Study Yevamot folio 14B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי אמרת בשלמא דמודעי להו — משום הכי לא נמנעו, אלא אי אמרת דלא מודעי להו, בשלמא בית שמאי מבית הלל לא נמנעו — דטמאות דבית הלל, לבית שמאי טהרות נינהו.
Granted, if you say that they notified them, it is due to that reason that they did not need to refrain from using their objects. However, if you say that they did not notify them, granted, it is logical that Beit Shammai did not refrain from handling items belonging to Beit Hillel, as ritually impure objects for Beit Hillel are ritually pure for Beit Shammai, and therefore no special care is necessary.
אלא בית הלל מבית שמאי למה לא נמנעו? טהרות דבית שמאי, לבית הלל טמאות נינהו! אלא לאו דמודעי להו, שמע מינה.
However, why didn’t Beit Hillel refrain from touching articles that belonged to Beit Shammai? After all, ritually pure objects for Beit Shammai are ritually impure for Beit Hillel. Rather, is it not the case that Beit Shammai notified Beit Hillel that these items were ritually pure only in their own opinion, and Beit Hillel separated themselves from them? The Talmud summarizes the discussion: Conclude from here that this is the correct interpretation.
The Talmud asks: In what way is this case stronger than that case? In other words, why is the statement with regard to ritual purity and impurity more conclusive than the one that deals with marriage? Since the practice of notification was not explicitly stated in the case of ritual purity but was merely inferred logically, the same reasoning applies equally to the case of marriage. The Talmud answers: Lest you say that since it is so unusual, a marriage to a rival wife generates publicity and is so widely known that no special notification is required, therefore, the Talmud teaches us that even in this case notification is required.