## Yevamot Daf 51a

###### Yevamot 51a:1
[Yevamot 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:1)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — דִּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ גֵּט אִי דָּחֵי אִי לָא דָּחֵי. מַאֲמָר — אִי קָנֵי אִי לָא קָנֵי. גֵּט — אִי דָּחֵי אִי לָא דָּחֵי. אִי קַמָּא דָּחֵי — בָּתְרָא מַאי קָעָבֵיד. אִי קַמָּא לָא דָּחֵי — בָּתְרָא נָמֵי לָא דָּחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 51a:2
[Yevamot 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:2)

מַאֲמָר אִי קָנֵי אִי לָא קָנֵי, אִי קַמָּא קָנֵי — בָּתְרָא מַאי קָעָבֵיד, וְאִי קַמָּא לָא קָנֵי — בָּתְרָא נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yevamot 51a:3
[Yevamot 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:3)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמוֹדֶה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ גֵּט אַחַר מַאֲמָר, וּמַאֲמָר אַחַר הַגֵּט. וְגֵט אַחַר בִּיאָה וּמַאֲמָר, וּמַאֲמָר אַחַר בִּיאָה וְגֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 51a:4
[Yevamot 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:4)

וְאִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — תִּהְוֵי כְּבִיאָה דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה, וְתִקְנֵי. דְּהָא תְּנַן: הַבְּעִילָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא בַּתְּחִלָּה — אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s ruling is difficult.


###### Yevamot 51a:5
[Yevamot 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לְעוֹלָם פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּגֵט דְּדָחֵי וּמַאֲמָר דְּקָנֵי. מִיהוּ, אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: הָא יְבָמָה — בְּחַד צַד מַהֲנֵי בַּהּ גֵּט, וּבְחַד צַד מַהֲנֵי בַּהּ מַאֲמָר. גֵּט אַחַר גֵּט לָא דָּחֵי — דְּהָא דְּחָה לֵיהּ קַמָּא. וּמַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר לָא קָנֵי — דְּהָא קְנָא לֵיהּ קַמָּא. גֵּט אַחַר מַאֲמָר וּמַאֲמָר אַחַר הַגֵּט, הַאי מִילְּתָא קָא דָחֵי וְהַאי מִילְּתָא קָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 51a:6
[Yevamot 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:6)

וְרַבָּנַן: כֹּל חַד וְחַד תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן גֵּט וּמַאֲמָר בִּיבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 51a:7
[Yevamot 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:7)

וְהַאי בִּיאָה פְּסוּלָה — עֲדִיפָא מִמַּאֲמָר וּגְרִיעָא מִמַּאֲמָר. עֲדִיפָא מִמַּאֲמָר: דְּאִילּוּ מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר לָא מַהֲנֵי, וְאִילּוּ בִּיאָה אַחַר מַאֲמָר מַהֲנֵי. וּגְרִיעָא מִמַּאֲמָר: דְּאִילּוּ מַאֲמָר אַחַר הַגֵּט קָנֵי לְכוּלֵּיהּ שִׁיּוּרָא דְגֵט, וְאִילּוּ בִּיאָה אַחַר הַגֵּט לָא קָנְיָא לֵיהּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ שִׁיּוּרָא דְגֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye proceeds to explain the rest of Rabban Gamliel’s 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.


###### Yevamot 51a:8
[Yevamot 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֵין גֵּט אַחַר גֵּט? שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִפְנֵי יָבָם אֶחָד, וְנָתַן גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: חוֹלֵץ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וּמוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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 *ḥalitza* with the first one and is forbidden to** marry **her relatives,** as she is his *ḥalutza*, **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 *ḥalutza*, and he is therefore permitted to marry her relatives.


###### Yevamot 51a:9
[Yevamot 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:9)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נָתַן גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ — אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וַחֲלִיצָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִים וִיבָמָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 ***ḥalitza* 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.


###### Yevamot 51a:10
[Yevamot 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:10)

כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֵין מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר? שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִפְנֵי יָבָם אֶחָד, וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר בָּזוֹ וּמַאֲמָר בָּזוֹ, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן גֵּט לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחוֹלֵץ לָהּ, וְאָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וּמוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתֵן גֵּט לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְאָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וַחֲלִיצָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִים וִיבָמָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 *ḥalitza* 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 ***ḥalitza*,** 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.


###### Yevamot 51a:11
[Yevamot 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:11)

אָמַר מָר: נוֹתֵן גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: חוֹלֵץ לְרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וּמוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָּה. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת הַגֵּט — לֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 *ḥalitza* 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 *ḥalitza* with the woman who received a bill of divorce, the rival wife is not exempted** by this invalid *ḥalitza*. The *yavam* must therefore repeat the *ḥalitza* with the rival wife as well. This appears to contradict the *baraita*, where Rabban Gamliel rules that he has to perform *ḥalitza* with only one of the *yevamot*.


###### Yevamot 51a:12
[Yevamot 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:12)

אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: כִּי אֲמַרִי אֲנָא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ זִיקָּה. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר אֵין זִיקָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 *ḥalitza* in order to cancel this bond. A *ḥalitza* 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 perform *ḥalitza*. **But Rabban Gamliel holds** that **the levirate bond is not substantial,** and therefore any *ḥalitza* that releases one of the women also serves to release the other.


###### Yevamot 51a:13
[Yevamot 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/51a:13)

וּמִדְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר אֵין זִיקָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **from** the fact that **Rabban Gamliel holds** that **the levirate bond is not substantial,**