Yevamot 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

What is the reason of Rabban Gamliel,

who said: There is no get after a get in the case of two yevamot or two yevamin, and the second get does not prohibit the yavam from marrying her relatives?

Because

it is uncertain to him

—Rabban Gamliel—regarding two uncertainties:

The first uncertainty is:

a get

given to a yevama,

does it dislodge her or does it not dislodge her?

And the second uncertainty is:

a maamar

given to a yevama,

does it acquire her or does it not acquire her?

Therefore,

with regard to a get,

about which he is uncertain

whether it dislodges her or does not dislodge her,

one can say, whichever way you look at it:

If the first get dislodges her

—

then what has the

second

get accomplished!?

She had already been dislodged from him by the first get. And since the second get accomplishes nothing, her relatives are not prohibited to him as the relatives of his divorced wife.

If the first get does not dislodge her,

because a get does not have the power to dislodge a yevama—

then the

second get

also does not dislodge her!

Therefore, she is not considered his divorced wife, such that he would be prohibited from marrying her relatives.

Likewise, one can say, whichever way you look at it, with regard to

a maamar,

about which Rabban Gamliel is uncertain

whether it acquires her or does not acquire her.

If the first maamar acquires her—

what has the second maamar accomplished?

And if the first maamar does not acquire her—

the second one also does not acquire her!

Abaye raised an objection

to Rava:

How can you maintain that Rabban Gamliel’s reason is that he is uncertain whether a get dislodges her or not, and whether a maamar acquires her or not!?

But was it not taught in a beraita:

And Rabban Gamliel concedes:

a.

That there is a get after a maamar.

If he performed a maamar with one of them and gave a get to the other, the get disqualifies the first one, with whom he performed the maamar, and he is prohibited from marrying the relatives of both: both those of the woman who received the maamar and those of the woman who received the get.

b.

And a maamar after a get.

If he gave a get to one of them and performed a maamar with the other, the woman with whom he performed the maamar requires a get.

c.

And a get after intercourse and a maamar.

If he performed a maamar with one of them, had intercourse with another, and gave a get to a third, the get is effective with regard to the third, prohibiting him from marrying her relatives [and the intercourse was ineffective, because the intercourse with the second yevama was performed disqualified, on account of the maamar that he had previously performed with the first].

d.

And a maamar after intercourse and a get.

If he gave a get to the first, had intercourse with the second, and performed a maamar with the third, the maamar is effective in prohibiting him from marrying her relatives and in requiring her to receive a get from him.

And from here Abaye proves:

And if Rabban Gamliel is uncertain

whether a maamar acquires her, this is difficult: Why is the get that he gave her after intercourse and a maamar effective in prohibiting him from marrying her relatives?

Likewise, if he is uncertain whether a get dislodges her, why is the maamar effective in prohibiting him from marrying her relatives and requiring her to receive a get, after there had already been intercourse and a get?

Let

this intervening intercourse, which occurred between the get and the maamar, or between the maamar and the get,

be regarded as intercourse performed initially

[as intercourse performed at the outset, before anything else had been done],

and let

this intercourse acquire her completely; and why should the get or the maamar performed afterward be effective?

For we learned in the Mishna: Intercourse—

when it is performed initially, nothing can follow it!

And here, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is uncertain, this intervening intercourse must be considered intercourse performed initially, after which nothing can follow. For whichever way you look at it: If the first maamar is effective in acquiring the first yevama completely, then the subsequent intercourse and the get given to the third accomplish nothing.

And if the maamar performed with the first does not acquire anything, then the intercourse performed with the second is valid intercourse, and it is considered to have been performed initially, since the maamar preceding it has no significance [according to the possibility that it acquires nothing, in accordance with Rabban Gamliel]. Consequently, the get given to the third accomplishes nothing, because after valid intercourse nothing can follow.

Likewise, the maamar performed with the third has no force if Rabban Gamliel is uncertain whether a get dislodges her. Here too, we say, whichever way you look at it:

If the first get accomplishes nothing, the intercourse with the second is valid intercourse, after which nothing can follow, and the maamar performed afterward with the third yevama is ineffective.

Rather, Abaye said: In fact, it is certain to Rabban Gamliel that a get dislodges her

partially,

and that a maamar acquires her

partially.

Therefore, intercourse that follows a get, or that follows a maamar, is not intercourse performed initially. Consequently, something can follow it.

Accordingly, there is a get after a maamar, and there is a maamar after a get. Then why does Rabban Gamliel say that there is no get after a get and no maamar after a maamar, even though a get does not dislodge her completely and a maamar acquires her only partially?

However, the Sages said—

with regard to this yevama, in one respect a

get is effective with her

to dislodge her partially,

and in another respect a maamar is effective with her to acquire her partially.

Therefore,

a get after a get does not dislodge her, for the first

get

has already dislodged her

to the full extent of the partial dislodgment that a get of a yevama can effect.

Likewise,

a maamar after a maamar does not acquire her, for the first

maamar

has already acquired her

to the full extent of the partial acquisition that a maamar can effect.

But

a get after a maamar, and a maamar after a get—

in this respect,

the get

dislodges her. In that respect,

the maamar

acquires her.

Therefore, the partial dislodgment effected by the get does not prevent the acquisition of the other partial aspect acquired through the maamar.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabban Gamliel and maintain that there is a get after a get, hold:

For each and every one

of the yevamin,

the Sages instituted for him

either

a get or

either

a maamar,

and they instituted this

for

every

yevama

and every yevama.

Therefore, each one has only his own individual power, and his get cannot dislodge her through the full power of the get of the other yevamin, nor can his maamar override the power of the maamar of the other yevamin.

The same law applies when one yavam has no power to override the power of the others with regard to the other wives of the yevama; his action is effective only with regard to the particular yevama with whom he acted [whether by giving a get or by performing halitza].

The Gemara returns to explain Rabban Gamliel’s statement that after a maamar there is a get, and that there is a maamar after intercourse and a get—

This is because

this intercourse

that intervened and was

disqualified—

is superior to a maamar

in one respect,

and inferior to a maamar

in another respect.

And the Gemara explains:

It is superior to a maamar—

For whereas a maamar after a maamar is ineffective,

intercourse after a maamar is effective,

as it teaches that there is a get after intercourse and a maamar.

And it is inferior to a maamar—

For whereas a maamar after a get acquires

the woman

with regard to the entire remainder left by the get,

and a maamar with the third would consequently be ineffective,

whereas intercourse after a get does not acquire her

with regard to

the entire remainder left by the get.

And there is a maamar after intercourse and a get.

The Gemara now cites a beraita that explains Rabban Gamliel’s statements in his dispute with the Rabbis, which were not explained in the Mishna:

The Sages taught:

a.

How did Rabban Gamliel state, “There is no get after a get”

? For example:

Two yevamot fell before one yavam, and he gave a get to this one and a get to that one—

Rabban Gamliel says: He performs halitza with the first one

alone,

and he is prohibited from marrying her relatives,

those of the woman to whom he first gave the get and with whom he performed halitza,

but he is permitted to marry the relatives of the second,

since the get accomplished nothing with regard to the second.

If he performs halitza with the second as well, the first is also released, since the get given to the second accomplished nothing. Rather, they gave him sound counsel, so that as a result of his halitza he would be prohibited only from marrying the relatives of the first, from whom he was already prohibited in any event because he had divorced her with a get.

And the Rabbis say: If he gave a get to this one and a get to that one—

he is prohibited from marrying the relatives of both, and he performs halitza with one of them.

And so you likewise say in the case of two yevamin and one yevama.

If both of them gave her a get, only the first performs halitza, and only he is prohibited from marrying her relatives; according to the Rabbis, both are prohibited from marrying her relatives.

b.

How did Rabban Gamliel state, “There is no maamar after a maamar”

? Two yevamot fell before one yavam, and he performed a maamar with this one and a maamar with that one—

Rabban Gamliel says: He gives a get to the first and performs halitza with her; he is prohibited from marrying her relatives but permitted to marry the relatives of the second.

The reason he may not perform yibbum will be explained below.

And the Rabbis say: He gives a get to both of them, is prohibited from marrying the relatives of both, and performs halitza with one of them.

And so you likewise say in the case of two yevamin and one yevama.

The Master said: He gives a get to this one and a get to that one—

Rabban Gamliel says: He performs halitza with the first, is prohibited from marrying her relatives, and is permitted to marry the relatives of the second.

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Shmuel?

For Shmuel said: If he performed halitza with the woman who received the get,

since the bond of the woman who received the get had been weakened on account of the get,

the rival wife is not released

by this halitza, since her bond had not been weakened, and he must return and perform halitza with her rival wife.

But here, when he gave a get to one and then gave a get to the second, according to Rabban Gamliel the second get accomplished nothing with regard to the second. It follows that the bond of the first was weakened by the get, whereas the bond of the second was not weakened; nevertheless, Rabban Gamliel says that he should perform halitza only with the first, thereby releasing the second as well. This appears to contradict Shmuel!

And we answer:

Shmuel could have said to you: When I say

that halitza of a weakened bond does not release a second bond that was not weakened,

I say this in accordance with the one who says that there is a bond,

for he maintains that the bond is strong enough to create a marital relationship between the yavam and his yevama. Therefore, halitza for a bond that was weakened cannot also apply to the bond that remained strong.

And Rabban Gamliel holds that there is no bond,

and it is easy to annul it through any halitza.

The Gemara infers:

And since Rabban Gamliel holds that there is no bond—