Responsa for Yevamot 201:5
אמר רב אחא בר חנינא אמר אביי אמר רבי אסי אמר ר' יוחנן משום פגם משפחה:
and striking has been compared to cursing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both acts, in the case of parents. appear in Ex. XXI, in close proximity. vv. 15 (striking) and 17 (cursing). Such proximity, according to the opinion here expressed, serves the purpose of an analogy. According to another opinion, the analogy is disturbed by the intervening v. 16. Cf. Sanh. 85a. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> HE MAY GO UP [TO SERVE] IN THE MISHMAR etc. Since, however, HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE why should he go up? — [You ask] 'Why should he go up'; surely. he might say: I wish to perform a commandment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To take part in the Temple service, even though he derives no material benefit from it. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — But [this is the difficulty]: It does not say. '[If] he went up'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The past tense, implying contingency. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> but HE GOES up, implying even against his will!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should he be compelled? ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Bediabad, in this case, means after the rite was performed. Nevertheless, the aforementioned performance of the rite is invalid, for a different reason: the shoe used was sewed with flaxen thread and, therefore, was never fit for this purpose. Since, however, the levir performed an invalid rite of halitzah, neither he nor his brothers are now permitted to marry the widow. Halitzah by the same levir being the only manner of releasing her, he may be forced, by persuasion or by flagellation, to repeat the rite with the proper shoe. For now the Mitzvah revolved on him alone, and we are permitted to scourge a Jew until he perform the required Mitzvot.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem of Würzburg.
SOURCES: Am I, 93, 94.