Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 106:13

אלא בישן והאמר רב יהודה

WITH AN ISRAELITE OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WITH A BASTARD OR A NATHIN, HE HAS THEREBY RENDERED HER INELIGIBLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest, and to eat terumah even if she had previously been eligible to eat of it. This, of course, does not apply to the bastard and nethinah who are from birth ineligible either to marry a priest or to eat terumah. Their inclusion among the others merely serves the purpose of indicating that in their case also the penalty for illicit intercourse is imposed whether it was ONLY IN THE FIRST, OR ALSO IN THE FINAL STAGE. ');">³²</span> IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE INTERCOURSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it was natural or unnatural. ');">²⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the purport of EVEN? — [The formula of] 'It is not necessary' is thereby to be understood: It is not necessary [to state that a <i>kinyan</i> is constituted where] he acted in error<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not knowing that she was his sister-in-law. ');">³³</span> and her intention was the performance of the commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁴</span> or where he acted in presumption and her intention was the performance of the commandment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such cases the validity of the kinyan is obvious. ');">³⁵</span> but even if he acted in error and she in presumption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 355, n. 3. ');">³⁶</span> or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH a.l. Cur. edd. omit 'or he&nbsp;… error'. ');">³⁷</span> he in presumption and she in error, so that the intention of neither of them was the fulfilment of the commandment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁸</span> a <i>kinyan</i> is nevertheless effected. R. Hiyya taught: Even if both acted in error, both in presumption, or both under compulsion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kinyan is nevertheless constituted. ');">³⁹</span> How is one to understand the action UNDER COMPULSION in our Mishnah? If it be suggested [that] idolaters compelled him to cohabit with her, surely [it may be pointed out] Raba stated: There can be no compulsion in sexual intercourse since erection depends entirely on the will! But when he slept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' COMPULSION implying unconsciousness of action. ');">⁴⁰</span> Surely Rab Judah ruled

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 106:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.