Yevamot 26b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

If so, if there is concern for the death of those performing yibbum—

then five brothers as well!

five also!

With five brothers as well, let us be concerned that perhaps two brothers will die, and the co-wife will fall before the first brother who performed yibbum, and be released because she is the sister of a wife!?

And we answer:

We are not concerned about the death of two.

Rava bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: Three sister yevamot who fell before two brothers liable for yibbum—

it is impossible to perform yibbum with both of them, as the Mishna said [either because each of the yevamot is forbidden to him as the sister of one subject to zika, or because it is forbidden to nullify the mitzva of the brothers]; rather, the law is:

This one performs chalitza with one, and that one performs chalitza with one. And the middle one

that is, the last one

requires chalitza from both of them.

Rabba said to him: Since you say that the middle one requires chalitza from both of them,

and the chalitza of one brother is not sufficient, it can be learned from your words that

you hold:

a.

There is zika!

From what you said—that the middle one requires chalitza from both brothers—it is proven that you understand that the zika of yibbum between the yevama and the brother is a strong zika, and it is a zika between her and each of the brothers separately [and not merely a weak zika to the one whom she will ultimately marry through yibbum].

b.

And she thereby has “invalid chalitza.”

Chalitza with a yevama whom it is impossible to take in yibbum is inferior chalitza, and is called “invalid chalitza.”

And invalid chalitza—

requires repeating it with all the brothers!

For through inferior chalitza, the bond that all the brothers have with the yevama does not lapse as it does through ordinary chalitza, which releases the yevama from all the brothers, until all the brothers perform chalitza with her.

And therefore, since Rav holds that there is zika with each of the brothers liable for yibbum, she requires chalitza from each one of them.

And the Gemara objects:

If so—

the first one also!?

Why does only the third require chalitza from all the brothers? After all, the first ones too should require chalitza from each of the brothers, because they too cannot be taken in yibbum, and their chalitza is invalid, and they require chalitza from each of the brothers!

And we answer:

If they fell at one time,

if it is speaking of a case in which they fell for yibbum one after another, before they had managed to perform yibbum or chalitza with one of them—

so too,

indeed this would be the law: all three would require chalitza from each of the brothers.

It is necessary

rather, here it is speaking

of their falling one after another.

They did not all fall for yibbum at one time and become forbidden because of the sister of one subject to zika; rather, the second fell after the chalitza of the first.

One fell, and Reuven performed chalitza with her.

And this chalitza was valid, for Reuven could have performed yibbum with her at that time.

And when

the other fell, and Shimon performed chalitza with her,

her chalitza too is valid, because with regard to Shimon she is permitted for yibbum, since her sister had already been taken in yibbum, and she does not forbid her sister because of the sister of one subject to zika.

However, when

the other fell—

she can no longer be taken in yibbum, because the third one is forbidden to each of the brothers by the prohibition of the sister of a woman for whom he performed chalitza, and her chalitza is invalid; therefore she must repeat it with all the brothers, so that each one will remove from her the inferior zika that he has with her.

If this one performed chalitza with her,

one of the brothers,

he removes his zika.

For his chalitza and his zika are equivalent.

And

if this one performed chalitza with her,

the second brother, whose brother’s chalitza does not release his zika, because it was invalid chalitza—

he removes his zika.

The Gemara objects:

But Rav said: There is no zika!

And if so, how could he have stated the law that the third requires chalitza from all the brothers?

And we answer:

He said it according to the view of the one who says there is zika

Rav stated his words.

But Rav in fact disagrees with this law and holds that since there is no strong zika between the yevama and each of the brothers—

therefore even the invalid chalitza of one is effective to remove her zika from all the brothers.

And Shmuel said: One performs chalitza with all of them.

Shmuel disagrees with Rav’s law also concerning the second one, holding that the second does not specifically require chalitza from Shimon, and also with Rav’s law concerning the third one, holding that the third does not require chalitza from all of them.

And below it will be explained in what way he disagrees with Rav.

And the Gemara objects:

After all,

we have heard him, Shmuel, say

that we require proper chalitza

and inferior chalitza is not effective to release a yevama.

For Shmuel said: