Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 54 - Highlights

The Mishna states: If a man cohabited with his yevamah, whether in error or wantonly (not for the sake of the mitzvah), whether under compulsion or willingly; even if he acted in error and she wantonly, he wantonly and she in error, he under compulsion and she not under compulsion, she under compulsion and he not compulsion; whether he has partial cohabitation or he completes cohabitation, he has acquired her. And there is no distinction between one manner of cohabitation and other manners of cohabitation (natural or unnatural).

The Mishna continues: So, too, if a man cohabits with any of the arayos listed in the Torah, or with those women who are disqualified to marry a Kohen, such as a widow to a High Priest, a divorcee or a chalutzah to a regular Kohen, a mamzeres or a nesinah to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a mamzer or to a nasin, he has rendered her disqualified from the Kehunah. And there is no distinction between one manner of cohabitation and other manners of cohabitation. (53b)

The Mishna had stated: If a man cohabited with his yevamah, whether in error or intentionally, whether under compulsion or willingly; even if he acted in error and she intentionally, etc.

The Gemora asks: What is the meaning of the word “even”?

The Gemora answers: It isn’t necessary to state the obvious ruling where he acted in error and she intended to fulfill the mitzvah, or he is wanton and she intended to fulfill the mitzvah because at least one of them was intending to fulfill the mitzvah. Rather, the Mishna teaches us that even in the case where he acted in error (thinking that she was another woman) and she is wanton, meaning that they both were not intending for the mitzvah, nevertheless, he acquires her as a wife.

Rabbi Chiya taught in a braisa: Even if they were both in error, both were wanton, or both of them acted under compulsion, the yibum is valid. (53b)

The Gemora asks: What is the meaning when the Mishna says that they acted “under compulsion”?

If you will say that the Mishna is referring to a case where idolaters forced him to cohabit with her, but Rava said that there is no legal claim of coercion regarding an illicit cohabitation because one cannot have an erection unless he is a willing participant.

Rather, the Mishna can be referring to a case where he cohabited with her while he was sleeping. The Gemora asks: Rav Yehudah has said that one cannot acquire a yevamah while he is asleep (since at that time, he is lacking sufficient intelligence to make a kinyan).

Rather, the Mishna can be referring to a case where he cohabited with her accidentally. The Gemora asks: Rabbah has said that if one falls from a roof and cohabits with a woman below (he was on the roof with a woman and was erect), he will be liable to pay for four things (damages, pain, medical bills and loss of income), but he would not acquire his yevamah (since he is not contemplating cohabitation at all).

Rather, the Mishna can be referring to a case where he was intending to cohabit with his wife, and his yevamah grabbed him and he cohabited with her.

The Gemora asks: What is Rabbi Chiya’s case where they both acted under compulsion?

The Gemora answers: He is referring to a case where the yavam intended to cohabit with his wife, and idolaters grabbed him and forced him to cohabit with his yevamah. (53b – 54a)

The Gemora asks: From where are the halachos listed in the Mishna derived?

The Gemora cites a braisa: It is written: Her yavam shall cohabit with her. This teaches us that it is preferable for the yavam to perform yibum (and not chalitzah). Another thing: This verse teaches us that yibum is effective if he cohabits with her, whether in error or wantonly, whether under compulsion or willingly. (54a)

The Gemora cites another braisa: It is written: Her yavam shall cohabit with her. This teaches us that cohabitation in a normal manner effects yibum. The verse continues: And take her. This teaches us that cohabitation in an unusual manner (anal) does not effect yibum. The verse continues: And perform yibum. This teaches us that only cohabitation finalizes the yibum, but giving her money or a document will not finalize the yibum. The words in the verse (And perform yibum) with her teaches us that yibum is valid even without her consent. (54a)

Rav Yehudah said: One cannot acquire a yevamah while he is asleep. The verse states: Her yavam shall cohabit with her. This teaches us that he must intend to cohabit with her in order for the yibum to be valid.

The Gemora asks: It was taught in a braisa otherwise: A yibum is valid whether he was awake or asleep during cohabitation.

The Gemora emends the braisa: A yibum is valid whether she was awake or asleep during cohabitation.

The Gemora cites a different braisa to challenge Rav Yehudah’s opinion: A yibum is valid whether he was awake or asleep, or whether she was awake or asleep during cohabitation.

The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where the yavam was simply dozing. Rav Yehudah was discussing a case where he was sleeping.

The Gemora asks: What does dozing mean? Rav Ashi clarifies the case. He is asleep and not asleep, awake and not awake; if he is called he responds, but he cannot give a rational answer, though if he is reminded, he remembers. (54a)

Rabbah has said that if one falls from a roof and cohabits with a woman below (he was on the roof with a woman and was erect), he will be liable to pay for four things, but he would not acquire his yevamah.

He will be liable to pay for damages, pain, medical bills and loss of income, but he would not be liable to pay for the embarrassment until he intended to cause an injury. (54a)

Rava said: If the yavam intended to press against a wall, but instead cohabited with his yevamah, he has not acquired her. If he intended to press against an animal, but instead cohabited with his yevamah, he has acquired her because he was intending to perform a type of cohabitation. (54a)

The Mishna had stated: If the yavam performed partial cohabitation with his yevamah, he has acquired her. Ula cites the Scriptural source for this. It is derived from a verse regarding a niddah (menstruant).

The Gemora asks: We cannot learn to other cases of arayos because niddah has a stringency that one who cohabits with a niddah becomes tamei just like the niddah.

The Gemora answers: It can be derived from the verse discussing the prohibition of a brother’s wife which concludes with the words, She is a niddah.

The Gemora asks: We cannot compare the prohibition of a brother’s wife to other arayos; one can marry a thousand wives and will increase the number of forbidden women. We would only be able to learn to other arayos that become forbidden through marriage.

The Gemora answers: It can be derived from the verse discussing the prohibition of one’s father’s sister and mother’s sister which states explicitly that a partial cohabitation is forbidden.

The Gemora asks: We cannot compare the prohibition of a father’s sister to other arayos; she is forbidden automatically without any act of marriage. We would only be able to learn to other arayos that become forbidden automatically.

The Gemora concludes: We cannot derive from one of those sources, but perhaps we can learn from two of them.

The Gemora analyzes as to which two sources we can learn from. Let us derive the halacha (of partial cohabitation) from the prohibition of a brother’s wife together with the prohibition of one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister.

The Gemora asks: We cannot learn to other cases of arayos because these are forbidden on account of being relatives; we would not be able to learn to other arayos, which are not related to the cohabiter.

The Gemora says: Let us derive the halacha from a niddah together with the prohibition of one’s father’s sister and mother’s sister.

The Gemora asks: We cannot learn to other cases of arayos because these are forbidden automatically without any act of marriage. We would only be able to learn to other arayos that become forbidden automatically.

The Gemora says: Let us derive the halacha from a niddah together with the prohibition of one’s brother’s wife, for there is nothing to ask on this.

Rav Acha the son of Rav Ikka asks: One cannot compare these prohibitions to the other arayos. Niddah and a brother’s wife are not permitted during the entire lifetime of that which prohibits them; we cannot derive other arayos, such as a married woman (who can be permitted during the lifetime of that which prohibits her, if the husband divorced her) from them.

Rav Acha from Difti rewords the question: Niddah and a brother’s wife are different; that which prohibits them cannot permit them (a niddah becomes permitted after a certain amount of days, and a brother’s wife could become permitted if the brother died childless). However, by a married woman, that which prohibits her can permit her (therefore she cannot be compared to the others)

The Gemora concludes: Rabbi Yonah, and others say that it was Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: It is written [Vayikra 18:29]: For if anyone commits any of these abominations, the persons doing so will be cut off. We compare all arayos with a hekesh (a Midrashic juxtaposition, where we can derive from there even when there exists distinctions) to a niddah; just as a niddah is forbidden even with a partial cohabitation, so too, all arayos are forbidden even with a partial cohabitation. (54a – 54b)

The Gemora asks: Why does it say niddah by the prohibition of a brother’s wife?

The Gemora answers: It is needed for Rav Huna’s teaching. One might think that a brother is permitted to marry his brother’s wife even while the brother is alive (he divorced his wife), or that it would be prohibited, but she would not be subject to the penalty of kares; the extra words in the verse teaches us that if there is no mitzvah of yibum, she is forbidden as a brother’s wife under the penalty of kares. This is derived from the fact that the Torah writes the word niddah by the brother’s wife prohibition. Just as a niddah is permitted afterwards, but nonetheless, if one would cohabit with her while she is a niddah, they would be subject to the penalty of kares, so too, regarding a brother’s wife, even though she could be permitted if the brother died childless, she is forbidden under the penalty of kares when the mitzvah of yibum is not applicable. (54b)

Ravina inquired of Rava: What is the halacha if a man partially cohabits with another man?

The Gemora answers: This is certainly forbidden because this prohibition is compared to the copulation of a woman; just as there partial cohabitation is forbidden, so too, regarding a male.

The Gemora states that Ravina’s inquiry was regarding a partial cohabitation with an animal.

Rava answered that it is forbidden. (54b)


[END]

0 comments: