Yevamot 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

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

The Mishna explains: When the Sages, who disagree with Rabban Gamliel, said that there is something after a get and something after a maamar—

whether there is one yevama for one yavam or two yevamot for one yavam.

How so?

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

they require two gittin and halitza

for one of them,

because the second maamar also acquired the second yevama.

It is impossible for him to perform yibbum with even one of them, because since each of them is already bound to him by a maamar, this is like building two houses, which is prohibited by rabbinic ordinance: “He builds one house, but he does not build two houses.”

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

the get given to the second disqualified the maamar of the first.

And

the first

requires

a get

for his maamar

and halitza

for her bond; the halitza also benefits the second.

A maamar with this one and intercourse with that one—

it is impossible for him to remain married to both of them, because he builds one house and does not build two houses, and the one with whom he performed the maamar is considered bound to him by rabbinic ordinance.

Therefore

they require two gittin and halitza.

Even the one with whom he had intercourse requires halitza in addition to a get, since her intercourse was “invalid”: she was prohibited from undergoing yibbum because of the maamar with the other woman.

A maamar with this one and halitza with that one—

the woman with the maamar,

the first, requires a get

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

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

they require halitza from him

once; he need not perform halitza with both of them, despite the fact that this is invalid halitza [since she is not fit for yibbum], and he is also prohibited to the relatives of the second.

A get for this one and intercourse with that one—

he may not remain married to the one with whom he had intercourse, since because of the get she is prohibited under “he may not build,” and

even

the one with whom he had intercourse

requires a get and

also

halitza,

because her intercourse was invalid.

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

the second

requires

a get

for his maamar,

and

both require

halitza

for their bond.

A get for this one and halitza with that one—

nothing follows halitza!

Even if he betroths her rival, the kiddushin will not take effect with her, because the rival too is prohibited under “he may not build,” and according to Rabbi Akiva kiddushin does not take effect with those liable for prohibitions.

He performed halitza

with this one

and performed halitza

with that one,

or he performed halitza

with this one

and performed a maamar

with that one,

or he performed halitza with this one and

gave a get

to that one,

or he performed halitza with this one

and had intercourse

with that one—

he accomplished nothing, since nothing follows halitza.

Or he had intercourse

with this one

and had intercourse

with that one.

Or he had intercourse

with this one

and performed a 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 halitza

with that one—

he accomplished nothing, since nothing follows intercourse.

Here too, the tanna delays citing the preceding principle, as the Gemara will explain:

Nothing follows halitza.

The tanna clarifies that everything stated applies

both to one yavam with two yevamot and to two yevamim with one yevama.

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

He performed halitza and a maamar,

with that yevama, or he performed halitza and

gave a get,

or he performed halitza

and had intercourse.

Or he had intercourse and performed a maamar,

with that yevama, or he had intercourse

and gave a get

or he had intercourse

and performed halitza—

because

nothing follows halitza—

at all!

This applies,

whether

the halitza was

at the beginning,

before the other acts, for example,

whether

the halitza was

in the middle,

between a maamar and a get.

For example, there were two yevamot before him, and he first gave a get to one, performed halitza “in the middle” with the second, and finally repeated and performed a maamar with the recipient of the get herself [or with the woman who underwent halitza].

Since from the moment he performed halitza with her she becomes prohibited under “he may not build,” and according to Rabbi Akiva kiddushin does not take effect with her,

or at the end.

If he performed halitza after a maamar and a get, despite the fact that it is invalid halitza, since he can no longer perform yibbum with her, the halitza is completely effective. If he then returns and betroths her, the kiddushin does 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,”

for example, a get with this one, intercourse with that one, and a maamar with a third, he becomes prohibited to the relatives of the third.

And at the end,

for example, a get with this one, a maamar with that one, and then he has 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 halitza in addition to a get—

something does follow it

after the

intercourse.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Whether intercourse or halitza, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end—

nothing follows it.

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

Gemara:

The Gemara infers:

The Sages and Rabban Gamliel disagree only

with regard to

a get after a get and a maamar after a maamar.

But one get with a yevama

is effective in disqualifying her under “he may not build,” by rabbinic ordinance,

and one maamar with a yevama is effective

by rabbinic ordinance to require her to receive a get in addition to halitza.

The Gemara explains the reason for these two ordinances:

What is the reason the Sages said

that a

get with a yevama is effective

in disqualifying her even under “he may not build,” when only halitza is effective with her? Why should the get be considered, by rabbinic ordinance, to invoke the principle, “Since he did not build, he may no longer build”?—

Because a

get is

effective in general,

with a woman married to her husband.

For if you were to say that a get is not effective

with a yevama in prohibiting her under “he may not build,”

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

That a

get

is effective with a yevama

to remove her,

and that

halitza

is also effective with a yevama

to remove her

as well.

And since a get is not effective

in preventing the yevama from being returned to the yavam after he divorced her,

halitza would likewise not be effective

in preventing her return to the yavam after he performed halitza with her.

And they would come to have intercourse with her after halitza.

And what is the reason the Sages said

that a

maamar with a yevama is effective

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

Because the kiddushin of a woman is effective

in

general.

For if you were to say that a maamar is not effective

with a yevama,

people would say

the following:

That a

maamar

is effective with a yevama

to acquire

her,

and that

intercourse

is effective with her

to acquire

her.

And since a maamar is not effective

in prohibiting the second yevama from undergoing yibbum—

intercourse would likewise not be effective

in prohibiting the second one from undergoing yibbum.

And they would come to have intercourse

with the second yevama as well

after intercourse

with the first yevama, and would thereby build two houses!

And what is the reason the Sages said

that

invalid intercourse has something follow it?

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

Likewise, her intercourse does not exempt her fellow from halitza; rather, the woman with the maamar requires both a get and halitza.

Yet according to Torah law, the intercourse severed the bond both with her and with her fellow.

They said

in explanation:

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 both a get and halitza afterward—the Sages decreed that a get alone should not release her—

a decree concerning intercourse after a get, because of intercourse after halitza.

For if people see that intercourse after a get is also considered proper yibbum, and no decree is made requiring her to return and undergo halitza, they will compare halitza to a get and come to permit intercourse with her after halitza as well.

Therefore, the Sages decreed that she must return and undergo halitza. People will then understand that a get is not effective with a yevama, and will not come to compare the situation after a get with the situation after halitza.

And if the intercourse

is invalid because the intercourse

is after a maamar—

for example, he performed a maamar with this one and had intercourse with the second, so that the woman with whom he had intercourse requires a get and halitza, and her fellow likewise requires both a get and halitza—

it is a decree concerning intercourse after a maamar, because of intercourse after intercourse.

For if they did not require her to undergo halitza, but only to receive a get, people would mistakenly think that intercourse after a maamar is a proper act, and they would also come to permit intercourse with the second yevama after intercourse with the first yevama, thereby violating the prohibition of the wife of one's brother.

And what is the reason the Sages said

that

this invalid halitza,

after the get or after the maamar,

has nothing follow it?

Even if he returns and performs a maamar with her, she does not require a get, and even if he gives a get to a third woman, it will have no effect.

They said

to explain: What is it that

we should decree

concerning it?

Let us decree

that it should not be effective,

a chalitza after a get,

so that nothing would follow it, whereas in fact something would follow it,

because

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

a chalitza after a chalitza

for two yevamot.

No mishap would result from this, for what difference would it make? After all,

in all such cases—

let her perform chalitza and continue!

Should we decree that a chalitza after a maamar

is ineffective, and that something would follow it,

because of a chalitza after intercourse,

lest they permit the yevama who had intercourse, through chalitza without a get?

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

Because

is it so

that

a chalitza after a maamar—

does it not require a get for its maamar,

and is chalitza alone insufficient?

Therefore, with

a chalitza after intercourse as well,

people will understand that

a get is required for his intercourse.

And what we said—that nothing follows a chalitza—concerns an act performed after chalitza: if, after chalitza, he performs another act with her fellow-yevama, such as a maamar, a get, or a chalitza, he is not prohibited from her fellow-yevama’s relatives!

Rava said: