Let us learn a posuk with Rashi

The torah teaches that "If a man marries a new wife, he shall not go out to the army…."

The verse explains that he has an obligation to "give joy to his (new) wife; whom he has married".

Rashi deals with the question of the word "new" (Hebrew: isha chadasha), and explains: "this means that she is new to him, even if she is a widow. This would exclude a woman to whom he was previously married and then divorced".

Rashi's source is the Gemara in sota 44a, which teaches:

"A new wife" perhaps this excludes a widow, or his previous but divorced wife? The proper meaning of the word "wife" is that the verse refers to any woman that he marries, even a widow etc. Nevertheless there is a limit in the verse. "A new wife" a wife that is new to him excluding his previous wife.

Rashi explains in sota that the first assumption of the Gemara was that the "new" wife is necessarily a virgin, marrying for the first time, and that that is rejected for the notion that "new" means to him.

The Targum Yonatan interprets differently. "If a man marries a new wife, a virgin…"

The Targum indicates that the correct translation of "new" is never before married!

This interpretation seems to contradict the Gemara that Rashi quoted and indicates a different possibility for the simple interpretation of the verse, a new interpretation which has halachic implications. Why did the Targum deviate from the simple path chosen ultimately by Rashi? What might have indicated to the Targum that a different interpretation is necessary?

We remember the verse in the beginning of Shemot (chapter 1 verse 8) "A new king rose over Egypt, who did not know of Yosef".

The simple interpretation is that "new" means different. A different king who did not know Yosef. This would explain his change of heart and decision to oppress the Jewish people. "New" is not simply a statement of the fact, but is also an explanation. Had this king lived in the days of Yosef, he would have acted differently. Rashi quotes the discussion between Rav and Shmuel on this verse. "One says it means literally a "new" king, and the other posits that it was a king who reigned during Yosef's time but he issued new decrees". Des the word "new" modify "king" or does the word mean "a king with new wares", new edicts.

In this case Rashi does not determine what the meaning of the word is, but related the dispute indicating that both are equally possible, and from his point of view correct.

The Targum Yonatan takes a stand. "A new king as he was previously….". For the Targum it was the same king with new edicts. In this case he understands the word "new" as meaning a "new face" a "new position". In the care of the "new wife" he opts, (against the Gemara in sota), to interpret "new" as "new and different".

For Rashi, in a matter of interpretation which remains in the realm of Aggada (not halachic) it is reasonable to quote both opinions. However, in the case of the "new wife" a verse that has necessary halachic implications, it is reasonable to follow the understanding of the Gemara.

Gut Shabbos
Chaim Brovender