Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 27, 2022 | 讻状讜 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 51

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellie Gellman, In memory of her husband, Reuven Gellman, Reuven Shimon ben Shraga Dov whose yahrzeit was on Chol HaMoed Pesach. A talmid chacham, research scientist, and teacher, he loved the intersection of science and Torah learning and especially enjoyed the obscure and improbable sugiyot. I know he would have had something fascinating to say about every daf.

Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis debate whether get after get or maamar after maamar is effective. What is the reason behind each opinion? Rava brings an explanation for Rabban Gamliel but Abaye raises a difficulty and therefore provides a different explanation. Abaye explains further that according to Rabban Gamliel, a “weakened” intercourse – meaning, after a get was given to one yevama, the yabam had intercourse with another yevama (the co-wife), is stronger in one sense than maamar but weaker in another. A braita is brought which explains in further detail the opinions of Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis by providing specific cases. How do their opinions fit in with Shmuel and Rav regarding zika and “weakened” chalitza? If Rabban Gamliel holds there is no maamar after maamar, then why couldn’t one do yibum with the first yevama? Rabbi Yochanan collected various statements made by various rabbis and showed that all of them hold similarly that maamar has the power to acquire.

 

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讙讟 讗讬 讚讞讬 讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 诪讗诪专 讗讬 拽谞讬 讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讙讟 讗讬 讚讞讬 讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讗讬 拽诪讗 讚讞讬 讘转专讗 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 讗讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 讚讞讬 讘转专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讬

What is the reason for the ruling of Rabban Gamliel that a bill of divorce is not effective after a bill of divorce? It is because he is uncertain with regard to a bill of divorce whether it effectively precludes levirate marriage or whether it does not preclude levirate marriage. Similarly, he is uncertain with regard to levirate betrothal, whether it effectively acquires the yevama or does not acquire her at all. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to a bill of divorce, he is uncertain as to whether it precludes levirate marriage or does not preclude it. If the first bill of divorce precludes levirate marriage, what did he do by giving the latter bill of divorce, as it has no substance? Alternatively, if the first bill of divorce does not preclude levirate marriage, neither does the latter preclude levirate marriage.

诪讗诪专 讗讬 拽谞讬 讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬 拽诪讗 拽谞讬 讘转专讗 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 讜讗讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讘转专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Likewise, with regard to levirate betrothal, he is uncertain as to whether it acquires the yevama or does not acquire her. If the first levirate betrothal effectively acquires the yevama, what does the last one accomplish? And if the first one does not acquire her, the last one also does not acquire her. For this reason Rabban Gamliel maintains that a bill of divorce is not effective after a bill of divorce was given, and similarly levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal was performed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讬砖 讙讟 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讜讙讟 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讗诪专 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 讜讙讟

Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a baraita: And Rabban Gamliel concedes that a bill of divorce is effective after levirate betrothal and levirate betrothal is effective after a bill of divorce. If a yavam gave a bill of divorce to one yevama and then performed levirate betrothal with the other, or the reverse, both actions would be effective. And he also concedes that a bill of divorce is effective after intercourse and levirate betrothal such that if the yavam engaged in levirate betrothal with one yevama, engaged in intercourse with a second, and gave a bill of divorce to a third, the bill of divorce is effective and he is prohibited from marrying the relatives of the third yevama. And he concedes that levirate betrothal is effective after intercourse and a bill of divorce, such that if he gave a bill of divorce to one woman, engaged in intercourse with a second, and performed levirate betrothal with a third, the levirate betrothal is effective and the third woman requires a bill of divorce.

讜讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转讛讜讬 讻讘讬讗讛 讚诇讻转讞诇讛 讜转拽谞讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛讘注讬诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讘转讞诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

And if Rabban Gamliel is uncertain with regard to the efficacy of levirate betrothal or a bill of divorce, then the third action should never be effective. Either the initial levirate betrothal or bill of divorce was completely effective, in which case any subsequent action is not effective, or these actions are not effective at all and the intercourse that followed them should be like intercourse performed at the beginning, and it should serve to acquire the yevama completely, and any actions performed afterward with the rival wife should be of no account. For we learned in the mishna: With regard to intercourse, when it is at the beginning, nothing is effective after it. Consequently, Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 ruling is difficult.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讙讟 讚讚讞讬 讜诪讗诪专 讚拽谞讬 诪讬讛讜 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讬讘诪讛 讘讞讚 爪讚 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 讙讟 讜讘讞讚 爪讚 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 诇讗 讚讞讬 讚讛讗 讚讞讛 诇讬讛 拽诪讗 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诇讗 拽谞讬 讚讛讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讗 讙讟 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 讚讞讬 讜讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 拽谞讬

Rather, Abaye said: Actually, it is obvious to Rabban Gamliel that a bill of divorce precludes levirate marriage, and that levirate betrothal acquires the yevama. Nevertheless, the Sages said that with regard to this yevama, in one respect a bill of divorce is effective for her, and in another respect levirate betrothal is effective for her, but they are not effective in the same manner. Therefore, a bill of divorce given after a bill of divorce does not preclude levirate marriage, as the first bill of divorce has already precluded it for him as much as he can preclude it by means of a bill of divorce. And levirate betrothal performed after levirate betrothal does not acquire her, as the first levirate betrothal has acquired her for him as much as possible. However, with regard to a bill of divorce after levirate betrothal, and levirate betrothal after a bill of divorce, this action precludes levirate marriage and that action acquires the yevama. Since the acquisition of levirate betrothal and the nullification of a bill of divorce work in different ways, there can be both an acquisition and a nullification, and therefore one can be effective after the other.

讜专讘谞谉 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪讛

However, the Rabbis maintain that the Sages instituted for each and every one of the brothers-in-law both the nullification of a bill of divorce and the acquisition of levirate betrothal for a yevama, and they decreed that these should be effective for each of the yevamot. Therefore the strength of the first bill of divorce or levirate betrothal is equal to that of the second one, and both are effective.

讜讛讗讬 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪讗诪专 讜讙专讬注讗 诪诪讗诪专 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪讗诪专 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪讛谞讬 讜讙专讬注讗 诪诪讗诪专 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讛讙讟 拽谞讬 诇讻讜诇讬讛 砖讬讜专讗 讚讙讟 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 砖讬讜专讗 讚讙讟

Abaye proceeds to explain the rest of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 teaching in the baraita: And this invalid intercourse, i.e., intercourse that was performed after a disqualifying action, such as levirate betrothal or a bill of divorce, is superior to levirate betrothal and also inferior to levirate betrothal: It is preferable to levirate betrothal in the following respect: whereas levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal is not effective at all, intercourse after levirate betrothal is effective, because intercourse acquires a yevama according to Torah law. And it is inferior to levirate betrothal, for whereas levirate betrothal after a bill of divorce according to Rabban Gamliel acquires the entire remainder of the woman left by the bill of divorce, such that any further levirate betrothal would be ineffective, intercourse after a bill of divorce does not acquire the entire remainder of the woman left by the bill of divorce, as it is not considered valid intercourse, and a subsequent levirate betrothal is effective.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇抓 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛

The Sages taught: How, i.e., in what case, did Rabban Gamliel say that a bill of divorce is not effective after a bill of divorce? In the case of two yevamot who happened before one yavam and he gave a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one. Rabban Gamliel says: He performs 岣litza with the first one and is forbidden to marry her relatives, as she is his 岣lutza, and he is permitted to marry the relatives of the second one. Because the bill of divorce he gave the second woman is of no consequence at all, she is merely the rival wife of his 岣lutza, and he is therefore permitted to marry her relatives.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

But the Rabbis say: If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one, he is forbidden to marry the relatives of both of them, and he must perform 岣litza with one of them. And you would say the same with regard to two yevamim and one yevama. If the two yevamin gave one yevama a bill of divorce, one after the other, Rabban Gamliel maintains that the bill of divorce of the second yavam is of no account, and he is therefore permitted to marry her relatives, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is effective in that it renders him forbidden to her relatives.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

How, with regard to what circumstance, did Rabban Gamliel say that there is no levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal? In a case of two yevamot who happened before one yavam, and he performed levirate betrothal with this one and levirate betrothal with that one, Rabban Gamliel says: He gives a bill of divorce to the first one and performs 岣litza with her, and is forbidden to her relatives, but he is permitted to the relatives of the second one, as the levirate betrothal performed with the rival wife is ineffective. But the Rabbis say: He gives a bill of divorce to both of them, as the levirate betrothal is effective for both women, and he is forbidden to the relatives of both of them; and as for 岣litza, he must perform it with one of them. And you would say the same with regard to two yevamim and one yevama. If the first yavam performed levirate betrothal with the yevama, and the second yavam consequently performed levirate betrothal with her, they are both required to give her a bill of divorce and both are forbidden to marry her relatives.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇抓 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇抓 诇讘注诇转 讛讙讟 诇讗 谞驻讟专讛 爪专讛

The Master said above in the baraita: He gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one. Rabban Gamliel says: He performs 岣litza with the first one and is forbidden to marry her relatives, and he is permitted to marry the relatives of the second one. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Shmuel? For Shmuel said: If he performed 岣litza with the woman who received a bill of divorce, the rival wife is not exempted by this invalid 岣litza. The yavam must therefore repeat the 岣litza with the rival wife as well. This appears to contradict the baraita, where Rabban Gamliel rules that he has to perform 岣litza with only one of the yevamot.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: When I said my above teaching, it was in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the levirate bond is substantial, and he must therefore perform a valid 岣litza in order to cancel this bond. A 岣litza performed with a woman who received a bill of divorce is not powerful enough to completely cancel the bond of the rival wife who did not performed 岣litza. But Rabban Gamliel holds that the levirate bond is not substantial, and therefore any 岣litza that releases one of the women also serves to release the other.

讜诪讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, from the fact that Rabban Gamliel holds that the levirate bond is not substantial,

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讞讝讜专 注诇 讻诇 讛讗讞讬谉

it can be inferred that the Rabbis hold that the levirate bond is substantial, as it is assumed that they disagree with Rabban Gamliel in this regard as well. And the latter clause of that baraita teaches: And you would say the same with regard to two yevamin and one yevama such that if the two yevamin gave one yevama a bill of divorce, she is exempted by the 岣litza of one of them. If so, let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the statement that Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said. For Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: In cases of invalid 岣litza, the yevama is required to repeat the 岣litza with all the brothers. If the 岣litza was invalid for some reason, all the brothers must perform 岣litza with the yevama, as her bond with them is not canceled by an invalid 岣litza.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara responds: Rabba bar Rav Huna could have said to you: Both Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis hold that the levirate bond is not substantial, whereas my statement is in accordance with the opinion that the levirate bond is substantial. And here the dispute does not concern the topic of the levirate bond at all, but rather it only involves the explicitly mentioned issue: They disagree with regard to the efficacy of a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce and levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal.

讗诪专 诪专 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛 诪讻讚讬 拽住讘专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞诪讬 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝讬专讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讬讬讘讜诪讬 诇砖谞讬讛

The Master said above in the baraita: If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and levirate betrothal with that one, Rabban Gamliel says: He gives a bill of divorce to the first one and performs 岣litza with her and is forbidden to her relatives, but he is permitted to the relatives of the second one. The Gemara poses a question: Since Rabban Gamliel holds that levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal, and the second levirate betrothal is of no consequence, the first woman should also be permitted to enter into levirate marriage. Why must he perform 岣litza with her? The Gemara answers: It is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree lest he perform levirate marriage with the second woman. The Sages were concerned that in cases where the yavam performed levirate betrothal with both women, if he were permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with the first woman, he might do so with the second woman as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and ben Azzai, and Rabbi Ne岣mya, they all hold that levirate betrothal acquires the yevama as a full-fledged acquisition, like a regular betrothal. The source for Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 opinion is that which we said above, that levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that the second levirate betrothal is not effective because she was already fully acquired by the first one.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 诪讜驻谞讛 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜注砖讛 讘讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讞讬讜 讛砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

The source for the opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and one who was single, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, leaving behind his wife, and the single brother performed levirate betrothal with this wife. Afterward, the second brother died, whereby the second brother鈥檚 wife, the sister of the betrothed, happened before him for levirate marriage as well. In this case, Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him, i.e., the woman he betrothed is considered like his wife, and he is not required to divorce her. And this other leaves the yavam and is exempt from levirate marriage due to the fact that she is the sister of a wife. This indicates that Beit Shammai hold that the levirate betrothal performed with the first woman makes her fully betrothed, thereby nullifying the levirate bond with her sister.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讘讬讗转 专讗砖讜谉 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗转 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讗诐 讘讬讗转 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗转 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讜讛讗 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讚讻诪讗诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛

The source for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is based on the following case cited in a mishna (96b): In the case of a boy aged nine years and one day old who had relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her from performing levirate marriage with the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the intercourse of the first brother is considered effective intercourse, the intercourse of the second brother is not considered effective intercourse such that it would disqualify her from performing levirate marriage with the first brother, as the first brother has already acquired her through his intercourse. If the intercourse of the first brother is not considered effective intercourse, the intercourse of the second brother is also not effective intercourse. And the Sages considered the intercourse of a nine-year-old boy to be like levirate betrothal, and Rabbi Shimon says that the intercourse of the second boy is not considered intercourse. This proves that in his opinion the intercourse of a nine-year-old fully acquires the yevama, and similarly, so does levirate betrothal.

讘谉 注讝讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讜讬讘诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘注讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讞诇讬爪讛 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讛讗 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讻诪讗诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

This source for ben Azzai鈥檚 opinion is as it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: Levirate betrothal is effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two yevamin and one yevama, but levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two yevamot and one yavam. Because the latter case involves only one yavam, his levirate betrothal fully acquires the yevama, and therefore the levirate betrothal he performs with the second woman is of no account, as he is already betrothed to the first yevama. The source for Rabbi Ne岣mya鈥檚 opinion is as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Ne岣mya says: With regard to both intercourse and 岣litza, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, nothing is effective after it. And the Sages considered invalid intercourse to be like levirate betrothal, and Rabbi Ne岣mya teaches that nothing is effective after it. This indicates that he maintains that no form of acquisition is effective after levirate betrothal, as levirate betrothal completely acquires the yevama.

讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna states: How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with his yevama and gave her a bill of divorce, etc.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 61: The Saving Graces of the Priestly Marriage Practicalities

4 mishnayot! Practical details about kohanim and whom they can marry. For example, a kohen who is betrothed a widow,...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

The Multiple Ways of Fulfilling Maamar – Gefet 33

https://youtu.be/56bqiDaos34 On our daf, the gemara quotes a braita which describes the way that a yevama is betrothed, and asks...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue our conversation about the power of Maamar and Get in relation to Yibum and Chalitza....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 51: The Consensus on Levirate Betrothal

Why does Rabban Gamliel say there's no divorce after divorce, or betrothal after betrothal? But also, how do betrothal and...

Yevamot 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 51

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讙讟 讗讬 讚讞讬 讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 诪讗诪专 讗讬 拽谞讬 讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讙讟 讗讬 讚讞讬 讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讗讬 拽诪讗 讚讞讬 讘转专讗 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 讗讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 讚讞讬 讘转专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讬

What is the reason for the ruling of Rabban Gamliel that a bill of divorce is not effective after a bill of divorce? It is because he is uncertain with regard to a bill of divorce whether it effectively precludes levirate marriage or whether it does not preclude levirate marriage. Similarly, he is uncertain with regard to levirate betrothal, whether it effectively acquires the yevama or does not acquire her at all. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to a bill of divorce, he is uncertain as to whether it precludes levirate marriage or does not preclude it. If the first bill of divorce precludes levirate marriage, what did he do by giving the latter bill of divorce, as it has no substance? Alternatively, if the first bill of divorce does not preclude levirate marriage, neither does the latter preclude levirate marriage.

诪讗诪专 讗讬 拽谞讬 讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬 拽诪讗 拽谞讬 讘转专讗 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 讜讗讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讘转专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Likewise, with regard to levirate betrothal, he is uncertain as to whether it acquires the yevama or does not acquire her. If the first levirate betrothal effectively acquires the yevama, what does the last one accomplish? And if the first one does not acquire her, the last one also does not acquire her. For this reason Rabban Gamliel maintains that a bill of divorce is not effective after a bill of divorce was given, and similarly levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal was performed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讬砖 讙讟 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讜讙讟 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讗诪专 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讘讬讗讛 讜讙讟

Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a baraita: And Rabban Gamliel concedes that a bill of divorce is effective after levirate betrothal and levirate betrothal is effective after a bill of divorce. If a yavam gave a bill of divorce to one yevama and then performed levirate betrothal with the other, or the reverse, both actions would be effective. And he also concedes that a bill of divorce is effective after intercourse and levirate betrothal such that if the yavam engaged in levirate betrothal with one yevama, engaged in intercourse with a second, and gave a bill of divorce to a third, the bill of divorce is effective and he is prohibited from marrying the relatives of the third yevama. And he concedes that levirate betrothal is effective after intercourse and a bill of divorce, such that if he gave a bill of divorce to one woman, engaged in intercourse with a second, and performed levirate betrothal with a third, the levirate betrothal is effective and the third woman requires a bill of divorce.

讜讗讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转讛讜讬 讻讘讬讗讛 讚诇讻转讞诇讛 讜转拽谞讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛讘注讬诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讘转讞诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

And if Rabban Gamliel is uncertain with regard to the efficacy of levirate betrothal or a bill of divorce, then the third action should never be effective. Either the initial levirate betrothal or bill of divorce was completely effective, in which case any subsequent action is not effective, or these actions are not effective at all and the intercourse that followed them should be like intercourse performed at the beginning, and it should serve to acquire the yevama completely, and any actions performed afterward with the rival wife should be of no account. For we learned in the mishna: With regard to intercourse, when it is at the beginning, nothing is effective after it. Consequently, Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 ruling is difficult.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讙讟 讚讚讞讬 讜诪讗诪专 讚拽谞讬 诪讬讛讜 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讬讘诪讛 讘讞讚 爪讚 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 讙讟 讜讘讞讚 爪讚 诪讛谞讬 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 诇讗 讚讞讬 讚讛讗 讚讞讛 诇讬讛 拽诪讗 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诇讗 拽谞讬 讚讛讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讗 讙讟 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讛讙讟 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 讚讞讬 讜讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 拽谞讬

Rather, Abaye said: Actually, it is obvious to Rabban Gamliel that a bill of divorce precludes levirate marriage, and that levirate betrothal acquires the yevama. Nevertheless, the Sages said that with regard to this yevama, in one respect a bill of divorce is effective for her, and in another respect levirate betrothal is effective for her, but they are not effective in the same manner. Therefore, a bill of divorce given after a bill of divorce does not preclude levirate marriage, as the first bill of divorce has already precluded it for him as much as he can preclude it by means of a bill of divorce. And levirate betrothal performed after levirate betrothal does not acquire her, as the first levirate betrothal has acquired her for him as much as possible. However, with regard to a bill of divorce after levirate betrothal, and levirate betrothal after a bill of divorce, this action precludes levirate marriage and that action acquires the yevama. Since the acquisition of levirate betrothal and the nullification of a bill of divorce work in different ways, there can be both an acquisition and a nullification, and therefore one can be effective after the other.

讜专讘谞谉 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪讛

However, the Rabbis maintain that the Sages instituted for each and every one of the brothers-in-law both the nullification of a bill of divorce and the acquisition of levirate betrothal for a yevama, and they decreed that these should be effective for each of the yevamot. Therefore the strength of the first bill of divorce or levirate betrothal is equal to that of the second one, and both are effective.

讜讛讗讬 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪讗诪专 讜讙专讬注讗 诪诪讗诪专 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪讗诪专 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 诪讛谞讬 讜讙专讬注讗 诪诪讗诪专 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 讛讙讟 拽谞讬 诇讻讜诇讬讛 砖讬讜专讗 讚讙讟 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讗讞专 讛讙讟 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 砖讬讜专讗 讚讙讟

Abaye proceeds to explain the rest of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 teaching in the baraita: And this invalid intercourse, i.e., intercourse that was performed after a disqualifying action, such as levirate betrothal or a bill of divorce, is superior to levirate betrothal and also inferior to levirate betrothal: It is preferable to levirate betrothal in the following respect: whereas levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal is not effective at all, intercourse after levirate betrothal is effective, because intercourse acquires a yevama according to Torah law. And it is inferior to levirate betrothal, for whereas levirate betrothal after a bill of divorce according to Rabban Gamliel acquires the entire remainder of the woman left by the bill of divorce, such that any further levirate betrothal would be ineffective, intercourse after a bill of divorce does not acquire the entire remainder of the woman left by the bill of divorce, as it is not considered valid intercourse, and a subsequent levirate betrothal is effective.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇抓 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛

The Sages taught: How, i.e., in what case, did Rabban Gamliel say that a bill of divorce is not effective after a bill of divorce? In the case of two yevamot who happened before one yavam and he gave a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one. Rabban Gamliel says: He performs 岣litza with the first one and is forbidden to marry her relatives, as she is his 岣lutza, and he is permitted to marry the relatives of the second one. Because the bill of divorce he gave the second woman is of no consequence at all, she is merely the rival wife of his 岣lutza, and he is therefore permitted to marry her relatives.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

But the Rabbis say: If he gave a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one, he is forbidden to marry the relatives of both of them, and he must perform 岣litza with one of them. And you would say the same with regard to two yevamim and one yevama. If the two yevamin gave one yevama a bill of divorce, one after the other, Rabban Gamliel maintains that the bill of divorce of the second yavam is of no account, and he is therefore permitted to marry her relatives, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is effective in that it renders him forbidden to her relatives.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇砖转讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转

How, with regard to what circumstance, did Rabban Gamliel say that there is no levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal? In a case of two yevamot who happened before one yavam, and he performed levirate betrothal with this one and levirate betrothal with that one, Rabban Gamliel says: He gives a bill of divorce to the first one and performs 岣litza with her, and is forbidden to her relatives, but he is permitted to the relatives of the second one, as the levirate betrothal performed with the rival wife is ineffective. But the Rabbis say: He gives a bill of divorce to both of them, as the levirate betrothal is effective for both women, and he is forbidden to the relatives of both of them; and as for 岣litza, he must perform it with one of them. And you would say the same with regard to two yevamim and one yevama. If the first yavam performed levirate betrothal with the yevama, and the second yavam consequently performed levirate betrothal with her, they are both required to give her a bill of divorce and both are forbidden to marry her relatives.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇讝讜 讜讙讟 诇讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇抓 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇抓 诇讘注诇转 讛讙讟 诇讗 谞驻讟专讛 爪专讛

The Master said above in the baraita: He gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one. Rabban Gamliel says: He performs 岣litza with the first one and is forbidden to marry her relatives, and he is permitted to marry the relatives of the second one. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Shmuel? For Shmuel said: If he performed 岣litza with the woman who received a bill of divorce, the rival wife is not exempted by this invalid 岣litza. The yavam must therefore repeat the 岣litza with the rival wife as well. This appears to contradict the baraita, where Rabban Gamliel rules that he has to perform 岣litza with only one of the yevamot.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: When I said my above teaching, it was in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the levirate bond is substantial, and he must therefore perform a valid 岣litza in order to cancel this bond. A 岣litza performed with a woman who received a bill of divorce is not powerful enough to completely cancel the bond of the rival wife who did not performed 岣litza. But Rabban Gamliel holds that the levirate bond is not substantial, and therefore any 岣litza that releases one of the women also serves to release the other.

讜诪讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, from the fact that Rabban Gamliel holds that the levirate bond is not substantial,

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讞讝讜专 注诇 讻诇 讛讗讞讬谉

it can be inferred that the Rabbis hold that the levirate bond is substantial, as it is assumed that they disagree with Rabban Gamliel in this regard as well. And the latter clause of that baraita teaches: And you would say the same with regard to two yevamin and one yevama such that if the two yevamin gave one yevama a bill of divorce, she is exempted by the 岣litza of one of them. If so, let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the statement that Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said. For Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: In cases of invalid 岣litza, the yevama is required to repeat the 岣litza with all the brothers. If the 岣litza was invalid for some reason, all the brothers must perform 岣litza with the yevama, as her bond with them is not canceled by an invalid 岣litza.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讟 讗讞专 讙讟 讜诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara responds: Rabba bar Rav Huna could have said to you: Both Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis hold that the levirate bond is not substantial, whereas my statement is in accordance with the opinion that the levirate bond is substantial. And here the dispute does not concern the topic of the levirate bond at all, but rather it only involves the explicitly mentioned issue: They disagree with regard to the efficacy of a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce and levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal.

讗诪专 诪专 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 讜诪讗诪专 讘讝讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 讙讟 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇讛 讜讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转 砖谞讬讛 诪讻讚讬 拽住讘专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞诪讬 转转讬讬讘诐 讙讝讬专讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讬讬讘讜诪讬 诇砖谞讬讛

The Master said above in the baraita: If he performed levirate betrothal with this one and levirate betrothal with that one, Rabban Gamliel says: He gives a bill of divorce to the first one and performs 岣litza with her and is forbidden to her relatives, but he is permitted to the relatives of the second one. The Gemara poses a question: Since Rabban Gamliel holds that levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal, and the second levirate betrothal is of no consequence, the first woman should also be permitted to enter into levirate marriage. Why must he perform 岣litza with her? The Gemara answers: It is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree lest he perform levirate marriage with the second woman. The Sages were concerned that in cases where the yavam performed levirate betrothal with both women, if he were permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with the first woman, he might do so with the second woman as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and ben Azzai, and Rabbi Ne岣mya, they all hold that levirate betrothal acquires the yevama as a full-fledged acquisition, like a regular betrothal. The source for Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 opinion is that which we said above, that levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that the second levirate betrothal is not effective because she was already fully acquired by the first one.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 诪讜驻谞讛 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜注砖讛 讘讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讞讬讜 讛砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

The source for the opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and one who was single, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, leaving behind his wife, and the single brother performed levirate betrothal with this wife. Afterward, the second brother died, whereby the second brother鈥檚 wife, the sister of the betrothed, happened before him for levirate marriage as well. In this case, Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him, i.e., the woman he betrothed is considered like his wife, and he is not required to divorce her. And this other leaves the yavam and is exempt from levirate marriage due to the fact that she is the sister of a wife. This indicates that Beit Shammai hold that the levirate betrothal performed with the first woman makes her fully betrothed, thereby nullifying the levirate bond with her sister.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讘讬讗转 专讗砖讜谉 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗转 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讗诐 讘讬讗转 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讘讬讗转 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛 讜讛讗 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讚讻诪讗诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谞讛 讘讬讗讛

The source for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is based on the following case cited in a mishna (96b): In the case of a boy aged nine years and one day old who had relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her from performing levirate marriage with the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the intercourse of the first brother is considered effective intercourse, the intercourse of the second brother is not considered effective intercourse such that it would disqualify her from performing levirate marriage with the first brother, as the first brother has already acquired her through his intercourse. If the intercourse of the first brother is not considered effective intercourse, the intercourse of the second brother is also not effective intercourse. And the Sages considered the intercourse of a nine-year-old boy to be like levirate betrothal, and Rabbi Shimon says that the intercourse of the second boy is not considered intercourse. This proves that in his opinion the intercourse of a nine-year-old fully acquires the yevama, and similarly, so does levirate betrothal.

讘谉 注讝讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讬讘诪讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讘砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讜讬讘诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘注讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讞诇讬爪讛 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讛讗 讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讻诪讗诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讞专讬讛 讻诇讜诐

This source for ben Azzai鈥檚 opinion is as it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: Levirate betrothal is effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two yevamin and one yevama, but levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two yevamot and one yavam. Because the latter case involves only one yavam, his levirate betrothal fully acquires the yevama, and therefore the levirate betrothal he performs with the second woman is of no account, as he is already betrothed to the first yevama. The source for Rabbi Ne岣mya鈥檚 opinion is as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Ne岣mya says: With regard to both intercourse and 岣litza, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, nothing is effective after it. And the Sages considered invalid intercourse to be like levirate betrothal, and Rabbi Ne岣mya teaches that nothing is effective after it. This indicates that he maintains that no form of acquisition is effective after levirate betrothal, as levirate betrothal completely acquires the yevama.

讻讬爪讚 注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna states: How so? If he performed levirate betrothal with his yevama and gave her a bill of divorce, etc.

Scroll To Top