Commentary for Yevamot 40:2
מתיב רבא איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה בא עליה או חלץ לה נפטרה צרתה ואי ס"ד חייבי לאוין מדאורייתא לחליצה רמיא לייבום לא רמיא כי בא עליה אמאי נפטרה צרתה
Raba raised an objection: In the case of one forbidden by virtue of a commandment or by virtue of holiness, with whom the Ievir bad intercourse or participated in <i>halizah</i>, her rival is thereby exempt. Now, if one is to assume that those forbidden by a negative precept are Pentateuchally subject to <i>halizah</i> but not to the levirate marriage, why should her rival be exempt when he had intercourse with her? He raised the objection and he also supplied the answer: This is to be understood respectively;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he taught to sides'. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> 'he had intercourse with her' refers to one prohibited by virtue of a commandment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As defined in our Mishnah. I.e., a woman forbidden by Rabbinic ordinance but who is Pentateuchally permitted and subject to levirate marriage. Intercourse with her consequently exempts her rival. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Yevamot 40:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.