Study Yevamot folio 96A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ודלמא א״אינו פוסל״?! אי נמי: ממאי דאיתה לדרב הונא? דלמא ליתה דרב הונא כלל, ובדרב המנונא קמיפלגי. דאמר רב המנונא: שומרת יבם שזינתה — אסורה ליבמה.
But perhaps Shmuel’s ruling in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei is referring to the ruling that he does not disqualify his brother-in-law’s wife to his brother-in-law, in a case where his wife and brother-in-law left. Alternatively, the contradiction can be resolved in the following manner: From where do we know that there is a reason to accept the explanation of Rav Huna with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? Perhaps there is no cause to agree with Rav Huna at all, and it can be explained that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her yavam who engaged in licentious sex is forbidden to her yavam.
דרב אמר: הרי היא כאשת איש, ומיפסלא בזנות. ושמואל אמר: אינה כאשת איש, ולא מיפסלא בזנות. ואי נמי, בקדושין תופסין ביבמה קמיפלגי, דרב אמר: הרי היא כאשת איש, ולא תפסי בה קדושין. ושמואל אמר: אינה כאשת איש, ותפסי בה קדושין.
According to this interpretation, the dispute is as follows: As Rav said, she is like a married woman and she is therefore disqualified by licentious sex. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman and is not disqualified by licentious sex. And alternatively, one can explain that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the issue of whether betrothal takes effect with a yevama: As Rav said, she is like a married woman with regard to all men other than her yavam, and therefore betrothal performed by anyone else does not take effect with her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and this means that betrothal does take effect with her.
והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא? חדא מכלל דחברתה איתמר.
The Talmud asks with regard to this last answer: How can the dispute be explained in this manner? But Rav and Shmuel already disagreed over this once. The rabbis would certainly not record the same dispute twice. The Talmud answers: It is possible that they did not in fact disagree twice with regard to the same case. Rather, one ruling was stated by inference from the other. In other words, their dispute was recorded in two different ways, the second time by inference from their original dispute.