## Yevamot Daf 53a

###### Yevamot 53a:1
[Yevamot 53a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:1)

יֵשׁ זִיקָה, וַאֲתַאי חֲלִיצָה אַפְקַעְתַּיהּ לְזִיקָּה. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין זִיקָּה. מֵעִיקָּרָא אִילּוּ אָמַר לַהּ: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּזִיקַּת יְבָמִין״, מִי לָא מַהֲנֵי? הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מַהֲנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that **the levirate bond is substantial,** and this betrothal is based on the levirate bond. **And** in this case, the ***ḥalitza* comes** and **releases the levirate bond.** Therefore this type of betrothal does not acquire the *ḥalutza*. **But the Rabbis hold** that **the levirate bond is not substantial,** that is, the bond itself does not create a connection between the *yavam* and *yevama*, and that in general, levirate betrothal acquires a *yevama* as a form of betrothal unrelated to the levirate bond. **And** consequently, **at the outset, if he had said to her: Be betrothed to me by the levirate bond, would** this **not be effective? Now too,** after *ḥalitza*, even without the bond, it should likewise be **effective.**


###### Yevamot 53a:2
[Yevamot 53a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:2)

רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמַר: בַּחֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁירָה, אִי דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּזִיקַּת יְבָמִין״ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא מַהֲנֵי. וְהָכָא בַּחֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה פּוֹטֶרֶת, וּמָר סָבַר חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sherevya** suggested a different point of dispute and **said:** In a case when the woman performed **valid *ḥalitza*, if he** later **said to her: Be betrothed to me by the levirate bond, everyone agrees that it is not effective,** as there is no longer any bond. **And here,** they **disagree** with regard to one who performed **invalid *ḥalitza*.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **invalid *ḥalitza* exempts** her from the levirate bond and disqualifies her from betrothal as a *yevama*. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds** that **invalid *ḥalitza* does not** fully **exempt** her, and some element of the levirate bond remains intact and she can therefore be betrothed with the levirate bond.


###### Yevamot 53a:3
[Yevamot 53a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:3)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת, וְהָכָא בְּיֵשׁ תְּנַאי בַּחֲלִיצָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ תְּנַאי בַּחֲלִיצָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין תְּנַאי בַּחֲלִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Everyone** agrees that **invalid *ḥalitza* does not exempt** her and does not entirely nullify the bond. **And here** they **disagree** as to whether **a condition is** effective **with regard to *ḥalitza*.** When the *yavam* states he is performing *ḥalitza* on the condition that the *yevama* give him one hundred dinars, for example, is this condition effective and therefore the *ḥalitza* is nullified if the condition is not fulfilled? One **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds** that **a condition is** effective **with regard to *ḥalitza*.** If the *yevama* fails to comply with the condition, the *ḥalitza* is ineffective and she can still be betrothed with the levirate bond. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **a condition is not** effective **with regard to *ḥalitza*,** and therefore the *ḥalitza* is always effective, and the subsequent levirate betrothal is ineffective.


###### Yevamot 53a:4
[Yevamot 53a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:4)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ תְּנַאי בַּחֲלִיצָה, וְהָכָא בִּתְנַאי כָּפוּל קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר בָּעֵינַן תְּנַאי כָּפוּל, וּמָר סָבַר לָא בָּעֵינַן תְּנַאי כָּפוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Everyone agrees** that **a condition is** effective **with regard to *ḥalitza*, and here** they **disagree with regard to a compound condition.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **we require a compound condition.** The man must explicitly stipulate that the *ḥalitza* should be effective if the condition is upheld, and that it should not be effective if she does not fulfill the condition. If he did not state both the positive and negative sides of the condition it does not take effect, and the *ḥalitza* is effective and the levirate bond is canceled. Consequently, betrothal by the levirate bond is ineffective. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds that we do not require a compound condition.** Therefore, the condition applies and cancels the *ḥalitza*, which leaves the levirate bond intact.


###### Yevamot 53a:5
[Yevamot 53a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:5)

חָלֵץ וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר וְנָתַן גֵּט וּבָעַל וְכוּ׳. וְנִיתְנֵי נָמֵי אֵין אַחַר בִּיאָה כְּלוּם? אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: תָּנֵי אֵין אַחַר בִּיאָה כְּלוּם. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן? הַתָּרַת יְבָמָה לַשּׁוּק עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the *yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* and** then either **performed levirate betrothal, or gave a bill of divorce, or engaged in intercourse,** nothing is effective after *ḥalitza*. The Gemara asks: **And let** the *tanna* **likewise teach** that **nothing is** effective **after intercourse,** for he also mentioned the case of one who engaged in intercourse and then proceeded to perform other actions such as levirate betrothal, divorce and *ḥalitza*. Indeed, **Abaye and Rava both say** that the mishna should **teach: Nothing is** effective **after intercourse,** as this clause is fit to be inserted into the mishna. The Gemara asks: **And the *tanna* of our** mishna; why did he not state this? The Gemara explains: **The permission for a *yevama* to** marry a member of the **public is preferable to him.** He preferred to teach cases in which the *yevama* is permitted to marry any man from the general public as opposed to a situation where she is married to the *yavam*.


###### Yevamot 53a:6
[Yevamot 53a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:6)

אֶחָד יְבָמָה אַחַת, אֶחָד שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֶן עַזַּאי, דְּתַנְיָא, בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין וִיבָמָה אַחַת, וְאֵין מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר בִּשְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת וְיָבָם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that all the *halakhot* with regard to levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal and the like apply **both** in cases of **one *yevama*** to one *yavam*, **as well as** in cases of **two *yevamot*** to one *yavam*. The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **ben Azzai. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **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*.** The *tanna* of the mishna, in contrast, does not differentiate between the cases.


###### Yevamot 53a:7
[Yevamot 53a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:7)

כֵּיצַד — מַאֲמָר לָזוֹ וְכוּ׳. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר — לֹא נִפְטְרָה צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches: **How so?** If he performed **levirate betrothal with this** one and performed *ḥalitza* with that one, the first woman requires a bill of divorce to cancel the levirate betrothal. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this teaching **supports** the opinion of **Shmuel. As Shmuel said:** If a *yavam* **performed *ḥalitza* with** the woman **who received levirate betrothal,** then the **rival wife is not exempt** as this *ḥalitza* is invalid. The fact that the Gemara does not state that the *ḥalitza* be performed with the woman who received levirate betrothal indicates that this *ḥalitza* is not a valid *ḥalitza* and would not be sufficient to exempt the rival wife.


###### Yevamot 53a:8
[Yevamot 53a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:8)

וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי קָתָנֵי ״חוֹלֵץ״? ״חָלַץ״ קָתָנֵי, דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this would constitute **a conclusive refutation** of **Rav Yosef’s** opinion, for he holds that it is preferable to perform *ḥalitza* with the woman who received levirate betrothal and thereby exempt the second woman. As the first woman requires a bill of divorce and therefore is necessarily disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, it is preferable to perform *ḥalitza* with her as well and consequently leave the second woman eligible to marry a priest. The Gemara refutes this claim: **Does** the mishna **teach: He should perform *ḥalitza*,** which would imply that the *yavam* should do so *ab initio*? It **teaches** that **he performed *ḥalitza*,** implying that the ruling in the mishna is **after the fact.** Therefore, there is no indication in the mishna that the *yavam* should perform *ḥalitza* with the second woman, and it is possible that if he were to perform *ḥalitza* with the first woman he would thereby exempt the second one. It is simply that the particular case discussed by the mishna here concerns a man who performed levirate betrothal with this woman and *ḥalitza* with that one.


###### Yevamot 53a:9
[Yevamot 53a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:9)

גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ כּוּ׳. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה — צְרִיכָה לְחַזֵּר עַל כׇּל הָאַחִין. מַאי צְרִיכוֹת — צְרִיכוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is further taught in the mishna: If he gave **a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one,** they require *ḥalitza* from him. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **it supports** the statement of **Rabba bar Rav Huna. As Rabba bar Rav Huna said:** In cases of **invalid *ḥalitza*,** the *yevama* **is required to repeat** the *ḥalitza* **with all of the brothers,** as that single invalid *ḥalitza* is insufficient. Similarly, in this case of invalid *ḥalitza*, it would be necessary to perform *ḥalitza* with all of the *yevamot*. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **What is** the meaning of **require** in this context? It means that such women **require in general.** The plural form does not refer to all the *yevamot* mentioned in the mishna, but rather it means that all *yevamot* in similar situations require *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 53a:10
[Yevamot 53a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:10)

גֵּט לָזוֹ וְחָלַץ לְזוֹ. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, וְתִהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף! מִי קָתָנֵי ״חוֹלֵץ״? ״חָלַץ״ קָתָנֵי, דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna: If he gave **a bill of divorce to this one and performed *ḥalitza* with that one,** nothing is effective after *ḥalitza*. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that this supports** the opinion of **Shmuel,** as it indicates that the *yavam* should perform *ḥalitza* with the rival wife rather than the woman who received a bill of divorce. **And** it would likewise be **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Yosef,** who prefers performing *ḥalitza* with the disqualified woman. The Gemara again rejects this proof: **Does it teach: He should perform *ḥalitza*,** a ruling *ab initio*? **It teaches: He performed *ḥalitza*,** which is only **after the fact,** meaning he acted in that manner in this particular case.


###### Yevamot 53a:11
[Yevamot 53a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:11)

חָלַץ וְחָלַץ אוֹ חָלַץ וְכוּ׳. וְלִיתְנֵי נָמֵי אֵין אַחַר בִּיאָה כְּלוּם! אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: תָּנֵי אֵין אַחַר בִּיאָה כְּלוּם. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן — הַתָּרַת יְבָמָה לַשּׁוּק עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught that if **he performed *ḥalitza*** with one woman **and** then **performed *ḥalitza*** with another one, **or he performed *ḥalitza*** and then proceeded to perform levirate betrothal, nothing is effective after *ḥalitza*. The Gemara suggests: **And let** the *tanna* **also teach: Nothing is** effective **after intercourse,** as this is indicated in the mishna as well. The Gemara answers: Indeed, **Abaye and Rava both say** that it should **teach: Nothing is** effective **after intercourse.** The Gemara comments: **And the *tanna* of our** mishna did not state this because **the permission for a *yevama* to** marry a member of the **public is preferable to him,** and he therefore specified a case that involves *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 53a:12
[Yevamot 53a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:12)

בֵּין יָבָם אֶחָד לִשְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר כּוּלֵּהּ בֵּיתָא בְּלָאו קָאֵי — אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: Nothing is effective after *ḥalitza*, **both** in cases of **one *yavam* to two *yevamot*,** as well as cases of two *yevamin* to one *yevama*. The Gemara comments: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said** that once a *yavam* has performed *ḥalitza* with his *yevama*, **the entire household,** the woman who performed *ḥalitza* as well as her rival wives, **is liable due to a prohibition** derived from the verse “So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9), but the women are not liable to *karet* due to the prohibition with regard to a brother’s wife. In light of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling, **it was necessary to teach us that betrothal does not take effect on** the rival wife of the woman who performed *ḥalitza*, despite the fact that she is only **liable for** violating **a prohibition,** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


###### Yevamot 53a:13
[Yevamot 53a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:13)

אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר כּוּלֵּהּ בֵּיתָא בְּכָרֵת קָאֵי — אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to Reish Lakish, who said** that the **entire household,** apart from the woman who received *ḥalitza*, **is liable** to receive ***karet*, was it necessary to teach us that betrothal does not take effect on** forbidden relations for which one **is liable** to receive ***karet*?** According to Reish Lakish, after the *yavam* performs *ḥalitza*, the mitzva of levirate marriage is canceled and the *karet* prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife is once again in force. As all agree that betrothal does not take effect on those liable to receive *karet*, it is unnecessary for the mishna to teach this ruling.


###### Yevamot 53a:14
[Yevamot 53a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:14)

אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי בָּעַל וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר — אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Reish Lakish** could have **said to you: And according to your reasoning,** that the mishna would not be teaching us an apparently obvious *halakha*, consider the **latter clause** of the mishna, **which teaches** that if a *yavam* **engaged in intercourse and** another *yavam* **performed levirate betrothal** with the same woman, the levirate betrothal is not effective. Now **was it necessary to teach us that betrothal is not effective for a married woman?** Once a *yavam* has engaged in relations with a *yevama* she is his full-fledged wife, and certainly no other betrothal is effective.


###### Yevamot 53a:15
[Yevamot 53a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/53a:15)

אֶלָּא: אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא הַתָּרַת יָבָם אֶחָד וִיבָמָה אַחַת, תְּנָא נָמֵי שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת וְיָבָם אֶחָד. וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת וְיָבָם אֶחָד, תְּנָא נָמֵי שְׁתֵּי יְבָמִין וִיבָמָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that not every clause in the mishna teaches a novel *halakha*, and the reasoning of the *tanna* is as follows: **Since he teaches the release of** the bond between **one *yavam* and one *yevama*, he also teaches** the case of **two *yevamot* and one *yavam*, and since he teaches** the case of **two *yevamot* and one *yavam*, he also teaches** the case of **two *yevamin* and one *yevama*.** The *tanna* therefore listed all possible cases even though we do not learn a novel *halakha* from each and every one.