widows of the same husband who was survived by one brother. ');">¹</span> who was given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the surviving brother. ');">²</span> a letter of divorce and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two widows of the same husband who was survived by one brother. ');">¹</span> to whom a ma'amar had been addressed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the surviving brother. ');">²</span> who is to be preferred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the halizah, if that halizah is to exempt the rival. None of these widows may be taken in levitate marriage: the one, because a letter of divorce was given to her, and the other, because she is the rival of the former. The only question is, which of the two should perform the halizah and which should thereby be exempt. ');">³</span>

אמר רב אשי ת"ש ומודה ר"ג שיש גט אחר מאמר ומאמר אחר גט

Is she who was divorced to be preferred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., shall she perform the halizah and thus exempt her rival? Cur. edd. add., 'because he began with her with halizah'. Rashal (Glosses. a.l.) reads, 'divorce' for 'halizah'. Both additions are absent in MSS, v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]) ');">⁴</span> or is, perhaps, she to whom the ma'amar had been addressed to be preferred since she is nearer to him in respect to intercourse? — R. Ashi replied, Come and hear: R. Gamaliel, however, admits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he holds that a divorce to one of the widows of his deceased brothers after a divorce to her rival is invalid (infra 50a). ');">⁵</span> that a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one of the widows of his deceased childless brother. ');">⁶</span> after a ma'amar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That had been first addressed to the other widow, her rival. ');">⁷</span> and a ma'amar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one of the widows of his deceased childless brother. ');">⁶</span>

אי גט עדיף לא ליהני מאמר אבתריה ואי מאמר עדיף לא ליהני גט אבתריה אלא לאו ש"מ כי הדדי נינהו ש"מ

after a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given first to the other. ');">⁸</span> is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 51a. Lit., 'there is'. If the ma'amar was made first, the subsequent divorce forbids the marriage of the second and also that of the first, the ma'amar to her not being regarded as actual marriage, and if the divorce was first and the ma'amar afterwards, the second widow also requires a divorce, the divorce of the first not having the force of halizah to invalidate the ma'amar addressed to the second. ');">⁹</span> Now, if a letter of divorce has the preference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Over the ma'amar. ');">¹⁰</span> the ma'amar after it should have no validity; and if the ma'amar has the preference, the divorce after it should have no validity. Consequently it must be concluded that they have both equal validity. This proves it. R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Asheri: Judah. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב הונא אמר רב ב' אחיות יבמות שנפלו לפני יבם אחד חלץ לראשונה הותרה חלץ לשנייה הותרה

said in the name of Rab: If two sisters who were sisters-in-law became subject to one levir, the one is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry any stranger. ');">¹²</span> when he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹³</span> has participated in her <i>halizah</i>; and the other is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry any stranger. ');">¹⁴</span> when he has participated in her <i>halizah</i>. If the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Widow; the one whose husband died first, and who became subject to the levirate marriage before the other. ');">¹⁵</span> died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she had performed the halizah with the levir. ');">¹⁶</span>

מתה ראשונה מותר בשנייה ואין צריך לומר מתה שנייה שמותר בראשונה משום דהויא יבמה שהותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה תחזור להיתירה הראשון

he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹⁷</span> is permitted [to marry] the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since death had severed his levirate bond with the first, and the surviving widow is no longer the sister of a zekukah. ');">¹⁸</span> and there is no need to state that if the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the brother who died after the first, and who became subject to the levirate marriage after the subjection of the first. ');">¹⁹</span> died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she had performed the halizah with the levir. ');">¹⁶</span> the first is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry any stranger. ');">¹⁴</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר מתה שנייה מותר בראשונה אבל מתה ראשונה אסור בשנייה מ"ט שכל יבמה שאין אני קורא בה בשעת נפילה יבמה יבא עליה הרי זו כאשת אח שיש לה בנים ואסורה

since, as a sister-in-law who was permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the levir. At the time she became subject to him there was no other zekukah. ');">²⁰</span> then forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her sister's husband died. ');">²¹</span> and then again permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her sister died. ');">²²</span> she returns to her former state of permissibility. R. Johanan, however, said: If the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the brother who died after the first, and who became subject to the levirate marriage after the subjection of the first. ');">¹⁹</span> died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she had performed the halizah with the levir. ');">¹⁶</span>

ורב לית ליה האי סברא והאמר רב כל אשה שאין אני קורא בה בשעת נפילה יבמה יבא עליה הרי היא כאשת אח שיש לו בנים ואסורה ה"מ היכא דקאי באפה איסור אחות אשה דאורייתא אבל הכא זיקה דרבנן היא

he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹⁷</span> is permitted to marry the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2, because at the time she became subject to the levirate marriage she was permitted to him. ');">²³</span> but if the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2. ');">²⁴</span> died he is forbidden to marry the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the brother who died after the first, and who became subject to the levirate marriage after the subjection of the first. ');">¹⁹</span> What is the reason? Because any sister-in-law to whom the injunction. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">²⁵</span>

איתיביה ר' יוסי בר חנינא לרבי יוחנן ארבעה אחין ב' מהם נשואים ב' אחיות ומתו הנשואין את האחיות הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתייבמות ואמאי ליקו חד מינייהו לחלוץ לה לשנייה ותיהוי ראשונה לגבי אידך כיבמה שהותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה תחזור להיתירה הראשון

cannot be applied at the time of her coming under the obligation of the levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case where she was forbidden to the levir, as 'the sister of his zekukah', at the time she came under the obligation of the levirate marriage through her husband's death. ');">²⁶</span> is, indeed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold'. ');">²⁷</span> like the wife of a brother who has children and is, consequently, forbidden. But does not Rab hold the same view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That had been advanced by R. Johanan. ');">²⁸</span> Surely Rab said: Any woman to whom the injunction, Her husband's brother should go in unto her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">²⁵</span> cannot be applied at the time of her coming under the obligation of the levirate marriage is, indeed, like the wife of a brother who has children and is, consequently, forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 30a, 111b. ');">²⁹</span>

א"ל אחיות איני יודע מי שנאן ולימא ליה מאי חולצות נמי דקתני חולצת חדא חולצות קתני

-That statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Rab, just quoted. ');">³⁰</span> applies only to the case where the woman is faced with the prohibition of 'a wife's sister', which is Pentateuchal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of three brothers two of whom were married to two sisters (infra 30a) in connection with which Rab made his statement. ');">³¹</span> here, however, [the prohibition due to] the levirate bond is only Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is, therefore, removed as soon as one of the sisters dies. ');">³²</span> R. Jose b. Hanina raised the following objection against R. Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same objection applies to Rab also (Rashi). Cf. however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l. ');">³³</span> IN THE CASE OF FOUR BROTHERS, TWO OF WHOM WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, IF THOSE WHO WERE MARRIED TO THE SISTERS DIED, BEHOLD, THESE MUST PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. But why? Let one of the brothers take on the duty of participating in the <i>halizah</i> with the second widow, and thus place the first widow, in relation to the second, in the category of a deceased brother's wife that was permitted- then forbidden, and then again permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2 p. 169, nn. 7, 11. ');">³⁴</span>

ולימא ליה מאי חולצות חולצות דעלמא הרי אלו קתני ולימא דחליץ ליה לראשונה ברישא חולצות

and thus she would return to her former state of permissibility! — The other replied: I do not know who was the author of the statement concerning the sisters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah is not authoritative. — ');">³⁵</span> But let him rather reply that the meaning of the expression of MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i>, which had been used, indeed signifies that only one is to perform the <i>halizah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she performs the halizah, (namely) one', i.e., the second widow. ');">³⁶</span> -The expression used was THEY MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] the pr. particip. plural. ');">³⁷</span> Then let him reply that the expressions THEY MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] the pr. particip. plural. ');">³⁷</span> refers to women generally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In similar circumstances. ');">³⁸</span> who perform the <i>halizah</i>!-It was stated, BEHOLD THESE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies the two spoken of. ');">³⁹</span> Let him, then, reply that [this is a case] where <i>halizah</i> was already performed by the first!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the other, who is not exempted by that of the first, must also perform halizah. ');">⁴⁰</span> -[The expression] THESE MUST PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i>