## Yevamot Daf 92b

###### Yevamot 92b:1
[Yevamot 92b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:1)

אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר״ — לֹא תְּהֵא בָּהּ הֲוָיָה לְזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that **Rav said: From where** is it derived **that betrothal** by another man **does not take effect with a *yevama*? As it is stated: “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin”** (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates: **She shall not have** the possibility of **becoming** married **to one not of his kin,** i.e., his betrothal is of no account.


###### Yevamot 92b:2
[Yevamot 92b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:2)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בַּעֲנִיּוּתֵינוּ, צְרִיכָה גֵּט. מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל הַאי ״לָא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת״, אִי לְלָאו הוּא דַּאֲתָא, אִי דְּלָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said: In our poverty** of knowledge, as we do not fully understand the verse, **she requires a bill of divorce.** The Gemara explains: **Shmuel was uncertain with regard to this** verse: **“The wife of the dead man shall not be married** outside,” **whether it comes for a prohibition,** i.e., the woman is prohibited from marrying another man but the betrothal of that other man is effective, or **whether** it **comes** to teach **that betrothal** by any other man **does not take effect with her.**


###### Yevamot 92b:3
[Yevamot 92b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל לְרַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הֲלָכָה כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר אַמֵּימָר הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל — אִם הָיָה יְבָמָהּ כֹּהֵן, חוֹלֵץ לָהּ, וְשַׁרְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari bar Raḥel said to Rav Ashi** that **Ameimar said as follows: The *halakha* is in accordance** with the opinion of **Shmuel. Rav Ashi said: Now that Ameimar said** that **the *halakha* is in accordance** with the opinion of **Shmuel,** who maintains that one who betroths a *yevama* before she has performed *ḥalitza* must give her a bill of divorce, **if her *yavam* was a priest, he performs *ḥalitza* with her,** as she is forbidden to him after the man who betrothed her gave her a bill of divorce, **and she is** thereby **permitted to** the man to whom she was betrothed.


###### Yevamot 92b:4
[Yevamot 92b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:4)

אִיתְּגוֹרֵי אִיתְּגַר, אִם כֵּן מָצִינוּ חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר! אֶלָּא, אִם הָיָה יְבָמָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, נוֹתֵן לָהּ שֵׁנִי גֵּט, וְהוּתְּרָה לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: But in that case, she thereby **gains** from her prohibited betrothal, as she may subsequently marry the man who betrothed her illegally. **If so, we find a sinner benefiting** from his transgression. **Rather,** the Gemara emends the teaching: **If her *yavam* was** a regular **Israelite,** this **second** man who betrothed her **must give her a bill of divorce, and she is permitted to** the *yavam*, as a non-priest may marry a divorcée.


###### Yevamot 92b:5
[Yevamot 92b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:5)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב: יְבָמָה — קִדּוּשִׁין אֵין בָּהּ, נִשּׂוּאִין יֵשׁ בָּהּ. אִי קִדּוּשִׁין אֵין בָּהּ — נִשּׂוּאִין נָמֵי אֵין בָּהּ! אֵימָא: קִדּוּשִׁין וְנִשּׂוּאִין אֵין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Giddel said** that **Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said** that **Rav said:** With regard to **a *yevama*, betrothal does not** apply **to her,** but **marriage does** apply **to her.** The Gemara expresses puzzlement: **If betrothal does not** apply **to her, marriage also** should **not** apply **to her.** How can marriage take effect if the earlier and less binding stage of betrothal is of no consequence? Rather, emend the above statement and **say: Neither betrothal nor marriage** apply **to her.**


###### Yevamot 92b:6
[Yevamot 92b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי ״נִשּׂוּאִין יֵשׁ בָּהּ״ — בִּזְנוּת, כִּדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינְּתָה — אֲסוּרָה לִיבָמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** a different explanation. **What is** the meaning of the phrase: **Marriage does** apply **to her?** It is referring **to** a case of **licentious sexual relations.** In other words, although Rav maintains that betrothal is ineffective for her, if she entered the wedding canopy with another man and had relations with him, her status changes and she is forbidden to the *yavam*. This is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna said** that **a widow awaiting her *yavam* who committed an act of licentious sexual relations is forbidden to her *yavam*.**


###### Yevamot 92b:7
[Yevamot 92b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:7)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, לְעוֹלָם כְּדַאֲמַרַן מֵעִיקָּרָא: קִדּוּשִׁין אֵין בָּהּ, נִשּׂוּאִין יֵשׁ בָּהּ. דְּמִיחַלְּפָא בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: Actually,** it is **as we said initially,** that **betrothal does not** apply **to her** but **marriage does** apply **to her.** However, this does not mean that marriage is actually effective. Rather, the *halakha* is that he must give her a bill of divorce, **as** people might **confuse** this case **with** that of **a woman whose husband went overseas.** The Sages decreed that he must give her a bill of divorce so that people would not say that a woman who remarried after hearing that her husband had died likewise does not require a bill of divorce.


###### Yevamot 92b:8
[Yevamot 92b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בַּחֲבוּרָה, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? דִּתְנַן, הָאוֹמֵר לָאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶתְגַּיֵּיר״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגַּיְּירִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶשְׁתַּחְרֵר״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּחְרְרִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלִיךְ״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתָּמוּת אֲחוֹתִיךְ״, אוֹ ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחְלוֹץ לִיךְ יְבָמִיךְ״ — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּדַלַּאי לָךְ חַסְפָּא, מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַרְגָּנִיתָא תּוּתֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yannai said: In the group** of Sages who discussed this matter, **they counted and concluded** that **betrothal** by another man **does not take effect with a *yevama*. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: My teacher, is this not** taught in **a mishna** that states that betrothal is of no account for such a woman? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 16b): With regard to **one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert; after you convert; after I am freed** from slavery; **after you are freed; after your husband dies; after your sister dies;** or **after your *yavam* performs *ḥalitza* with you, she is not betrothed.** The reason for the above ruling is that he is considered to be attempting to acquire an entity that is not yet in existence, as the betrothal cannot take effect at that point in time. This indicates that betrothal is entirely ineffective for a *yevama* until she performs *ḥalitza*. Rabbi Yannai **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Had I not lifted the earthenware shard for you, would you have discovered the pearl** [***marganita***] **beneath it?** It was only after I informed you of the *halakha* that you were able to cite a proof for it from a mishna.


###### Yevamot 92b:9
[Yevamot 92b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אִי לָאו דְּקַלְּסָךְ גַּבְרָא רַבָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא: מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Sometime later, **Reish Lakish said** to Rav Yoḥanan: **If** it were **not** for the fact **that a great man,** Rabbi Yannai, **praised you, I would say** that this is no proof, as it is possible that **the mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said** that **betrothal does not take effect for** those **liable for** violating regular **prohibitions,** and therefore it is not effective with a *yevama*. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, betrothal is effective for this woman, as is the case with all regular prohibitions.


###### Yevamot 92b:10
[Yevamot 92b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/92b:10)

וְאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כִּי אָמַר לַהּ ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹץ לִיךְ יְבָמִיךְ״ לִיתְפְּסוּ בָּהּ קִידּוּשֵׁי! דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם. דִּתְנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, when he said to her: After your *yavam* performs *ḥalitza* for you, let the betrothal take effect with her, as we have heard that Rabbi Akiva said** that **a man can transfer an entity that has not** yet **come into the world.** In other words, Rabbi Akiva is of the opinion that an acquisition can take effect for something not yet in existence. If so, even if the betrothal cannot take effect now, it should be valid after she has performed *ḥalitza*. The proof that this is indeed Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 59a):