## Yevamot Daf 52a

###### Yevamot 52a:1
[Yevamot 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:1)

הַאי גֵּט אַחַר גֵּט הוּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: גֵּט אַחַר הַגֵּט, וּמַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר — כְּדַאֲמַרַן, יָבָם אֶחָד וִיבָמָה אַחַת כֵּיצַד הַתָּרָתָן? עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ וְנָתַן לָהּ גֵּט — צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ חֲלִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara is puzzled: Is **this case** upon which the mishna elaborates the case of **a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce** that is mentioned first in the mishna? The mishna first is referring to a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, but when it comes to the specifics, it mentions a bill of divorce after levirate betrothal. **Rav Yehuda said: This is what** the *tanna* **is saying:** With regard to **a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, and levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal,** it is **as we said** and these cases were explained in the *baraita*, but with regard to **one *yavam* and one *yevama*, how is their** complex bond **released?** He then proceeds to delineate: If **he performed levirate betrothal with his *yevama* and gave her a bill of divorce, she requires *ḥalitza* from him.**


###### Yevamot 52a:2
[Yevamot 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:2)

עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר וּבָעַל — הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִצְוָתָהּ. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִצְוַת יְבָמָה — מְקַדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹעֵל. אֵימָא: אַף זֶה כְּמִצְוָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the *yavam* **performed levirate betrothal and engaged in intercourse, this is** done **in accordance with its mitzva.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that** this mishna **supports** the statement of **Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said: The mitzva of a *yevama* is** properly performed when the *yavam* **betroths** the *yevama* **and** only **afterward engages in intercourse.** This statement indicates that the levirate betrothal is a necessary component of the mitzva, and the mishna seems to imply the same. The Gemara refutes this claim: This is not necessarily the case, as you can read the mishna as stating that **this also is in accordance with its mitzva.** If he performed levirate betrothal and then engaged in intercourse, this too is a proper manner to proceed, but we do not have to interpret the mishna as indicating that this is the only way to fulfill the mitzva.


###### Yevamot 52a:3
[Yevamot 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:3)

פְּשִׁיטָא! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר הָעוֹשֶׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ — פָּרְחָה הֵימֶנּוּ זִיקַּת יְבָמִין, וְחָלָה עָלָיו זִיקַּת אֵרוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין, אֵימָא לָאו מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this **obvious?** If one can fulfill the mitzva without performing levirate betrothal, why would one think that levirate betrothal is detrimental? The Gemara answers: It was indeed necessary for the mishna to teach us this, for it might **enter your mind to say** that **since the Master said** above (29b): **One who performs levirate betrothal with his *yevama* causes the levirate bond to dissipate from himself, and a** standard **bond of betrothal and marriage takes effect on him,** you might **say** that he **no** longer **performs a mitzva** when he carries out levirate marriage, as the levirate bond is no longer in place. The *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that we consider the levirate betrothal and the subsequent intercourse as part of the same process, which constitutes a mitzva.


###### Yevamot 52a:4
[Yevamot 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:4)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִצְוַת יְבָמִין — מְקַדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹעֵל, וְאִם בָּעַל וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר — קָנָה. אִם בָּעַל וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר — פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בְּבִיאָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אִם בָּעַל בְּלֹא מַאֲמָר — קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: With regard to **the** matter **itself, Rav Huna said: The mitzva of levirate marriage** is properly performed when the *yavam* **betroths** the *yevama* **and afterward engages in intercourse, and if he engaged in intercourse and** later **performed levirate betrothal, he has acquired** the *yevama*. The Gemara is puzzled: **If he engaged in intercourse and** then **performed levirate betrothal it is obvious** that he has acquired her, **as he has** already **acquired her by intercourse.** The levirate betrothal does not affect the issue one way or another. **Rather, say** as follows: **If he engaged in intercourse without** prior **levirate betrothal,** even in that case **he has acquired** her.


###### Yevamot 52a:5
[Yevamot 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:5)

וְהָתַנְיָא לוֹקֶה! מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that a *yavam* who has intercourse without levirate betrothal **is flogged?** The Gemara answers: The lashes are not because he transgressed by not performing levirate betrothal, but rather they are **lashes for rebelliousness** given for transgressing a **rabbinic** law, namely for acting in an immodest manner.


###### Yevamot 52a:6
[Yevamot 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:6)

דְּרַב מְנַגֵּיד מַאן דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה, וּמַאן דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּקָא, וּמַאן דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלָא שִׁדּוּכֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites other instances where the Sages administered lashes for immodest behavior. **As Rav** would **flog one who betroths** a woman **by intercourse,** despite the fact that betrothal is effective by this method, because he acted in a promiscuous manner. **And** he would likewise **flog one who betroths** a woman **in the marketplace,** rather than at home, as this too is loose behavior, **and** he would also administer lashes **to one who betroths** a woman **without** a prior **marriage agreement** [***shiddukhei***], as this too is an act of permissiveness.


###### Yevamot 52a:7
[Yevamot 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:7)

וּמַאן דִּמְבַטֵּל גִּיטָּא, וּמַאן דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** he would further lash **one who nullifies a bill of divorce** he had earlier sent by declaring in the presence of witnesses that the bill of divorce is nullified. This action is effective, but by doing so he transgresses the rabbinic ordinance of the Sages that bans such an action as it might lead his wife to unlawfully wed another. **And** he would also flog **one who delivers a declaration** preemptively invalidating **a bill of divorce,** by informing three people before giving a bill of divorce that he is not doing so of his own free will and he wants to cancel it ahead of time. Here too he will mislead his wife, who will assume it is a valid bill of divorce.


###### Yevamot 52a:8
[Yevamot 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:8)

[דְּמִתְפַּקַּר בִּשְׁלוּחָא] דְרַבָּנַן, וּמַאן דִּ[מְ]שַׁהֵי שַׁמְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, וְלָא אָתֵי לְבֵי דִינָא וְתָבַע לְשַׁמְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** he would lash **one who behaves irreverently** toward **a messenger of the Sages,** even if the messenger is not a scholar, as he thereby shows disrespect to the Sages themselves. **And** he would administer lashes to **one who remained under an excommunication of the Sages** for **thirty days and did not go to the court and petition for** the removal of **his excommunication after** correcting the sin that led to the excommunication in the first place. This behavior demonstrates that he does not care about the excommunication, and is therefore deserving of lashes.


###### Yevamot 52a:9
[Yevamot 52a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:9)

וְעַל חַתְנָא דְּדָאֵיר בְּבֵי חֲמוּהִי. דְּדָאֵיר — אִין, דְּחָלֵיף — לָא? וְהָא הָהוּא דַּחֲלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי חֲמוּהִי, וְנַגְּדֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת! הָהוּא מֵידָם הֲוָה דַּיִים מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** he would also lash **a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house,** as this is likely to lead to temptation between the younger couple and older couple who share the same house. The Gemara asks: With regard to **one who lives** in his father-in-law’s house, **yes,** he would lash him, but with regard to **one who** only **passed** through his father-in-law’s house at regular intervals, **no,** he would not lash him? **But** an incident occurred involving **a certain** man **who passed by the entrance to his father-in-law’s house and Rav Sheshet lashed him.** The Gemara explains: There was a special set of circumstances in that case, as **that** man **was suspected with regard to his mother-in-law,** and therefore he was lashed merely for passing near her house, as he thereby gave credence to the rumors.


###### Yevamot 52a:10
[Yevamot 52a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:10)

נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: בְּכוּלְּהוּ לָא מְנַגֵּיד רַב, אֶלָּא לִמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה וּבְלָא שִׁדּוּכֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁדּוּכֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of Neharde’a** would **say: In all** these cases **Rav would not flog, apart from** the case of one who **betrothed by intercourse and without** a prior **marriage agreement. And there are** those **who say** he would flog a man who betrothed by intercourse **even** if he did so **with** a prior **marriage agreement, due to the immorality** involved, as he must invite witnesses to observe the act.


###### Yevamot 52a:11
[Yevamot 52a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מַאֲמָר? נָתַן לָהּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף. וּבִשְׁטָר כֵּיצַד? בִּשְׁטָר כֵּיצַד?! כְּדַאֲמַרַן: כָּתַב לָהּ עַל הַנְּיָיר אוֹ עַל הַחֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי״! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: שְׁטַר כְּתוּבַּת יְבָמִין כֵּיצַד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: How** is **levirate betrothal** performed? **He gives her money or the equivalent** value of **money** and declares: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: **And with a document, how** does he betroth her? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: **With a document, how** does he betroth her? It is **as we have said** by the *halakhot* of a regular document of betrothal: If **he wrote to her on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a *peruta*,** the words: **You are hereby betrothed to me,** it is effective. As a document is not effective as a means of betrothal due to its monetary value but rather due to the words it contains, there is no requirement that it be of a minimum value. However, because the *halakhot* of betrothal by a document were already taught, the Gemara is puzzled as to the nature of this question. **Abaye said** that **this is what** the *baraita* **is saying:** With regard to **the document of a marriage contract for levirate marriage, how** is it written? Abaye understands that the question did not refer to the document of betrothal but rather to the marriage contract of a levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 52a:12
[Yevamot 52a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:12)

כָּתַב לַהּ: ״אֲנָא פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי קַבֵּילִית יָת פְּלוֹנִית יְבִמְתִּי עֲלַי, לָזוּן וּלְפַרְנְסָהּ כָּרָאוּי, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן״. וְאִי לֵית לַהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן — תַּקִּינוּ לַהּ רַבָּנַן מִשֵּׁנִי, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **he writes to her: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, have accepted so-and-so, my *yevama* upon me, to feed and maintain her in a fitting manner, provided that her marriage contract will** still **be** payable **from the property of her first husband** and not from the property of the *yavam*. The Gemara adds: **But if the first** husband **does not have** property, **the Sages instituted for her** that she should receive her marriage contract **from the second** husband, i.e., the *yavam*, for the same reason that they instituted the marriage contract in the first place: **So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that** he will easily **divorce her.** If he will suffer no financial penalty, he is likely to divorce over the smallest argument.


###### Yevamot 52a:13
[Yevamot 52a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:13)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת הֵימֶנִּי, וְאִי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״. מַהוּ? גֵּט יְבָמָה דְּרַבָּנַן הוּא, גֵּט דְּמַהֲנֵי בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ — מַהֲנֵי בִּיבָמָה, גֵּט דְּלָא מַהֲנֵי בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ — לָא מַהֲנֵי בִּיבָמָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִחַלּוֹפֵי בְּגִיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye inquired of Rabba:** If a *yavam* **gave** his *yevama* **a bill of divorce, and said** the following formula: **You are hereby divorced from me but you are not permitted to any** other **man, what is** the status of such a bill of divorce? **Is the bill of divorce of a *yevama*** a bill of divorce **based on rabbinic** law and therefore subject to the *halakhot* of a regular bill of divorce; and consequently, **a bill of divorce that is effective for a married woman is** also **effective for a *yevama*,** and **a bill of divorce that is not effective for a married woman is not effective for a *yevama*?** Since this type of a divorce is invalid in the case of a married woman, it is similarly ineffective in the case of a *yevama*. **Or perhaps** the Sages were concerned that **perhaps** people **will come to confuse** this bill of divorce **with** an unqualified **bill of divorce** given by a *yavam* and they therefore decreed that it should affect the levirate bond, preventing the *yavam* from marrying the *yevama*.


###### Yevamot 52a:14
[Yevamot 52a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:14)

[אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חָיְישִׁינַן דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִחַלּוֹפֵי בְּגִיטָּא.] מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה בַּר חָנָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יָהֵיב לַהּ נְיָירָא בְּעָלְמָא — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפַסְלַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא פָּסֵיל בִּכְהוּנָּה, הָכָא קָפָסֵיל בִּכְהוּנָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: We are concerned** that **perhaps** they will come to **confuse** this bill of divorce **with a** regular **bill of divorce,** and it therefore disqualifies a *yevama*. **Rabba bar Ḥanan strongly objects to this: However, if that is so,** that we are stringent with the bill of divorce of a *yevama* out of concern that people might confuse the two types of bills of divorce, if **he gives her a mere** piece of **paper,** which does not mention divorce, **so too will it disqualify her? He said to him: There** it is different, as a mere piece of paper has no effect on any other woman, for **it does not disqualify** her **for** marrying into **the priesthood.** If a husband gives his wife a piece of paper that contains nothing about divorce, even if he says: This is a bill of divorce, his action is of no consequence, not even to forbid her to a priest. **Here,** however, a bill of divorce of this kind at least **disqualifies** a woman from marrying **into the priesthood.**


###### Yevamot 52a:15
[Yevamot 52a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:15)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ לֹא יִקָּחוּ״, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה אֶלָּא מֵאִישָׁהּ — ״לֹא יִקָּחוּ״, וְהַיְינוּ רֵיחַ הַגֵּט שֶׁפּוֹסֵל בִּכְהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: “They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; **and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take,** as he is holy to his God” (Leviticus 21:7). This verse lists the women whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. From this verse it can be inferred: **Even** if **she was only divorced from her husband** who said when giving her a bill of divorce: You are divorced from me, but did not permit her to other men, even such a woman **they may not take** in marriage. Although a bill of divorce of this kind does not permit the woman to others, it does suffice to prohibit her from marrying a priest. **And this is** what is referred to as **the trace of a bill of divorce, which disqualifies** a woman from marrying **into the priesthood.** Since this bill of divorce is valid to a certain extent, it also disqualifies a *yevama*.


###### Yevamot 52a:16
[Yevamot 52a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/52a:16)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ, אָמַר אֶחָד לְלַבְלָר: כְּתוֹב גֵּט לַאֲרוּסָתִי, לִכְשֶׁאֶכְנְסֶנָּה אֲגָרְשֶׁנָּה — הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said: They said** that **if one said to a scribe** [***lavlar***]: **Write a bill of divorce for my betrothed** now, **such that when I marry her I will divorce her** with the bill of divorce, if he indeed gave her this bill of divorce after their marriage **it is** a valid **bill of divorce.** Why? **Because it is** already **in his power to divorce her** while she is betrothed to him, and therefore the bill of divorce written during their betrothal is valid.