משנה: כֵּיצַד עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ וְנָתַן לָהּ גֵּט צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ חֲלִיצָה עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר וְחָלַץ צְרִיכָה הִימֶּינּוּ גֵט. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וּבָעַל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְמִצְוָתָהּ. MISHNAH: How36How are the rules of ḥalîṣah handled? This Mishnah is not a continuation of the previous one.? If he “bespoke” his sister-in-law and gave her a bill of divorce, she needs ḥalîṣah from him37Since he started to divorce her, she is forbidden to him. He must perform ḥalîṣah with her and may not take her in levirate.. If he “bespoke” and participated in ḥalîṣah, she needs a bill of divorce from him38Since “bespeaking” is the formal equivalent of qiddushin, it can be dissolved only by (rabbinic) divorce.. If he “bespoke” her and copulated, that is as it is commanded.
הלכה: כֵּיצַד. עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר כול׳. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהַגֵּט פּוֹטֵר יוֹתֵר מִמָּה שֶׁקָּנָה מַאֲמָר. אִם תֹּאמַר. אֵין הַגֵּט פּוֹטֵר יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶׁקָּנָה מַאֲמָר. יָבָם אָמַר. לֹא יִפְטוֹר גִּיטִּי אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁקָּנָה מַאֲמָרִי. וַאֲפִילוּ מַה שֶׁקָּנָה מַאֲמָרִי לא פָטַר גִּיטִּי. כְּרִיתוּת. אֵין זוֹ כְרִיתוּת. HALAKHAH: “How? If he “bespoke” his sister-in-law,” etc. That means39The Mishnah which demands ḥalîṣah after “bespeaking” and divorce. Since it excludes levirate, it shows that the bill of divorce invalidated both “bespeaking” and candidacy. that a bill of divorce frees more than anything “bespeaking” had acquired. If you would say that a bill of divorce does not free more than “bespeaking” had acquired, the levir could say: My bill of divorce shall not free more than my “bespeaking” had acquired40By excluding candidacy, he wants to reserve the right to levirate. This would prevent the widow from marrying outside the family. The entire proceeding is invalidated since a divorce is only valid if the divorcee has the unconditional right of remarriage.. But then the bill of divorce did not even free what my “bespeaking” had acquired! “Cutting off41Deut. 24:1; the divorcing husband has to write “a document of cutting off” all his ties with her. The Babli, 52b, notes that the rules of a purely rabbinic bill of divorce cannot well be grounded in biblical verses. The argument has to be classified as an intimation, rather than a proof..” That is no cutting off!
חֲלִיצָה פְסוּלָה פוֹטֶרֶת. וּלְהֵידָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם יָבוֹא אַחֵר וְקִידֵּשׁ אֶת הַצָּרָה תָֽפְשׂוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. בָּא אַחֵר וְקִידְּשָׁהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקְרָה הִימֶּינָּה זִיקַת הַמֵּת תָּֽפְשׂוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה גֵט לְמַאֲמָרוֹ לֹא תָֽפְשֵׂי בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. Ḥalîṣah against the rules frees42The ḥalîṣah of a woman who was “bespoken” and did not yet receive her divorce document.. In which respect? That if an outsider comes and gives qiddushin to her co-wife, they will lay hold of her43She certainly is freed by her co-wife’s ḥalîṣah. Qiddushin “lay hold of” a woman if the marriage is valid and the woman is forbidden to any other man by the laws of adultery. In this case, it is not only valid but also legal.. If an outsider came and gave her44The widow who was “bespoken” and performed ḥalîṣah. qiddushin, since the candidacy from the deceased was removed from her45By biblical law, she is forbidden to all levirs., the qiddushin will lay hold of her, or maybe, since she still needs a bill of divorce for her “bespeaking”, the qiddushin will not lay hold of her?
אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְקַדֵּשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ לִבְעוֹל. מַה אִם שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי זוֹ כְמִצְוָתָהּ. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, this means that there is an obligation first to give qiddushin and only after that to cohabit. Since here, where qiddushin are not written, you say “that is as it is commanded”, for a wife, where it is written, not so much more46This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that an orderly levirate is preceded by “bespeaking”. It is asserted that an orderly regular marriage is also preceded by qiddushin since Deut. 22:13 prescribes that a man has to acquire a wife before cohabiting with her: “If a man acquires a wife and comes to her …” Even though in theory a marriage could be effected in criminal law and consummated in civil law by one act of cohabitation, this is frowned upon since the act is only valid if performed in the presence of two witnesses; the Babli agrees emphatically (52a).!