Halakhah for Yevamot 168:2
הא ודאי משום סיפא משום דקבעי למיתנא סיפא כ"ג שנשא את האלמנה יש לו אח כ"ג או כהן הדיוט דוקא אלמנה אבל בתולה חזיא ליה משום הכי קתני אלמנה
behold, [it may be pointed out, the case of] the HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who becomes, thereby. disqualified from marrying his brother. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> where it is not said that 'the original marriage causes the subjection'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had this been the case, his brother should have been permitted to marry her, owing to the fact that at the time of her marriage with the deceased (when she presumably became subject to the levirate marriage) she was no halalah. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 78a) that there is no liability for lashes until he has intercourse. But [if] he married her and did not have intercourse, he is not lashed - as there is no liability for lashes without intercourse. And [both] he and her are lashed; and that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 84b), "Fitting women are not [prohibited] from marrying disqualified men," is not from this matter at all - and we will explain the thing below on this page. As this one who has had intercourse with someone to whom she is forbidden, is also included in the obligation - and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said that there is no difference between a woman and a man regarding all of the punishments of the Torah, except for the designated maidservant, [about] which I have written above in the Order of Vayikra in the commandment of a definite guilt-offering (Sefer HaChinukh 129).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy