Yevamot 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara assumes that the tanna, with the word “how,” came to explain the statement of the Sages, who said: There is one get after another.

And we raised an objection: Is

this

“he performed maamar with his yevama and gave her a get”—an explanation of

“one get after another”!?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what the tanna is saying:

The tanna means:

one get after another and one maamar after another—

it is

as we said

in the beraita above, where the case is one yavam and two yevamot, or two yevamim and one yevama; however, the tanna in our Mishna did not explain this.

Rather, the tanna continued with a new matter and said:

One yavam and one yevama—

how

is the procedure for

releasing them?

And concerning this the tanna answered:

He performed maamar with his yevama and gave her a get—

she requires chalitza from him.

And so forth.

We learned in the Mishna:

He performed maamar and had intercourse with her—

she is thereby treated in accordance with its mitzva.

And we raised an objection:

Shall we say that this supports Rav Huna?

As Rav Huna said: The mitzva concerning a yevama is—

he betroths her and only afterward has intercourse with her!

And we reject this: There is no proof here for Rav Huna, since

say:

Even this—

one who performs maamar and has intercourse with her—is considered to be acting

in accordance with its mitzva.

But even if he has intercourse with her without first betrothing her, he is acting in accordance with its mitzva.

And we question this:

Obviously,

the addition of betrothal does not detract from the act; and if betrothal is not initially a mitzva, what is the tanna teaching by saying: “Even this is in accordance with its mitzva”?

And we answer: Indeed, there is a novel point here.

For

it might have entered your mind to say: Since the Master said

Rabba, above 29b]:

One who performs maamar with his yevama—

the bond of levirate marriage departs from him, and the bond of betrothal and marriage takes effect upon him.

And if so,

say that he is not performing the mitzva

of levirate marriage,

but is performing

the mitzva of betrothal and marriage that applies to every husband and wife—

this teaches us

that even after the bond of levirate marriage has “departed” from him, the mitzva of levirate marriage still applies to him. The tanna is therefore teaching us that even if he betrothed her before having intercourse with her, there is still a mitzva in his intercourse with her, despite the fact that the bond of levirate marriage no longer applies to her.

With regard to the matter itself, Rav Huna said: The mitzva concerning a yevama is—

he betroths her and only afterward has intercourse with her.

And if he had intercourse with her and afterward performed

with her

a maamar—

he acquires her.

And we question what Rav Huna said, that

if he had intercourse with her and performed maamar,

he acquires her:

But

obviously

it is so,

for

he had already

acquired her

before the maamar,

through intercourse!?

And we answer:

Rather, say

that this is what Rav Huna said:

Even

if he had intercourse with her without maamar—

he acquires her.

His intercourse is not diminished by saying that it does not effect acquisition by rabbinic law, because he failed to follow the ordinance of the Sages, having intercourse without betrothal [Tosafot].

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita

that one who had intercourse with her without betrothal

is flogged!

The Gemara had assumed that he is flogged by Torah law. And since he violated a prohibition from the Torah, is it necessary for the Sages to invalidate his intercourse!?

And we answer: He is not flogged by Torah law; rather, he is given

“rebellious lashes” [

from the language of disciplining]

by rabbinic law

for having behaved frivolously by having intercourse with her without betrothal.

For Rav would impose

rebellious lashes upon:

One who betroths through intercourse,

as this is an act of promiscuity;

and

one who

betroths in the marketplace,

even if he betroths her with money or a document, because he makes betrothal into a cheap and commonplace matter;

and

one who

betroths without

first arranging

matchmaking

before the betrothal;

and

one who

cancels a get

after sending it, so that he will not cancel it once he has sent it and thereby cause the woman to encounter a mishap;

and one who issues a declaration

of annulment

concerning a get;

and one who acts insolently

who behaves brazenly toward

a messenger of the Sages

who summons him to the court;

and one who delays

who allows

a rabbinic shammata imposed upon him for thirty days to remain in force, and does not come to court and request

that they remove

the shammata

from him;

and for a bridegroom who resides in his father-in-law’s house.

This refers to a bridegroom who lives in his father-in-law’s house, since there is concern regarding his mother-in-law, lest she lead him to sin.

And we ask: Only a bridegroom who

resides

permanently in his father-in-law’s house—

yes,

Rav would flog him, whereas a bridegroom who

passes through,

who does not live there permanently,

not,

he would not flog him?

But there was that

bridegroom

who passed by the gate

at the entrance

of

his

father-in-law’s house, and Rav Sheshet flogged him!

And we answer:

That

bridegroom

was known to be suspect

because of his mother-in-law.

He was suspected of promiscuity with his mother-in-law, and therefore Rav Sheshet flogged him.

The Sages of Nehardea say: Rav did not impose lashes in all of these cases, but

only

on

one who

betroths through intercourse and without matchmaking

that preceded the betrothal through intercourse.

And some say: Even

if he betrothed her through intercourse

with matchmaking as well,

he would flog him,

because of promiscuity.

The Sages taught: How

is the

[maamar betrothal performed?

He gave her money or an item worth money,

and said to her: “You are betrothed to me through the maamar of levirate marriage.” [

Rashi wrote: These are not complete betrothals like betrothals by Torah law, for betrothal does not take effect with one’s brother’s wife, and the Torah did not permit him to treat her as an unrelated woman except in accordance with the order of the mitzva; rather, it is intercourse that the Torah explicitly prescribed for her.

The later authorities discussed these words of Rashi extensively. His words imply that although she is permitted to him through intercourse by virtue of the law concerning one’s brother’s wife, she still retains the status of a forbidden relation as his brother’s wife, and this status has the power to prevent ordinary betrothal from taking effect with her, allowing only the fulfillment of the mitzva of levirate marriage.]

And how is it performed with a document?

And we question: What is the question

“And how is it performed with a document?”

After all, since maamar with money is analogous to betrothal with money, maamar with a document is analogous to betrothal with a document.

And if so, this is

as we said

concerning betrothal with a document:

He wrote for her on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta: “Behold, you are betrothed to me!”

Abaye said: This is what the questioner is saying:

The question concerns

the document of a yevama’s marriage settlement—

how

is it written? “I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, have accepted so-and-so, my yevama, upon myself, to sustain and support her appropriately,

provided that her marriage settlement is secured by the property of her first husband.”

For the Sages did not obligate the yavam to provide a marriage settlement from his own property, since Heaven has granted him a wife.

Rather, she collects it from the property of her husband, which the yavam acquires when he performs levirate marriage with her.

And

however,

if she has no

marriage settlement

from

her

first

the Sages ordained for her

that she should receive it

from

the property of the yavam, her

second husband, so that she will not be insignificant in his eyes and he will not easily divorce her.

Abaye asked Rabba: A yavam

who

gave her

his yevama

a get, and said: “You are divorced from me, but you are not permitted to marry any man”—

what is

the halakha regarding disqualifying her from levirate marriage with his brother by means of such a get?

The question is whether even such a get, which does not permit a married woman to marry others, has the power to disqualify her from levirate marriage because of the rabbinic principle: “Once he did not build, he may no longer build.”

The sides of the doubt are as follows: After all,

a get for a yevama

is a get

by rabbinic law.

And if so, only

a get that is effective with regard to a married woman

to divorce her

is effective with regard to a yevama

to disqualify her because of the principle “he may no longer build.”

But

a get that is not effective with regard to a married woman

to permit her

is not effective with regard to a yevama

to disqualify her.

Or perhaps she should be disqualified, because if we validate it,

people may err and

come

to

confuse it with a valid get,

and permit every yevama to marry another man after a get has been given to her!?

Rabba said to him:

Rabba:

We are concerned that people may come to confuse it with a valid get.

Rabba bar Ḥana challenged

Rabba’s statement that she may not be permitted because of the concern that people might come to permit marriage after every get:

If that is so,

even if

he gives her an ordinary piece of paper,

would

he likewise disqualify her!?

And if so, why should he disqualify her with this get, which is nothing more than an ordinary piece of paper?

He said to him:

Rabba:

There,

an ordinary piece of paper

does not disqualify her from marrying a kohen.

Here, this sort of get, despite the fact that he told her that she is not permitted to marry any man, once he has given it to her—

it

does disqualify her from marrying a kohen.

As it was taught in a beraita: [

Leviticus 21]

“And a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take.”

Even if she was divorced only from her husband

and was not permitted to anyone,

they shall not take

the woman as wives, the kohanim.

And this is the “scent of a get” that disqualifies a woman from marrying a kohen.

Rami bar Ḥama said: They said:

If a man said to a scribe: “Write a get for my betrothed, when I take her

under the wedding canopy, afterward

I will divorce her”—

it is a valid get.

Because he is in a position to divorce her

even now, from the time of betrothal. Therefore, if he gives it to her after he has taken her under the wedding canopy, it is a valid get.