משנה: חָלַץ וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר נָתַן גֵּט וּבַעָל אוֹ בָּעַל וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר נָתַן גֵּט וְחָלַץ אֵין אַחַר חֲלִיצָה כְּלוּם. בֵּין בַּתְּחִילָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף. וְהַבְּעִילָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא בַּתְּחִילָּה אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר אֶחָד בְּעִילָה וְאֶחָד חֲלִיצָה בֵּין בַּתְּחִילָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף אֵין אַחֲרֶיהֶן כְּלוּם. MISHNAH: If he performed ḥaliṣah and “bespoke”, gave a divorce document and copulated, or copulated and “bespoke”, gave a divorce document and performed ḥaliṣah, nothing comes after ḥalîṣah, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end90Since ḥalîṣah removes the widow from the family for good, no action of any levir after ḥaliṣah can establish a marriage relationship or dissolve one. “In the middle” is only possible if there are more than two widows or levirs.. But in the case of copulation, nothing comes after it when it is at the start91Since the widow is married to the levir.’92The anonymous majority holds that the intercourse required by the verse is one with an otherwise unencumbered widow. But if the widow has any claim or prohibition concerning another levir on her, they deny that any intercourse can have the status of fulfillment of the requirement of Deut. 25:5.. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, nothing comes after copulation or ḥalîṣah, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end93For him, the first intercourse always has biblical status except if it comes after ḥaliṣah when it is incestuous. Ḥaliṣah after intercourse is meaningless; the marriage can be dissolved only by a regular divorce..
הלכה: חָלַץ וְחָלַץ חָלַץ וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר כול׳. חָלַץ וְעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר כול׳. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בִּיאָה פְסוּלָה פּוֹטֶרֶת. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן בִּיאָה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא לְאַחַר הַמַּאֲמָר בֵּין שֶׁהִיא לְאַחַר הַגֵּט פּוֹטֶרֶת. וְעַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא בִּיאָה שֶׁהִיא לְאַחַר הַמַּאֲמָר פּוֹטֶרֶת. שֶׁהִיא לְאַחַר הַגֵּט אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת. וְלֹא שְׁמָעָן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. דְּתַנֵּי. שָׁלֹשׁ יְבָמוֹת לְיָבָם אֶחָד. עָשָׂה מַאֲמָר בְּזוֹ וּבָעַל לְזוֹ וְנָתַן גֵּט לַשְּׁלִישִׁית. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה גֵט וַחֲלִיצָה וְאֵין אַחַר בְּעִילָה כְּלוּם. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מָה אִם חֲלִיצָה שֶׁהִיא פּוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה אֶחָד בְּעוּלָה וְאֶחָד חֲלוּצָה אֶין אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם. בִּיאָה שֶׁאֵינָה פּוֹסְלָתָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה אֶחָד בְּעוּלָה וְאֶחָד חֲלוּצָה אֶינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אַחֲרֶיהָ כְּלוּם. וְרַבָּנִן. אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וּצְרִיכוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה גִיטִּין וַחֲלִיצָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן. HALAKHAH: “If he performed ḥaliṣah with both of them, performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke’,” etc. “If he performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke’,” etc. There96In Babylonia. The statement is in the Babli, 111a. This is the simple understanding one has of the Mishnah since copulation is improper if it does not occur at the beginning., they say: The words of Rebbi Neḥemiah that an improper copulation frees. In the opinion of the rabbis there copulation frees, whether after “bespeaking” or after a bill of divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, intercourse after “bespeaking” frees; after a bill of divorce it does not free97No reason is given for the distinction. The Babli gives reasons why there should be a difference, viz., as a “fence around the law”. There is no indication that the Yerushalmi considers any statement about the consequences of “bespeaking” or divorce as being about “fences around the law”.. They did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Neḥemiah, Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Ismael all said the same98The name tradition is uncertain. Ms. A reads: ר׳ נחמיה ור׳ שנ׳ע ור׳ שמוא׳. The Babli (51a) has:רבן גמליאל ובית שמי וּבן עזאי ורבי נחמיה. Rabban Gamliel’s opinion is stated in Mishnah 1. R. Simeon holds that maybe “bespeaking” acquires completely; this would imply that in the case of the Tosephta, the intercourse of the second does not free the first widow. Similarly, for the House of Shammai, “bespeaking” acquires by biblical standards. The relevant statement of R. Ismael is not recorded.. As it was stated99Tosephta 7:5.: “If there were three sisters-in-law for one levir, he ‘bespoke’ one, copulated with the second, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the first one needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah, but after copulation there is nothing. An argument de minore ad majus. If nothing comes after ḥalîṣah, which excludes her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥalîṣah, then it is only logical that nothing should come after intercourse which does not exclude her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥalîṣah. But for the rabbis he is forbidden the relatives of all three of them and they need three bills of divorce and ḥalîṣah for one of them100Since the intercourse is invalid; the second widow is his wife but he must divorce her..”