יד מתיב רב אשי נכנסה עמו לסתר ושהתה עמו כדי טומאה אסורה לביתה ואסורה לאכול בתרומה ואם מת חולצת
14 R. Hisda raised an objection:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The following refers to a case where a woman married a second husband on the basis of a report by one witness that her first husband had died in a foreign country. If later it was discovered that her first husband was alive, she must be divorced by both. If both died childless prior to the divorce she requires halizah from a brother of each but may not, according to the Rabbis, marry either of them. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disagreeing with the Rabbis in one point. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> said, the intercourse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her second marriage having been entered into through an innocent error, no penalty is incurred by her as far as her relationship with the levir from the first marriage is concerned. Hence, in the opinion of R. Simeon, either marriage or halizah is permitted, v. infra 87a. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> or <i>halizah</i> of the brother of the first husband exempts her rival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this it follows that the rival of a married woman who had intercourse with another husband is permitted to the levir both according to R. Simeon and according to the Rabbis (the latter having only disputed the case of the married woman herself). Why, then, did Rab state that the rival of a sotah is forbidden? ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — Rab can answer you, 'I speak of a sotah that is Biblically forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman that was faithless to her husband. (Num. V, 12ff). ');"><sup>29</sup></span> and you talk of a sotah that is only Rabbinically forbidden'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who married a second husband under an honest misapprehension. Biblically she is permitted to live again with her husband since her second marriage was entered into on the basis of a report by a witness, on the strength of which she was by Biblical law fully permitted to contract the marriage. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> But as to him who raised this objection, what did he imagine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must surely have known that the one was Biblical and the other only Rabbinical! [H] rt. [H] or [H] (cf. [G]) 'to speak', 'enquire', 'argue'. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — He thought that Rabbinical provisions were given the same force as Biblical laws.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all that the Rabbis provided, like that of the Torah they provided'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> R. Ashi raised an objection: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman suspected by her husband who warned her not to seclude herself with a certain man. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> entered with the man into a private place and remained with him for a period sufficient for the consummation of defilement, she is forbidden to her house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to her husband. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> she may not eat of <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.; in the case where the husband is a priest. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> and if he died she must undergo the ceremony of <i>halizah</i>