Yevamot 52a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara assumed that with “How” the tanna came to explain the words of the Sages, who said: “There is a get after a get.”

And we raised it: But is

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

phrase, “he performed levirate betrothal with his levirate widow and gave her a get”—that is,

“a get after a get”?!

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

the tanna:

“a get after the get and a maamar after the maamar”—

it is

as we said

in the beraita above, that it is speaking of one yavam and two yevamot, or of two yevamin and one yevama; but the tanna did not explain this in our Mishna.

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

“One yavam and one yevama”—

how

is the order of

their release?

And concerning this the tanna answered:

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

she requires halitza from him.

And so forth.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He performed a maamar and had intercourse”—

“this one is as its mitzva.”

And we raised it:

Let us say: It supports Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: The mitzva of a yevama—

he betroths, and afterward has intercourse!

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

say:

Even this one

who performs a maamar and has intercourse, behold, he acts

as its mitzva.

But even if he has intercourse and does not first betroth, he acts as its mitzva.

And we were astonished:

It is obvious

that the addition of betrothal does not detract, and if betrothal is not a mitzva ab initio, what does the tanna teach by saying: “Even this one is as its mitzva”?

And we answer: Indeed, there is a novel point in the matter.

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since the Master said [Rabba, above 29b]:

(Rabba, earlier, 29b):

“One who performs a maamar with his yevama—

the bond of yibbum has departed from him, and the bond of betrothal and marriage has taken effect upon him.”

And if so,

say: he is not performing the mitzva

of yibbum,

but

the mitzva of betrothal and marriage of every husband and wife—

it teaches us

that even after the bond of yibbum has “departed” from him, the mitzva of yibbum still rests upon him. And this is what the tanna teaches us: 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 yibbum is no longer present in her.

The matter itself: Rav Huna said: The mitzva of yevamin—

he betroths and afterward has intercourse.

And if he had intercourse and performed

with her afterward

a maamar—

he acquires her.

And we were astonished concerning what Rav Huna said, that

if he had intercourse and performed a maamar,

he acquires her:

But

it is obvious

it is

for indeed

already

he acquired her,

even before the maamar,

through intercourse?!

And we answer:

Rather, say

that this is what Rav Huna said:

Even

if he had intercourse without a maamar—

he acquires her.

His intercourse is not diminished, so as to say that it does not effect acquisition by rabbinic law because he did not act in accordance with the enactment of the Sages, for he had intercourse without betrothal [Tosafot].

And we challenge this:

But it was taught

that one who had intercourse without betrothal

is flogged!

And the Gemara assumed that he is flogged by Torah law. And since he transgressed a prohibition from the Torah, the Rabbis would need to invalidate his intercourse!?

And we answer: He is not flogged by Torah law; rather, they flog him

with “rebellion” [A0082]from the language of discipline

[from a term meaning discipline]

by rabbinic law

because he behaved lightly in 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 with money or a document, because he makes the betrothal into an inexpensive matter.

And

one

who betroths without

preceding

matchmaking

to the betrothal.

And

one

who annuls a get

after he sent it, so that he should not annul it once he has sent it and bring the woman to a mishap.

And one who delivers a declaration

of annulment

concerning a get.

And one who acts insolently,

who is insolent toward

a messenger of the Rabbis

who summons him to the court.

And one who delays,

who keeps upon himself

the rabbinic ban for thirty days, and does not come to the court and demand

that they remove

the ban

from upon him.

And concerning a son-in-law who resides in his father-in-law’s house.

A son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, concerning whom there is concern because of his mother-in-law, lest he come with her to a transgression.

And we raised it: Only a son-in-law

who resides

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

yes,

Rav would flog him, whereas a son-in-law

who passes through,

who does not live there permanently,

no,

he would not flog him?

But that one

son-in-law

who passed by the gate

at the gate

of

the house of

his father-in-law, and Rav Sheshet flogged him!

And we answer:

That one

son-in-law

was already suspected

because of her.

He was suspected of licentious intercourse with his mother-in-law, and therefore he flogged him.

The Nehardeans say: In all of them Rav would not impose lashes, but

only

for

the one who

betroths through intercourse, and without matchmaking

that preceded the betrothal through intercourse.

And some say: Even

if he betrothed through intercourse

with matchmaking as well,

he would flog him,

because of promiscuity.

The Sages taught: How

are the betrothals of

a maamar?

He gave her money or something worth money,

and said to her: “You are betrothed to me with the maamar of yevamin.” [

And Rashi wrote: They are not complete betrothals like betrothals by Torah law, for betrothal does not take effect with the wife of a brother, and the Torah did not permit him to treat her as a foreign woman except according to the order of the mitzva, and it is intercourse that the Merciful One wrote concerning her.

And the later authorities discussed these words of Rashi at length, for it follows from him that although she is permitted to him through intercourse by virtue of the law of the wife of a brother, the designation “the wife of a brother” still applies to her, and this designation has the power to prevent ordinary betrothal from taking effect with her, permitting only the fulfillment of the mitzva of yibbum. ]

And with a document, how?

And we were astonished: What is the question

“With a document, how?”,

for since a maamar with money is like betrothal with money, a maamar with a document is like 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 there is not in it the value of a peruta: ‘Behold, you are betrothed to me!’”

Abaye said: This is what the questioner is saying:

the questioner:

“A document of the marriage contract of yevamin”—

how?

He wrote for her: ‘I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, have accepted so-and-so my yevama upon myself, to sustain and support her as is proper,’

“provided that her marriage contract is upon the property of her first husband.”

For the Sages did not obligate the yavam to provide her marriage contract from his own property, since Heaven assigned him a wife.

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

And

however,

if she does not have

a marriage contract

from

her

first

the Rabbis enacted for her

that she should receive it

from

the property of the yavam, her

second husband, so that she should not be easy in his eyes to divorce.

Abaye asked Rabba:

A yavam who

gave her

to his yevama

a get, and said: “Behold, you are divorced from me, but you are not permitted to any person”—

what

is the law concerning disqualifying her from his brother through such a get?

Does even such a get, which does not permit a married woman to marry others, have the power to disqualify her from yibbum because of “since he did not build, he shall no longer build,” by rabbinic law?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: For

the get of a yevama—

a get

by rabbinic law it is.

And if so, only

a get that is effective with a married woman

to divorce her

is effective with a yevama

to disqualify her because of “he shall not build.”

But

a get that is not effective with a married woman

to permit her—

is not effective with a yevama

to disqualify her.

Or perhaps she should be disqualified, since if we validate her,

people may err and

it will come,

people will err and

confuse it with a get

that permits marrying any yevama after they have given her a get?!

He said to him,

Rabba:

We are concerned lest it come to be confused with a get.

Rabba bar Hanan challenged

this that Rabba said, that she should not be permitted because of the concern that people would come to permit marrying after every get:

But from now,

even if

he gives her merely a piece of paper,

would

it likewise disqualify her?!

And if so, why should it disqualify her with this get, which is nothing but merely a piece of paper?!

He said to him,

Rabba:

There,

merely a piece of paper,

does not disqualify with regard to priesthood.

Here,

such a get, despite his saying to her that she is not permitted to any person, since he gave it to her—

it does disqualify with regard to priesthood.

For it was taught: [Leviticus 21]

[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 any person,

“they shall not take”

the priests.

And this is “the scent of a get” that disqualifies with regard to priesthood.

Rami bar Hama said: They said:

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

under the wedding canopy, afterward

I will divorce her’—

this is a get.

Because it is in his power to divorce her

already now, from the betrothal. And therefore, if he gave it to her after he took her, this is a get.