Yerushalmi Yevamot 5:1 ירושלמי יבמות ה׳:א׳

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking”, no copulation after copulation, and no ḥalîṣah after ḥalîṣah¹If the childless brother left two widows and either brother gave a bill of divorce to both of them, or two brothers each gave a bill of divorce to one of them, the second bill of divorce has no legal value; the giver of the bill may marry any of the relatives of the sister-in-law who received the invalid document.
While a bill of divorce has no standing in levirate proceedings, it is an old rabbinic tradition that the delivery of a bill of divorce by one of the brothers prohibits all the widows from marrying any of the brothers as if it were a bill of ḥalîṣah. For the freeing of the widows, ḥalîṣah is still needed.
Similarly, if one of the brothers “bespoke” one of the widows, any later “bespeaking” of any other widow is null and void.
The parallel statement for ḥalîṣah is obvious since by biblical standards the act prohibits all widows for all brothers for all times.. But the Sages say, there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce and “bespeaking” after “bespeaking”, but nothing after copulation or after ḥalîṣah²The Sages hold that no act which is only rabbinically valid has the power to eliminate biblical requirements; only levirate or ḥalîṣah can be final..

HALAKHAH: “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as a wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “her levir shall come upon her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rebbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her”, then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman¹⁹In both cases, the divorce document is meaningless and there is no relationship between the levir and the third widow. Cf. Tosephta 7:5 and Note 99.. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. ⁴The arguments of this paragraph (except the last one) are repeated in a few short lines in Babli Qiddushin 14a. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument de minore ad majus? Since ḥalîṣah does not free a wife⁵To marry another man. but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥalîṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.⁶Pulling off the levir’s shoe; Deut. 25:9. The Babli points to another part of the same verse, “so it should be done”, so and not otherwise.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written⁷Deut. 25:5.: “She shall not belong … to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he came upon her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away⁸Deut. 24:4, speaking about the divorced wife.”. For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away”. Then should not ḥalîṣah free a wife by an argument de minore ad majus? Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥalîṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥalîṣah? The verse says, “⁹Deut. 24:1. he shall write her a bill of divorce.” By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥalîṣah. So [ḥalîṣah] should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong … to a strange man.” Here, what do you have¹⁰There is no verse indicating any action of ḥalîṣah on the status of a married woman.?

Since Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, does he say similarly that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, there is nothing after copulation if it is primary¹¹Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 7.. Therefore, if it is secondary, there is something afterwards. That must deal with copulation after a bill of divorce. For if it were copulation after “bespeaking”, what could you say? If “bespeaking” acquired, there is nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse will acquire and there is nothing after that. So we must speak about copulation after a bill of divorce¹²If he gave a bill of divorce to one of the widows and afterwards had intercourse with the second, the second is his wife and the first, who is forbidden to him, needs ḥalîṣah in addition to her bill of divorce.. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially¹³He is certain that ḥalîṣah is required after the bill of divorce; it is not a matter of doubt..

Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon to say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire? And here, against Rebbi Simeon that a bill of divorce frees or does not free? Let us hear from the following¹⁵Tosephta 7:3, Babli 51a.: “Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages that there may be a bill of divorce after ‘bespeaking’¹⁶If there were two widows, and he “bespoke” the first and gave a bill of divorce to the second, the first and the relatives of both of them are now forbidden to him. and ‘bespeaking’ after a bill of divorce¹⁷If he gave a bill of divorce to the first and “bespoke” the second, the second also needs a bill of divorce., a bill of divorce after intercourse and ‘bespeaking’, and ‘bespeaking’ after intercourse and a bill of divorce.” How can there be a bill of divorce after intercourse and “bespeaking”? There were three sisters-in-law. He “bespoke” one, had intercourse with another, and gave a bill of divorce to the third¹⁸The bill of divorce is not meaningless; the relatives of the third widow are forbidden to him.. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially. If you would say that “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire then, as you take it, if “bespeaking” acquired, there can be nothing after that. If “bespeaking” did not acquire, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that¹⁹In both cases, the divorce document is meaningless and there is no relationship between the levir and the third widow. Cf. Tosephta 7:5 and Note 99.. This implies that “bespeaking” acquires partially²⁰This makes the intercourse with the second widow partially incestuous.. How can there be “bespeaking” after intercourse and a bill of divorce? If there were three sisters-in-law. He gave a bill of divorce to one, had intercourse with another, and “bespoke” the third. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially. If you would say that a bill of divorce either frees or does not free then, as you take it, if a bill of divorce frees, there can be nothing after that. If a bill of divorce does not free, intercourse should acquire and there should be nothing after that¹⁹In both cases, the divorce document is meaningless and there is no relationship between the levir and the third widow. Cf. Tosephta 7:5 and Note 99.. This implies that a bill of divorce frees partially²⁰This makes the intercourse with the second widow partially incestuous.. Does Rabban Gamliel follow Rebbi Simeon? There is no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” a sister-in-law following Rebbi Simeon. But the argument of one is different from the argument of the other. The argument of Rabban Gamliel: any part which a “bespeaking” of the the second could acquire in the future, the first already had acquired²¹Since the form of the legal action of “bespeaking” is not dependent on the person who acts.. Any part which a bill of divorce from the second [brother] could free in the future, the bill of divorce of the first already had freed. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon: If the first [brother] acquired, so did the second²²The second brother cannot acquire anything since he was preempted by the first.. If the first [brother] did not acquire, neither did the second. If the first [bill of divorce] did not free, neither did the second²³If one levir gave bills of divorce to two sisters-in-law, neither of them goes free without ḥalîṣah for herself..

Is there a possibility of a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking” or of “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking” for Rabban Gamliel? What is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”? If there were two sisters-in-law, he “bespoke” one of them and gave her a bill of divorce; then he gave a bill of divorce to the second. If you say that a bill of divorce frees, anything “bespeaking” had acquired is subject to the bill of divorce; there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”²⁴The second divorce is invalid and the levir may marry any relative of the second widow.. If you say that a bill of divorce does not free, for anything “bespeaking” had acquired there is no bill of divorce; there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”²⁵Both widows and their relatives are forbidden to the levir.. What is “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”? If there were two sisters-in-law, he “bespoke” one of them and gave her a bill of divorce; then he “bespoke” the second. If you say that a bill of divorce frees more than anything “bespeaking” had acquired, it is as if there were no “bespeaking” and there may be “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”²⁶This is a theory not found elsewhere, that a divorce after (rabbinic) “bespeaking” should annul the consequences of “bespeaking” both for him, that all co-wives of the bespoken are no longer forbidden, and seemingly also for the other brothers,that the widows become permitted again for the “bespeaking” by another brother.
Since practice does not follow Rabban Gamliel, no answer is given. For the Sages, the answer is given in the next Halakhah.. But if you say that a bill of divorce does not free more than he had acquired by “bespeaking”, there is “bespeaking” but no “bespeaking” after a bill of divorce for “bespeaking”.

In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, can there be invalid intercourse after invalid intercourse²⁷For example, the intercourse with the second of three widows discussed above. The question is whether a second intercourse would be unquestionably incestuous., or the intercourse of a nine-years-old after the intercourse of [another] nine-years-old²⁸Cf. Chapter 3, Note 143. Both children between 9 and 13 years old are supposed to be levirs of the widow., or invalid intercourse²⁹By an adult. after the intercourse of a nine-years-old, or intercourse of a nine-years-old after invalid intercourse? Do the Sages agree with Rabban Gamliel that there cannot be “bespeaking” after “bespeaking” for one sister-in-law? How is that? If he “bespoke” his sister-in-law, gave her a bill of divorce³⁰For the Sages, this makes the widow forever forbidden to all brothers., and “bespoke” her again. If you say, there can be “bespeaking” after “bespeaking”, she did not become free by that bill of divorce³¹She needs a divorce and ḥalîṣah.. If you say, there cannot be “bespeaking” after “bespeaking”, she was freed by that bill of divorce³²She still needs ḥalîṣah since she was not married in levirate..

³³A similar paragraph in Chapter 3, Notes 102–105. Rebbi Yudan asked: If somebody gave qiddushin to a woman “from now and after thirty days” and her sister became a candidate for levirate with him during these thirty days, is there even in this case no “bespeaking” after “bespeaking³⁴Since biblical qiddushin are certainly stronger that rabbinic “bespeaking”, is his wife immune to the influence of her sister who became a candidate for levirate?? He said, Rabban Gamliel said only “after a bill of divorce and ‘bespeaking’ ”³⁵Rabban Gamliel did not mention qiddushin as excluding further action. Therefore, the claim of her sister forbids the woman to her prospective husband.
For the statement of R. Abbahu, cf. Chapter 3, Notes 102–105.. But what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a hundred qiddushin are valid for her, does not follow Rabban Gamliel.