Yevamot 107

ישן לא קנה ביבמתו אלא בנתקע והא אמר רבה נפל מן הגג ונתקע חייב בארבעה דברים וביבמתו לא קנה

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unconscious act having no legal validity. ');">¹</span> But when accidental insertion occurred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When in a state of erection the levir fell from a raised bench upon his sister-in-law who happened to be below (v. Rashi). ');">²</span> Surely Rabbah stated: <font>One who fell from a roof and his fall resulted in accidental insertion</font>, is liable to pay an indemnity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the woman with whom the accidental contact had taken place. ');">³</span> for four things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bodily injury, pain, medical expenses and unemployment during illness. The damages or indemnity must be paid even if the injury was inflicted accidentally or under compulsion (v. B.K. 85b). An indemnity for the indignity caused by the injury is payable only when the act was wilful. V. infra. ');">⁴</span>

אלא כגון שנתכוון לאשתו ותקפתו יבמתו ובא עליה שניהם אנוסים דבי רבי חייא היכי דמי כגון שנתכוון לאשתו ותקפוהו עובדי כוכבים ודבקום זה בזה ובא עליה

and if the woman was his sister-in-law no <i>kinyan</i> is thereby constituted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the accidental contact. She does not thereby become his lawful wife. ');">⁵</span> — It is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intercourse under compulsion is possible. ');">⁶</span> <font>when, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While he was in the state of erection. ');">⁷</span></font> his sister-in-law seized him and he cohabited with her.</font>

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים כה, ה) יבמה יבא עליה מצוה דבר אחר יבמה יבא עליה בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון

How is one to understand, 'Both under compulsion', taught at the School of R. Hiyya? — When, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and idolaters seized him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While he was in the state of erection. ');">⁸</span> brought him and her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His sister-in-law'. ');">⁹</span> into close contact and he cohabited with her. Whence these words?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement in the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">¹⁰</span>

והא אפיקתיה למצוה למצוה (דברים כה, ז) מואם לא יחפוץ האיש נפקא הא חפץ יבם וכי אתא קרא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון

— From what our Rabbis taught: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> is a commandment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah is a substitute only, and preference must always be given to levirate marriage. ');">¹²</span> Another interpretation: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid. ');">¹³</span> But, surely, deduction has already been made from this text that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate marriage. v. supra note 5. ');">¹⁴</span>

תניא אידך יבמה יבא עליה כדרכה ולקחה שלא כדרכה ויבם ביאה גומרת בה ואין כסף ושטר גומרין בה ויבמה בעל כרחה ד"א יבמה יבא עליה בין בשוגג כו'

is a commandment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then may a second deduction be made from the same text? ');">¹⁵</span> — That it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate marriage. v. supra note 5. ');">¹⁴</span> is a commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');">¹⁶</span> may be inferred from And if the man like not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7. ');">¹⁷</span>

והא אפיקתי' לכדרכה ההוא (דברים כה, ז) מלהקים לאחיו שם נפקא במקום שמקים שם וכי אתא קרא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון

which implies that if he likes he contracts the levirate marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');">¹⁶</span> so that the other text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> may serve the purpose of deducing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes'. ');">¹⁸</span> 'whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid. ');">¹⁹</span>

גופא אמר רב יהודה ישן לא קנה ביבמתו דאמר קרא יבמה יבא עליה עד דמכוין לה לשם ביאה והתניא בין ער [בין ישן אימא בין ערה בין ישנה

Another [Baraitha] taught: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> in the natural way; and take her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> even though in an unnatural way;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the nature of the intercourse the sister-in-law is thereby acquired by the levir as his lawful wife. ');">²⁰</span> and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Emden, a.l. and cf. M.T. ');">²¹</span>

והתניא בין ער] הוא בין ישן הוא בין ערה היא בין ישנה היא הכא במאי עסקינן במתנמנם ה"ד מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר כגון דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר

her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> only the cohabitation consummates her marriage, but neither money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby kinyan of betrothal is usually executed. ');">²²</span> nor deed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby kinyan of betrothal is usually executed. ');">²²</span> can consummate her marriage; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span>

גופא אמר רבה נפל מן הגג ונתקע חייב בארבעה דברים וביבמתו לא קנה בנזק בצער בשבת ברפוי אבל בושת לא מיחייב דאמר מר אין חייב על הבושת עד שיתכוון

even against her will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 14a. ');">²³</span> The Master said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH a.l. Cur. edd. omit. ');">²⁴</span> 'Another interpretation: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her whether in error etc.' But, surely, deduction has been made from this text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cohabitation. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבא נתכוון להטיח בכותל והטיח ביבמתו לא קנה להטיח בבהמה והטיח ביבמה קנה דהא קמכוין לשם ביאה בעולם:

must be in the natural way! — This may be deduced from To raise up unto his brother a name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7. ');">¹⁷</span> [i.e.,] only where a name is raised up;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From unnatural intercourse there is no issue and no name, of course, can be raised. ');">²⁶</span> so that the other text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span> may be employed for the deduction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes'. ');">²⁷</span>

אחד המערה: אמר עולא מנין להעראה מן התורה שנאמר (ויקרא כ, יח) ואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה וגלה את ערותה את מקורה הערה מכאן להעראה מן התורה

'whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid. ');">²⁸</span> [To turn to] the main text. 'Rab Judah ruled that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law, for Scripture stated, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">²⁹</span> only when the cohabitation was intentional'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'shall go in'. ');">³⁰</span> But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep! — Read: Whether she was awake or asleep. But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep; or whether she was awake or asleep! — This statement refers to one who was in a state of drowsiness. What state of drowsiness is hereby to be understood? R. Ashi replied: When a man is half asleep and half awake<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'asleep and not asleep, awake and not awake'. ');">³¹</span>

אשכחן נדה שאר עריות מנין וכ"ת נילף מנדה מה לנדה שכן מטמאה את בועלה

as, for instance, when he answers on being addressed but is unable to give any sensible reply, and when he is reminded of anything he can recall it. [To turn to] the main text. Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof, and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity for four things, and if the woman was his sister-in-law no <i>kinyan</i> is thereby constituted. [He must pay her for] bodily injury, for pain inflicted, for enforced unemployment, and for medical expenses; but he is not liable to indemnify her for indignity, for a Master said, 'One is not liable to pay any indemnity for indignity unless it was intentionally caused'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was not the case here. ');">³²</span> Raba said: If a levir's intention was to shoot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A euphemism. ');">³³</span> against a wall and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, no <i>kinyan</i> is thereby constituted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of the intercourse having been accidental and unintentional. ');">³⁴</span>

אלא אתיא מאשת אח דכתיב (ויקרא כ, כא) ואיש אשר יקח את אשת אחיו נדה היא וכי אשת אחיו [לעולם] נדה היא אלא כנדה מה נדה בהעראה אף אשת אח בהעראה

if he intended, however, to shoot at a beast and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, <i>kinyan</i> is thereby constituted, since some sort of intercourse had been intended. WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST&nbsp;… STAGE. 'Ulla stated: Whence is it proved that the first stage of contact is pentateuchally forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of forbidden unions. ');">³⁵</span> — It is said, <i>And if a man shall lie with a menstruant woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], rendered by E.V. ibid., having her sickness. ');">³⁶</span></i> and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath made naked her fountain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 18. ');">³⁷</span>

מה לאשת אח שכן בידו לרבות דאי בעי מקדש ואזיל כי אלפא

it is deduced from this text that the first stage of contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (first stage) is of the same rt. as [H] he hath made naked (ibid.). ');">³⁸</span> is pentateuchally forbidden. Thus the case of a menstruant has been arrived at; whence that of other forbidden unions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with the other relatives also, or with any woman one is forbidden to marry, the first stage constitutes the offence. ');">³⁹</span> And were you to suggest that [their case] might be inferred from that of the menstruant, [it might be retorted] the menstruant is different since she causes the defilement of the man who cohabited with her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He, like herself, remains levitically unclean for seven days (v. Lev. XV, 24). As the restrictions of the menstruant are more rigid in respect of the defilement of the man they may also be more rigid in respect of the first stage of contact. What proofs however, is this that prohibition of the first stage of contact extends to other forbidden unions? ');">⁴⁰</span> — Rather the deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with the other relatives also, or with any woman one is forbidden to marry, the first stage constitutes the offence. ');">³⁹</span>

אלא אתיא מאחות אב ואחות אם דכתיב (ויקרא כ, יט) וערות אחות אמך ואחות אביך לא תגלה כי את שארו הערה איכא למיפרך מה לאחות אב ואחות אם שכן איסור הבא מאליו

is made from 'a brother's wife' concerning whom it is written, <i>And if a man shall take his brother's wife, she is a menstruant</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 21. [H] E.V., it is impurity. ');">⁴¹</span> Now is a brother's wife always menstruant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. Why then was she so described? ');">⁴²</span> But [the meaning is] 'like a menstruant as with a menstruant the first stage constitutes the offence, so does the first stage constitute an offence with a brother's wife. But a brother's wife [it may be objected] is different since it is in his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother's. ');">⁴³</span> power to increase the number, for should he wish, he could go on betrothing as many as a thousand!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The number of relatives forbidden through marriage may be indefinitely increased. Hence only such relatives (e.g., a father's wife, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law) may be inferred from a brother's wife who also is a relative forbidden through marriage. What proof, however, does this provide that restrictions applicable to these are also applicable to relatives forbidden from birth (e.g, a mother, sister, daughter) whose number it is not in one's power to increase? ');">⁴⁴</span>

מחדא לא אתיא תיתי [חדא] מתרתי מהי תיתי תיתי מאשת אח ואחות אב ואחות אם מה להנך שכן אסורין משום שאר

— The deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra note 3. ');">⁴⁵</span> is rather made from the 'father's sister' and 'the mother's sister'. For it is written in Scriptures And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister, for he hath made naked his near kin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 19. ');">⁴⁶</span> But it may be objected that a father's sister and a mother's sister come under a different category, since the prohibition in their case is natural.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are relatives forbidden from birth. What proof, however, does this supply in the case of relatives by marriage? (Cf. supra p. 359, n. 8). ');">⁴⁷</span> — If it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra note 3. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אלא תיתי מנדה ואחות אב ואחות אם מה להנך שכן איסור הבא מאליו אלא תיתי מנדה ואשת אח דמאי פרכת

cannot be deduced from one category<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either from that of relatives from birth or from that of relatives by marriage. ');">⁴⁸</span> then let it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert in square brackets 'one'. ');">⁴⁹</span> be deduced from the two categories.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any objection that might be raised against the one could not possibly apply to the other. (Cf. p. 359, nn. 8 and 11). ');">⁵⁰</span> From which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Particular case or cases in the categories mentioned. ');">⁵¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא מה לנדה ואשת אח שכן אין להם היתר בחיי אוסרן תאמר באשת איש שכן יש לה היתר בחיי אוסרה

however shall deduction be made? Were it made from a brother's wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A relative by marriage. ');">⁵²</span> and a father's sister<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A relative from birth. ');">⁵³</span> and a mother's sister,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A relative from birth. ');">⁵³</span> [it might be objected that] those stand in a different category, since the prohibition of these is due to relationship!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No proof would consequently be available that the same restriction is applicable to intercourse, for instance, with any married woman who is neither a relative from birth nor by marriage. ');">⁵⁴</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא אטו נדה ואשת אח בחיי אוסרן הוא דאין להם היתר אבל לאחר מכאן יש להם היתר נדה

— Deduction is rather made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 359, n. 3. ');">⁵⁵</span> from the menstruant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who may be a stranger. ');">⁵⁶</span> and a father's sister and a mother's sister. Those however [it may be objected] are in a different category since the prohibition is natural!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not due to any human act. ');">⁵⁷</span> — The deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 359, n. 3. ');">⁵⁵</span> is rather made from the menstruant and a brother's wife; since no<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for what'. ');">⁵⁸</span> objection can be raised [against the two].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother's wife is a relative forbidden through marriage and consequently the second objection (v. supra p. 359. n. 1) cannot be advanced; while the first objection (v. supra p. 359, n. 8) and the third objection (v. supra n. 7) cannot be raised in view of the law of the menstruant. ');">⁵⁹</span> R. Aha son of R. Ika demurred: A menstruant and a brother's wife are different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the other women one is forbidden to marry. ');">⁶⁰</span> since marriage with them cannot be permitted during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition! Would you, then, apply [their restrictions] to a married woman who might be permitted to marry even during the lifetime of the man who caused her prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her husband, if he divorced her. ');">⁶¹</span> Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Are a menstruant and a brother's wife forbidden to marry only during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition but permitted after that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the man died. ');">⁶²</span> With a menstruant, surely,