Conspicuous by his absence is the husband who loses successive wives. What is the significance of this lacuna? Earlier we noted how the incest laws of Leviticus chapter 18 are formulated in the second person masculine. It is the brother who is told to desist from relations with his sister, but the sister is not directly addressed. Relations with his mother are forbidden a son, but the mother herself receives no parallel directive. Yet not for a moment do the rabbis exculpate the female accomplice in such incestuous crimes. The Mishnah carries on the same androcentric convention of formulating conjugal laws in the masculine which, unless indicated to the contrary, are understood to apply bilaterally.

Howbeit, the above explanation is seen by many as barking up the wrong tree. They argue that women are deliberately isolated for this qaṭlanit law because the belief undergirding it is inapplicable to coextensively bereaved husbands.