Commentary for Yevamot 236:16

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא המזכה גט לאשתו במקום קטטה מהו כיון דאית לה קטטה בהדיה זכות הוא לה או דלמא ניחא דגופא עדיף לה תא שמע דאמר ריש לקיש טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו

the possession of a letter of divorce, where a brother-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom she would be subject in the absence of a letter of divorce. ');">³⁹</span> is in existence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'. ');">⁴⁰</span> [Is the divorce], since she [usually] hates her brother. in-law, an advantage to her and [consequently valid, because] a privilege may be conferred upon a person in his absence; or is it possible [that the divorce], since she sometimes loves her brother-in-law, is a disadvantage to her and [consequently invalid because] no disadvantage may be imposed upon a person in his absence? The other replied. We have learned this: NOTE IS TAKEN OF HER ASSERTION AND SHE MUST, THEREFORE, PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i>. BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is the ruling in our Mishnah both in the case where It is assumed that she loves the levir (cf. supra p. 837, n. 2) and in that where she is assumed to hate him (cf. supra p. 837. n. 10). it is obvious that it is uncertain whether a divorce given in the circumstance described by Raba is an advantage or a disadvantage to the woman. The legal position in such a case would consequently be that the woman would have to perform halizah but would not be permitted levirate marriage. ');">⁴¹</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 236:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.