## Yevamot Daf 51b

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

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי יֵשׁ זִיקָּה, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין וִיבָמָה אַחַת. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה — צְרִיכָה לַחֲזוֹר עַל כׇּל הָאַחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 *ḥalitza* 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 *ḥalitza*,** the *yevama* **is required to repeat** the *ḥalitza* **with all the brothers.** If the *ḥalitza* was invalid for some reason, all the brothers must perform *ḥalitza* with the *yevama*, as her bond with them is not canceled by an invalid *ḥalitza*.


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

אָמַר לָךְ רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בֵּין לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי אֵין זִיקָּה, וְהָכָא בְּגֵט אַחַר גֵּט וּמַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

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


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

אָמַר מָר: עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר בָּזוֹ וּמַאֲמָר בָּזוֹ, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן גֵּט לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחוֹלֵץ לָהּ, וְאָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וּמוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָּה. מִכְּדֵי קָסָבַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֵין מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר, רִאשׁוֹנָה נָמֵי תִּתְיַיבֵּם? גְּזֵירָה דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְיַיבּוֹמֵי לִשְׁנִיָּה.

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


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּבֶן עַזַּאי וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה — כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and ben Azzai, and Rabbi Neḥemya, they all hold** that **levirate betrothal acquires** the *yevama* as **a full-fledged acquisition,** like a regular betrothal. The source for **Rabban Gamliel’s** opinion is **that which we said** above, that levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the second levirate betrothal is not effective because she was already fully acquired by the first one.


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

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — דִּתְנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם נְשׂוּאִין לִשְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְאֶחָד מוּפְנֶה, מֵת אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת, וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ מוּפְנֶה מַאֲמָר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו הַשֵּׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְהַלֵּזוּ — תֵּצֵא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה.

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


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — דְּתַנְיָא: אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לַחֲכָמִים: אִם בִּיאַת רִאשׁוֹן בִּיאָה — בִּיאַת שֵׁנִי אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה. אִם בִּיאַת רִאשׁוֹן אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה — בִּיאַת שֵׁנִי נָמֵי אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה. וְהָא בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע, דִּכְמַאֲמָר שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן, וְקָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָהּ בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

בֶּן עַזַּאי — דְּתַנְיָא, בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין וִיבָמָה אַחַת, וְאֵין מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר בִּשְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת וְיָבָם אֶחָד. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה — דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: אַחַת בְּעִילָה, וְאַחַת חֲלִיצָה, בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף — אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם. וְהָא בִּיאָה פְּסוּלָה, דִּכְמַאֲמָר שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן, וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This source for **ben Azzai’s** 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 Neḥemya’s** opinion is **as we learned** in a mishna that **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** With regard to **both intercourse and *ḥalitza*, 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 Neḥemya **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*.


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

כֵּיצַד? עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **How so?** If he **performed levirate betrothal** with his *yevama* and gave her a bill of divorce, **etc.**