Parallel
יבמות 51
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
What is R. Gamaliel's reason? — Because he was in doubt whether a letter of divorce does, or does not set aside [the levirate bond, and whether] a ma'amar does, or does not effect a kinyan. 'Whether a letter of divorce does, or does not set aside the levirate bond': If the first does set aside [the levirate bond], what purpose could the latter serve? If the first does not set aside [the levirate bond], the latter also does not set it aside. 'Whether a ma'amar does, or does not effect a kinyan': if the first does effect a kinyan, what purpose could the latter serve? And if the first effects no kinyan, the latter also does not. Abaye raised the following objection against him: R. Gamaliel, however, admits that 'there is [validity in] a letter of divorce after a ma'amar, in a ma'amar after a letter of divorce, in a letter of divorce after cohabitation and a ma'amar, and in a ma'amar after cohabitation and a letter of divorce'. Now, if R. Gamaliel was in doubt, the cohabitation should be regarded as if it had taken place at the beginning, and thus constitute a kinyan; for surely we have learnt, IN THE CASE OF COHABITATION, IF IT TOOK PLACE FIRST, NO ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT HAS ANY VALIDITY! But, said Abaye, though obvious to R. Gamaliel that a letter of divorce does set aside the levirate bond and that a ma'amar does effect a kinyan, the Rabbis have nevertheless ruled that with the sister-in-law a letter of divorce is partially valid and a ma'amar is partially valid. Consequently, a letter of divorce after another letter of divorce does not set aside the levirate bond since this was already set aside by the first, and a ma'amar after a ma'amar does not constitute a kinyan since this kinyan has already been constituted by the first; with a letter of divorce after a ma'amar, and a ma'amar after a letter of divorce, however, the one act sets aside while the other effects a kinyan. (And the Rabbis? — [They hold that] the Rabbis have instituted for every levir a letter of divorce and a ma'amar in respect of every sister-in-law.) But as to an invalid cohabitation [according to R. Gamaliel] it is [in one respect] of superior force to a ma'amar and [in another respect] of inferior force to a ma'amar. It is superior to a ma'amar, since whereas a ma'amar after another ma'amar is not effective, an act of cohabitation after a ma'amar is effective. It is inferior to a ma'amar, for whereas a ma'amar after a letter of divorce constitutes a kinyan of all that the letter of divorce has left, cohabitation after a letter of divorce does not constitute a kinyan of all that the divorce has left. Our Rabbis taught; How [are we to understand] R. Gamaliel's statement that there is [no validity in] a letter of divorce after another letter of divorce? If two sisters-in-law have fallen to the lot of one levir, and he gave a letter of divorce to one as well as to the other, he submits, in accordance with R. Gamaliel's statement, to halizah from the first, and is forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second one are permitted to him. But the Sages said: If he gave a letter of divorce to one and to the other, he is forbidden to marry the relatives of both and he submits to halizah from either of them. And the same law applies where there are two Ievirs and one sister-in-law. What did R. Gamaliel mean by his statement that there is no [validity in] a ma'amar after another ma'amar'? If two sisters-in-law have fallen to the lot of one levir, and he addressed a ma'amar to the one as well as to the other, he gives, according to R. Gamaliel, a letter of divorce to the first, submits also to her halizah, and is in consequence forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second are permitted to him. The Sages, however, said: He gives letters of divorce to both, and the relatives of both are forbidden to him, while he submits to halizah from one of them. And the same law is to be applied where there are two levirs and one sister-in-law. The Master said, 'If he gave a letter of divorce to one as well as to the other, he submits, according to R. Gamaliel's statement, to halizah from the first and is forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second are permitted to him'. Must this be assumed to present an objection against a ruling of Samuel, since Samuel stated, 'If he submitted to halizah from the one who had been divorced, her rival is not thereby exempt'! — Samuel can answer you: What I said was in agreement with him who maintains that a levirate bond exists, while R. Gamaliel holds the opinion that no levirate bond exists. Since R. Gamaliel, however, is of the opinion that no levirate bond exists,
—
the Rabbis are presumably of the opinion that a levirate bond does exist, and yet it was stated in the final clause, 'And the same law applies where there are two levirs and one sister-in-law'! Must it then be said that this represents an objection to a statement made by Rabbah son of R. Huna in the name of Rab? For Rabbah son of R. Huna stated in the name of Rab: A halizah of an impaired character must go the round of all the brothers! — Rabbah son of R. Huna can answer you: Both according to the view of R. Gamaliel and that of the Rabbis no levirate bond exists, and their difference here extends only to the question of a divorce that followed another divorce and a ma'amar that followed another ma'amar. The Master said, 'If he addressed a ma'amar to the one as well as to the other, he gives, according to R. Gamaliel, a letter of divorce to the first, submits also to her halizah, and is in consequence forbidden to marry her relatives, though the relatives of the second are permitted to him'. Now, consider! Since R. Gamaliel holds that there is no [validity in a] ma'amar that follows another ma'amar, the first [sister-in-law] should even be permitted to contract the levirate marriage! — A preventive ordinance had to be made against the possibility of the levir's marrying the second. R. Johanan said: R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Simeon b. 'Azzai and R. Nehemiah are all of the opinion that a ma'amar constitutes a [fairly] perfect kinyan: As to R. Gamaliel, there is the statement already mentioned. Beth Shammai? — For we learned: If two of three brothers were married to two sisters and the third was unmarried, and when one of the sisters' husbands died, the unmarried brother addressed to her a ma'amar and then his second brother died, Beth Shammai say: His wife [remains] with him while the other is exempt as being his wife's sister. R. Simeon? — For it was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages: If the cohabitation of the first is a valid act, that of the second cannot have any validity if, however, the cohabitation of the first has no validity, then that of the second also has no validity. Now, the cohabitation of one who is nine years of age has been given by the Rabbis the same force as that of a ma'amar and yet R. Simeon stated that such cohabitation has no validity. Ben 'Azzai? — For it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated, 'A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs and one sister-in-law, but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir'. R. Nehemiah? — For we learned, R. NEHEMIAH SAID: WITH COHABITATION AS WITH HALIZAH WHETHER IT TOOK PLACE AT THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE, OR AT THE END, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT. Now, an invalid cohabitation has been given by the Rabbis the same force as a ma'amar, and yet it was stated, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT THAT FOLLOWS IT. HOW … IF A LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR etc.
—