Yevamot 51a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

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

to Rabban Gamliel, [concerning] two uncertainties:

The first uncertainty is,

a get

with regard to a yevama:

whether it effects rejection or whether it does not effect rejection.

And the second uncertainty is,

a maamar

with regard to a yevama:

whether it effects acquisition or whether it does not effect acquisition.

And therefore,

with regard to a get,

about which he is uncertain

whether it effects rejection or whether it does not effect rejection,

one may say, in either case:

If the first one effects rejection

of her—

if so, the

later get—

what does it accomplish!?

For she was already rejected from him through the first get. And since it accomplishes nothing, her relatives do not become forbidden to him like the relatives of his divorced wife.

If the first one does not effect rejection,

because a get does not have the power to effect the rejection of a yevama—

then the

later get—

also does not effect rejection!

And therefore she is not considered his divorced wife, so that her relatives should become forbidden to him.

And likewise, one may say in either case with regard to

a maamar,

about which Rabban Gamliel is uncertain

whether it effects acquisition or whether it does not effect acquisition.

If the first one effects acquisition—

what does the later maamar accomplish?

And if the first one does not effect acquisition—

the later one also does not effect acquisition!

Abaye raised an objection to him

to Rava:

How do you think to say that Rabban Gamliel’s reason is because he is uncertain whether a get effects rejection or not, and whether a maamar effects acquisition or not!?

But it was taught in a beraita:

And Rabban Gamliel concedes:

a.

That there is a get after a maamar.

For if he performed a maamar with this one and gave a get to that one, the get disqualifies the first one, with whom he performed the maamar, and he is forbidden to the relatives of both of them—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.

For if he gave a get to this one and performed a maamar with that one, the woman who received the maamar requires a get.

c.

And a get after intercourse and a maamar.

]]For if he performed a maamar with this one, had intercourse with that one, and gave a get to a third one, the get to the third one is effective to prohibit him from her relatives [and the intercourse was not effective, because the intercourse with the second yevama was disqualified, on account of the maamar that he had previously performed with the first one].

d.

And a maamar after intercourse and a get.

For if he gave a get to the first one, had intercourse with the second one, and performed a maamar with the third one, the maamar is effective to prohibit him from her relatives and to make her require a get from him.

And from here Abaye proves:

And if Rabban Gamliel is uncertain

whether a maamar effects acquisition, it is difficult: why is the get that he gave her after intercourse and a maamar effective to prohibit him from her relatives?

And likewise, if he is uncertain whether a get effects rejection, why is the maamar effective to prohibit him from her relatives and to make her require a get, after there had already been intercourse and a get?

Let

this middle intercourse, which was between the get and the maamar, or between the maamar and the get,

be like intercourse performed initially

[like intercourse that was performed at the beginning, before which nothing had been done],

and let

this intercourse effect complete acquisition; and why is a get or a maamar after it effective?

For we learned in the Mishna: intercourse—

when it is performed initially, nothing follows it!

And here, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is uncertain, this middle intercourse should have to be considered intercourse performed initially, after which nothing follows. For in either case: if the first maamar is effective to effect complete acquisition of the first yevama, then thereafter the second intercourse and the get given to the third one accomplish nothing.

And if the maamar performed with the first one effects no acquisition, then the intercourse performed with the second one is valid intercourse, and it is considered to have been performed initially, because the maamar preceding it has no significance [according to the possibility that it effects no acquisition, according to Rabban Gamliel]. And if so, thereafter the get given to the third one accomplishes nothing. For after valid intercourse, nothing follows.

And likewise, the maamar performed with the third one has no force if Rabban Gamliel is uncertain concerning a get, whether it effects rejection. For here too we say, in either case:

If the first get effects no rejection, the intercourse with the second one is valid intercourse, and nothing follows it, and the maamar performed afterward with the third yevama is not effective.

Rather, Abaye said: Actually, it is obvious to Rabban Gamliel that a get effects rejection

to a limited extent

and that a maamar effects acquisition

to a limited extent.

And therefore, intercourse that follows a get, or that follows a maamar, is not [intercourse performed] initially. And therefore something follows it.

And according to this, there is a get after a maamar, and there is a maamar after a get. And for what reason did Rabban Gamliel say that there is no get after a get and no maamar after a maamar, even though a get does not effect complete rejection, and a maamar effects acquisition only to a limited extent?

However, the Sages said—

with regard to this yevama, in one respect it is effective

with regard to her a get

to effect rejection to a limited extent.

And in one respect a maamar is effective with regard to her to effect her acquisition to a limited extent.

And therefore

a get after a get does not effect rejection. For the get

getom

first

has effected all the limited rejection that a get of yibum has the power to effect.

And likewise

a maamar after a maamar does not effect acquisition, for the maamar

maamarom

first

has effected all the limited acquisition that the maamar has the ability to effect.

But,

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

in this respect, a get

effects rejection. And in this respect, a maamar

ustranyaet, a v drugom otnoshenii

maamar

effects acquisition.

And therefore, the limited aspect that the get rejects does not prevent the acquisition of the other limited aspect, which is acquired through the maamar.

And the Sages

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

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 yevama.

And therefore each one has only his own individual power, and his get cannot effect all the rejection that belongs to the get of the other yevamin, and his maamar cannot effect all the acquisition that belongs to the maamar of the other yevamin.

And the same law applies: one yavam does not have the power to effect the rejection belonging to the others with regard to the co-wives of the yevama, and only what he did [a get or chalitza] with that particular yevama is effective for him.

And the Gemara returns to explain the words of Rabban Gamliel: that there is [a get] after a maamar, and there is a maamar after intercourse and a get—

this is because

this intercourse

which is

disqualified—

is superior to a maamar

in one respect,

and is 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 not effective.

whereas 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 effects acquisition

the maamar

of all the remainder of the get,

and a maamar with the third one would not be effective.

whereas intercourse after a get does not effect acquisition for him

the intercourse

of all the remainder of the get.

And there is a maamar after intercourse and a get.

And now the Gemara brings a beraita that explains the words of Rabban Gamliel in his disagreement with the Sages, which were not explained in the Mishna:

The Sages taught:

a.

How did Rabban Gamliel say, “There is no get after a get—”?

For example,

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

Rabban Gamliel says: He performs chalitza with the first one

alone,

and he is forbidden to her relatives

of this one to whom he first gave the get and with whom he performed chalitza,

and he is permitted to the relatives of the second one,

because the get accomplished nothing for the second one.

And if he performs chalitza with the second one, the first one too will be released—the first one because the get given to the second one accomplished nothing. Rather, they gave him good counsel, so that on account of his chalitza he would become forbidden only to the relatives of the first one, to whom he is forbidden in any event because he divorced her with a get.

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

he is forbidden to the relatives of both of them, and [performs] chalitza with one of them.

And likewise you say [this] with regard to two yevamin and one yevama.

For if both of them gave a get, only the first performs chalitza, and only he becomes forbidden to her relatives; whereas according to the Sages, both become forbidden to her relatives.

b.

How did Rabban Gamliel say, “There is no maamar after a maamar—”?

Two yevamot who 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 one and performs chalitza with her, and he is forbidden to her relatives and permitted to the relatives of the second one.

And later it will be explained why he does not perform yibum.

And the Sages say: He gives a get to both of them, and he is forbidden to the relatives of both of them, and [performs] chalitza with one of them.

And likewise you say [this] with regard to 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 chalitza with the first one, and he is forbidden to her relatives and permitted to the relatives of the second one.

Let us say: Let this be a refutation of Shmuel!

For Shmuel said: If he performed chalitza with the recipient of the get,

since on account of the get the bond of the recipient of the get was weakened,

the co-wife is not released

through this chalitza, since her bond was not weakened, and he must return and perform chalitza with her co-wife.

But in the case where he gave a get to one and then returned and gave a get to the second, according to Rabban Gamliel the second get did nothing for the second one. It follows that the bond of the first one was affected by the get, whereas the bond of the second one was not weakened, and nevertheless Rabban Gamliel said that he should perform chalitza only with the first one, thereby releasing the second one!

And we answer:

Shmuel could say to you: When I said

that chalitza of a bond that was weakened does not release the bond of the second one, which was not weakened,

I said this according to the one who says that there is a bond,

I say this because he holds that the bond is strong enough to create a marital relationship between the yavam and his yevama, and therefore chalitza for a bond that was weakened cannot also count for the bond that remained strong.

And Rabban Gamliel holds that there is no bond,

and it is easy to remove it through any chalitza.

And the Gemara infers:

And since Rabban Gamliel holds that there is no bond—