Yevamot 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if one must be concerned about the death of those performing yibbum—

five brothers as well!

With five brothers too, let us be concerned that perhaps two brothers will die, and the rival will fall before the first yavam, and be exempt because she is a wife’s sister!?

And we answer:

We are not concerned about the death of two.

Rava bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: Three sister-yevamot who fell before two yevamin brothers—

It is impossible to perform yibbum with both of them, as the Mishna stated [either because each of the yevamot is forbidden to him as the sister of his zekuka, or because it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of the yevamim]. Rather, the law is:

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

that is, the last one

requires halitza from both of them.

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

and halitza by one of the brothers is insufficient, it can be inferred from your words that

you hold:

1.

There is a bond!

From your statement that the middle one requires halitza from both brothers, it is evident that you hold that the bond of yibbum between the yevama and the brothers is a strong bond, and that there is a bond between her and each of the brothers separately [and not merely a weak bond to the one with whom she will ultimately perform yibbum].

2.

And it becomes for her a “defective halitza.”

Halitza performed with a yevama with whom it is impossible to perform yibbum is an inferior halitza, and is called “defective halitza”.

And a defective halitza—

must be repeated with all the brothers!

For through an inferior halitza, the bond that each of the brothers has with the yevama does not lapse, as it does through an ordinary halitza, which exempts the yevama from all the brothers, until all the brothers perform halitza with her.

Therefore, since Rav holds that there is a bond with each of the yevamin, she requires halitza from each of them.

The Gemara challenges this:

If so—

the first one also!?

Why does only the third require halitza from all the brothers? Surely the first ones too should require halitza from each of the brothers, since it is also impossible to perform yibbum with them, making their halitza defective, and requiring halitza from each of the brothers!

And we answer:

If they fell simultaneously,

if the case is that they fell for yibbum one after the other, before the brothers had managed to perform yibbum or halitza with any of them—

that is also so;

indeed, all three require halitza from each of the brothers.

It is necessary

to state the law only here, where

they fell one after the other.

They did not all fall for yibbum simultaneously and become forbidden as the sister of one's zekuka; rather, the second fell after the first had undergone halitza.

One fell, and Reuven performed halitza with her.

This halitza was valid, since Reuven could have performed yibbum with her at that time.

And when

the other fell, and Shimon performed halitza with her,

her halitza too was valid, because with regard to Shimon she was permitted for yibbum, since her sister had already undergone halitza, and she did not render her sister forbidden as the sister of a zekuka.

However, when

the other fell—

she could no longer undergo yibbum, since the third woman was forbidden to each of the brothers as the sister of a woman who had undergone halitza; her halitza was defective, and therefore she must repeat it with all the brothers, so that each one will remove from her the defective bond that he has with her.

If this one performed halitza with her

one of the brothers

he removes his bond.

His halitza and his bond are equivalent.

And

if this one performed halitza with her,

the second brother, whose brother’s halitza does not remove his bond, because it was a defective halitza—

he removes his bond.

The Gemara challenges this:

But Rav said: There is no bond!?

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

And we answer:

Rav stated this in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that there is a bond,

Rav expressing his statement according to that view.

But Rav himself truly disagrees with this law and holds that since there is no strong bond between the yevama and each of the brothers,

even the defective halitza of one of them is effective in removing her bond from all the brothers.

And Shmuel said: One performs halitza for all of them.

Shmuel disagrees with Rav’s law concerning the second woman as well, holding that the second does not specifically require halitza from Shimon; and he also disagrees with Rav’s law concerning the third woman, holding that the third does not require halitza from all of them.

The Gemara will explain below how he disagrees with Rav.

The Gemara challenges this:

After all,

we have heard Shmuel say that

we require a proper halitza,

meaning that a defective halitza is not effective to exempt a yevama.

As Shmuel said: