## Yevamot Daf 27b

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

בַּעֲלַת הַגֵּט וּבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר, אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן קוֹדֶמֶת? בַּעֲלַת הַגֵּט עֲדִיפָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאַתְחֵיל בַּהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא: בַּעֲלַת מַאֲמָר עֲדִיפָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּקְרוֹבָה לְבִיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If two women happened before a single *yavam* for levirate marriage, and one is **a woman who received a bill of divorce and** the other is **a woman who received levirate betrothal, which has precedence** for *ḥalitza*? **Is the woman who received a bill of divorce preferred because he began the** process of ***ḥalitza* with her,** as presenting a bill of divorce represents the first step separating the woman from him? **Or perhaps the woman who received levirate betrothal is preferred, because she is closest to** being able to enter into permitted **sexual intercourse.** The act of levirate betrothal is generally done just prior to levirate marriage and is equivalent to the act of betrothal in non-levirate contexts. As a result, levirate betrothal strengthens the connection between the woman and the *yavam*. For this reason, it may be preferable to perform *ḥalitza* with the woman who received levirate betrothal.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: וּמוֹדֶה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ גֵּט אַחַר מַאֲמָר, וּמַאֲמַר אַחֵר גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Come** and **hear:** The Sages disputed the ruling with regard to a *yavam* who performed levirate betrothal with one sister-in-law and then performed it with her rival wife as well, or conversely, gave both women a bill of divorce. In such cases, would the second levirate betrothal or bill of divorce be effective? It was taught: **And Rabban Gamliel concedes that a bill of divorce is effective after levirate betrothal.** Therefore, the bill of divorce that the *yavam* gave to one *yevama* after having performed levirate betrothal with the other *yevama* is effective to some degree. Similarly, Rabban Gamliel concedes that **levirate betrothal** performed **after a bill of divorce is effective.**


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

אִי גֵּט עֲדִיף — לָא לַיהֲנֵי מַאֲמָר אַבָּתְרֵיהּ, וְאִי מַאֲמָר עֲדִיף — לָא לַיהֲנֵי גֵּט אַבָּתְרֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If the bill of divorce is preferred** to levirate betrothal, then **levirate betrothal** performed **afterward should not be effective.** The opposite would hold true as well: **And if levirate betrothal is preferred,** then **a bill of divorce** given **afterward should not be effective. Rather,** must one **not conclude from** this statement **that the two are equivalent to each other?** The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, **conclude from** this statement that they are equivalent. Therefore, neither the woman who received a bill of divorce nor the woman who received levirate betrothal has precedence for *ḥalitza*.


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת יְבָמוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִפְנֵי יָבָם אֶחָד, חָלַץ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה — הוּתְּרָה, חָלַץ לַשְּׁנִיָּיה — הוּתְּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** In a case of **two sisters** who became ***yevamot*,** i.e., the two sisters were married to two brothers who died, **who happened before one *yavam*** for levirate marriage, if **he performed *ḥalitza* with the first** sister, then **she is permitted** to marry any man. If **he performed *ḥalitza* with the second** sister, then **she is permitted** to do so as well.


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

מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּיה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מֵתָה שְׁנִיָּיה שֶׁמּוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא יְבָמָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה — תַּחְזוֹר לְהֶיתֵּירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the first** sister **died** before the *yavam* was able to perform *ḥalitza* with her, then he **is permitted to** take **the second** sister in levirate marriage, for even if he had actually been married to the first sister, one is permitted to marry the sister of his wife after his wife dies. **And needless to say,** if **the second** sister **died, then he is permitted to** take **the first** sister in levirate marriage **because she would be** considered **a *yevama* who was permitted** at the time that she happened before the *yavam* for levirate marriage; **and** then later **forbidden** as the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond when the second sister happened before him for levirate marriage; **and subsequently became permitted** by the death of the second sister. Therefore, **she can return** completely **to her original permitted status.**


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵתָה שְׁנִיָּיה — מוּתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, אֲבָל מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — אָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּיה. מַאי טַעְמָא? שֶׁכׇּל יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵין אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה ״יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּאֵשֶׁת אָח שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים, וַאֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **the second** sister **dies, he is permitted to** take **the first. But if the first** sister **dies, he is prohibited from** taking **the second** sister. **What is the reason** for this ruling? The reason is **that any *yevama* to whom the verse “her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her”** (Deuteronomy 25:5) **cannot be applied at the time that she happens** before him for levirate marriage because she was forbidden to him at that moment, **is then** forever considered to be **like the wife of a brother who has children, and she is forbidden** to him. Because the second sister was forbidden to the *yavam* at the time that she happened before him for levirate marriage, being the sister of a woman with whom he had a levirate bond, she can never again be permitted to him.


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

וְרַב לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה ״יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ״ — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאֵשֶׁת אָח שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים, וַאֲסוּרָה! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָאֵי בְּאַפַּהּ אִיסּוּר אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל הָכָא — זִיקָּה דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rav not accept that reason? Didn’t Rav** himself **say** the exact same words: **Any woman to whom the verse “her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” cannot be applied at the time that she happens** before him for levirate marriage **is then** considered to be **like the wife of a brother who has children, and she is forbidden** to him? The Gemara answers: **This applies only when** the prohibition **that stands before her** and prevents the levirate marriage **is the prohibition against marrying the sister of one’s wife, which is prohibited by Torah** law. Therefore, if the woman who happens before the *yavam* for levirate marriage is his wife’s sister, he is prohibited from performing levirate marriage even if his wife dies afterward. **But here** the prohibition to marry the sister stems from a relationship created by **a levirate bond.** This prohibition is **by rabbinic** law, and therefore the bond does not render her forbidden to him forever.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם נְשׂוּאִים שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וּמֵתוּ הַנְּשׂוּאִין אֶת הָאֲחָיוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת. וְאַמַּאי? לֵיקוּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, לַחְלוֹץ לָהּ לִשְׁנִיָּיה, וְתִיהְוֵי רִאשׁוֹנָה לְגַבֵּי אִידַּךְ כִּיבָמָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה — תַּחְזוֹר לְהֶיתֵּירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** from the mishna: In the case of **four brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and those married to the sisters died, then those** sisters **must perform *ḥalitza* and may not enter into levirate marriage. And why** does the mishna require *ḥalitza*? **Let one of** the brothers **rise and perform *ḥalitza* with the second** sister, i.e., the sister whose husband died later. As a result, **the first would be like a *yevama* who was permitted** at the time of her husband’s death but later became **forbidden** due to the bond that was created with her sister, **and** she then **subsequently became permitted** by means of *ḥalitza* performed with her sister, **insofar as the other** brother, i.e., he who did not perform *ḥalitza*, **is concerned.** Therefore, **she should return to her original permitted status.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲחָיוֹת אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי שְׁנָאָן. וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי ״חוֹלְצוֹת״ נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי — חוֹלֶצֶת חֲדָא! ״חוֹלְצוֹת״ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: I do not know who taught: Sisters.** Rabbi Yoḥanan was in doubt as to the correct version of this mishna, as he could not find any reasonable explanation of this mishna according to any known opinion. The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan respond in such an extreme manner. **Let him say to him,** to Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, an alternate solution: **What is** the meaning of the ruling that the sisters **perform *ḥalitza*, which** the mishna **teaches?** The meaning is that **one** sister **performs *ḥalitza*.** The Gemara answers: Such a solution is untenable, as the mishna **teaches** the ruling using the words: **Perform *ḥalitza*,** in the plural.


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

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי ״חוֹלְצוֹת״ — חוֹלְצוֹת דְּעָלְמָא! ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ״ קָתָנֵי. וְלֵימָא: דַּחֲלֵיץ לַיהּ לְרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּרֵישָׁא! ״חוֹלְצוֹת״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let** Rabbi Yoḥanan **say to him: What is** the meaning of the ruling to **perform *ḥalitza*? They perform *ḥalitza* in general.** Accordingly, the mishna teaches that in such cases the second woman performs *ḥalitza*. The Gemara responds: The mishna **teaches: Then those** women perform *ḥalitza*. The emphasis on the word: Those, indicates that it is specifically those two women who both perform *ḥalitza*. The Gemara asks further: **And let him say** that the mishna is referring only to the specific case **where** *the yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* with the first** sister **first.** As a result, there was no longer any possibility of rendering the second sister permitted, as Rabbi Yoḥanan permitted levirate marriage only in the case where *ḥalitza* was performed with the second sister first. The Gemara answers: This cannot be suggested either, for the phrase: **Perform *ḥalitza*,**