Commentary for Yevamot 216:19

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המגרש את האשה והחזירה מותרת ליבם

Is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis 'her rival'. ');">⁴⁵</span> <i>mi'un</i> valid after [a husband's] death where a religious performance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the levirate marriage (Deut. XXV, 5). ');">⁴⁶</span> is involved, or not? Two men were hired for four hundred <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁷</span> and when they came and asked R. Akiba in prison he ruled [that such levirate marriage was] forbidden; and when R. Judah b. Bathyra [was asked] at Nesibis he also decided that it was forbidden. R. Isaac b. Ashian stated: Rab, however, admits that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A divorced minor who may not be married again by the husband who divorced her though she was separated from her second husband by mi'un. ');">⁴⁸</span> is permitted to marry the brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is not regarded as his brother's divorcee. ');">⁴⁹</span> of the man whom she is forbidden [to remarry].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her mi'un does not alter her status of divorcee in respect of her former husband himself (for the reason stated supra) it does remove it as far as marriage with his brother is concerned. She is, as a result of her mi'un, no longer regarded as his brother's divorcee. ');">⁵⁰</span> Is not this obvious? For it is only he with whose hints and gesticulations she is familiar but not his brother!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since it is only this familiarity that is the cause of the prohibition, it is obvious that where it does not apply there should be no prohibition. ');">⁵¹</span> — It might have been assumed that [marriage with] the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁵²</span> should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁵²</span> hence we were taught [that his brother may marry her]. Another reading: R. Isaac b. Ashian stated: As she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 755, n. 13. ');">⁵³</span> is forbidden to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband who divorced her. ');">⁵⁴</span> so is she forbidden to his brothers. But, surely, she is not familiar with their hints and gesticulations!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 755, n. 16. Why then should she be forbidden to marry them? ');">⁵⁵</span> — His brothers were forbidden [marriage with her] as a preventive measure against [marriage] with him.

Explore commentary for Yevamot 216:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.