Study Yevamot folio 96A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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:
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
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 regar
Mishnah: Witnesses said to a husband: Your wife is dead, and he married her paternal sister, and witnesses subsequently told him that his second wife was dead and he married her maternal sister; afterward witnesses said that this one too was dead and he married her paternal sister; finally they
But he is forbidden to the second and 4th wife, each of whom is the sister of his original wife. Therefore, if he passed away and the yavam had sex with one of them, his sex with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife, as she was forbidden to his brother, which means there was no mitzva of