Daf Yomi Yevamot: A Slightly Non-Normative Interpretation of Machzir Grushato

The topic of machzir grushato, remarrying one's ex-wife -- Devarim 24, in Ki Teitzei:

א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ.	1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,
ב וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר.	2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife,
ג וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ; אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, אֲשֶׁר-לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה.	3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ָה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס}	4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. {S}

What is the cause from this prohibition? I have always read it as law intended to prevent legalized "swinging." In swinging, couples swap partners, which would be considered adultery. Perhaps, they thought, they could legally divorce, marry the other person, then divorce and remarry. This closes this loophole and possibility. And this becomes law even where it is not the case.

However, another, slightly non-normative interpretation struck me as I was reading through Yevamot:

תניא רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אליעזר בן עזריה המחזיר גרושתו מן הנשואין אסורה מן האירוסין מותרת שנאמר אחרי אשר הוטמאה
וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה אסורה אלא מה אני מקיים אחרי אשר הוטמאה לרבות סוטה שנסתרה

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Yossi ben Kipper cites Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya: If one remarries his ex-wife, where there was an intervening marriage {in full, with nisuin}, she is forbidden; where there was an intervening betrothal, she is permitted, for it is stated {Devarim 24:4}:

ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס}

4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

And the Sages say: Both this and that {either intervening nisuin or intervening kiddushin} is forbidden. If so, how do I establish "after that she is defiled"? To include a sotah who secluded herself {with the man}.

וקי"ל כרבנן דאמרי בין מן הנשואין בין מן האירוסין אסורה ואם החזירה הולד כשר דכתיב כי תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין
והני מילי ישראל אבל כהן הולד חלל ואפילו לא נתארסה
וגרושה שזינתה לאחר שנתגרשה מותרת לחזור לבעלה מאי טעמא הויה ואישות כתיבה בה:

And we establish like the Sages who say that whether from marriage or from betrothal, she is forbidden, and if he retakes her as a wife, the child born is valid {and is not a mamzer}, for it is written

ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס}

4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. {S}

{toevah hi} - she is an abomination, but her children are not abominations.

According to Rabbi Yossi ben Kipper, we understand what אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה means. In nisuin, there is consummation of the marriage with sexual intercourse. This was within the bounds of marriage, but it is somehow considered "defiled," perhaps for the reason I outlined above.

But according to the Sages, this encompasses betrothal, which is just a formal procedure (giving over the ring). Perhaps this is a type of lo plug, drawing no distinctions in outlining the goal. But what is going on here? Why is she called "defiled" from the act of marrying, or betrothing, someone else?!

I would suggest the following, reading the pesukim somewhat in line with Bet Shammai. The first pasuk was:

א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ.

1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,

There is a famous dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel (which surfaced as a dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees) whether Judaism allows for no-fault divorce, based on how one reads עֶרְוַת דָּבָר and whether that is the only cause for divorce (as opposed to e.g. אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו). Is this any matter, or only a matter pertaining to ervah, relations (with a derasha on ervah).

Reading like Bet Shammai, why did he divorce at first? For unseemly sexual conduct. Now, a sotah, an adulteress, is forbidden to both the husband and to the adulterer. The husband must divorce her. Thus, as the second pasuk states, וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר. She receives a divorce, and marries someone else -- something she may do provided this is not the adulterer.

Now, she receives her divorce from the second man -- say, for similar reasons. Do we now say that while she may not remain married to her first husband, she may now remarry the first husband who, after all, was not the immediately recent betrayed party?

The pasuk answers that she may not. לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה. Where was the defiling? The answer is in the first pasuk -- כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר -- rather than in the second pasuk -- וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר!

And this may be the meaning of the Sages interpreting אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה as a sotah shenistera.

Of course, the halacha is that the law would apply across the board, even in cases this were not so, but there would not be cases where this was not so according to Bet Shammai.