Yevamot 51b — the Talmud in English

The Rabbis hold that there is zikah.

And this is to say that this is the Gemara’s premise: that they disagreed about this as well, although it is not proven from their disagreement.

And it teaches in the latter clause: “And so you say with regard to two yevamin and one yevama,”

that if both of them gave her a get, then although the get weakened the zikah, the chalitza of one of them is sufficient to release her also from the other. And this is so even according to the Rabbis, whom we are now assuming hold that there is zikah.

And here it is speaking of an invalid chalitza, which comes after a get.

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav,

for Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: An invalid chalitza

requires that

the yevama

return to all the brothers

to receive chalitza from them!?

Rabba bar Rav Huna could say to you: Both according to Rabban Gamliel and according to the Rabbis, they hold that there is no zikah.

But I stated this according to those who hold that there is zikah.

And here,

only

with regard to a get after a get and a maamar after a maamar do they disagree,

and not with regard to whether there is zikah or whether there is no zikah.

The master said: “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 chalitza with her, and he is forbidden to her relatives and permitted to the relatives of the second.

And we raised an objection:

Since

after all,

Rabban Gamliel holds

that

there is no maamar after maamar,

and if so,

the first one too should undergo yibbum!

And we answer:

It is a decree, lest he come to perform yibbum with the second one.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Ben Azzai, and Rabbi Nehemiah—

all of them hold

that

a maamar acquires

the yevama by Torah law,

a complete acquisition,

important [but it is not truly complete, for before she has had intercourse his acquisition of her is not entirely complete, and she still requires chalitza in order to marry outside, and a get will not suffice for her].

Rabban Gamliel: this is what we said,

that therefore he holds that there is no maamar after maamar, because the first maamar took hold of the entire force of a maamar, like the betrothal of a woman.

Beit Shammai, as we learned: “Three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and one was unmarried.”

One of the husbands of the sisters died, and the unmarried one performed a maamar with her.

And afterward his second brother died—

and the sister falls before the brother who performed a maamar with her sister—

Beit Shammai say: His wife

the one with whom he performed a maamar remains

with him,

and she is not forbidden to him on account of the sister of his zekuka, because her sister is not at all subject to him through zikah, since

this other one,

her sister who falls before him from his brother,

must leave

him without requiring chalitza

because of

the nakedness of

a sister of a wife.

For the betrothal of the maamar that he performed with her sister was effective by Torah law, to forbid her on account of the nakedness of a sister of a wife.

Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a beraita—

The intercourse of a minor who is nine years and one day old with his yevama is considered a maamar, according to the Sages; and if two minor yevamin such as these have intercourse with her one after the other, she is as one betrothed to both of them, and she is forbidden to them according to the law of a maamar after a maamar.

Rabbi Shimon said to them, the Sages: If the intercourse of the first

is considered

intercourse—

then his acquisition is a complete acquisition, just as the maamar is a complete acquisition, and she is not forbidden to the first, because the betrothal of the second did not take hold of her.

And

the intercourse of the second is not intercourse

to acquire her through it after the first acquired her.

And

if the intercourse of the first is not intercourse

to be considered an acquisition like a maamar,

the intercourse of the second is also not intercourse.

And the Gemara infers:

But the intercourse of a nine-year-old, which the Rabbis rendered like a maamar, and Rabbi Shimon said

that if the intercourse of the first acquired her, like a maamar, the intercourse of the second

is not intercourse

to acquire her, because the first acquired the force of a maamar in its entirety.

Ben Azzai, as it was taught in a beraita—

Ben Azzai says: There is a maamar after a maamar with two yevamin and one yevama.

And there is no maamar after a maamar with two yevamot and one yevam.

[See carefully the explanation of the matter in Rashi’s two formulations, and it apparently follows from here that even if we say that the maamar effects a complete acquisition, this is only rabbinic; and this also apparently follows from Rashi’s words on folio 29b, s.v. “Now, a betrothed woman.” And a very great investigation is required as to how, according to Beit Shammai, he causes the sister of his wife to leave because of the sister of a wife. See the later authorities here and above, and the glosses of Rabbi Yefen on the Ritba, where he discusses the matter at length.]

Rabbi Nehemiah, as we learned

in our Mishna:

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

there is nothing after it;

but this is invalid intercourse, which the Rabbis rendered like a maamar,

so that she requires chalitza from him in addition to a get,

and it teaches: “There is nothing after it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

How so?

He performed a maamar, and so forth.