Yevamot

though she may not marry the levir!  — Rab can answer you. 'I speak of a definite sotah, and you speak of a doubtful one'. But why should a definite sotah be different? Obviously because in relation to her the expression of 'uncleanness' is used;  is not, however, the expression of 'uncleanness' also used in relation to a doubtful sotah! For it was taught: R. Jose b. Kipper said in the name of R. Eleazar, The remarriage by a husband of his divorced wife is forbidden after marriage  and permitted after betrothal,  because it is stated in the Scriptures. After that she is defiled.  The Sages, however, say, the one as well as the other  is forbidden,  and the expression  'After that she is defiled' implies the inclusion of a sotah who secluded herself with a man!  — The underlying meaning of 'secluded herself' is 'sexual intercourse'. Why then did he say 'secluded herself'? — In order to employ a euphemism.  But in relation to sexual intercourse, [surely,] uncleanness was actually mentioned in the Scriptures. She being defiled secretly!  — To subject the offence  to a negative precept.  And R. Jose b. Kipper?  — He does not hold the view that a negative precept is applicable to a sotah, even in the case where she had actually committed adultery. What is the reason? — [Because in reference to the remarriage of a divorced wife] Scripture uses the expression of  becoming  as well as that of matrimony. Rab Judah inquired of R. Shesheth: What is the law in regard to the rival of a woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage and died?  According to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper the question does not arise. For R. Jose b. Kipper having stated that 'uncleanness' is mentioned in the case of him who remarried his divorced wife, it follows that her rival is subject to the very same restrictions. And if [objection be raised] from the Scriptural text, She is an abomination,  [it may be replied that the implication is] that she is an abomination and not her children,  her rival, however, being an abomination. The question, however, arises on the view of the Rabbis: Does the Scriptural text,  despite the fact that the Rabbis had applied the expression 'uncleanness' to the sotah, also bear its ordinary meaning,  or since it  was once torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain?  Others say: According to the Rabbis no question arises, for since the text has once been torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain. The question, however, arises according to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper: What is the law? [Is it assumed that] although R. Jose b. Kipper stated that the expression of 'uncleanness' refers to the remarriage of a divorced wife, the All Merciful has written 'She is an abomination' to indicate that 'she' is an abomination but not her rival,  or is the implication, perhaps, that 'she' is an abomination, but her children are not; a rival, however, being an abomination?  — The other replied: You have learnt it, 'If one of them  was a permitted wife and the other a forbidden one; if he  submit to halizah he must submit to that of the forbidden one;  and if he marries he marries the permitted one.'  Now what is meant by 'permitted' and 'forbidden'? If it be suggested that 'permitted' means permitted for all the world,  and 'forbidden' means forbidden for all the world,  what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is In either case suitable for him,  could this make to him? Consequently 'permitted' must mean permitted to him, and 'forbidden', forbidden to him; and this may happen where  he  remarried his divorced wife;  and yet it was taught, 'and if he marries he marries the permitted one'!  — No; 'permitted' may still mean permitted to all the world  and 'forbidden', forbidden for all the world;  and as to your question, 'what practical difference, in view of the fact that she is in either case suitable for him, could this make', one must take into account the moral lesson  of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph stated: Here  Rabbi taught that a man shall not pour the water out of his cistern so long as others may require it. Come and hear: 'Where a man remarried his divorced wife after she had been married,  she and her rival are to perform the halizah.' Is it possible to say 'she and her rival'?  Consequently it must mean, 'Either she or her rival.'  Did you not, however, have recourse to an interpretation?  [You might as well] interpret thus: She is to perform halizah, while her rival may either perform halizah or be married by the levir. R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Johanan inquired as to what is the law  in regard to a rival of a divorced woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding herself!  — Concerning herself I have no question since her case may be inferred a minori ad majus: If she is forbidden to him  to whom she was originally  permitted, how much more so to the man  to whom she was originally  forbidden!  The question, however, remains concerning her rival: Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough to exclude a rival  or not? R. Nahman b. Isaac taught as follows: R. Hiyya b. Abba said, R. Johanan enquired as to what is the law  in regard to a divorced woman whom her husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding her rival! — Concerning her rival I have no question, for an inference a minori ad majus  is not strong enough to exclude a rival;  the question, how ever, remains regarding herself. Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough [to be acted upon] where a precept  is involved or not?