Kiddushin

the one [brother] must perform halizah with both, and of the two, one must perform halizah [first] and the other yibum; yet if they forestall [the Rabbis’ ruling] and marry, they are not compelled to divorce them. Thus, only halizah and then yibum, but not yibum and then halizah, because he may infringe [the interdict against] a yebamah's marriage to a stranger.1 Come and hear: For Tabyumi learned: If A has five sons and B five daughters, and A declares; ‘One of your daughters be betrothed to one of my sons,’2 each requires five divorces. If one dies, each requires four divorces and halizah from one of them!3 And should you answer, here too it means that they were [originally] known and only subsequently mixed up — but it is taught: ‘One of your daughters to one of my sons!’4 This refutation of Raba is indeed a refutation. Now, the law agrees with Abaye in Y'AL KGM.5 IT HAPPENED TO FIVE WOMEN. Rab said: Four deductions follow from the Mishnah; yet Rab was sure only of three:6 — [i] If one betroths [a woman] with seventh year produce, she is betrothed;7 [ii] If he betroths her with a stolen article, even her own, she is not betrothed.8 How does this follow? — Because it is stated: IT WAS THEIRS, AND IT WAS OF THE SEVENTH YEAR: thus, it is only because It was of the seventh year, and thus hefker;9 but if of any other year,10 it is not so.11 [iii] A woman can be an agent for her companion,12 even when she thereby becomes her rival.13 And what is the fourth? — Kiddushin which cannot be followed by intercourse. — Then let him count it?14 — Because he is doubtful whether it is [to be explained] according to Abaye or Raba.15 When R. Zera went up [to Palestine, from Babylon], he recited this pronouncement [of Rab] before R. Johanan. Said he to him: Did then Rab say thus! But did he himself not say [likewise]? Surely R. Johanan said: If one stole16 [an article] and the owner did not abandon hope,17 both cannot consecrate it: the one [the thief], because it is not his;18 the other, because it is not [actually] in his possession! — He meant thus: Did Rab [truly] rule as I [did]? An objection is raised: If one betroths a woman with an article of robbery, violence, or theft,19 or if he snatches a sela’ out of her hand and betroths her therewith, she is betrothed? — There it refers to her own robbery.20 But since the second clause teaches ‘or if he snatches a sela’ out of her hand,’ it follows that the first clause refers to robbery in general? — It is an explanation. If one betroths a woman with robbery. How so? If he snatches an article out of her hand and betroths her therewith. brother frees both sisters by halizah, the others may perform halizah and yibum. But before the one brother has performed his task, one of the sisters may be his yebamah, and so neither of the other two brothers can perform yibum. by coition. In every other controversy between Abaye and Raba the halachah is as the latter. therein, so that it ceases to be stolen property. not; but Rab was not sure which interpretation was correct. out of its first ownership into that of the person actually in possession. — The thief is then liable for having removed it from the ownership of the victim. from its owner and paid for.