## Yevamot Daf 27a

###### Yevamot 27a:1
[Yevamot 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:1)

חָלַץ לַאֲחָיוֹת — לֹא נִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת. הֵיכָא דְּקָיְימָא חֲלִיצָה דְּשִׁמְעוֹן חֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה, חָלֵיץ לַהּ רְאוּבֵן חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to several women, including two sisters, and the two married brothers later died, and their wives happened before the *yavam* for levirate marriage, if the *yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* with the sisters** who were among the wives, **the rival wives are not** thereby **exempt.** One can deduce from here that since the *yavam* cannot consummate the levirate marriage with the sisters, as each is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, then the act of *ḥalitza* is invalid, and invalid *ḥalitza* is ineffective in exempting their rival wives. It is concluded from here that even Shmuel requires valid *ḥalitza*, i.e., *ḥalitza* that occurs when there is a possibility of consummating the levirate marriage. According to this rationale, however, Shmuel’s ruling in the above case is difficult: With regard to the second sister, **when there exists** the possibility for **Shimon’s *ḥalitza*,** i.e., the *ḥalitza* of the second brother who did not yet perform *ḥalitza*, to be **a valid *ḥalitza*,** would it be allowed for **Reuven,** the brother who already did *ḥalitza* with one sister, **to perform invalid *ḥalitza* with** her?


###### Yevamot 27a:2
[Yevamot 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:2)

מַאי ״אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ לְכוּלָּן״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר — אַאֶמְצָעִית. וְהָא ״כּוּלָּן״ קָאָמַר! כֵּיוָן דְּרוּבָּה גַּבֵּיהּ, קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״כּוּלָּן״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל חֲלִיצָה מְעַלְּיָא בְּעֵינַן — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמִיפְטַר צָרָתָהּ, אֲבָל מִפְטַרא נַפְשַׁהּ — פָּטְרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves this difficulty by reinterpreting Shmuel’s statement. **What** does it mean **that it says: One performs *ḥalitza* with each of them, that** Shmuel **stated?** Shmuel **says that with regard to the middle one,** i.e., the third sister, one of the two brothers performs *ḥalitza* with her. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t he say: Each of them,** indicating that one brother performs *ḥalitza* with all of the sisters? The Gemara answers: **Since** the brother who performed *ḥalitza* with one sister repeats the act with another, it turns out that **most** of the acts of *ḥalitza* **are** performed **with him, and this is called:** With **each of them. And if you wish, say** a different answer: **When Shmuel said we require a full-fledged *ḥalitza*, this applies only to exempt her rival wife** by means of that *ḥalitza*. **But to exempt** the woman **herself,** even invalid *ḥalitza* would render her **exempt.** In the case above, since no rival wives are involved, it would be sufficient for one brother to perform *ḥalitza* with each of the sisters.


###### Yevamot 27a:3
[Yevamot 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:3)

גּוּפָא. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָלַץ לַאֲחָיוֹת — לֹא נִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת, לְצָרוֹת — נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת הַגֵּט — לֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָה, לְצָרָה — נִפְטְרָה בַּעֲלַת הַגֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos of Shmuel’s statement, the Gemara examines **the** matter **itself. Shmuel said:** In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to several women, including two sisters, and the two married brothers later died, and their wives happened before the *yavam* for levirate marriage, if the *yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* with the sisters, the rival wives are not** thereby **exempt.** But if he performed *ḥalitza* **with the rival wives, the sisters are exempt.** Similarly, if he gave a bill of divorce to one of these women, whereby he would no longer be permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with them due to a rabbinic decree, and he then **performed *ḥalitza* with the woman who received a bill of divorce, the rival wife is not** thereby **exempt.** Since he was unable to consummate the levirate marriage with her, the *ḥalitza* performed with her was invalid, and invalid *ḥalitza* does not exempt the rival wife. If he performed the act of *ḥalitza* **with the rival wife,** then **the woman who received a bill of divorce is exempt.**


###### Yevamot 27a:4
[Yevamot 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:4)

חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת הַמַּאֲמָר — לֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָה. לְצָרָה — נִפְטְרָה בַּעֲלַת מַאֲמָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The ruling is similar with regard to the case where the *yavam* performed *ma’amar*, i.e., levirate betrothal, to one of the wives. If **he** then **performed *ḥalitza* with** the woman **who received** his **levirate betrothal** then **the rival wife is not exempt.** Indeed, this *ḥalitza* is invalid as well, for once the *yavam* performed levirate betrothal, this act can be rescinded only by means of a bill of divorce. Because the woman needs to receive a bill of divorce in addition to the *ḥalitza* in order to exempt her from her bond, the *ḥalitza* is considered invalid and is not sufficient to exempt the rival wife. But if the *yavam* performed *ḥalitza* **with the rival wife,** then **she who received** his **levirate betrothal is exempt** from *ḥalitza* and requires only a bill of divorce.


###### Yevamot 27a:5
[Yevamot 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:5)

מַאי שְׁנָא לַאֲחָיוֹת דְּלֹא נִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת — דְּהָוְיָא (לוֹ) [לַהּ] אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיקָה? חָלַץ לְצָרוֹת נָמֵי, לָא לִיפַּטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת — דְּהָוְיָא לְהוּ צָרוֹת אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיקָה! קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין זִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** in the two cases? Why, if he performed *ḥalitza* **with the sisters, are the rival wives not exempt?** This is because the sister **is** related **to him** as **the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.** Since, under these circumstances he would not be permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with her, her *ḥalitza* is then considered invalid *ḥalitza*. However, if that is so, when **he performed *ḥalitza* with the rival wives, the sisters should not be exempt either, as the** rival wives **are** related **to him as rival wives of the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.** If the woman is forbidden to him due to a relationship created by the levirate bond, then her rival wife is forbidden to him in the same way, and her *ḥalitza* would be invalid as well. The Gemara answers: **Shmuel holds** that **the levirate bond is not substantial,** and therefore the levirate bond does not create a relationship between the *yavam* and the sisters such that the prohibition would be extended to the rival wives as well.


###### Yevamot 27a:6
[Yevamot 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:6)

וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל יֵשׁ זִיקָה! לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין זִיקָה קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But didn’t Shmuel say** explicitly that **the levirate bond is substantial?** The Gemara responds: **He stated** this *halakha* **in accordance with the statement of those who say that the levirate bond is not substantial,** although he himself maintains the opposite.


###### Yevamot 27a:7
[Yevamot 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:7)

אִי הָכִי, חָלַץ לָאֲחָיוֹת, אַמַּאי לֹא נִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת? בִּשְׁלָמָא צָרָה דְרָחֵל לָא תִּיפְּטַר, דְּכֵיוָן דְּחָלֵץ לַהּ לְלֵאָה, וַהֲדַר חָלֵץ לְרָחֵל, הָוְיָא לַהּ חֲלִיצָה דְּרָחֵל חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה. אֶלָּא צָרָה דְלֵאָה תִּיפְּטַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is** indeed **so,** that he stated this ruling in accordance with the opinion that the levirate bond is not substantial, then when the *yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* with the sisters, why were** their **rival wives not exempt? Granted, Rachel’s rival wife,** i.e., the rival wife of the second sister, **would not be exempt, for once he performed *ḥalitza* with Leah,** the first sister, **and then** later **performed *ḥalitza* with Rachel,** it turns out that **Rachel’s *ḥalitza* was invalid *ḥalitza*,** as he could not consummate the levirate marriage with Rachel because she is the sister of a woman with whom he performed *ḥalitza*, and invalid *ḥalitza* does not exempt a rival wife. **However, the rival wife of Leah should be exempt** because if the levirate bond is not substantial, the *ḥalitza* with the first sister would have been completely valid.


###### Yevamot 27a:8
[Yevamot 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:8)

מַאי ״לֹא נִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר — אַצָּרָה דְרָחֵל. וְהָא ״צָרוֹת״ קָאָמַר! צָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What** does it mean **that it says: The rival wives are not exempt, that** Shmuel **stated?** It is referring only **to the rival wife of Rachel,** the second sister, who is not exempt. The Gemara challenges: **But he said rival wives** in the plural, seeming to refer to both rival wives? The Gemara answers: He spoke of **rival wives in general.** In other words, this is a general *halakha*, and for that reason it was stated in the plural. However, it does not mean that both the rival wife of the first sister and the rival wife of the second sister are not exempt.


###### Yevamot 27a:9
[Yevamot 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:9)

אִי הָכִי: ״חָלַץ לְצָרוֹת נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת״, וְאַצָּרַת רָחֵל מִי מִיפַּטְרָא? וְהָא תְּנַן: אָסוּר אָדָם בְּצָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **If that is so,** that when Shmuel chose to speak in the plural he was referring only to the rival wife of Rachel, there arises a difficulty with the second half of the statement: If **he performed *ḥalitza* with the rival wives, the sisters are exempt. But would Rachel** become **exempt** by *ḥalitza* performed **with her rival wife? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **A man is forbidden to** marry **the rival wife of a close relative of his *ḥalutza*?** Once the *yavam* performs *ḥalitza* with one sister, Leah, then her sister’s rival wife, i.e., Rachel’s rival wife, would be considered the rival wife of the sister of a woman with whom he performed *ḥalitza*. Being as she is forbidden to him, her *ḥalitza* is invalid and should not exempt Rachel.


###### Yevamot 27a:10
[Yevamot 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:10)

שְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי, הִתְחִיל וְלֹא הִתְחִיל קָאָמַר: הִתְחִיל בַּאֲחָיוֹת — לֹא יִגְמוֹר בְּצָרוֹת, דִּתְנַן: אָסוּר אָדָם בְּצָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. הִתְחִיל בְּצָרוֹת — יִגְמוֹר אַף בַּאֲחָיוֹת. דִּתְנַן: מוּתָּר אָדָם בִּקְרוֹבַת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Shmuel also** meant to distinguish between a case where **he began and** the case where **he did not begin.** This is how his statement should be understood: If **he began** by performing *ḥalitza* **with** one of **the sisters, he may not finish by** performing a second act of *ḥalitza* **with** any one of **the rival wives, as we learned** in a mishna (40b): **A man is forbidden** to marry **the rival wife of a close relative of his *ḥalutza*.** Due to this prohibition, *ḥalitza* performed with the second rival wife is invalid *ḥalitza* and would not exempt the second sister. If, however, **he began with the rival wives** and performed the first *ḥalitza* with the rival wife of Leah, **he may finish with the sisters as well** and perform the second *ḥalitza* with Leah, **as we learned** in a mishna (40b): **A man is permitted to** marry **the close relative of the rival wife of his *ḥalutza*.** Therefore, if he performed *ḥalitza* with Leah’s rival wife, then Rachel, who is the sister of the rival wife of his *ḥalutza*, is permitted to him. He can therefore perform a completely valid *ḥalitza* with her and thereby exempt her rival wife.


###### Yevamot 27a:11
[Yevamot 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:11)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אַלִּימָא זִיקָה לְשַׁוּוֹיֵי לְצָרָה כְּעֶרְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Actually,** Shmuel’s statement should be interpreted **as you** originally **said,** that Shmuel’s rationale for these *halakhot* accords with his opinion that the levirate bond is substantial. As for the objection that was raised as to why the sisters would be exempted by *ḥalitza* performed with the rival wives if these rival wives were considered the rival wife of the sister of a woman with whom the *yavam* had a levirate bond, this can be resolved as follows: This **is because the levirate bond is not** so **strong as to render the** status of **a rival wife like** an actual **forbidden relative.** The levirate bond is sufficient to prohibit levirate marriage with the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, but not sufficient to prohibit their rival wives to the *yavam*.


###### Yevamot 27a:12
[Yevamot 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:12)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: חָלַץ לָאֲחָיוֹת — לֹא נִפְטְרוּ צָרוֹת. הָא לְצָרוֹת — נִפְטְרוּ אֲחָיוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא — לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר יֵשׁ זִיקָה, וְלָא אַלִּימָא זִיקָה לְשַׁוּוֹיַיהּ לְצָרָה כְּעֶרְוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Ashi:** If **he performed *ḥalitza* with the sisters, the rival wives are not exempt** from levirate marriage. From here one can deduce: **Consequently,** if he performed *ḥalitza* **with the rival wives, the sisters are exempt. What is the reason** for this? **Is it not because** this *tanna* **held** that **the levirate bond is substantial,** and therefore the rival wives were not rendered exempt by the *ḥalitza* of the sisters, **but** nevertheless **the levirate bond is not** so **strong as to render the rival wife equivalent to a forbidden relative?** Therefore, the prohibition with regard to the rival wives in this case is less severe than the prohibition concerning the sisters themselves, and when they perform *ḥalitza*, the *ḥalitza* is valid and the sisters are exempt.


###### Yevamot 27a:13
[Yevamot 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: הָא מַנִּי — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִין. אִי הָכִי, יַבּוֹמֵי נָמֵי תִּתְיַיבֵּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba bar Memel** rejected this explanation and **said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* taught? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, as we learned** in a mishna: **Beit Shammai permitted the rival wives to** marry **the brothers;** even if they are the rival wives of his actual relatives, they are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. In the case above, where they are merely rival wives of the sister with whom he has a levirate bond, all the more so they are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** if this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that the rival wives are permitted, then the rival wife **should enter into levirate marriage as well.** Why does it speak here only of *ḥalitza* but not of the possibility of entering levirate marriage?


###### Yevamot 27a:14
[Yevamot 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:14)

כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, דְּאָמַר: בּוֹאוּ וּנְתַקֵּן לָהֶן לַצָּרוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. וְהָאָמַר מָר: לָא הִסְפִּיקוּ לִגְמוֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר עַד שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה הַשָּׁעָה! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַחֲרָיו חָזְרוּ וְתִקְּנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ruling is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: Come and let us establish** a ruling **that the rival wives must perform *ḥalitza* and may not enter into levirate marriage,** thereby circumventing the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Although Beit Shammai permitted the rival wives to perform levirate betrothal, they should perform *ḥalitza* instead in order to conform to Beit Hillel’s opinion as well. The Gemara objects: **But didn’t the Master say** that **they did not succeed in finalizing the matter** and establishing Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s amendment **before the times of trouble came** in the form of the anti-Jewish decrees, and so this ruling was never actually established? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: After his** time, other Sages **returned** to this issue and **established** this amendment in accordance with his opinion.


###### Yevamot 27a:15
[Yevamot 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/27a:15)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos of the statement of Shmuel with regard to a woman who received a bill of divorce and a woman who received levirate betrothal, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: