Yevamot 106

חלץ ועשה מאמר ונתן וכו': בשלמא חלץ ועשה מאמר איצטריך סד"א נגזור מאמר דבתר חליצה אטו מאמר דקמי חליצה קמ"ל דלא גזרינן אלא חלץ ונתן גט למה לי

IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR [and] GAVE etc. One can well understand why it was necessary [to lay down a rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is no validity in the ma'amar. ');">¹</span> where] THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR; since it might have been assumed that provision was to be made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to R. Akiba. ');">²</span> for a ma'amar that followed <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving to the ma'amar the force of a valid betrothal and by subjecting the sister-in-law, in consequence, to the necessity of a divorce. ');">³</span>

ולטעמיך אימא סיפא בעל ועשה מאמר בעל ונתן גט בשלמא בעל ונתן גט איצטריך סד"א נגזור גט דבתר בעילה אטו גט דקמי בעילה קמ"ל דלא גזרינן אבל בעל ועשה מאמר למה לי

as a preventive measure against a ma'amar that preceded <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the former to be regarded as invalid, the latter also might erroneously be so regarded. ');">⁴</span> it was consequently necessary to tell us that no such preventive measure was to be made. What need, however, was there for the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is no validity in the divorce where there is only one levir and one sister-in-law. (V. supra p. 331, n. 3). ');">⁵</span> where THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What possible consequences could ensue from the presumed validity of such a divorce that are not already in force as a result of the halizah? The halizah, like a divorce, causes the prohibition of the widow to the levir, and her relatives also are thereby forbidden as the relatives of his haluzah'! ');">⁶</span>

אלא איידי דתנא חלץ ועשה מאמר תנא נמי בעל ועשה מאמר ואיידי דבעי למיתני בעל ונתן גט תנא נמי חלץ ונתן גט:

— Read, then, according to your own view, the final clause, IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA' AMAR or if he cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE. One can well understand [it might be argued here also] why it was necessary [to lay down a ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That nothing of the levirate bond remains after cohabitation and that, consequently. the divorce alone is a valid act and there is no need for halizah also. ');">⁷</span> where] the levir cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE; since it might have been assumed that provision was to be made for a divorce that followed cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By requiring halizah in addition to the divorce. ');">⁸</span> as a preventive measure against a divorce that preceded cohabitation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were halizah to be dispensed with in the former case it might erroneously be presumed that as a letter of divorce alone is valid enough in this case it is also valid in the latter case, and thus divorce might be allowed to supersede the halizah of any sister-in-law. ');">⁹</span>

בזמן שהיא וכו': מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא אבא יוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים אומר משום רבי מאיר אחת בעילה ואחת חליצה בתחלה אין אחריה כלום באמצע ובסוף יש אחריה כלום

it was consequently necessary to tell us that no such preventive measure was required. But what need was there [for the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is no validity in the ma'amar. ');">¹⁰</span> where] HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of what consequence could the ma'amar be after cohabitation whereby the woman had become the levir's proper wife? ');">¹¹</span> But [the fact is that] as he taught, IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was certainly necessary, as has just been explained. ');">¹²</span>

ושלש מחלוקת בדבר תנא קמא סבר ביאה דאיכא למיגזר גזרינן חליצה דליכא למיגזר לא גזרינן

he also taught: IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR. And since he desired to teach the rule where 'he cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE' he also taught, IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE. IF IT TOOK PLACE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the time when it is'. ');">¹³</span> etc. Our Mishnah cannot be reconciled with the opinion of the following Tanna: For it was taught: Abba Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem reported in the name of R. Meir, 'Alike in the case of cohabitation or of <i>halizah</i>, [if it took place] first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an explanation of this term v. notes on our Mishnah supra. ');">¹⁴</span>

ור' נחמיה סבר ביאה נמי ליכא למיגזר ודקאמרת ליגזור ביאה אחר הגט משום ביאה אחר חליצה כיון דחליצה דאורייתא מידע ידעי ודקאמרת ליגזור ביאה אחר מאמר משום ביאה אחר ביאה כיון דביאה דאורייתא הא מידע ידיעי ואבא יוסי בן חנן סבר לה כרבנן דגזרי בביאה וגזר חליצה משום ביאה:

no act that follows has any validity; but if it occurred in the middle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an explanation of this term v. notes on our Mishnah supra. ');">¹⁴</span> or at the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an explanation of this term v. notes on our Mishnah supra. ');">¹⁴</span> something valid still remains'. On this question, in fact, three different views have been expressed. The first Tanna is of the opinion that in the case of cohabitation, where a preventive measure is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since something of the levirate bond remains after an improper cohabitation. ');">¹⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך רבן גמליאל</strong></big><br><br>

a preventive measure was made,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he ruled that only when cohabitation had taken place at the beginning (but not when in the middle or at the end) does the levirate bond completely disappear. ');">¹⁶</span> but in the case of <i>halizah</i> where no preventive measure is called for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in his opinion even an improper halizah is valid in all respects. ');">¹⁷</span> no preventive measure was made. R. Nehemiah, on the other hand, is of the opinion that in the case of cohabitation also no preventive measure is called for.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining as he does that nothing of validity remains either after halizah or after cohabitation. ');">¹⁸</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>הבא</strong></big> על יבמתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון אפי' הוא שוגג והיא מזידה הוא מזיד והיא שוגגת הוא אנוס והיא לא אנוסה היא אנוסה והוא לא אנוס אחד המערה ואחד הגומר קנה ולא חילק בין ביאה לביאה

And as to your possible objection that provision should be made where cohabitation followed a letter of divorce as a preventive measure against cohabitation that followed a <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the former to be regarded as valid the latter also might be so regarded. ');">¹⁹</span> [it may be replied that] as <i>halizah</i> is a Pentateuchal law it is well known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no one would draw comparisons between the two. ');">²⁰</span> And as to your objection that provision should be made where cohabitation followed a ma'amar as a preventive measure against cohabitation that followed another cohabitation, [it may also be replied that] as <i>kinyan</i> by cohabitation is a Pentateuchal law it is certainly well known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no one would draw comparisons between the two. ');">²⁰</span>

וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות שבתורה או פסולות כגון אלמנה לכ"ג גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין פסלה ולא חילק בין ביאה לביאה:

And Abba Jose b. Hanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abbreviation of 'Johanan'. ');">²¹</span> again, holds the same view as the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');">²²</span> who ordained a preventive measure in the case of cohabitation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 50b. ');">²³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי אפי'

and he made similar provision in the case of <i>halizah</i> as a preventive measure against cohabitation. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN COHABITED WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of his deceased childless brother. ');">²⁴</span> WHETHER IN ERROR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not knowing that she was his sister-in-law. ');">²⁵</span>

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא הוא שוגג והיא קמכוונה למצוה אי נמי הוא מזיד והיא קמכוונה למצוה אלא אפי' הוא שוגג והיא מזידה דתרוייהו לא קמכווני לשם מצוה אפילו הכי קנה תני ר' חייא אפי' שניהם שוגגים שניהם מזידים שניהם אנוסים

OR IN PRESUMPTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To gratify his passions and with no intention of fulfilling the precept of the levirate marriage. ');">²⁶</span> WHETHER UNDER COMPULSION OR OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, EVEN IF HE ACTED IN ERROR AND SHE IN PRESUMPTION, OR HE IN PRESUMPTION AND SHE IN ERROR, OR HE UNDER COMPULSION AND SHE NOT UNDER COMPULSION, OR SHE UNDER COMPULSION AND HE NOT UNDER COMPULSION, WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST, OR ALSO THE FINAL STAGE OF CONTACT, HE CONSTITUTES THEREBY A <i>KINYAN</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he acquires her'. The widow is deemed to be his legal wife. He is entitled to the heirship of her estate; and she can be released only by a letter of divorce. ');">²⁷</span> IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he made no distinction'. ');">²⁸</span>

אנוס דמתניתין היכי דמי אילימא כשאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים ובא עליה והאמר רבא אין אונס לערוה לפי שאין קישוי אלא לדעת

OF THE INTERCOURSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it was natural or unnatural. ');">²⁹</span> SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any of the circumstances mentioned. ');">³⁰</span> WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, OR WITH ANY OF THOSE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO MARRY HIM AS, FOR INSTANCE, A WIDOW WITH A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <i>HALUZAH</i> WITH A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fem. of nathin, v. Glos. ');">³¹</span>

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