Yevamot 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

The Sages hold that there is zika.

And this is the Gemara’s assumption: that they also disagreed on this matter, although this is not proven from their dispute.

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 zika, the chalitza of one of them is sufficient to release her also from the other. And this is so even according to the Sages, whom we are presently assuming to hold that there is zika.

And here we are dealing with an invalid chalitza, which follows a get.

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

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

the yevama must return

to

all the brothers

to receive chalitza from them!?

Rabba bar Rav Huna could say to you: Both Rabban Gamliel and the Sages hold that there is no zika.

Whereas I stated this according to those who hold that there is zika.

And here,

only

with regard to a get followed by a get and a maamar followed by a maamar do they disagree,

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

The Master said: If 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 but permitted to the relatives of the second.

We raised a difficulty:

since

after all

Rabban Gamliel holds

that

there is no maamar after a maamar,

then

the first one should also undergo yibbum!

And we answer:

This is a rabbinic decree, lest he come to perform yibbum with the second.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabban Gamliel, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, ben Azzai, and Rabbi Neḥemya—

all hold

that

a maamar acquires

the yevama by Torah law

with a complete acquisition,

significant [but not entirely complete, for before intercourse his acquisition of her is not fully complete, and she still requires chalitza in order to marry outside, and a get alone is not sufficient for her].

Rabban Gamliel: This is what we said,

and this is why he holds that there is no maamar after a maamar: the first maamar seized the entire force of a maamar as the betrothal of a woman.

Beit Shammai, as we learned: There were 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 brother performed a maamar with her.

And afterward the second brother died—

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

Beit Shammai say: His wife

the one with whom he performed the maamar remains

with him,

and she is not forbidden to him as the sister of his zekuka, since her sister is not subject to him for yibbum at all, because

this one,

her sister who fell before him from her brother,

must leave

him without requiring chalitza

because of

the forbidden relationship of

a wife’s sister.

This is because the betrothal effected by the maamar that he performed with her sister is effective by Torah law to render her forbidden as a wife’s sister.

Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a beraita—

The intercourse of a minor who is nine years and one day old with his yevama is deemed equivalent to a maamar, according to the Sages. And if two such minor yevamin had intercourse with her one after the other, she is considered betrothed to both of them and is forbidden to them, in accordance with the law of a maamar after a maamar.

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

is considered

intercourse—

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

And

the intercourse of the second is not intercourse

that can effect an acquisition after the first has acquired her.

And

if the intercourse of the first is not intercourse

to be considered an acquisition equivalent to a maamar,

the intercourse of the second is also not intercourse.

And the Gemara infers:

But the intercourse of a nine-year-old is something that the Sages made equivalent to a maamar, and Rabbi Shimon says

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

is not intercourse

that can effect an acquisition, since the first acquired the entire force of a maamar.

Ben Azzai, as it is taught in a beraita—

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

But there is no maamar after a maamar with regard to two yevamot and one yevam.

[See carefully Rashi’s explanation in its two versions; it would seemingly follow from here that even if we say that a maamar effects a complete acquisition, this is only by rabbinic law. This also seemingly follows from Rashi’s words on folio 29b, s.v. “Now, a betrothed woman.” A major difficulty remains: how, according to Beit Shammai, does it cause the sister of his wife to leave because she is a wife’s sister? See the later authorities here and above, as well as the glosses of Rabbi Eliyahu Yaffe[n] to the Ritba, where this matter is discussed at length.]

Rabbi Neḥemya, as we learned

in our Mishna:

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

nothing follows it;

but this was invalid intercourse, which the Sages made equivalent to a maamar,

and therefore she requires chalitza from him in addition to a get,

and yet it teaches: Nothing follows it.

We learned in the Mishna:

How so?

If he performed a maamar, etc.