Commentary for Yevamot 184:9

א"ל ריש לקיש אי לאו דקלסך גברא רבה הוה אמינא לך אנא מתניתין רבי עקיבא היא דאמר אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין

has no validity. Said R. Johanan to him: O Master, is not this [law contained in] a<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'our'. ');">³¹</span> Mishnah? For we have learnt: If a man said to a woman, 'Be thou<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold thou art'. Cf. P.B. p. 298. ');">³²</span> betrothed unto me after I shall have become a proselyte'. 'after thou shalt have been a proselyte'. 'after I shall have been emancipated'. 'after thou shalt have been emancipated'. 'after thy husband shall have died', 'after thy sister shall have died' or 'after thy brother-in-law shall have submitted to thy halizah', the betrothal is invalid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 62a, Keth. 58b. B.M. 16b. Betrothal cannot take effect at once owing to his stipulation and it cannot take place in the future because that which is not yet in existence may not be acquired. From this it follows that before the levir has submitted to halizah betrothal by a stranger is invalid, which is in effect the law reported by R. Jannai. ');">³³</span> — The other replied: Had I not lifted up the sherd, would you have found the pearl beneath it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., had not R. Jannai stated his ruling it might never have occurred to R. Johanan that the reason for the invalidity of the betrothal in the case of the sister-in- law was the law that betrothal with a sister-in-law by a stranger is never valid before the levir has submitted to halizah. He might have assumed the invalidity in this particular case also to be due to the fact that the man distinctly desired it to take place in the future, and no one can acquire that which is not yet in existence. ');">³⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 184:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.