Yevamot 27b — the Talmud in English

It was asked of them:

His brother died, and he had two wives, and he performed maamar with one of them, while to the second he gave a get—

And since he gave one of his two yevamot a get, it became forbidden for him to perform yibbum with either of them, because “since he did not build, he shall no longer build” was said concerning all of them; rather, he must perform chalitza with one of them, and thereby release her and her rival. And from now there is a doubt: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

The one with the get, and the one with the maamar—

which of them takes precedence

for chalitza? Which of them is fit that he should perform chalitza with her and thereby release her rival?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Indeed, the chalitza of both of them is inferior chalitza:

The one with the get, since he divorced her, cannot enter into yibbum, and from this aspect her chalitza is inferior.

Whereas the one with the maamar, her chalitza alone does not suffice for her, but she also requires a get, and from this aspect her chalitza is inferior.

If

the one with the get is preferable—

because he began with her with

his divorce, with removing her from his authority, which is a process of

chalitza.

And the force of her get is preferable to the force of the maamar of her fellow, and the maamar of her fellow is no longer considered significant.

And since he began with her in the act of divorce, it is preferable that he be the one to continue in what he began, and perform chalitza with her.

Or perhaps the one with the maamar is preferable—

because

by performing maamar with her, she is

close to intercourse.

And the maamar is preferable to the get, and the closeness between the yavam and the yevama remains as it was, and the force of the get cannot impair this closeness.

And since the closeness of this one to the yavam is greater than that of the other yevama, her chalitza is also more fit than that of the other.

Rav Ashi said: ta shma

a proof, from a beraita that we learned:

A yavam who divorces his yevama with a get before he brought her in, the divorce does not take effect by Torah law; rather, the Sages instituted that the divorce should take effect with regard to this, that he can no longer bring her in, neither he nor his brother.

And they further instituted that, since he divorced her, he is forbidden to her relatives, similar to the relatives of his wife whom he divorced.

And in light of this, the Sages and Rabban Gamaliel disagreed: if the yavam divorces one of his yevamot, and then returns and divorces his second yevama as well, are her relatives also forbidden to him?

Rabban Gamaliel holds that “there is no get after get,” since in either case there is no basis for forbidding her second one’s relatives to him: if the get was effective in removing the bond, then it removed it from the second one as well. Therefore, if he returns and gives a get to the second one, her divorce has no significance, for once he gave a get to the first one there was no longer a bond, and there is nothing to divorce; the second is not considered his divorcee, and consequently he is not forbidden to the relatives of the second.

And if the get of the first was not effective in dismissing the bond, and therefore it is possible to return and divorce the second one as well—then, since the get did not dismiss the bond, and it still exists even after the get, it is impossible to consider her divorced so as thereby to forbid her relatives.

And Rabban Gamaliel agrees,

who disagrees with the Sages and holds that “there is no get after get”—

a.

that there is a get after maamar.

For if two yevamot from one brother fell before him, and he performed maamar with the first and gave a get to the second, the get that he gave to the second was effective to disqualify the first [with whom he performed maamar], by virtue of “since he did not build, he shall no longer build.” For a get with one is considered, by rabbinic enactment, like chalitza with one, which disqualifies both of them for him by virtue of “he shall no longer build.”

And likewise, this get is effective to disqualify her relatives for him.

And we do not say that the maamar he performed with the first makes the first so much like one brought in to the yavam [by rabbinic enactment!] that it is impossible for the rabbinic get given to the second to disqualify the first’s entry.

That is, the Sages equated the force of the rabbinic get with the force of the rabbinic maamar, and one cannot interfere with the other.

b.

and

that there is

maamar after a get.

For if he gave a get to the first and performed maamar with the second, his maamar was effective to require her to receive a get from him [in addition to chalitza], and to forbid her relatives to him.

And we do not say that the get is considered like chalitza, to such an extent that after it a maamar does not take effect with the second.

And Rav Ashi proves from here that the Sages equated the force of the maamar and the get:

For

if the get is preferable

to the maamar, to sever her so that a maamar would not be effective with her—

the maamar should not be effective

the one performed with the second,

after it,

after the get.

And if the maamar is preferable

to the get, so that the maamar is effective to bring her in by rabbinic enactment, so that a further get with the second would not be effective to disqualify the first’s entry—

the get should not be effective

the one given to the second

after it,

after the maamar performed with the first, to disqualify the maamar of the first.

Rather, is it not so? Infer from it,

that the get and the maamar are

like one another.

And the Gemara concludes: Indeed,

infer from it.

And since they are equal, it is found that the chalitza of the one with the get and the chalitza of the one with the maamar are equal; and since both are equally inferior, he may perform chalitza with whichever of them he wishes.

Rav Huna said that Rav said: Two sisters who were yevamot and fell

from two brothers

before one yavam—

And at the time of the falling of the first, she was permitted for yibbum; there are four laws in this matter, in two matters.

The first matter is when both yevamot were alive.

a.

He performed chalitza with the first,

with the sister who fell first—

the first is permitted

to the marketplace.

b.

He performed chalitza with the second—

the second is permitted

to the marketplace.

But the second is forbidden for yibbum, since she is the sister of his chalutza.

And the same law applies if he first performs chalitza with the second and afterward with the first: she is permitted to the marketplace.

The second matter is when one of the yevamot died:

a.

The sister

who fell

first

died without having undergone chalitza—

he is permitted

from now

to the second.

For she is no longer the sister of his wife.

And this is so even though at the time of her falling she was forbidden for yibbum, since her sister, who fell first, was alive and subject to yibbum, and the second was forbidden to him on account of “the sister of one bound to him.”

And Rav innovated that with regard to the prohibition of the sister of one bound to him, which is only a rabbinic prohibition, the rule does not apply that “every yevama with whom at the time of falling I do not read, ‘the yavam shall come to her,’ she is forbidden to him forever.”

b.

And it is not necessary to say

that if

the second died, he is permitted to the first.

Because she was

the first

a yevama who was permitted

for yibbum at the time of her falling,

and became forbidden

afterward, when her sister fell, and forbade her on account of “the sister of one bound to him,”

and became permitted again

at the time of the second’s death—

so she

should return to her original permission!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The second died—

he is permitted

to the first,

since she returns to her previous permission, at the time of the falling.

But if the first died—

he is forbidden to the second.

What is the reason?—

According to

every yevama,

even one whose prohibition is on account of the bond,

with whom at the time of falling I do not read, “the yevama shall come to her,”

she is like the wife of a brother who has children, and she is forbidden

to him forever.

And we raised an objection:

and

if

Rav does not hold this reasoning,

this rule? But he himself stated it!

For Rav said [A0129]]

Any woman concerning whom I cannot say at the time of her falling, “the yavam shall take her,”—

“Every woman with whom at the time of falling I do not read, ‘the yevama shall come to her,’”—

she is like the wife of a brother who has children, and she is forbidden

forever!?

And we answer:

These words,

that Rav holds the law of “she became forbidden,”

where it stands before her,

when there stands against yibbum

the prohibition of a wife’s sister,

which is a prohibition

from the Torah.

For example, two brothers were married to two sisters, and one of them died, and his wife became forbidden at the time of her falling to the second brother, who was married to her sister; and afterward the wife of the second died.

But here,

there is

a bond—

it is rabbinic!

And the entire prohibition of the sister of one bound to him is only rabbinic. Therefore, once the first died, the second is not forbidden forever because she was forbidden by the prohibition of the bond at the time of her falling.

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan [A0148]] [and likewise to Rav, according to Rashi] from our Mishna:

The Mishna states:

Four brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and the married ones died—

these perform chalitza and do not enter into yibbum.

And why

do both perform chalitza? But one of them, the one who fell first, can even enter into yibbum, through

one should go up,

he should stand,

one of them,

of the two brothers, and

perform chalitza with her to

the one who fell

second,

and the first will no longer be forbidden to enter into yibbum on account of the sister of one bound to him.

And let

the

first, with regard to the other one,

be permitted with regard to the second brother,

like

a

yevama who was permitted, became forbidden, and became permitted again—

so she

should return to her original permission!

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan: This Mishna of

“sisters” \-

I do not know who taught it!

That is, this is not a Mishna!

And the Gemara is astonished:

And let him say to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

What does “they perform chalitza” also mean, as it is taught

in our Mishna—

one performs chalitza,

and the other indeed enters into yibbum!

And the Gemara answers:

“They perform chalitza”

in the plural

it teaches.

And the Gemara is still astonished:

And let him say to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

What does “they perform chalitza” mean?—

“They perform chalitza of the world”!

That in all places where such a thing occurs, one performs chalitza, and together they are expressed in the plural.

And the Gemara answers:

“These are

the ones who perform chalitza”

it teaches,

and it implies that these two described in the Mishna are the ones who perform chalitza.

And the Gemara is still astonished:

And let

Rabbi Yohanan say to him that our Mishna is speaking of a case

where

it happened that he went ahead and

performed chalitza with her to

the sister who fell

first, at the beginning,

before the second, and the first can no longer enter into yibbum, whereas the second is forbidden on account of “she became forbidden”