Yevamot 50b — the Talmud in English

And now the Mishna returns to explain the words of the Sages in their dispute with Rabban Gamaliel, in the first part of the Mishna, concerning one who performed one act and then repeated and performed the same act: the Sages hold that there is a get after a get, since the get does not divorce completely, and there is maamar after maamar, since the maamar does not acquire completely, but there is nothing after chalitza or intercourse.

And the Mishna explains: This statement of the Sages, who disagree with Rabban Gamaliel, that there is something after a get, and that there is something after maamar—

applies both to one yevama before one yavam, and to two yevamot before one yavam.

How so?

He performed maamar with this one and maamar with that one—

they require two gittin, and chalitza

for one of them.

Because the second maamar also acquired the second yevama.

And it is impossible to perform yibbum with even one of them, because since each of them has already become bound to him through maamar, this is like building two houses, by rabbinic enactment; “he builds one house,” but he does not build two houses.

Maamar with this one and a get for that one—

The get of the second invalidated the maamar of the first.

And

the first

requires

a get

for his maamar,

and chalitza

for her bond; and the chalitza is effective also for the second one.

Maamar with this one and intercourse with that one—

It is impossible to maintain both of them, because “he builds one house,” and he does not build two houses, and the one with whom he performed maamar is considered bound to him by rabbinic enactment.

Therefore

they require two gittin, and chalitza.

And even the one with whom he had intercourse requires chalitza in addition to the get, since her intercourse was “invalid,” because she was forbidden to undergo yibbum due to the maamar with the other one.

Maamar with this one and chalitza with that one—

The one with whom he performed maamar,

the first one, requires a get

for his maamar, in addition to chalitza for her bond.

A get for this one and a get for that one—

they require chalitza from him

once, and he does not need to perform chalitza for both of them, despite the fact that it is invalid chalitza [since she is not fit for yibbum], and he is also forbidden to the relatives of the second one.

A get for this one and intercourse with that one—

He is forbidden to maintain the one with whom he had intercourse, because due to the get she is forbidden under “he shall no longer build,” and

even the one

with whom he had intercourse

requires a get and

also

chalitza,

because her intercourse was invalid.

A get for this one and maamar with that one—

the second one requires

a

get

for his maamar,

and

both of them require

chalitza

for their bond.

A get for this one and chalitza with that one—

nothing follows chalitza!

And even if he betroths her rival, kiddushin do not take effect with her, because her rival too is forbidden under “he shall no longer build,” and according to Rabbi Akiva kiddushin do not take effect with those prohibited by negative commandments.

He performed chalitza

with this one

and performed chalitza

with that one,

or he performed chalitza

with this one

and performed maamar

with that one,

or he performed chalitza with this one and

gave a get

to that one.

Or he performed chalitza with this one

and had intercourse

with that one.

He accomplished nothing, because nothing follows chalitza.

Or he had intercourse

with this one

and had intercourse

with that one.

Or he had intercourse

with this one

and performed maamar

with that one.

Or he had intercourse with this one and

gave a get

to that one.

Or he had intercourse with this one

and performed chalitza

with that one—

he accomplished nothing, because nothing follows intercourse.

And here too the tanna delays and brings the preceding rule later, as will be explained in the Gemara:

Nothing follows chalitza.

And the tanna clarifies that everything stated applies

both to one yavam and two yevamot, and to two yevamin and one yevama.

And now the tanna again returns to the case of one yavam who repeats and performs an additional act with the same yevama, in order to teach us below the distinction between intercourse “in the middle,” between two acts, and chalitza in the middle, and to teach the dispute between Rabbi Nehemiah and the Sages:

He performed chalitza and maamar,

with the same yevama, or he performed chalitza and

gave a get,

or he performed chalitza

and had intercourse.

Or he had intercourse and performed maamar,

with the same yevama, or he had intercourse

and gave a get

or he had intercourse

and performed chalitza—

because

nothing follows chalitza—

at all!

And this applies

whether

the chalitza was

at the beginning,

before the other acts, as in the following cases.

Whether

the chalitza was

in the middle,

between maamar and a get.

For example, he had two yevamot before him, and at first gave a get to one, performed chalitza “in the middle” with the second, and finally returned and performed maamar with the one who had received the get [or with the one who had undergone chalitza].

Since from the moment he performed chalitza with her she becomes forbidden under “he shall no longer build,” and according to Rabbi Akiva kiddushin do not take effect with her.

Whether at the end.

If he performed chalitza after maamar and a get, although it is invalid chalitza, since he can no longer perform yibbum with her, the chalitza is completely effective, and if he returns and betroths her, kiddushin do not take effect with her, and she does not require a get, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

And

however,

intercourse—

only

when it is at the beginning—

nothing follows it.

But

“in the middle,”

such as a get for this one, intercourse with that one, and maamar with a third, he becomes forbidden to the relatives of the third—

and at the end,

such as a get for this one, maamar for that one, and he then returned and had intercourse with one of them, this is invalid intercourse, since he cannot perform yibbum with her because of the first get, and invalid intercourse requires chalitza in addition to a get—

something follows it

with regard to intercourse,

at all.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: Both intercourse and chalitza, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end—

nothing follows them.

She is released even after such invalid intercourse with a get alone.

Gemara:

And the Gemara deduces:

Up to here they disagree

the Sages and Rabban Gamaliel

only concerning a get after a get and maamar after maamar.

But one get with a yevama,

the get is effective in invalidating her under “he shall no longer build” by rabbinic enactment,

and one maamar with a yevama is effective

by rabbinic enactment to require her to receive a get in addition to chalitza.

And the Gemara explains the reason for these two enactments:

What is the reason the Sages said

that

a get with a yevama is effective

to invalidate her even under “he shall no longer build,” when only chalitza is effective with her, and why should the get be considered, by rabbinic enactment, so as to apply to her “Since he did not build, he shall no longer build”?—

Because it is effective, a

get

in general,

with a woman married to her husband.

For if you say that a get is not effective

with a yevama to forbid her under “he shall no longer build,”

people will say, mistakenly, according to their erroneous understanding:

They will say:

Both

a get

is effective with a yevama

to remove her, and

both

chalitza

is effective with a yevama

to remove her.

And since a get is not effective

in preventing the return of a yevama to the yavam after he divorced her,

chalitza too is not effective

in preventing her return to the yavam after he performed chalitza for her.

And he will come to have intercourse with her after chalitza.

And what is the reason the Sages said

that

maamar with a yevama is effective

in forbidding the second yevama under the rule “He builds one house and does not build two houses,” when according to Torah law maamar is not considered the building of a house?—

Because it is effective,

the kiddushin of a woman

in general.

For if you say that maamar is not effective

with a yevama,

people will say:

They will say:

Both

maamar

is effective with a yevama

to acquire

her,

and

both

intercourse

is effective with her

to acquire

her.

And since maamar is not effective

in forbidding the second yevama from yibbum—

intercourse likewise is not effective

in forbidding the second one from yibbum.

And he will come to have intercourse

with the second yevama as well

after intercourse

with the first yevama, and it will turn out that he builds two houses!

And what is the reason the Sages said

that

invalid intercourse has something after it?

For example, if he performed maamar with this one and had intercourse with that one, and it was invalid intercourse, since he could not perform yibbum with her because of the maamar with her fellow, she is not released with a get alone, but only together with chalitza.

And likewise, her intercourse does not exempt her fellow from chalitza, but the one with whom he performed maamar requires a get and chalitza.

But according to Torah law, the intercourse removed the bond both from her and from her fellow.

They said

to answer:

If the intercourse

is invalid because the intercourse

is after a get—

For example, he gave a get to this one and had intercourse with that one, and therefore it is invalid intercourse, requiring after it both a get and chalitza; they decreed concerning it that a get alone should not release her—

a decree concerning intercourse after a get, on account of intercourse after chalitza.

For if people see that even after a get the intercourse is considered proper yibbum, and they do not decree that she return and undergo chalitza, and they compare chalitza to a get, they will come to permit having intercourse with her even after chalitza.

Therefore they decreed that she return and undergo chalitza, and then people will understand that a get is not effective with a yevama, and they will not come to compare the situation after a get with the situation after chalitza.

And if the intercourse

is invalid because the intercourse

is after maamar—

For example, he performed maamar with this one and had intercourse with the second one, so that the one with whom he had intercourse requires a get and chalitza, and her fellow also requires a get and chalitza—

a decree concerning intercourse after maamar, on account of intercourse after intercourse.

For if they required her to undergo chalitza but only required a get, people would err and think that intercourse after maamar is a proper act, and they would come also to permit intercourse with the second yevama after intercourse with the first yevama, and they would come to violate the prohibition of a brother’s wife.

And what is the reason the Sages said

that

this invalid chalitza,

after the get or after the maamar,

has nothing after it?

And even if he returns and performs maamar with her, she will not require a get, and even if he gives a get to a third one, it will not be effective.

They say

to explain: and what indeed

should we decree

upon her?

Let us decree

that it should not be effective

chalitza after the get

so that nothing at all will follow it, whereas here something will follow it,

because

perhaps people will err and equate chalitza after the get with chalitza after chalitza, and if we do not decree that an invalid chalitza is ineffective, they will come to permit also

chalitza after chalitza

for two yevamot.

No mishap will result from this, for what of it? After all,

all such cases—

let her perform chalitza and go on!

Let us decree that chalitza after maamar

should not be effective, and that nothing will follow it,

because of chalitza after intercourse,

perhaps they will permit the yevama who had intercourse through chalitza without a get?

And we answer: people will not err in this matter.

For

is it so

that

chalitza after maamar—

does it not require a get for his maamar,

and is chalitza sufficient?

And therefore, in

chalitza after intercourse also

people will understand that

a get is required for his intercourse.

And what we said—that after chalitza there is nothing—concerns a matter that is done after chalitza: if, after chalitza, he does another matter with her fellow-wife, such as maamar, or a get, or chalitza, he will not be forbidden on account of the relatives of the second one!

Rava said: