Commentary for Yevamot 238:16

למאי נפקא מינה

IS PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry again. ');">³⁴</span> AND SHE WHO HAD NO CHILDREN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And who is consequently subject to the levirate bond of a man whose death is attested only by her sister-in-law whose word cannot he accepted (cf. supra n. 4). ');">⁴⁰</span> IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry again. ');">³⁴</span> IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two sisters-in-law spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah, neither of whom had children nor was able to produce witnesses to attest her husband's death. ');">⁴¹</span> CONTRACTED LEVIRATE MARRIAGES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the levirs other than the absent husbands. ');">⁴²</span> AND THE LEVIRS DIED, THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 12. ');">⁴³</span> ARE FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any stranger. Though the evidence of each woman was valid to enable herself to contract levirate marriage, it is not valid to exempt her sister-in-law- from the levirate bond (cf. supra note 4), and the possibility that their absent levirs (the first husbands) were still alive must he taken into consideration. ');">⁴⁴</span> R. ELEAZAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. R Eliezer. ');">⁴⁵</span> RULED: SINCE THEY WERE ONCE PERMITTED TO MARRY THE LEVIRS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the assumption that their husbands were dead. ');">⁴⁶</span> THEY ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY ANY MAN. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A Tanna taught: If the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two sisters-inlaw who stated that their husbands were dead. ');">⁴⁷</span> had witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To confirm her statement. ');">⁴⁸</span> and also children, and the other had neither witnesses nor children, both are permitted [to marry again].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former because of her children who exempt her from the levirate bond; and the latter, because witnesses had testified to the death of her levir while she herself is believed in respect of the death of her husband. ');">⁴⁹</span> IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. do not indicate by the usual stops that this passage is derived from our Mishnah. Cf. however, Bomb. ed. ');">⁵⁰</span> THEY CONTRACTED LEVIRATE MARRIAGES, AND THE LEVIRS DIED, THEY ARE FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN]. R. ELEAZAR RULED: SINCE THEY WERE ONCE PERMITTED TO THE LEVIRS THEY ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY ANY MAN. Raba inquired: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Is it because he is of the opinion that a rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a statement whereby she injures her associate. ');">⁵¹</span> is eligible to tender evidence in favour of her associate or is it because [he holds that] she would not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a statement whereby she injures her associate. ');">⁵¹</span> cause injury to herself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her evidence here would injure herself as it would her associate. Where, however, her associate alone would be the sufferer a rival's evidence is not accepted. ');">⁵²</span> What practical difference is there [between the two assumptions]?

Explore commentary for Yevamot 238:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.