Siman 170

Even though according to the Torah a get is of no consequence regarding a yevamah, as only chalitzah permits her to the general public, nevertheless the sages ordained that any get which disqualifies his wife from the priesthood, its equivalent regarding his yevamah is effective in the sense that if one of the brothers gave her a get, he has disqualified her and her rival wives to himself and to all the brothers from performing yibbum; and she is not permitted to the general public until they perform chalitzah for her. And the reason for the matter is that the sages feared that if they were to permit performing yibbum after the get, they would come to perform yibbum also after chalitzah, for they would say: just as a get is to remove a woman from her husband and chalitzah is to remove a yevamah from the domain of the yavam, just as she is permitted after a get, so too she is permitted after chalitzah, and they would come to perform yibbum after chalitzah (Yevamot 50b), and behold, he would be in violation of "he shall not build."

And similarly, ma'amar regarding a yevamah, which is kiddushin of money, even though from the Torah it is not effective at all, for it is written: "her brother-in-law shall come upon her and perform yibbum," yibbum is completed through intercourse, and money or a document do not complete it (Kiddushin 14a); nevertheless, the sages said that ma'amar is effective regarding this: when one of the brothers performs ma'amar with her, he disqualifies her for all the other brothers, and none of the brothers can perform yibbum with her except for this one who performed the ma'amar. And similarly, if many tzarot fell before him and he performed ma'amar with one of them, he has disqualified all the tzarot for himself, such that he cannot perform yibbum with another besides her. And the reason for the matter is that the sages were concerned that if they were to permit another brother to perform yibbum with her, or that he could perform yibbum with another, the brothers would come to perform yibbum even after yibbum if the yavam divorces her, and similarly he would come upon another tzara after performing yibbum with this one, because they will say that intercourse is an acquisition and kiddushin is an acquisition; just as there is permission after kiddushin, so too there is permission after intercourse. And the Torah said that one brother performs yibbum and not two, and he builds one house and not two houses.

And if he comes to divorce her after the maamar, she requires a get and chalitzah: a get for his maamar and chalitzah for her zikah, and he should first give the get and afterwards perform chalitzah with her (the Rambam and the Bartenura in chapter 3, mishnah 5). And the reason is because the Torah said that after chalitzah she is permitted to the public, and here after the chalitzah she is still forbidden because of the maamar; therefore, the get precedes the chalitzah. However, ex post facto, if he preceded the chalitzah to the get, we have no concern with it, for from the Torah she is indeed permitted after chalitzah, but initially it is not fitting that there should be a delay after the chalitzah. And therefore the poskim did not mention this law, and this matter is explicit in Rashi, of blessed memory (27a, s.v. "performed chalitzah with the subject of maamar"):

And since a maamar does not effect a complete acquisition and a get does not effect a complete rejection—for the acquisition of the maamar and the rejection of the get are only rabbinic due to a decree, as has been written—therefore, any act performed after the maamar or after the get is effective for certain matters that will be explained, and they are not like yibbum and chalitzah, after whose acts nothing remains. Consequently, a get is effective after a get, and a maamar after a maamar, and a get, chalitzah, and biah after a maamar, and a maamar, biah, and chalitzah after a get, whether with one yavam and two yevamot, or one yevamah and two yevamim, or two yevamot and two yevamim, as will be explained. And we do not say that all the power inherent in the maamar was actualized the first time, and all the rejection inherent in the get was actualized the first time, and no further power should exist in a get after a get or a maamar after a maamar; for on the contrary, since this is only rabbinic, they ordained for every yavam among the brothers of the deceased power in the act of his get and his maamar, and likewise for every yevamah (Gemara ibid.).

How is it a get after a get? A yavam who gave a get to his yevamah and then returned and gave a get to her rival-wife is forbidden to the relatives of both of them, for they are the relatives of his divorcee, who are forbidden to him as if he had given a get to his two wives. And similarly, two yevamin who gave a get to one yevamah, one after the other, both are forbidden to her relatives, for she is the divorcee of both of them; for even after the divorce of the first, she is still bound to them and is not permitted to the market, therefore the second get is like the first get. And similarly, two yevamin and two yevamot, where each one gave a get to one of them, each one is forbidden to the relatives of that one to whom he gave the get. And if both of them gave a get to both of them, both are forbidden to the relatives of both of them (and it is simple that according to the opinion that will be explained, that a disqualified chalitzah requires chalitzah from all the brothers, regardless of this they are all forbidden to her relatives because of the chalitzah).

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5, and this is their wording: And when they come to release her, according to the one who says a disqualified chalitzah requires going around to all the brothers, in a case of two yevamin and one yevamah, she requires chalitzah from each and every one. And there is one who says that the same law applies to one yevam and two yevamot where he gave a get to both of them, that he must perform chalitzah with both of them. And according to the one who says a disqualified chalitzah does not require going around to all the brothers, even with two yevamin and one yevamah, one chalitzah is sufficient; and to this the Rosh, of blessed memory, agreed. And that which was said that a disqualified chalitzah requires going around, this is specifically when she was fully bound and became disqualified such that her bond was weakened, but a chalitzah that was disqualified from the outset does not require going around. Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matters is that regarding the law of a chalitzah pesulah and the definition of the term, there is a dispute of the great authorities. The definition of chalitzah pesulah is a diminished and inferior chalitzah. According to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory (26b), any chalitzah where the yavam lacks the ability to perform yibbum with her is called a chalitzah pesulah, for its power has been weakened. Therefore, she must go around to all the brothers, and none of them have the power to permit her with such an inferior chalitzah. This applies to two yavamim; however, with one yavam and two yevamot, he performs chalitzah with one of them and the second is exempt (as is evident from the commentary of Rashi on the Mishnah of Rabban Gamliel (50a) and in the Gemara there, see there), for what would the chalitzah of the second add, since he gave all his power to the first? However, if the chalitzah of one is better than the second, he should not perform chalitzah to the second but rather to this one whose chalitzah is better than her counterpart's. For example, two yevamot where the yavam gave a get to one of them, her chalitzah does not exempt her rival-wife, for her zika was weakened because of the get (27a, s.v. "l'ba'alat haget"). But when he performs chalitzah to the rival-wife, the recipient of the get is exempt; and even though the rival-wife is also forbidden from yibbum, nevertheless her chalitzah is better than that of the recipient of the get. And where they are equal in their inferiority, such as where one is a recipient of a get and one he performed maamar with (ibid. s.v. "ki hadadi"), he performs chalitzah to whichever he wishes, and certainly when both are recipients of a get or recipients of maamar (regarding what the Tosafot challenged Rashi on 26b, s.v. "v'chalitzah" from one who takes back his divorcee, where the rival-wife is exempt by her chalitzah in the first chapter (11b), one can say simply that regarding one who takes back his divorcee, the Torah increased the requirement for chalitzah, and as the Beit Shmuel wrote in siman 174, subsection 4, see there).

And the opinion of our teachers, the Tosafists, is that it is not called a disqualified chalitzah except when the zikah was weakened, such as when he gave a get or performed maamar, or if she is the sister of one bound to him by zikah or the sister of his chalutzah. However, that which he cannot perform yibbum with her is not called a disqualified chalitzah, since the zikah is in its completeness (Tosafot 11a, s.v. "O", and 26b, s.v. "Ve-chalitzah"). And against this, the Tosafists hold that even with one yavam and two yevamot, when the chalitzah is disqualified, he must perform chalitzah for both of them (50a, s.v. "Tzerichot"), for the power of one of them is not sufficient to exempt her fellow based on a deficient chalitzah such as this. And there is an interpretation in the Gemara that this matter of a disqualified chalitzah not exempting is regarding the tzarah, but regarding herself, she is exempted with any chalitzah (27a, "And if you wish, say"), and it will be explained in this siman.

Regarding the essence of this law, the Rosh wrote (Chapter 3, Section 2) that from the words of the Tosafot it appears that for the halacha we maintain that a disqualified chalitza does not require repeating the process with all the brothers. This is also the opinion of the Ra'avad, and he holds that this is also the opinion of the Rif (ibid.). Nevertheless, when there are two yevamot where the chalitza of one of them is superior to her fellow, even though hers is also not completely perfect, we nonetheless seek out the superior chalitza. This applies specifically le-khatchila, but bediavad, if the inferior one performed chalitza, it is a valid chalitza regarding herself, for it is only regarding the co-wife that it is an impediment, but not regarding herself (as the "if you wish I could say" [of the Gemara], and so wrote the Korban Netanel there, letter 4, in the opinion of the Ra'avad according to the Rif, see there). This is also the opinion of the Rashba (beginning of Chapter 3), and he wrote that the conclusion of the Yerushalmi is also thus, see there (and according to our version in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Chapter 3, where Rav holds that one does not need to repeat with all the brothers and Shmuel holds that one must, the reverse of our Shas, the conclusion of the Yerushalmi is the reverse; however, the Rashba's version there was like our Shas, see there and examine carefully).

But the opinion of the Ramban and the Ramah and other great Rishonim, and they also interpreted the opinion of the Rif thus, is that a disqualified chalitzah must be repeated with all the brothers. And similarly, one yavam and two yevamot, he must perform chalitzah for both of them. However, this applies when both chalitzot are equal; but if one of them is superior to the other, even though it is also disqualified—for example, if two sisters from two brothers fell before him, and each sister has a co-wife, for it is forbidden to perform yibbum even for the co-wives because they are co-wives of a sister-in-law's sister through zika—nevertheless, the sisters are more severe than the co-wives, for zika is not strong enough to make the co-wife like the ervah itself (Gemara). Therefore, if he performed chalitzah for the sisters, the co-wives are not exempted; if he performed chalitzah for the co-wives, the sisters are exempted. And so too in any similar case. And the Rambam has another system in all of this, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And with this, all the words of the Shulchan Aruch are explained, for in the definition of a disqualified chalitzah they decided according to the opinion of the Tosafot, but regarding the law they wrote both opinions and did not decide. And in this case of one yavam and two yevamot, if both require chalitzah in the case of a disqualified chalitzah, it appears that their opinion is that it is not required, and they brought the one who holds that it is required in the name of "there is one who says." Therefore, in all the laws in this siman, they stated without qualification that the chalitzah of one of them exempts her fellow, and only in section 7 did they bring this opinion as well in the name of "there is one who says," as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven (and so it appears from the Beit Shmuel, subsection 7, see there).

And know that in the Yerushalmi there, they hung this dispute of whether a disqualified chalitzah requires it from all the brothers or not on the reason for chalitzah: whether chalitzah is a kinyan or a patur, see there. And the explanation of patur is simple, that through chalitzah she is released from him from the zika. And regarding the explanation of kinyan, the commentators of the Yerushalmi wrote that it is as if he acquired her through this chalitzah. But this does not seem correct to me, for what kinyan is it for him? On the contrary, she is separated from him. Therefore, it seems to me that it refers to the yevamah, that she acquires herself from his domain, which he had over her, to her own domain. And this is like the language of the first mishnah in Kiddushin, where we learned there: "And she acquires herself through chalitzah and through the death of the yevam." And according to the version before us in the Yerushalmi, the one who holds that she requires chalitzah from each one holds that chalitzah is a patur, and the one who holds that she does not require it holds that chalitzah is a kinyan. And this is the explanation: if it is only a patur, granted that she is released from him, nevertheless from the other yevamim she is not released through such a weak chalitzah, and she must receive a release from them as well. But if chalitzah is a kinyan, since she acquired herself to her own domain, there is no longer any yoke upon her and she is released from all of them. However, the Rashba, of blessed memory, reverses the version as I wrote, and it must be said that this is the explanation: if chalitzah is a kinyan, that she acquires herself from him, since it is a weak chalitzah the kinyan is not powerful, and it does not have the capacity to grant her a complete kinyan except for his portion alone, and she requires chalitzah from all the brothers. This is not the case if chalitzah is a mere patur, meaning that he removes himself from her; and it is known that removal from property is easier than transferring ownership, for even a deficient expression like "I have no claim or suit" is effective, as is explicit at the beginning of the ninth chapter of Ketubot, see there. Therefore, she does not require chalitzah from all the brothers, for through his removal alone she is released from all of them. Accordingly, since according to our version the reasoning is reversed from that of the version of the Rashba, therefore, even though in our Shas it is implied in many places that chalitzah is a patur, nevertheless the law cannot be decided based on this reasoning, since the reasoning can be reversed to either side (as mentioned above).

The Rambam, of blessed memory, has a different opinion in all this, and this is his wording in chapter 5, law 9: The act of intercourse that the yavam performs with his yevama first, or after his maamar with her and nothing else preceded it, is called "valid intercourse." If a maamar from his brother preceded it, or a get either from him or from his brother, whether with her or with her tzarah, or if a maamar with her tzarah preceded it, whether from him or from his brother, this is called "invalid intercourse." The chalitzah that the yavam performs for his yevama first, if nothing else preceded it, is called "superior chalitzah." If a get or maamar preceded it, whether from this yavam or from another yavam, whether with her or with her tzarah, this is called "inferior chalitzah." Many yevamot coming from one house—once one of them has undergone valid intercourse or superior chalitzah, they are all permitted and the zikat hayavam is removed from them. If one of them underwent invalid intercourse or he gave her an invalid maamar, they are all forbidden from yibum; and this one who underwent intercourse or was given a maamar requires a get, and each one of them requires chalitzah (so is the version of the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch, section 19) to permit them to a stranger, for the zikat hayibum is not removed by inferior intercourse. If one of them underwent inferior chalitzah, she is permitted to marry a stranger, or if she underwent chalitzah; but her tzarah is forbidden until she also undergoes chalitzah, or until all the brothers perform chalitzah for the first one who underwent the inferior chalitzah, for inferior chalitzah does not remove the zikat yibum from this house until it goes around to all the brothers or until each of them undergoes chalitzah. Thus far his words. And in chapter 7, law 9, he wrote: Three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters, and each of the two has a tzarah, and those married to the sisters died, and the sisters and their tzarot fell before the yavam—if he performed chalitzah for the tzarot, the sisters are exempt. But if he performed chalitzah for the sisters, the tzarot are not exempt until the tzarot undergo chalitzah, because the chalitzah of sisters is chalitzah that is not superior, and chalitzah that is not superior does not exempt the tzarah, as we have explained. And it appears to me that such is the law regarding two yevamot coming from one house where one of them is forbidden to her yavam as a sheniyah, or due to a negative commandment, or due to a positive commandment—that if he performed chalitzah for the forbidden one, her tzarah is not permitted; if he performed chalitzah for the tzarah, the forbidden one is permitted. Thus far his words.

And already all the commentators wondered at his words, for it appears from his words that he rules that a disqualified chalitzah requires returning to all the brothers, and if so, how did he rule that when he performed chalitzah for the rivals, the sisters were exempt? For the rivals are also a disqualified chalitzah. And furthermore, from where does he have this matter, that just as the regulation for a disqualified chalitzah is that all the brothers must perform chalitzah for her, so too the regulation is that he must perform chalitzah for all the yevamot, and then there is no need for chalitzah from all the brothers? And likewise, from where does he have it that when chalitzah was performed by all the yevamim, the rivals were also permitted? And furthermore, I have a difficulty, for behold this law—that if he performed chalitzah for the sisters, the rivals were not exempt, but if he performed chalitzah for the rivals, the sisters were exempt—is a statement of Shmuel in the Gemara (27a). And it says there as well: if he performed chalitzah for the recipient of a get, the rival was not exempt; if he performed chalitzah for the rival, the recipient of the get was exempt; if he performed chalitzah for the recipient of maamar, the rival was not exempt; if he performed chalitzah for the rival, the recipient of maamar was exempt; see there. And why did he divide these laws? (And the Maggid Mishneh remained with a difficulty, and the Lechem Mishneh labored much over this; and see Beit Shmuel subsection 14 and the Gra subsection 47):

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Rambam holds that this which we maintain, that a disqualified chalitzah must be repeated by all the brothers, this is when the disqualification is through an action of the yevamin, such as when one of them gave a get to one of them or performed maamar. However, whenever the chalitzah is a disqualified chalitzah from the outset not through an action, its law is not like a disqualified chalitzah except regarding this: that the most superior of the two should perform chalitzah, even though even the most superior is a disqualified chalitzah (and this is similar to the reasoning of the Tosafot in section 8). And he also holds that since we maintain that a disqualified chalitzah regarding herself exempts (as the "if you prefer I will say" mentioned by the Rif), it follows that if this yavam gave chalitzah to all the yevamot, they are all exempt, for each one is exempted by her own chalitzah. And it follows that one must say that if all the yevamin performed chalitzah for one of them, they are all exempt, for if not so, how can you find that which they said, "a disqualified chalitzah must be repeated by all the brothers"? For regarding herself, even a disqualified chalitzah exempts, as I wrote. Rather, it is certainly regarding the rival wives, that when she received chalitzah from all of them, each one of the brothers exercised the power of chalitzah and they are all exempted by this. And this, that the sages did not say "a disqualified chalitzah requires each one to have chalitzah," is because there is no novelty in that at all, since each one received chalitzah. And the Rambam holds that this, that a disqualified chalitzah must be repeated by all the brothers, is a decided law and no one disagrees with it, except regarding the interpretation of this matter.

And we shall clarify our words, for behold, in the Gemara, Rava and Shmuel disagreed, as according to Rava in all cases she must go around to all the brothers, and Shmuel holds that in all cases she does not need to go around (as he equates sisters and rivals to the recipient of a get and a rival, and a maamar and a rival, see there). And behold, according to the rules of the Shas, the halacha follows Rava in matters of prohibition; nevertheless, the Geonim ruled like Shmuel, as the Rif wrote, and their reason is as the Rosh wrote there, because Rabbi Yochanan holds like him (27b: if the second died, he is permitted to the first). Therefore, the Rambam holds that we do not rule like Shmuel except regarding sisters and rivals, for in this Rabbi Yochanan holds like him; but in what occurs through an act, such as a get and maamar, we established like Rava that she must go around to all the brothers. And even though Rava does not deal with this, nevertheless it is a kal vachomer from sisters as I wrote. And a proof for this is from where the anonymous voice of the Shas says (26b): and it becomes a disqualified chalitzah, and a disqualified chalitzah must go around to all the brothers, see there; learn from this that such is the law. And so too in the chapter "Rabban Gamliel" (Yevamot 51b), the Shas wonders about this law where it says there: "Shall we say it is a refutation etc." who said etc. "disqualified chalitzah requires etc." and it answers, see there; learn from this that it is the halacha. And furthermore, previously the Shas establishes it according to Shmuel, and afterwards it also establishes that a disqualified chalitzah must go around to all the brothers, see there; learn from this that both can be upheld and they are not two contradictory things. Therefore, it seems to the Rambam to rule like Shmuel in part and like Rava in part. And a further proof is from where the Shas took the trouble (27a) to find a distinction between sisters and between rivals according to the one who says there is zika, and Rav Ashi concludes because zika is not strong enough to make the rival like a forbidden relation, see there. And behold, this certainly is only relevant regarding sisters and rivals, for with sisters there is a Torah prohibition; but with the recipient of a get and the recipient of a maamar, what difference is there between them and their rivals? For from the Torah, a get and maamar are nothing, and by rabbinic decree, once he gave a get to one, he is also prohibited to the rival, and so too when he performed maamar with one, he is prohibited to the rival. And if so, what does it matter if it is them or their rivals? Therefore, the Rambam correctly ruled that one of them does not exempt her fellow, which is not the case with sisters and rivals, where the rivals are superior to the sisters (and regarding the Rif, it is impossible to say so, for he transcribed all the words of Shmuel, see there; and perhaps regarding the halacha his intention was also to rule only regarding sisters like Shmuel, and it requires further study).

And just as there is a get after a get, so too there is a maamar after a maamar; for if he performed maamar with this one and maamar with that one, both require a get, and chalitzah for one of them. And according to those who hold that with two yevamot and one yavam both must perform chalitzah, just as with two yevamim and one yevamah, he must perform chalitzah with both of them. And so too there is a maamar after a maamar with two yevamim and one yevamah, for if one performed maamar with her and afterwards the second, she requires a get from both of them and chalitzah from both of them, except according to the one who does not hold at all the law that a disqualified chalitzah must be repeated with all the brothers, for then the chalitzah of one of them is sufficient. And so too with two yevamim and two yevamot, where one performed maamar with one and the second with the other, each one requires a get from the one who performed the maamar with her, and both require chalitzah; and it is better that each one should perform the chalitzah with the second one who did not perform the maamar with her.

And so too, an action is effective to disqualify after a maamar, such as where he performed a maamar with her and afterwards gave her a get or performed chalitzah with her, or the second brother gave her a get or performed chalitzah with her or cohabited with her, or he or the second brother gave a get to the rival wife of the subject of the maamar or performed chalitzah with her or cohabited with her; that which was done after the maamar is effective to forbid the subject of the maamar to all the brothers, and they are forbidden to her relatives, and she requires a get for the maamar or for the cohabitation after the maamar where the second brother cohabited with her. And so too regarding the rival wife, when they performed a maamar with her after her maamar, or they cohabited with the rival wife after the maamar of this one, the rival wife also requires a get. And how is their permission to the market? It is thus:

She herself, when an act was performed with her after the maamar, requires chalitzah from all the brothers, and also all the rival wives require chalitzah according to those who hold this regarding a disqualified chalitzah as I have written. And to release her, she also requires a get for the maamar, and it has already been explained that ideally the get must precede the chalitzah, but post facto there is no hindrance in the matter, as I have written in section 3. And if the second brother had relations with her after the maamar of the first, she requires a get from both of them. And if he had relations with the rival wife after his maamar that he performed with this one, both of them require a get from him. And so too if the brother had relations with the rival wife, the rival wife requires a get from the brother. And so too when they performed maamar with the rival wife, the rival wife requires a get. And if he performed maamar with one and gave a get to the other, both of them require chalitzah, or one of them according to the opinions that have been explained. And such is the law when one performed maamar with one and the second gave a get to the second.

And so too, if the beginning of the action was a get, any action performed after the get is effective. For example, if after the get he cohabited with her or performed maamar with her, or his brother cohabited with her or performed maamar with her, or he or his brother cohabited with the rival wife or performed maamar with her—that which was performed after the get is effective to forbid the relatives and to require a get for the one who received the maamar or with whom they cohabited. And how is their rectification to permit them to the market? It is thus: when he performed maamar with her or cohabited with her after the get, she requires a get and chalitzah from one or from all of the brothers, and so too all the rival wives require chalitzah, and this is according to the opinions that have been explained. And when he or his brother performed maamar with the rival wife after the get, or they cohabited with her, the rival wife requires a get and chalitzah for one of them or from all of them or for all of them, according to the opinions that have been explained. And so too, if he performed chalitzah for the rival wife after the get, he is forbidden to the relatives of both of them. And so too his brother who performed chalitzah for the recipient of the get or for the rival wife—the recipient of the get is forbidden to the one from whom she received the get, and the recipient of the chalitzah is forbidden to the one from whom she received the chalitzah. But if he himself performed chalitzah for the recipient of the get, no additional action has been added here, for since the time of the get he was forbidden to her relatives, and this has the law of a disqualified chalitzah, as has been explained.

But if the initial act was bi'ah or chalitzah, there is nothing after this, for since this is the commandment of the Torah and through this the zikah is removed from the entire house, what benefit would an act after them provide? All acts performed with any of the wives of the deceased are like acts performed with a foreign woman. Consequently, it is understood that only an act of a get or chalitzah provides no benefit, but an act of bi'ah or ma'amar is a matter where the one who received the ma'amar or upon whom bi'ah was performed requires a get, for even with a general woman these are effective regarding the requirement of a get. Furthermore, even if this one who performed yibbum with one wife performed bi'ah upon her rival-wife, she requires a get, and likewise if she received ma'amar from him, for kiddushin takes effect with her. All the more so when he performed chalitzah for one and afterward performed ma'amar with her or performed bi'ah upon her, she requires a get, for kiddushin takes effect with a chalutzah. But if he performed yibbum with her and afterward performed ma'amar with her, it is nothing, for she is his wife. Likewise, if the brother performed ma'amar with this one who underwent yibbum, it is nothing, for kiddushin does not take effect with a married woman, and even if he performed bi'ah upon her, it is merely an act of zenut. However, when he performed bi'ah upon the rival-wife or performed ma'amar with the rival-wife, she requires a get. Likewise, if the brother performed ma'amar with the chalutzah or performed bi'ah upon her, she requires a get.

And even though bi'ah and chalitzah are equal regarding an act that follows them, this is when no act preceded the bi'ah or the chalitzah, for then an act following them has no effect, as I have written. However, if an act preceded the bi'ah or the chalitzah, chalitzah is not equal to bi'ah when an act is performed after them. That is to say, regarding bi'ah, when an act of a get or ma'amar preceded it to one who was not the subject of the bi'ah, and it is called an invalid bi'ah, an act after the bi'ah is effective. But regarding chalitzah, even if an act of a get or ma'amar preceded the chalitzah, and it is called an invalid chalitzah, nevertheless, an act after the chalitzah is not effective, for the reason that will be explained in section 24 (the act that is effective after bi'ah is only chalitzah, and examine this closely).

Therefore, if he gave a get to this one and cohabited with that one, or performed maamar with this one and cohabited with the other, an act performed after them is effective; for if he or his brother performs chalitzah for a third, they are forbidden to her relatives. Furthermore, that one with whom he cohabited is not satisfied with a get alone like any other yevamah, but rather requires a get and chalitzah. And if the prior act was maamar, the recipient of the maamar also requires a get. And thus the sages taught in the Mishnah (50a): If he gave a get and cohabited, she requires a get and chalitzah, etc. Maamar with this one and cohabited with that one, they require two gittin and chalitzah, see there. And whether they are all exempt with one chalitzah and one yavam depends on the opinions that have been explained. But with chalitzah it is not so; for example, if he gave a get to this one and afterwards performed chalitzah for her or for another, and afterwards he or his brother returned and performed chalitzah for another, he is not forbidden to the relatives of the other. And likewise his brother, when he performed chalitzah for the previous chalutzah, is not forbidden to her relatives. And likewise, if he performed maamar and afterwards there was chalitzah, no chalitzah afterwards is effective and it is as if it never was. However, if he performed maamar or cohabited with her—whether he or his brother, whether with the chalutzah or with the other—she requires a get, for even with a woman in general it is so, as I have written.

And the reason for the matter is this, and so it is stated in the Gemara (50b): And what is the reason the Rabbis said that a disqualified bi'ah is followed by something? They said: If it is bi'ah after a get, it is a decree regarding bi'ah after a get because of bi'ah after chalitzah. That is to say, for if you were to say that a get alone suffices for her, one might come to perform bi'ah even after chalitzah, for in the eyes of the world, a get and chalitzah are of equal weight; therefore, they made a distinction that the get spoiled the bi'ah and chalitzah is also required. And if it is bi'ah after ma'amar, it is a decree regarding bi'ah after ma'amar because of bi'ah after bi'ah. That is to say, for if we were to say that chalitzah is not required when he performed ma'amar with this one and performed bi'ah with another, they will say that it is permitted to perform bi'ah with this one and afterwards perform bi'ah with the other, for in the eyes of the world, ma'amar and bi'ah are equivalent. Therefore, they decreed that we require further chalitzah as a distinction that the ma'amar spoiled the bi'ah. And since after the bi'ah one also requires chalitzah, automatically some act after the bi'ah is effective because this is still prior to the exemption, and automatically an act is effective. But in chalitzah in such a case, we do not care, for we do not decree regarding chalitzah after a get to require another chalitzah because they might say that just as chalitzah after a get is effective, so too chalitzah after chalitzah is effective, and he will come to perform chalitzah with the second after he performed chalitzah with the first—for what do we care? Is there some prohibition in chalitzah? And so too regarding chalitzah after ma'amar, we do not decree because of chalitzah after bi'ah; that is to say, that they might say that just as chalitzah after ma'amar is effective to exempt, so too chalitzah after bi'ah is effective, such that if he performs bi'ah with a yevamah, he may exempt her with chalitzah and not with a get—for it is obvious they would not say so, since we require a get for the ma'amar, and it is obvious they would require a get after bi'ah, and we will not come to a pitfall. Therefore, any act is not effective after the chalitzah, because with the chalitzah the matter is concluded.

The maamar of yevamin has already been explained to be of rabbinic origin, for from the Torah, kiddushin is not effective for a yevama, only biah, and the sages ordained that maamar should be effective to require her a get. There is no difference whether he said to her, "Be betrothed to me" without specification, or whether he said to her, "Be betrothed to me by the zikat yevamin"—she requires a get for the maamar. However, regarding maamar after chalitzah, where we said she requires a get—for even with any other woman, when he betroths her she requires a get, and even though she is forbidden to him by a negative commandment, kiddushin is effective for those forbidden by negative commandments—it would seem from the perspective of logic that specifically when he betrothed her without specification she requires a get, but if he said to her, "Be betrothed to me by the zikat yevamin," she should not require a get, since the zikah was already removed by the chalitzah. Indeed, such is the opinion of the Ra'avad and the Ramban, of blessed memory. But the Rif, of blessed memory, ruled (in chapter 3) that even when he said to her, "Be betrothed to me by the zikat yevamin," she requires a get. And so ruled the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 13. This is due to an ordinance of the sages, for just as they ordained that such a maamar is effective for a yevama before chalitzah, they likewise ordained it after chalitzah. If he said, "Be betrothed to me" without specification, the kiddushin is effective from the Torah, for kiddushin is effective for those forbidden by negative commandments; and if he said, "by the zikat yevamin," they are effective by rabbinic law (Beit Shmuel, subsection 9). Even when he performed an invalid chalitzah, they are not effective from the Torah (ibid.). And even according to the one who holds that an invalid chalitzah requires her to go around to all the brothers, and he betrothed her by the zikat yevamin—this one who has not yet performed chalitzah for her—the kiddushin is not from the Torah (ibid.), for from the Torah there is no need to go around to all the brothers.

And in that which has been explained, that a get is effective after a maamar as written in section 18, if this one who performed the maamar upon her gave the get to the recipient of the maamar, there is a distinction between one get and another. For if he gave her a get for her zika—meaning, that he did not give her a get for the maamar he performed upon her, but rather for the yibbum zika, as in his mistaken opinion a get is effective for her zika—he has disqualified her for himself and for all the brothers, and she requires a get for his maamar and chalitza for her zika, according to the laws that were explained there. And likewise, if he gave her a get without specification, it is as if he specified for her zika. But if he gave her the get for his maamar—meaning, that he explicitly specified that for the maamar he performed upon her he is divorcing her with this get—consequently the maamar is removed by this get and she remains bound as she was before. Nevertheless, she is permitted only to the rest of the brothers and not to him, but the rival wife is permitted even to him (as appears to me from the Nimukei Yosef, chapter 3, s.v. Amar Rava, see there). But she herself is forbidden to him because, in any event, he performed an act with her (ibid.). And there are those who say that she is permitted even to him; and even according to this opinion, she is permitted only ex post facto, but ab initio she is forbidden to him because we decree a get for his maamar on account of a get for her zika (Tosafot 32a, s.v. Get; and the essence of this law is in the third chapter (52b) and we establish the law like Rava there and not like Rav Chananya; and in Rashi there, s.v. O Dilma, it is explicit that she is forbidden to him, see there, not like the "there are those who say," see there).

It has already been explained that the yabam must be thirteen years and one day old, and a minor has no legal capacity for either yibbum or chalitzah, and all the more so he has no maamar and no get, and his actions are nothing. Nevertheless, if he had intercourse with his yebamah when he is fit for intercourse—that is, nine years and one day old—the sages treated his intercourse as a maamar in an adult (96a). Therefore, if he had intercourse with the yebamah, he has disqualified her to all the brothers, and she has no remedy except through chalitzah, or that she wait until he grows up and performs yibbum with her. And if after he had intercourse with her, his adult brother went back and had intercourse with her or with her co-wife, or performed maamar, or gave a get, or performed chalitzah either to her or to her co-wife, he has disqualified her to the minor. And likewise, if the minor went back and had intercourse with her co-wife, or his brother who is nine years and one day old had intercourse with her or with her co-wife, he has disqualified her to him according to the law of maamar after maamar, and she is not permitted except through chalitzah to the adult, and her law is like the law of a disqualified chalitzah. And know that this fact, that the intercourse of a nine-year-old is like a maamar in an adult, means his intercourse is effective even after the adult performed some action with her, but this is not so regarding the maamar of a minor, as will be explained.

And even though the maamar of a minor is nothing, nevertheless the sages, of blessed memory, said (ibid.) that if the maamar of this nine-year-old son was the first act performed with the yevamah, his maamar is effective to disqualify her from the other brothers. It is not like the maamar of an adult, which is effective in every case even after another act, as has been explained. The reason is simple: regarding biah, which is a significant act, the sages decreed that it should be effective even if it is not the first act performed with her. This is not the case with maamar, for even with an adult it is only midrabbanan; furthermore, the kiddushin of a minor is nothing, but because she is bound to him, they gave some power to his maamar from the day he is fit for biah, and this power is sufficient when it is at the beginning, but not when it follows another act.

Therefore, if the adult performed maamar and this nine-year-old subsequently performed maamar with her or with her rival-wife, his maamar is of no effect to disqualify her from the adult brother, and the adult is permitted to perform yibbum with her. However, a nine-year-old who performed maamar first, and his brother who is also nine years and one day old subsequently performed maamar with her or with her rival-wife, it can be said that the maamar of the second is effective to disqualify her from the first; since both are nine years old, the first has no more power than the second. A get or chalitzah is of no effect at all with a minor, neither at the beginning nor at the end, because his actions are nothing. It was only regarding maamar that they decreed, because it is a form of closeness like biah; therefore, they likened it in some measure to biah, and it is effective when it is the first act, as I have written. One younger than nine years old, his biah is nothing, and all the more so his maamar is nothing. The biah of a deaf-mute or one of unsound mind is a complete biah, as is taught in the Tosefta Yevamot (Chapter 11) and will be explained in siman 172. The biah of a saris chamah, it appears to me that his law is like the biah of a minor, and it requires further study. It has already been explained in siman 167 that a minor who had biah with his yevamah cannot release her with a get until he grows up and has biah with her, and then he has the ability to release her with a get; and if he did not have biah with her after he grew up, she requires a get and chalitzah, see there. Likewise, it was explained there that a minor yevamah, when she is three years and one day old and fit for biah, if an adult yavim had biah with her, he has acquired her; and if a minor yavim had biah with her, they shall grow up with one another, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 17: An adult who performed maamar with a yevama or gave her a get, and she has a co-wife, when he comes to perform chalitzah for one of them to permit them, the chalitzah of the recipient of the get or the recipient of the maamar does not exempt her co-wife. However, the chalitzah of the co-wife exempts the recipient of the get entirely, and for the recipient of the maamar from chalitzah, but she still requires a get for her maamar. And if he performed maamar with this one and gave a get to that one, he performs chalitzah for whichever he desires and exempts the second, as has been explained. Thus far his words. And there are other opinions of the poskim regarding this, and we have already explained this in the laws from section 6 until section 17.

He further wrote in section 18: One before whom two yevamot from one house fell, one of whom is a sheniyah to the yavam and the other is permitted, when he performs yibbum, he performs yibbum with the other; when he performs chalitzah, he performs chalitzah with the sheniyah. And there is one who says that if he performed chalitzah for the prohibited one, her rival was not permitted; if he performed chalitzah for the rival, the prohibited one was permitted. Thus far his words. And there is one who holds that both of them require chalitzah (see the Gra, subsection 44), and this too was clarified in our previous words and as I wrote in the previous section, and it will be explained in siman 174 with the help of Heaven.

He further wrote in section 19: Many yevamot coming from one house, once one of them has been submitted to a valid intercourse or a superior halizah, all are permitted and the zikat of the yavam is removed from them. If one of them was submitted to an invalid intercourse or he gave her an invalid maamar, they are all forbidden for yibbum; and this one who was submitted to intercourse or was given a maamar requires a get, and each of them requires halizah to permit her to a stranger, for the zikat of the yibbum is not removed by an inferior intercourse. If one of them underwent an inferior halizah, she who underwent halizah is permitted to marry a stranger, but her co-wife is forbidden until she also undergoes halizah, or until all the brothers perform halizah for the first one who underwent the inferior halizah, for an inferior halizah does not remove the zikat of yibbum from this house until it is repeated by all the brothers or until each of them undergoes halizah. This is the opinion of the Rambam, and they disagreed with him as is explained in the words of the Tur. Thus far his words. And we have already explained the opinion of those who disagree, and we also clarified the opinion of the Rambam with the help of Heaven and settled what they questioned against him (see Beit Shmuel sub-section 14 who elaborated on this and brought the Tur's version of the Rambam, see there, but the Maggid's version is primary).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 5, law 17: Two yevamim who performed yibbum with two yevamot who come from one house, and it is not known who performed yibbum first, both must release them with a get and they are permitted to strangers but forbidden to the yevamim. Therefore, Reuven who had two wives, one in Akko and one in Tzor, and Shimon and Levi his brothers, one in Akko and one in Tzor, and they heard that Reuven died, neither of them may perform yibbum until he knows what his brother did. If one of them went ahead and performed yibbum, they do not remove her from his hand until it is known that his brother performed yibbum first. If one desired to perform chalitzah before he knew what his brother did, they do not prevent him. Thus far his words.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed this in the Shulchan Aruch, section 20, and only omitted what he wrote that we do not prevent him from performing chalitzah. This is because in his book, Kesef Mishneh, he raised a difficulty: how is this different from a woman whose husband and co-wife went to a country overseas, who is forbidden from performing chalitzah because perhaps her co-wife is pregnant and she is exempt from chalitzah, and it turns out you are requiring her to have a proclamation for the priesthood, as he wrote at the end of siman 156, see there (and the Lechem Mishneh raised a similar difficulty). And it can be said that the opinion of the Rambam is that one need not be concerned for this, for behold, it is forbidden to perform yibbum until he knows what the other has done, and therefore one need not be concerned for this (Beit Shmuel, subsection 15). However, nevertheless, there is a concern that perhaps the other performed chalitzah beforehand and his chalitzah is nothing, and it turns out that we will require her to have a proclamation for the priesthood (ibid.). And therefore it can be said that only there did they concern themselves with this because it is possible to clarify if her co-wife is pregnant or not, but here it is never possible to clarify, for even if until now the second has not performed yibbum and has not performed chalitzah, perhaps tomorrow he will perform chalitzah or perform yibbum, and it turns out that this one who is here will be an agunah all her days; therefore they were not concerned for this (Mishneh LaMelech). And nevertheless, it is not settled, for what relevance does agunah have? Let them inform one another who will perform chalitzah or who will perform yibbum. Therefore, it appears to me that regarding this concern of requiring a proclamation for the priesthood, they were only concerned with a matter that is very common and the way of the world, that every woman becomes pregnant from her husband, but regarding another concern, they were not concerned for this (and there is a bit of proof from what the Tosafot wrote in Yevamot 119a, beginning with the words "Rabbi Meir etc.": alternatively, it is not considered dependent on an action, but rather it comes automatically, for a man is intimate with his wife. Thus far his words).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work in the name of the Responsa of the Geonim regarding two yevamin who performed yibbum with two yevamot, that they are required to divorce them, and also one of them requires chalitzah; for perhaps one of them performed maamar with the first, and afterwards his brother cohabited with the second, and it is cohabitation after maamar. And even though afterwards the brother who performed maamar with the first cohabited with her, nevertheless it is a disqualified cohabitation; see there. And in the Shulchan Aruch he did not mention anything of this. And it can be said that his opinion is that since the primary law of maamar is rabbinic, we do not need to be so concerned for a doubt of a doubt regarding a rabbinic matter, to be lenient. And so it is implied from the Rambam, of blessed memory: