Commentary for Yevamot 190:14

א"ל אביי וממאי דכי אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי אדרבי יצחק נפחא קאמר דלמא אדרבי אמי קאמר ואי נמי אדרבי יצחק נפחא ממאי דאפוסל

R. Jose said to him, 'In the case of his wife and brother-in-law where no one would assume that he had attached some condition to his marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With his first wife; since no condition is admissible in a marriage contract. (V., however, supra p. 642, n. 5). ');">⁴⁶</span> and where consequently he does not cause [his sister-in-law] to be prohibited to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her husband, his brother-in-law. His own first marriage being known to be valid it should be obvious to all that his subsequent marriage with his sister-in-law was invalid. Were it even assumed that his brother-in-law had divorced her, the invalidity of his marriage with his sister-in-law would not thereby be affected since even after her divorce she still remains forbidden to him as his wife's sister. This being the case no one will suspect his brother-in-law when his wife returns to him of having remarried his divorcee. Hence R. Jose's ruling that she is not forbidden to her husband. ');">⁴⁷</span> he does not cause [his first wife] to be prohibited to him either; in the case of his betrothed and his brother-in-law, however, where someone might assume that he had attached some condition to his betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, on non-fulfilment, had rendered the betrothal invalid and thus enabled him lawfully to contract his subsequent marriage; his presumed sister-in-law being to him (owing to the invalidity of her sister's betrothal) no more than a mere stranger. ');">⁴⁸</span> and where, in consequence, he causes [his sister- in-law] to be prohibited to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her former husband. Were she permitted to return to him it might be assumed that he had divorced her prior to her marriage with her brother-in-law and that the latter had now divorced her; and so it would be concluded that (contrary to Deut. XXIV, 4) a man married again the woman he had once divorced though she had in the meantime been married to another man. ');">⁴⁹</span> he causes [his first wife] also to be prohibited to him. Rab Judah Stated in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose. R. Joseph demurred: Could Samuel have said this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus', that the halachah is in agreement with the full statement of R. Jose, including the part relating to the marriage with the sister of one's betrothed, it being necessary in case of betrothal to provide against the erroneous assumption that the betrothal was invalid and that consequently a man's divorcee had been married again by him. Cf. p. 650, nn. 8 and 9. ');">⁵⁰</span> Surely it was stated: A <i>yebamah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained anon. ');">⁵¹</span> Rab said, has the status of a married woman; and Samuel said: She has not the status of a married woman. And R. Huna said: Where, for instance, a man's brother betrothed a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he married her there would have been no question that she may return to him. Cf. supra p. 650, n. 7. ');">⁵²</span> and then went to a country beyond the sea, and he,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother at home. ');">⁵³</span> on hearing that his brother was dead, married his wife. [It is in such a case] that Rab ruled that 'she has the status of a married woman' and is consequently forbidden to the brother-inlaw;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the man who first betrothed her and then left her and now returned, and who, owing to his brother's marriage with her, has become her brother-in-law. Were she to be permitted to return to him it might be assumed that his original betrothal was invalid owing to some disqualifying condition, that his brother's marriage was, therefore, valid, and that be now married his brother's wife. ');">⁵⁴</span> and Samuel ruled that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and is, therefore, permitted to him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, in the opinion of Samuel, no provision need be made against the erroneous assumption that the betrothal was invalid (cf. supra n. 5). How, then, could it be said that Samuel adopted the complete statement of R. Jose. ');">⁵⁵</span> Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">⁵⁶</span> Whence [do you infer] that when Samuel stated that 'the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose', he was referring to R. Isaac Nappaha's interpretation? Is it not possible that he was referring to that of R. Ammi!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the question of the assumption of a disqualifying condition in a betrothal would not at all arise. ');">⁵⁷</span> And even if he refers to that of R. Isaac Nappaha, whence the proof that [he referred to the ruling] 'DISQUALIFIED'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of one's betrothed and brother-in-law. ');">⁵⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 190:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.