then this should also be true in a case of five brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and died, and their wives happened before the three remaining brothers for levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: We are not concerned over the possibility of the death of two brothers in such a short period of time.

§ Rava bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: In a case where three sisters who were married to three brothers became yevamot and happened before two remaining brothers who were their yevamin for levirate marriage, then this one brother performs ḥalitza with one of the women, and that brother performs ḥalitza with another one of the women. And the middle, i.e., third, sister requires ḥalitza with both of the brothers.

Rabba said to them: From the fact that you say that the middle one requires ḥalitza with both of the brothers, it can be deduced that you hold that the levirate bond is substantial and creates a familial relationship, and similarly this ḥalitza performed by each of the brothers with the third sister is invalid ḥalitza. Since the third woman is the sister of a woman with whom he performed ḥalitza, it is not possible to consummate the levirate marriage with her. Therefore, the ḥalitza performed with her is not entirely valid and does not release her from the levirate bond between her and the two brothers. And there is a principle that invalid ḥalitza must be repeated by all of the brothers; each of them must perform an act of ḥalitza with this woman.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, the first two women should also require ḥalitza from each of the brothers because each act of ḥalitza was invalid, as each woman has the status of the sister of a woman with whom the man has a levirate bond, and it is therefore prohibited for the men to consummate the levirate marriage with them.

The Gemara responds: If the case is that they, i.e., the sisters, happened before the brothers simultaneously, it is indeed so that the two brothers would each be obligated to perform ḥalitza with each of the three sisters. This halakha is necessary only in the case where they happened before the brothers, one after the other.

How so? One sister happened before the brothers for levirate marriage and then Reuven, one of the brothers, performed valid ḥalitza with her. Another sister happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, and the brother Shimon performed ḥalitza with her. In this case, Shimon was allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with her if he so desired, as she had no family relationship to him at all. When Reuven performed ḥalitza with the first sister, he removed the levirate bond between her and the other brothers, such that Shimon has no relationship with the first sister at all and is free to marry the second sister. Therefore, when he performed ḥalitza, the act was valid.

Another third sister then happened before the brothers for levirate marriage. When this first brother performs ḥalitza with her, he terminates his levirate bond, and when this second brother performs ḥalitza with her, he terminates his levirate bond. However, neither brother can, by performing ḥalitza, terminate the other brother’s levirate bond because each brother’s ḥalitza is invalid, as each brother is unable to consummate the levirate marriage in this case. This is due to the woman’s status as the sister of a woman with whom he performed ḥalitza.

The Gemara asks: How can this statement be cited in the name of Rav? But didn’t Rav say: The levirate bond is not substantial. This halakha, however, was explained based on the assumption that the levirate bond is substantial. The Gemara answers: Indeed, according to Rav himself it is unnecessary to perform ḥalitza with multiple brothers. He, however, states this halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is substantial, despite the fact that he does not hold this himself.

And with regard to the above case Shmuel said a different halakhic ruling: It is sufficient if one brother performs ḥalitza with each of the sisters. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since we have heard that Shmuel said: We require a full-fledged ḥalitza, and invalid ḥalitza does not result in complete exemption, this ruling is difficult. It is not clear why the invalid ḥalitza in this case would be sufficient, as Shmuel said: