Daf 50

1) R' Gamliel says that there's no Get for a second Yevama after a Get was given to her sister-wife, and a Maamar doesn't take effect to a second sister-wife after you gave a Maamar to the first one. [Tosfos says: this is even according to the Rabanan who argue with R' Akiva and say that Kiddushin takes effect by Lavim, and if you make Yibum to one wife, Kiddushin takes effect to her sister-wife; that's only after Yibum, which totally breaks the Yibim connection. Therefore, she's now like a regular woman with a Lav that Kiddushin can take effect. However, before Yibum, when the Yibum connection is in effect and there is no Kiddushin from the Torah; they didn't enact Maamar to take effect after a first Maamar.] There is no acquisition through relations after a first relations. [Tosfos says: this is only with a Kosher relations, but a Pasul one (that comes after a Get, or a Maamar to her sister-wife); he does acquire with the relation to a sister-wife the same way he acquires with a second Maamar in this situation.] Also, a Chalitza doesn't take effect after a first Chalitza [Tosfos: even after a Pasul Chalitza]. However, the Chachumim say that a Get takes effect after a first Get, and a Maamar takes effect after a first Maamar, but nothing comes after a Yibum or Chalitza when they're Kosher.

2) The reason they enacted that there should be a Get by a Yevama is so people shouldn't say that if a Get doesn't take effect, even though regularly it does, so too Chalitza doesn't do anything since it regularly doesn't do anything. Therefore, it will lead them to having Yibum after Chalitza. [Tosfos says: however, it's not applicable to enact this so people shouldn't confuse it and think that Chalitza should help by a regular married woman (since it helps by Yibum when a Get doesn't help, of course it will help by a regular married lady when a Get does help) since they understand that the Chalitza ceremony is only applicable to a Yevama, as they read P'sukim to say that it's by a Yevama.] The reason they enacted that there should be a Maamar by a Yevama is so people shouldn't say that if Kiddushin doesn't take effect, even though regularly it does, so too Yibum doesn't do anything. Therefore, it will lead them to having Yibum after Yibum. [Tosfos says: however, you don't need to worry that Yibum will take effect after a first Yibum or Chalitza the same way it takes effect after a Get or Maamar to her sister-wife; since it's anyhow forbidden to do Yibum after the Get or Maamar.]

3) They enacted by a Pasul Yibum (that comes after a Get, or a Maamar to her sister-wife); that a second Maamar or Get takes effect afterwards. They enacted a Yibum after Get as Pasul since you might permit Yibum after Chalitza. They enacted that a Yibum after Maamar is Pasul since you might permit a second Yibum after a first Yibum.

4) They didn't enact anything to take effect after a Chalitza that was done after a Get, or a Maamar to her sister-wife. After all, a Chalitza was done after a Get is similar to having a Chalitza after Chalitza, and that's inconsequential. A Chalitza after a Maamar is similar to a Chalitza after Yibum, and you won't allow the woman that had Yibum go marry out without a Get, since the woman who received Maamar also needs a Get.

Daf 51

5) R' Gamliel admits that there's a Get after Maamar, and Maamar after Get.

6) You can't claim the reason for R' Gamliel is that he has a Safeik if a Get pushes her off, or if a Maamar acquires. Therefore, if they definitely work, then a Get can't work after Maamar, and Maamar can't work after Get. (However a second Get or Maamar can't be better than the first one, so they don't take effect.) After all, R' Gamliel admits that, if you first have Get and Yibum, Maamar will acquire afterwards. (Also, if Maamar was given to one sister-wife, and Yibum to a second sister-wife; a Get works afterwards.) If it's only a Safeik, in all cases the Maamar shouldn't take effect at the end. After all if the Get in the beginning worked, then the Maamar shouldn't work after it. If the Get didn't work, then the Yibum was a Kosher Yibum and nothing takes effect afterwards.

7) Rather, the reason for R' Gamliel is that a Get could push off half of the wife, and Maamar can acquire the second half. (However, a second Get or Maamar can't push off, or acquire, more than the first one.) However, the Rabanan held that they enacted Maamar and Get for every Yavam and Yevama. Thus, every one of the brothers could give a Get or Maamar to any one of the wives, and each wife can accept them from every one of the brothers.

8) According to R' Gamliel, Maamar is greater than a Pasul Yibum. After all, a Maamar acquires after a Get everything that's left over from the Get, but a Pasul Yibum doesn't. [Tosfos explains: since we see that a Maamar doesn't take effect after the Maamar, but a Maamar does take effect after a Pasul Yibum. Rashi explains since another Yibum takes effect after a Pasul Yibum, not like a Maamar that can't take effect after a Maamar. Tosfos says: we can infer that Rashi's assumption is correct, and we don't say that a second Yibum can't take effect after a first one since it can't do more than the first one. If so, we wouldn't be able to infer that the Maamar acquires everything left by the Get since a Maamar can't take effect afterwards. After all, it might not take effect because it can't do more than the first one. Rather, we must say that anything that doesn't acquire completely, the exact acquisition can come and take effect on what he left over.]

9) However, in another aspect, a Pasul Yibum is greater than Maamar according to R' Gamliel. After all, there's no Maamar after Maamar, but there's Yibum Pasul after Maamar [Tosfos: as it acquires her from the Torah.]

10) According to R' Gamliel, since the second Get or Maamar is nothing, you can do a Chalitza to the first one who you gave a Get and you're permitted to the relatives of the second one. However, by a Maamar after a Maamar, you can't do Yibum to the first one (even though the second Maamar does nothing) since you might come to do Yibum to the second one instead. However, the Chachumim say that he's forbidden to the relatives of each sister-wife that he gives a Maamar or Get to.

11) According to Shmuel, who says a Chalitza after Get doesn't exempt her sister-wife, and she needs Chalitza, and to Rabbah b. Huna quoting Rav who holds that, by a Pasul Chalitza, each one of the brothers need to do Chalitza, since every brother is doing Chalitza to every sister-wife, they're all forbidden to their relatives. Although this seems to argue with what we said according to R' Gamliel and his Chachumim, you have to say these Amaroim said their Halacha according to those who hold there is a Yibum connection, and R' Gamliel and his Chachumim held there is no concept of a Yibum connection.

12) The above R' Gamliel, Beis Shammai, R' Shimon, b. Azai and R' Nechemia say that Maamar makes a full acquisition (as we'll see). [Tosfos points out that it's not exact that they hold exactly the same. As Beis Shammai holds that it acquires from the Torah, and the others hold it only acquires rabbinically. Also, there are other differences.]

13) As Beis Shammai holds that if Reuvein and Shimon married sisters, and Reuvein dies and Levi makes Maamar; if Shimon dies, his wife goes free since she's Levis wife sister (since we consider Levi's Maamar makes the first sister his full wife).

14) R' Shimon says: if two minor brothers who have relations with the Yevama (which we consider it like a Maamar); we say the second one's relations is nothing. After all, if the first one acquires her, then the second one can't do anything after the complete acquisition. If the first one's relations doesn't make any acquisition, so too the second one doesn't. Therefore, she's permitted to the first one. (However, the Chachumim say that it's like a Maamar after Maamar and she needs a Get from both of them and Chalitza.) [Tosfos says: the reason the relations with the second brother doesn't make her forbidden to the first brother because of adultery; either it was done forgetfully, or she was also a minor, and seducing a minor is considered as an Onness. Alternatively, she was raped against her will. (Granted, that we Paskin that a forced Maamar is not binding, that's only through money, but Maamar though relations acquires against her will just like regular Yibum does.)]

15) B. Azai holds that a Maamar after Maamar doesn't take effect. [Tosfos: there are two possible texts if it's in the case of two Yavams and one Yevama, or one Yavam and two Yevamas.]

16) R' Nechemia says: there is nothing after a Pasul Yibum (not a Get or a Maamar), and a Pasul Yibum is equal to a Maamar. [Tosfos asks: R' Nechemia's reasoning is that everyone knows that Yibum and Chalitza is from the Torah, and we won't allow Yibum after Chalitza just because we'll allow Yibum after a Get, so it has nothing to do with how much a Maamar can acquire. Tosfos answers: really, logically, R' Gamliel is correct that Maamar shouldn't take effect after Maamar. However, if we permit it, we would permit Maamar after a Pasul Yibum, (and if we permit a Get after Get, we would end up permitting Maamar after Maamar). Therefore, since R' Nechemia is not worried about Maamar after a Pasul Yibum, he permits Maamar after Maamar like R' Gamliel. The reason R' Nechemia enacted Get and Maamar in the first place, even though they know that the Torah excludes them, perhaps that's only that it doesn't push her off, or acquires her, completely, but maybe the Torah considers it to do it slightly, like Beis Shammai held by Maamar. Therefore, if you would allow Yibum after Get and Maamar, you'll allow it after Chalitza or a first Yibum too. However, everyone knows that a Pasul Yibum completely knocks off any Yibum connection, so nothing can take effect after it.]

Daf 52

17) R' Huna says: the Mitzvah of Yibum is performed by first giving Maamar before Yibum. If you have Yibum first, you acquire her, but they give him rabbinical Malkos. As Rav gave lashes for someone who made Kiddushin with relations, [Tosfos adds: and it's also promiscuous to do Yibum without Maamar since you have relations as the beginning of your acquisition.] He also gave lashes for those who give Kiddushin in the marketplace. Also, for one who gives Kiddushin without a Shidduch, and for one who cancels a Get after he sent it [Tosfos: although Rav Paskins like R' Shimon b. Gamliel who says that the Get doesn't become canceled, and nothing bad can come out of it, even so, he did wrong by causing people to say that there might be something problematic with the Get.] Also, on someone who protests against the validity of a Get he gave [Tosfos explains: even if he retracted his protest, since he once started a rumor against the Get, and some people may have heard the protest and didn't hear that he retracted.] Also, on someone who was brazen to a rabbi's agent [Tosfos: even if he's not an agent of Beis Din, but just works for a Chachum.] Also, to one who had an excommunication on him for thirty days and didn't even request from Beis Din for it to come off. Also, to a son-in-law who lives in the house with his mother-in-law. R' Sheishes lashed someone suspected to be romantic with his mother-in-law for just going around to her house.

18) Others say that Rav only lashed someone who made Kiddushin through relations without a Shidduch. Others say this is true even with Shidduchim since it's very immodest. [Tosfos says: we rely on this opinion to live in the house of your in-laws. After all, the Halacha is like the lenient view by rabbinical prohibitions.]

19) Maamar is like Kiddushin. You give a Prutah, or an item worth a Prutah. Alternatively, you write a document on paper or earthenware “you are Mekudesh to me” even if the document is not worth a Prutah. [Tosfos says: this, that we allow writing it on earthenware is only according to R' Elazar who says that witnesses who see the handing over of the document makes it valid, but according to R' Meir that the signing witnesses validate the document, the document needs to be made of a material that can't be forged. (Since no one sees what's written on it when it's handed over, we need to know that it wasn't tampered with before giving it over.)]

20) The Kesuva document of the Yavam is that he accepts to feed her. However, the money of the Kesuva is collected from her first husband's estate. However, if there's not enough left to collect the whole Kesuva, she collects the rest from the Yavam.

21) If the Yavam gives a Get to the Yevama that she's divorced from the Yavam, but she's not permitted to everybody else (which is not a proper Get), it's considered enough of a Get to forbid her to the Yavam. Although the concept of a Get by a Yavam is only rabbinic, so we shouldn't be so stringent; but we might mix it up with a regular wife's Get, and a similar Get by her gives off some “smell of being a Get” to make her forbidden to ever marry a Kohein, (although it's not valid to allow her to marry). However, if the husband hands her over a blank paper, we don't say it has any “smell of a Get” to forbid her to a Kohein.

22) If someone asks a Sofar to write a Get for his Arusah that “she will be divorced after I bring her to Chuppa;” it's a valid Get since it's in his hands to divorce her now. [Tosfos says: this is only if he wrote the date of the Get after the time of the Chuppah. Otherwise, it's invalid even B'dieved. This is even worse than an “old Get” (when the husband and wife seclude after the Get was written” that's permitted B'dieved, since that was only seclusion. However, by the Chuppa, they definitely have relations and we really need to worry that people will say the Get took effect before the conception of the child.)]

23) However, you can't write such a Get for any woman in case you marry her, since it's invalid since you don't have the ability now to divorce her. [Tosfos explains: this is according to the opinion that someone can't sell an item that he doesn't own yet, that it should take effect after it becomes his.] There's an unresolved inquiry if it works by a Yevama without Maamar. [Tosfos asks: it can't be to divorce her after he does Yibum, since it doesn't work at all because you can't divorce her now. Also, what would Maamar help (that we need to say it was written without Maamar) since Maamar is only rabbinic, and a divorce won't let her get married. The Ri says: the question if such a Get is “a smell of a Get” and makes her Pasul to ever marry a Kohein. The Rivam explains: the inquiry is; does writing it before the Maamar helps to divorce her after the Maamar.]

24) R' Chanina has an unresolved inquiry: if someone gives Maamar, and then gives a Get for the Yibum connection, but not for the Maamar, or for the Maamar, but not for the Yibum connection is it a proper Get? Do we consider Maamar and the Zika as one entity, and, by giving a Get for one of them, it's considered divorcing halfway, which is not a proper Get? Or do we consider each one as its own entity, and by giving a Get for one of them, it's giving a full Get and it takes effect? However, Rava held it's simple that you can give a Get for his Maamar. [Tosfos says: according to the version that, if you give a Get for a Maamar to one Yevama, he's permitted to her sister-wife, we must say that i.e., he's permitted to a second wife of this brother. After all, if it refers to a Yevama who fell from a second brother (and is called a sister-wife since he can do Yibum to both of them), even if he gives a complete Get to one Yevama, he's permitted to the second one. (See Reshas the Chidush that we don't decree to forbid the second brother's wife since you'll confuse her with two wives falling from the same brother.)])

25) This, that we say that Maamar doesn't work after Chalitza, it's like R' Akiva who says that a Kiddushin doesn't take effect by a Lav. However, the Rabanan say that Kiddushin takes effect by your Chalutza since she's now only forbidden to him with the Lav of “once you didn't build, don't build anymore.”

26) However, Rebbi held that it only takes effect when given as a regular Kiddushin, but not if given for a Maamar for a Yevama. However, the Rabanan say it takes effect even if it's given for a Maamar for a Yevama.

27) R' Yosef explains the reason of Rebbi. [Tosfos says: this is when he gives Kiddushin without mentioning that it's for a Yevama, but you show with your intent is that you want it for Yibum; or you say that it's to make a Yibum, but you're not saying it's a Maamar. So it's doing an action of regular Kiddushin in order that the effect should be that she'll be your Yevama.] This is like someone hoeing in a Ger's field who died (and his possessions are Hefker), but he thinks he's hoeing in his own field, he doesn't acquire the field.

28) Abaya says that it's not a comparison. After all, there, he didn't intend to hoe to make any acquisition, but here, he gives the money to acquire the woman. It's similar to hoeing in one field in order to acquire it from one Ger's property, but he ended up hoeing in a second Ger's property, that he acquires. Rather, the case is that he says to be Mekadesh through Maamar. Rebbi held that Maamar is an extension of Zika, so when the Zika falls off, Maamar can't take effect. The Rabanan held that its an independent acquisition. So, even after there is no Zika, there is a concept of Maamar. Rava says that everybody would agree that you can Mekadesh by saying “through Maamar of a Yevama.” They only argue when he says “through the connection of the Maamar of a Yevama.” [Tosfos says: this can work even according to the opinion that there is no concept of Zika, Yibum connection. After all, that's only applicable when two sisters fall to Yibum at the same time that we consider each as a partial wife's sister. However, the word 'connection' is applicable since he's connected to do Yibum or Chalitza to her.] Therefore, Rebbi held that there's a concept of Zika, so, after Chalitza, the Zika falls off and it doesn't take effect. However, the Rabanan held there was no special Zika before Chalitza, so the Chalitza doesn't remove any Zika that it had before, so it takes effect.

Daf 53

29) R' Sheravya says: they don't argue in the case of a Kosher Chalitza, and we say that the Zika falls off. The question is if a Pasul Chalitza knocks off the Zika completely.

30) R' Ashi says that everyone agrees that a Pasul Chalitza doesn't knock off the Zika completely, and they argue if there was a condition made on the Chalitza (and it wasn't fulfilled, does that knock out the Zika). Raveina holds an unfulfilled condition doesn't knock out the Zika; but they argue if that's only if he made a double condition (i.e., does he need to speak out the two sides of the condition) [Tosfos explains: really there's no condition that can undo a Chalitza (since it's not similar to the condition made by the Shevatim Reuvein and Gad that was made by an action that you can make an agent to perform). The question is, even so, does it completely remove the Zika, that you can't give Maamar anymore with Zika.]

31) The Tanna Kama says that there are acquisitions that can take effect after a Pasul Yibum since we need to worry that you'll allow a Yibum after a Chalitza or Yibum. However, there is no acquisitions after Chalitza since we don't care if someone does Chalitza after a Chalitza or Yibum. R' Yossi b. Yochanan says that you need to worry for acquisitions after a Pasul Chalitza, for, if you don't, you won't come to worry about those after a Pasul Yibum. R' Nechemia permits even after a Pasul Yibum, and you don't need to worry that you'll allow a Yibum after a Chalitza or Yibum, since everybody knows that Yibum and Chalitza are from the Torah, and they won't confuse it with Maamar and Get.