היבמה שנתן לה היבם גט כריתות פסלה ופסל צרותיה עליו ועל שאר האחים מדבריהם וכל גט שפוסל אשתו מהכהונה פוסל יבמתו מהיבום ואינה מותרת לזר עד שיחלוץ לה:

A yevama (widow waiting for yibum [a levirate marriage to be performed]) who has received a bill of divorce from the yavam (brother of deceased who must perform levirate marriage), is forbidden on a Rabbinic level from wedding her yavam, and [receipt of this bill of divorce] invalidates her co-wives to the yavam and to the other brothers on a Rabbinic level. All bills of divorce which would invalidate a man's wife from marrying a priest [i.e. the document constitutes a valid divorce], also invalidates a yavama from the performance of yibum [if given to her by the yavam]. And the yavama is not permitted to marry a zar (a non-brother) until the yavam performs chalizta (the ceremony thereby permitting her to marry a non-brother).

So, too, statement (an explanation: a sister-in-law is acquired, by Torah [law], through intercourse, nothing else, but the sages amended that he must betroth her first, and this is called "statement", the explanation [of which is] "the sages' statement") does not acquire in her a complete acquisition: for if he wishes to divorce her after the statement she needs [both] a bill [of divorce] for the statement and chalitsah to release the connection.

Since statement doesn't acquire a complete acquisition, and a bill [of divorce] doesn't divorce a complete divorce, therefore the action done thereafter works -- whether bill [of divorce] after bill [of divorce]; or whether statement after statement; or bill [of divorce] or chalitsah or intercourse after statement; or statement or intercourse or chalitsah after a bill [of divorce] -- whether with one brother-in-law and two sisters-in-law, or with one sister-in-law and two brothers-in-law, or with two sisters-in-law and two brothers-in-law.

How? A brother-in-law who gave a bill [of divorce] to his sister-in-law, and thereafter gave a bill [of divorce] to her co-wife, is barred from the relatives of both of them. Or: Two brothers-in-law who both gave bill[s of divorce] to one sister-in-law, one after the other, both are barred from her relatives. Or: Two brothers-in-law and two sisters-in-law, [such that] each [of the former] gave a bill [of divorce] to one [of the latter] -- each [of the brothers-in-law] is barred from the relatives of the one to whom he gave a bill [of divorce].

When they come to release her, according to the opinion that halitsa is invalid she must seek out each of the brothers. In a case of two brothers and one potential yivama, she requires halitsa from each of them. There are those that say that it is the same in a case of one brother and two potential yivamot who each received a bill of divorce, nonetheless both require halitsa. According to the opinion that halitsa is ineffective she needn't seek out each of the brothers, even in the case of two brothers and one yivama, halitsa with one would be adequate. Rem"a: The Rosh, ob"m agreed with this. In the case where the halitsa was ineffective and she must return, that is when she was outright entitled and then was made unfit, for her claim was weakened. But halitsa that was unfit from the outset, she needn't go back..

There is also a case of [rabbinic engagement via] speech which comes after another event of [rabbinic engagement via] speech, for if one did [rabbinic engagement via] speech with one [woman] and then with another, or brothers who did [rabbinic engagement via] speech with one and then with her co-wife, each one of them requires a bill of divorce for each [rabbinic engagement via] speech and halitsa for one of them to exempt them both. So, too, if one did [rabbinic engagement via] speech with one woman and then gave her a bill of divorce or did halitsa with her or her co-wife or had sexual relations with her co-wife or after his [rabbinic engagement via] speech his brother gave her a bill of divorce or did halitsa with her or her co-wife or he had relations with her or her co-wife; that which transpired after the [rabbinic engagement via] speech is enough to prohibit the one who did the [rabbinic engagement via] speech. [It is also effective] in forbidding him to her close relations by means of the actions which took place after the [rabbinic engagement via] speech, and to require a bill of divorce for the [rabbinic engagement via] speech or sexual relations which took place after it.

This was their enactment: if one [engaged a woman via] speech and then gave her a bill of divorce, she still needs halitsa. If he [engaged her via] speech and then did halitsa, she still needs a bill of divorce. If he [engaged via] speech with one co-wife and gave a bill of divorce to another, he must give a bill of divorce to the one he [engaged via] speech and he or his brother must do halitsa with one of them and this exempts the other. And there are those that say that both of them require halitsa.

If one [engaged via] speech one woman and then he or his brother had sexual relations with another, the one who was [engaged via] speech needs a bill of divorce and so too the second one needs a bill of divorce and one of them requires halitsa.

And so too if he gave her a bill of divorce and then later on had sexual relations with her or [engaged her via] speech or with her co-wife or did halitsa with her co-wife or after his bill of divorce his brother [engaged her via] speech or had sexual relations with her or did halitsa with her or with her co-wife, that which occurred after the bill of divorce is effective in forbidding him to her relations and to require a bill of divorce for the [engagement via] speech that happened after it.

This was their enactment: if he gave her a bill of divorce and then afterward he had sexual relations with her or [engaged her via] speech, she needs a bill of divorce and halitsa.

If he gave her a bill of divorce, and afterward he or his brother had sexual relations with her co-wife, or [engaged her via] speech, that [brother] who had sexual relations with her or who [engaged her via] speech, requires a bill of divorce, and halitsa is required for one of them to exempt them both.

Sexual relations affect an absolute acquisition, so too, halitsa affects an absolute rejection. Therefore, any action which was undertaken after them is ineffective, neither to render [a woman] unfit nor to render him unfit to her relations. How so? A man had relations with his levirate wife, and then he or his brother came and did halitsa with her or her co-wife, this halitsa is meaningless. So too, if his brother came along and gave a bill of divorce to her or her co-wife, it is meaningless. So too if he came back and [engaged her via] speech or had sexual relations with her, it is meaningless. But, if he or his brother had sexual relations with her co-wife, or [engaged her via] speech, she requires a bill of divorce.

So too, if he did halitsa with his brother's widow, and then he or his brother came along and did halitsa with her co-wife, this [second] halitsa is meaningless in regard to prohibiting him to her close relations. Or in the case of two brothers who did halitsa with one widow, one after another, the second halitsa is meaningless, and he is permitted to her close relations. But, if after he did halitsa with his brother's widow, he had sexual relations with her, or he or his brother's married her or her co-wife, the marriage was valid and she requires a bill of divorce, this is the case whether he just married her or whether he married her for the sake of levirate marriage, such as, if he said to her, "Behold thou art sanctified unto me for the sake of the benefit of levirate marriage."

In regard to the fact that no actions are effective after sexual relations, this is only in the case of kosher sexual relations where there was no action (speech, bill of divorce, etc...) that preceded. But improper relations, for example: if one gave a bill of divorce to this one [a co-wife] and had relations with this one [another co-wife], or if one did [engagement via] speech with one and had relations with the other, then actions undertaken after (the sexual relations) are effective; if he, or his brother were to do halitsa with a third co-wife, they would all be forbidden to the close relations of the halitsa, and a bill of divorce would not be effective for she would still have a claim. But halitsa, even if it is improper, such as if there were actions which preceded it, for example: if he gave a bill of divorce to one or [engaged via] speech another, and then did halitsa with her or her co-wife, nonetheless in this case nothing is effective after it, i.e. if he or his brother came along and did halitsa with her or her co-wife; but, if he had sexual relations with her or married her, this would be effective.

If one made a verbal declaration to his brother's widow and then afterwords gave her a bill of divorce for her levirate association, she has been invalidated [as a wife] for him and for all his brothers and she requires a bill of divorce for the verbal declaration and haltitza for the levirate association.

Sexual relations with a nine year old are equivalent to [engagement via] speech with a man of majority age. Therefore, if he had relations with his brother's widow, he has rendered her unfit for all his brothers. And, if after he (the minor) had relations with her his older brother came along and had relations with her or her co-wife, or [engaged her via] speech or gave her a bill of divorce or did halitsa with her or one of her co-wives, she has now been rendered unfit to the minor. And so too, if the minor came along and had relations with a co-wife, or if his brother of nine years of age had relations with her or her co-wife; she has been rendered unfit to him as is the law with [engagement via] speech after [engagement via] speech. So too if the brother of majority age did [engagement via] speech with his brother's widow, and then the nine year old came along and had relations with her or her co-wife, she is rendered unfit as in the case of [engagement via] speech after [engagement via] speech. The [engagement via] speech of a nine year old is not accounted as that of a man of majority age, and it is not effective, except in the first case (i.e. not to render the situation unfit), and not as the second one. How is this? A minor does [engagement via] speech, this is effective to render her unfit for the other brothers. But, if the older brother did [engagement via] speech, and then the nine year old came along and did [engagement via] speech with her or her co-wife, this is not effective in rendering her forbidden to his older brother. But [engagement via] speech of a nine year after [engagement via] speech of a nine year old - there are those that say that it is effective since the first one was nine years old. In regard to bills of divorce and halitsa - there is nothing to them by a nine year old, neither at the beginning or at the end.

If a man of majority age did [engagement via] speech with his brother's widow or gave her a bill of divorce and she has a co-wife, when he comes to do halitsa with one of them to permit them (to others), the halitsa of the one who received the bill of divorce or the one who was [engaged via] speech is ineffective in regard to the co-wife. But the halitsa of the co-wife exempts the holder of the bill of divorce completely, and the one who was [engaged via] speech is exempt from halitsa, and she requires another bill of divorce from her [engagement via] speech. And if her had done [engagement via] speech with this one and given a bill of divorce to the other one, he may do halitsa with whomever he wishes and thereby exempt the other one, as we shall explain.

Someone to whom two yevamot from one house (i.e. one husband) fell for consideration of levirate marriage, one is forbidden to the yavam as a secondary (i.e. Rabbinic) incestuous relation, and the other is permitted for levirate marriage, if he elects to perform levirate marriage, he does so with the permitted woman, and if he elects to perform chalitza, he does so with the woman forbidden as a secondary incestuous relation. There is one sage who says that if performed chalitza with the forbidden woman, her (permitted) co-wife is not thereby released (for general marriage), but if he performed chalitza with the permitted woman, then the forbidden (to him) woman is released (for general marriage).

If many widows come from one home, once he has had appropriate sexual relations with one of them, or did an effective halitsa, they have all been exempted and the rights of the brother have been removed from them. But if he had improper sexual relations with one of them, or did [engagement via] speech that was ineffective, they are all forbidden to the brother, and the one who he had relations with or whom he [engaged via speech] requires a bill of divorce, and all of them require halitsa to permit them to a non-family member, for the right of the brother is not removed with inferior sexual relations. If one of them had inferior halitsa, the one who did halitsa is permitted to non-family members, but her co-wife is forbidden until she too does halitsa, or until all the brothers to halitsa with the one who had inferior halitsa, for inferior halitsa does not remove the obligation of the brother from this household, until she has gone to all the brothers, or until she has done halitsa with each of them. This is the opinion of the Rambam (2:118:2), and many argue against him as is expressed in the words of the Tur.

Two brothers who did levirate marriage with two co-wives who came from the same house and neither knows who did the levirate marriage first, both of them must divorce with a bill of divorce, and they will be permitted to non-family members, and forbidden to brothers. Therefore, Reuven who had two wives, one in Acco and one in Tzur, and Shimon and Levi, his brothers, one in Acco and one in Tzur, who heard that Reuven died, should not do the levirate marriage until they know what their brother has done. If one of them went ahead and did levirate marriage, we do not force them apart until we establish that his brother did levirate marriage first.