Yevamot 50a — the Talmud in English

These are "two generations",

the years allotted to a person at the time of his birth, which are the period of time called "his generation".

If he merited -

they complete it for him,

so that he lives all the years allotted to him; and this is the intent of the verse in the promise, "I shall fill the number of your days": that the years of life shall be completed and not reduced.

But if

he did not merit -

they reduce for him

from the years allotted to him.

The words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: If he merited -

they add to him

beyond the years allotted to him.

For the filling mentioned in the verse, "I shall fill the number of your days," means an addition of years.

If he did not merit -

they reduce it for him.

The Sages said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Akiva: Behold, it is

the verse

says

in the promise to King Hezekiah

"And I shall add fifteen years to your days"!

And it is proven that through merits one can merit an addition to the allotted years of life!

He said to them

Rabbi Akiva: These years -

they added them to him from his own!

For at first they wished to reduce these years from him, and through the merit of his prayer they returned his years to him.

Know

that they added them to him from his own years,

for behold, a prophet was standing and prophesying

in the days of Jeroboam, many years before the event with Hezekiah, about the birth of Josiah, the son of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah.

For it is written [I Kings 13

"Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah shall be his name"

And he had not yet been born

at that time

Manasseh

the son of Hezekiah, from whom Josiah emerged.

And it is proven that these years, during which Manasseh [the father of Josiah] was born to Hezekiah, were years from his own [allotted years].

For according to the words of the Sages, it is impossible that there should be a prophecy about the birth of offspring to Hezekiah during years that he would merit beyond the years of his generation allotted to him. For prophecy is only about something that has been allotted, and not about a change from what was allotted.

And the Rabbis

hold:

Is it written

that Josiah was destined to emerge specifically

from Hezekiah?

But in that prophecy

"to the house of David" is written -

And it makes no difference

whether he was born from Hezekiah or whether he was born from another person

born.

We learned in the Mishna:

His wife who died, etc.

His yevama who died, etc.

Rabbi Yosef said: Here Rabbi taught a Mishna that is unnecessary,

for this is the meaning of the verse, "And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to uncover her nakedness, upon her, during her lifetime": a wife's sister exists only during the lifetime of his wife!

We have returned to you, chapter "The One Who Performed Halitza"

Four matters were stated concerning yibbum and chalitza: two from the Torah, and two from the Sages. And these are they:

Yibbum or chalitza, from the Torah.

Maamar or a get, by rabbinic enactment.

The Sages enacted that kiddushei maamar performed with money or with a document acquire the yevama, on the one hand,

and the invalidation of the divorce of a yevama, through the yavam giving her a get, on the other hand.

The maamar that the yavam performs with his yevama effects three matters:

a. It forbids her to the other brothers.

b. It obligates her to receive a get, if he comes to remove her [in addition to chalitza].

c. It forbids her female relatives to him, according to the law of the relatives of his wife.

But the get that the yavam gives his yevama effects two matters:

a. It forbids her by rabbinic enactment to all the brothers.

b. The one who divorces her becomes forbidden to her female relatives.

In this Mishna, first there will be explained the dispute between the Sages and Rabban Gamaliel, concerning one yavam who then performed the same act with his two yevamot, or two yevamin who then performed the same act with one yevama who falls before them.

Afterward, the Mishna explains, according to everyone, the law concerning one yavam who performed one matter out of the four matters with one of his yevamot, and then performed another matter from among the four with her—the force of the second act.

And the Mishna explains the significance of the additional act in the case of one who performed maamar with a yevama, and afterward returned and performed one of the other three matters with her:

Either he gave her a get after the maamar, or performed chalitza for her after the maamar, or had intercourse with her after the maamar—what is the force of the second act?

And afterward the Mishna explains the force of the second act in the case of one who gave a yevama a get, and afterward performed one of the other three matters with her: he performed maamar, or had intercourse with her, or performed chalitza with her.

And the Mishna continues to explain the case of one who performed chalitza for a yevama, and afterward performed maamar with her, or gave her a get, or had intercourse with her.

And it concludes with the case of one who had intercourse with a yevama, and then returned and performed maamar with her, or gave her a get, or performed chalitza for her.

And briefly:

Maamar,

and afterward: a get, or chalitza, or intercourse.

Get,

and afterward: maamar, or chalitza, or intercourse.

Chalitza,

and afterward: maamar, or a get, or intercourse.

Intercourse,

and afterward: maamar, or a get, or chalitza.

And all this is speaking of one yavam and one yevama.

Before the Mishna begins to explain the law of the one yavam who performs two acts with his one yevama, it first introduces the dispute of Rabban Gamaliel and the Sages, concerning one who repeats and performs the same act with two yevamot who fall before him from two brothers.

Or if one yevama falls before two brothers, and one brother performs an act with her, and then the second brother returns and performs that same act with her.

Mishna:

Rabban Gamaliel says:

a.

No get

that the yavam gives the yevama has any effect,

after

he has already given

a get

to the other yevama.

And the one who divorces her does not become forbidden to the relatives of the second yevama to whom he gave a get, as is the law with one who divorces his yevama, because his get had no effect at all.

And Rabban Gamaliel’s reason is that he is uncertain whether a get with a yevama is effective in removing the bond or not.

Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the second get has no effect:

If the first get is effective in removing the bond, the bond with both yevamot was removed by the first get, and the second get did nothing.

If the first get was not effective in removing the bond, and did not accomplish anything in rejecting the yevama to whom he gave the get, then the second get likewise did not accomplish this.

Therefore, the second one is not his divorcee, and he does not become forbidden to the relatives of the second one.

And likewise, if there were two yevamin and one yevama, and the second then gave her a get after his brother had already given her a get, she is not considered the divorcee of the second, because his get accomplished nothing, and he does not become forbidden to her relatives.

b. Likewise, Rabban Gamaliel is uncertain whether maamar acquires or does not acquire:

And

therefore,

no

effect is produced by any

maamar

that a man performs with his yevama

after a maamar

that he has already performed with the other yevama.

For if maamar acquires, the second maamar does not acquire, because it is possible to acquire one yevama but not two.

And if maamar does not acquire, the second maamar has no greater effect than the first.

Therefore, he does not become forbidden to the relatives of the second one, and she does not require a get.

And likewise, if his brother then performed maamar with her, she does not require a get from him, and he did not forbid her to his brother, and he does not become forbidden to her relatives.

c.

Nor

does any effect result from

intercourse

that the yavam has with his yevama

after intercourse

that he had with the other yevama, and he does not become forbidden to her relatives.

d.

Nor does chalitza

have any effect

after chalitza

with the other yevama.

And the Sages

disagree and

say:

a.

There is a get after a get,

because the get that he gives one yevama does not completely remove the entire bond, since she still requires chalitza. Therefore, the second get is effective with the second yevama, to remove the bond that still remains toward her, and the one who divorces her is forbidden to her relatives.

And likewise, if there was a yevama who fell before two yevamin, the first one’s get did not remove the entire bond, and it still remained toward the second yavam. Therefore, his get is effective in removing the bond toward him, and he too is forbidden to her relatives.

b.

And there is maamar after maamar.

His maamar with the second yevama is effective, requiring her to receive a get and making him forbidden to her relatives.

c.

But no

matter has any effect

after intercourse, nor after chalitza—

at all!

And now the Mishna proceeds to another matter, which is not connected with the dispute of Rabban Gamaliel and the Sages, but concerning which everyone agrees [as was explained in the introduction to this Mishna].

And the Mishna explains

how

the law applies in the case of one yavam and one yevama, where the yavam repeats and performs one act after another with her.

a. He performed an additional act with her after maamar:

He performed maamar with his yevama, and gave her a get,

I apply to him [by rabbinic enactment] “Since he did not build, he shall no longer build”; therefore he is forbidden to take her, but

she requires chalitza from him.

He performed

with her

maamar and chalitza—

she requires a get from him

for his maamar, in addition to chalitza.

He performed maamar, and had intercourse—

this is according to its mitzva.

b. He performed an additional act with her after a get:

He gave a get, and performed maamar—

she requires a get

for his maamar,

and chalitza

to release her according to Torah law.

And even according to Rabban Gamaliel, she requires a get from him, because on the possibility that a get does not completely remove the bond, the maamar was effective with her.

He gave a get and had intercourse—

she requires a get

for his intercourse,

and chalitza.

Because he is forbidden to maintain her according to the law of “Since he did not build, he shall no longer build,” and his intercourse with her is not considered a complete acquisition, since a get preceded it, and it is considered invalid intercourse. Therefore, she requires a get for his intercourse and chalitza for her bond.

He gave a get and performed chalitza—

nothing follows chalitza.

And our Mishna is according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that kiddushin do not take effect with those prohibited by a negative commandment. Therefore, even if he betroths her through maamar, or has intercourse with her, kiddushin does not take effect with her, because the prohibition of one who has undergone chalitza is a negative commandment from the Torah.

This is so even though it is “invalid chalitza,” since if he wanted to perform yibbum with her he could not, because a get had already preceded it.

c. He performed an additional act with her after chalitza:

He performed chalitza and maamar.

He performed chalitza and

gave a get.

He performed chalitza

and had intercourse.

Nothing follows chalitza, as the tanna says below.

Maamar and intercourse are not effective with one who has undergone chalitza, because our Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that kiddushin do not take effect with those prohibited by a negative commandment, and one who has undergone chalitza is forbidden to the yavam by a negative commandment. Therefore neither maamar nor intercourse takes effect with her.

d. He performed an additional act with her after intercourse:

Or he had intercourse and performed maamar.

Or he had intercourse and

gave a get

or he had intercourse

and performed chalitza—

nothing follows intercourse.

For once he has had intercourse with her, he can divorce her with a get and take her back, and chalitza after intercourse does nothing to forbid her to him.

And here the tanna states the rule mentioned earlier [and it will be explained in the Gemara why he delayed stating it until here]:

Nothing follows chalitza!