## Yevamot Daf 52b

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

וּלְאִשָּׁה בְּעָלְמָא — אֵין גֵּט, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ. בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לִיבִמְתּוֹ, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דַּאֲגִידָא בֵּיהּ — כַּאֲרוּסָתוֹ דָּמְיָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא עֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר — לָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if he wrote a bill of divorce **for** a **regular woman** who has no connection to him, even if he later married her, it is **not a** valid **bill of divorce.** This is **because** at the time of the writing of the bill of divorce, **it is not in his power to divorce her,** and therefore the bill of divorce is of no consequence. All this is evident, but in light of the above *halakhot* **Rami bar Ḥama inquires:** If he wrote a bill of divorce **for his *yevama*** and did not give it to her immediately, but only after they were married, **what is** the *halakha*? Is it a valid bill of divorce or not? The Gemara clarifies the options: On the one hand, **since she is tied to him** she is **considered like his betrothed; or perhaps, since he has not** yet **performed levirate betrothal with her,** she is **not** even considered the equivalent of his betrothed, and the bill of divorce is not effective? The Gemara does not have a resolution for this and states that the question **shall stand** unresolved.


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

בָּעֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָה: כָּתַב גֵּט לְזִיקָּתוֹ וְלֹא לְמַאֲמָרוֹ, לְמַאֲמָרוֹ וְלֹא לְזִיקָּתוֹ, מַהוּ? מַאֲמָר עִילָּוֵי זִיקָה קָא רְמֵי, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְגָרֵשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה, וְהַמְגָרֵשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥananya inquires:** If **he wrote a bill of divorce for his levirate bond,** by specifying in the bill of divorce that he is thereby severing the levirate bond between them, **but not for his levirate betrothal,** or if he wrote a bill of divorce **for his levirate betrothal and** stated that it is **not for his levirate bond, what is** the *halakha*? Is the **levirate betrothal superimposed upon the levirate bond,** so that they are considered a single, continuous link, **and he is like one who divorces half a woman, and one who divorces half a woman has done nothing; or perhaps this stands on its own and that stands on its own,** and he can therefore cancel either the levirate bond or the levirate betrothal separately.


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

וְתִפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: נָתַן גֵּט לְמַאֲמָרוֹ — הוּתְּרָה צָרָתָהּ! לְרָבָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, לְרַב חֲנַנְיָה מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, מַאי — תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** why do you not **resolve** the dilemma **from** a teaching of **Rava? For Rava said:** If a *yavam* **gave a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal, her rival wife is permitted.** The levirate betrothal he had previously performed is thereby canceled, which leaves the bond intact, and the rival wife of this *yevama* remains available for levirate marriage. This indicates that levirate betrothal and the levirate bond are not connected. The Gemara answers: **To Rava it is obvious,** but **to Rav Ḥananya it is a dilemma. What,** then, is the *halakha*? Since no other proof is forthcoming, and Rav **Ḥananya** does not accept the teaching of Rava, the question remains undecided. The Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

חָלַץ וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ אַחַר חֲלִיצָה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: If the *yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* and** then **performed levirate betrothal,** nothing is effective after *ḥalitza* and this levirate betrothal is not valid. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **betrothal does not take effect on** those who are forbidden as they are **liable for** violating **a prohibition.** Once he has performed *ḥalitza*, the woman is forbidden to him due to the prohibition derived from the verse “So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and betrothal is ineffective. **But the Rabbis say something is** effective **after *ḥalitza*.** Although the woman who performed *ḥalitza* is forbidden to him, if he does betroth her, his betrothal is effective, as with any regular prohibition.


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

וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: נָתַן גֵּט וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר — צְרִיכָה גֵּט וַחֲלִיצָה. וְאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כֵּיוָן דִּיהַב לָהּ גֵּט, מִי מַהֲנֵי בַּהּ מַאֲמָר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you establish** that the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva? But doesn’t the first clause** of the mishna **teach:** If he **gave a bill of divorce and performed levirate betrothal, she requires a bill of divorce and *ḥalitza*. Now if** this is in accordance with **Rabbi Akiva’s** opinion, **once he gave her a bill of divorce, is levirate betrothal effective for her?**


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

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְנוֹתֵן גֵּט לִיבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עָלָיו עוֹלָמִית — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ״ — אַחַר שִׁילּוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: From where** is it derived **that if one gives a bill of divorce to his *yevama*, she is forbidden to him forever** and he no longer has the option of marrying her? As it **is stated** with regard to a woman who was divorced and married another man who subsequently died or divorced her: **“Her former husband, who sent her away, may not** take her again to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 24:4). Rabbi Akiva emphasizes the words “who sent her away,” implying that he may not remarry her **after sending** her **away.** This indicates that there is an instance where a husband may not remarry his wife even if she has not married another, merely because he has given her a bill of divorce. This applies to the case of a *yevama* where the bill of divorce she receives renders her permanently prohibited to him. According to Rabbi Akiva, once she is rendered prohibited to him, no further action performed by the *yavam* is effective, so why does the levirate betrothal performed require a bill of divorce?


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: גֵּט יְבָמִין מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** This is not difficult because **the bill of divorce for levirate marriage** was established by the Sages and only has the force of **rabbinic** law, **and the** aforementioned **verse** is not a Torah prohibition, but rather **a mere support.** Therefore there is no Torah prohibition against marrying a *yevama* who received a bill of divorce, and the levirate betrothal performed afterward is effective according to Rabbi Akiva as well.


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין הַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה חֲלוּצָה כְּעֶרְוָה. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ אַחַר חֲלִיצָה כְּלוּם. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת, אֲבָל קִדְּשָׁהּ לְשׁוּם יַבְמוּת — אֵין אַחַר חֲלִיצָה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakha* of betrothal after *ḥalitza*, the Gemara notes: **This** *halakha* **is also taught** in a *baraita* as **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: These matters were only stated in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who considers a *yevama* who underwent *ḥalitza* to be** prohibited **like a forbidden relation.** Therefore, any further betrothal is not effective with her, as is the case with forbidden relations. **But the Rabbis say something is** effective **after *ḥalitza*. And I say: When** is betrothal effective after *ḥalitza*? It is effective **when he betrothed for the purpose of marriage,** like the regular betrothal of any ordinary woman. **But** if **he betrothed her** after *ḥalitza* and specified that he is doing so **for the purpose of levirate marriage,** in that case **nothing is** effective **after *ḥalitza*.**


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

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְחָזַר וְקִדְּשָׁהּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת — צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, לְשׁוּם יַבְמוּת — אֵין צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת, בִּין שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ לְשׁוּם יַבְמוּת — צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: With regard to **one who performs *ḥalitza* with his *yevama* and then betroths her, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: If he betrothed her for the purpose of** regular **marriage she requires a bill of divorce from him;** if he betrothed her **for the purpose of levirate marriage she does not require a bill of divorce from him. And the Rabbis say: Whether he betrothed her for the purpose of** regular **marriage, or whether he betrothed her for the purpose of levirate marriage, she requires a bill of divorce from him,** as this betrothal is effective.


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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי — עֲשָׂאוּהָ כְּעוֹדֵר בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר וּכְסָבוּר שֶׁלּוֹ הֵן, דְּלָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: What is the reason for Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi’s distinction between one who betroths his *ḥalutza* for the purpose of levirate marriage and one who does so for the purpose of regular marriage? It is because the Sages **considered him like** one who **hoes the property of a convert** who died without leaving heirs. The property of such a convert is ownerless, and whoever takes possession of it acquires its title. As one of the methods of taking possession of land is hoeing, if one hoed the property of this convert with the intention of acquiring it, it belongs to him. However, if he hoed the convert’s property **while** mistakenly **thinking** that the land **was his own,** even though he performed an act of acquisition, since he lacked the requisite intention **he has not acquired** the land. Here too, since the *yavam* intended to betroth her for the purpose of levirate marriage, and the levirate bond no longer exists, his action is not effective.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא קָא מְכַוֵּין לְמִיקְנֵי, הָכָא קָא מְכַוֵּין לְמִיקְנֵי! הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְעוֹדֵר בְּנִכְסֵי גֵּר זֶה וּכְסָבוּר שֶׁל גֵּר אַחֵר הוּא, דְּקָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: Are** the two situations **comparable? There,** in the case of hoeing, **he does not intend to acquire** the land as he works, as he thinks that it is already his, whereas **here he does intend to acquire** the woman. **This** case **is similar only to the one who hoes the property of this** deceased **convert while thinking it is that of a different convert.** The *halakha* in that case is **that he acquires** the land, despite his imprecise knowledge of what he is acquiring. Here too the betrothal should take effect regardless of his error.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמַאֲמָר יְבָמִין. רַבִּי סָבַר: מַאֲמָר עִילָּוֵי זִיקָה קָא רָמֵי, וַאֲתַאי חֲלִיצָה אַפְקַעְתַּהּ לְזִיקָּהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי. מֵעִיקָּרָא אִילּוּ אֲמַר לַהּ ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּמַאֲמַר יְבָמִין״, מִי לָא מַהֲנֵי? הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מַהֲנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis cannot be explained in the above manner. Instead, he suggests: **With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where he said to** his *ḥalutza*: **Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that **levirate betrothal is superimposed upon** the **levirate bond,** and is therefore only possible when the bond exists, **and** since ***ḥalitza* comes** and **releases the levirate bond,** levirate betrothal is not effective for her. **And the Rabbis hold: This,** the levirate bond, **stands on its own, and that,** levirate betrothal, **stands on its own.** Although the bond has been canceled, the formula of: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, is effective. **At the outset,** before *ḥalitza*, **if he had said to her: Be betrothed to me with levirate betrothal, would** this **not be** an **effective** betrothal despite the lack of connection between the levirate betrothal and the levirate bond? **Now too** it should be **effective,** even though she performed *ḥalitza*.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: אִי דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״בְּמַאֲמַר יְבָמִין״, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמַהְנְיָא. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּזִיקַּת יְבָמִין״. רַבִּי סָבַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: If he said to her:** Be betrothed to me **with levirate betrothal, everyone agrees that it is effective,** and she is acquired. **And with what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where he said to her: Be betrothed to me with the levirate bond,** and the dispute is as follows: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds**