משנה: הַבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְרָצוֹן אֲפִילוּ הוּא שׁוֹגֵג וְהִיא מְזִידָה הוּא מֵזִיד וְהִיא שׁוֹגֶגֶת הוּא אָנוּס וְהִיא לֹא אֲנוּסָה הִיא אֲנוּסָה וְהוּא לֹא אָנוּס. אֶחָד הַמְּעָרֶה וְאֶחָד הַגּוֹמֵר קָנָה וְלֹא חָלַק בֵּין בִּיאָה לְבִיאָה. MISHNAH: If somebody comes to his sister-in-law1Widow of his childless brother., whether in error2He did not realize that she was his sister-in-law., or criminally3Either he intended extramarital intercourse or he did not know that she was permitted to him., or under duress4Someone forced him to have intercourse., or willingly5He intended to fulfill the biblical commandment. That case is not needed but it is mishnaic style always to mention באונס וברצון together., even if he is in error and she acts criminally, or he does it criminally but she is in error, or he is under duress but she is not, or she is under duress but he is not, whether he touched or completed6The exact meaning of this term is discussed in the Halakhah. Cf. also Chapter 4, Note 59., he acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.
הלכה: הַבָּא עָל יְבִמְתּוֹ כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. אֲפִילוּ הוּא שׁוֹגֵג וְהִיא מְזִידָה. הוּא מֵזִיד וְהִיא שׁוֹגֶגֶת. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיא. אֲפִילוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שׁוֹגְגִין אֲפִילוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מְזִידִין. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר בְּפִיקֵּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַעַת שֶׁהוּא קוֹנֶה בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. וְחֵרֵשּׁ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַעַת לֹא יִקְנֶה אֶלָּא לְדַעַת. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֶחָד הַחֵרֵשׁ וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹטֶה שֶׁבָּעֲלוּ קָנוּ וּפָטְרוּ אֶת הַצָּרוֹת. HALAKHAH: “If somebody comes to his sister-in-law,” etc. We have stated: “Even if he is in error and she acts criminally, or he does it criminally but she is in error.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated7Quoted also in the Babli, 53b.: Even if both act in error, even if both act criminally. They wanted to say, a hearing person who is competent acquires both if he has the intention and if he does not have the intention but the deaf-mute, who is not competent, should acquire only if he has the intention. It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Both the deaf-mute and the insane who copulated acquired [the widow] and freed the co-wives8Since Deut. 25:5 requires only that “the levir should come upon her” for valid levirate. Marriage needs the intentional participation of both partners. Therefore the mentally incompetent cannot marry by biblical standards. But levirate of a mentally incompetent person is marriage by biblical standards..
יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ לְדַעְתּוֹ. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ. וְיִבְּמָהּ אֲפִילוּ עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ לְדַעְתָּהּ. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתָּהּ. וְיִבְּמָהּ אֲפִילוּ עַל כּוֹרְחָהּ. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ כְּדַרְכָּהּ. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ. וְיִבְּמָהּ אֲפִילוּ מִן הַצַּד. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה גְמוּרָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּיאָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּמוּרָה. וְיִבְּמָהּ אֲפִילוּ בְּהֶעֱרָיָיה. 9The multiple explanation of the multiple expressions in Deut. 25:5 is also in the Babli, 54a, in a different formulation.“Her levir shall come upon her”, when he is aware of it. “And take her as a wife for himself”, when he is not aware of it. “And take her in levirate”, even against his will. “Her levir shall come upon her”, when she is aware of it. “And take her as a wife for himself”, when she is not aware of it. “And take her in levirate”, even against her will. “Her levir shall come upon her”, in the usual way. “And take her as a wife for himself”, not in the usual way. “And take her in levirate”, even from the side10The expression “her levir shall come upon her” is not to be taken to mean that the act is only valid if the levir actually lies on top of the woman.. “Her levir shall come upon her”, in a completed intercourse. “And take her as a wife for himself”, in incomplete intercourse. “And take her in levirate”, even if only touching.
אֵי זוֹ הִיא הֶעֱרָיָיה. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. עַד כְּדֵי שֶּׁתְּהֵא אֶצְבַּע נִרְאֵית בֵּין הַשְּׂפָיוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר עַד שֶׁתִּיכָנֵס הַעֲטָרָה. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִכְנְסָה הָעֲטָרָה זוֹ הִיא גְמַר בִּיאָה. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְּעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. אִם בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה. עַד שֶׁיִּפְלוֹט. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בְּשֵׁם רַב. שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע עַד שֶּׁיִּפְלוֹט. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. הֶעֱרָה בָהּ חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם חֲלָלָה. נִכְנְסָה עֲטָרָה חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה. גָּמַר אֶת הַבִּיאָה חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו. What is touching11In the Babli, 55b, the statement of Samuel is formulated more graphically, that touching the female genital by the male must necessarily make a small indentation which is the act of acquisition. The opinion of R. Joḥanan is quoted in rather confusing three ways.? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That the finger should be seen between the lips. Rebbi Joḥanan said, until the gland enters. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the gland has entered that is completion of intercourse. What are we dealing with12The two statements of R. Joḥanan must refer to two different categories of laws.? If about incest prohibitions, He made the one who touches equal to him who finishes13In the list of punishments for sexual offenses, “touching” is mentioned as the offense in Lev. 20:18–19.. If for a bound slave girl14Lev. 19:20–22. The quasi adultery of a man with a slave girl which was somehow betrothed before she was manumitted is punishable only if there was ejaculation. {Tosaphot, Babli 55b, s. v. אינו, interprets the Babli as making the intercourse punishable in the moment an ejaculation leading to a pregnancy was possible even if none actually occured. It is impossible to read this into the text of the Yerushalmi.}, until he ejaculates, since Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, said in the name of Rav: “Flow of semen”, until he ejaculates. But we must deal with a widow for the High Priest. When he touched her, he became guilty for desecrating her. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because “he shall not desecrate his semen in his people.15Lev. 21:15. Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a, it is noted that the language of Lev. 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow.”
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מְטַמּוֹת בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. אֵי זֶה בַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהַתִינּוֹקוֹת יוֹשְׁבוֹת לַמַּיִם וְנִרְאוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וַהֲלֹא כָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁהִיא מְטַמָּא אֵינָהּ מִטַּמְּאָה אֶלָּא עַד בֵּית הַשִּׁינַּיִים. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי זַכַּיי. עַד בֵּית הַשִּׁינַּיִים וּמִבֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִים וְלִפְנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. כָּל בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת קָרוּי בַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. There16Mishnah Niddah 5:1. In the Babli, Niddah 41b, the names between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are switched., we have stated: “All women become impure in the outer cavity17The impurity of menstrual blood is not dependent on the blood being visible outside her body; it is enough to be close to the vagina..” What is the outer cavity? Rebbi Joḥanan said, up to the place which is seen when girls sit down to urinate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him, but in all impurities particular to her, she becomes impure only up to the place of teeth18Impurities cannot be transmitted inside body cavities. For food, this means that impure food thrown into one’s mouth will not result in any impurity of the eater if it touches the walls of the mouth behind the tetth (except carcass meat). By analogy, anything happening in the womb of a woman inside of a place which can be considered corresponding to the teeth in the mouth cannot have any influence on her status of purity. The Yerushalmi to Niddah 5 is lost; in the Babli, Rav Jehudah defined the “teeth” as the place reached by the male organ during intercourse. That place is defined as being open to the outer world since Lev. 15:18 decrees that semen causes impurity in the body of the woman.. Rebbi Zakkai stated: Up to the place of teeth, and from between the teeth to the inside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: The entire genitals are called “outer cavity”19This statement has no parallel in the Babli..
קָנָה וְלֹא חָלַק בֵּין בִּיאָה לְבִיאָה. מַה קָנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא בִּדְבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה. לִירַשׁ נִיכְסֵי הַמֵּת וּלְאָרְסָהּ לְאָחִיו וּלְהַתִּיר צָרָתָהּ לַשּׁוּק. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. קָנָה כָּל הַדְּבָרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהֶעֱרָה בָהּ. אֲבָל אִם גָּמַר אֶת הַבִּיאָה כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁקָּנָה בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּבָא עָלֶיהָ עוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ עוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית בַּעֲלָהּ כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁקָּנָה בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. כְּנָסָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר. “He acquired her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.” What did he acquire21In any of the kinds of intercourse, incomplete or involuntary, which would not be valid as betrothal of an unincumbered woman.? Samuel said, he acquired only the things spelled out in the paragraph: To inherit the deceased’s property, (to be betrothed by a brother)22This clause is questionable. It makes sense that any of the questionable kinds of intercourse is valid only as a betrothal (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), not as marriage (cf. Chapter 1, Note 95). However, the clause is missing in ms. A (confirmed by Tosaphot Sens), and is quoted as לאוסרה לאחיו “to forbid her to his brothers” in Arukh, s. v. דבר א׳. One may assume that a compilor of a dictionary is more careful in his quotes than any other medieval author., and to permit her co-wife to the outside23But if she died before the actual marriage, he would not inherit from her.. Rebbi Joḥanan24In the Babli, 56a, this is the position of Rav. He and R. Joḥanan hold that intercourse, even of a questionable kind, with the sister-in-law effects marriage, not betrothal. said, he acquired everything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, when do they disagree? If he touched her. But if he completed the intercourse, everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when do they disagree? If he had intercourse with her still in her father’s house. But if he had intercourse with her still in her husband’s house25Either the deceased first husband’s (which becomes the levir’s property by this intercourse) or the levir’s. It is agreed that in this situation, there is marriage not betrothal., everybody agrees that he acquired everything. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah26Mishnah 4:4. said: If he married her, she is his wife in every respect.
מַהוּ שֶׁתֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. נִרְאִין הַדְּבָרִים. אִם הָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה בְחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא אָכְלָה אוֹכֶלֶת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ נִרְאֵית לֶאֱכוֹל. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּיקַּחַת שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן חֵרֵשׁ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. מֵת וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי הַיָּבָם. אִם הָיָה פִּיקֵחַ אוֹכֶלֶת. חֵרֵשׁ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּיקַּחַת שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן פִּיקֵּחַ. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְכוֹנְסָהּ לְחוּפָּה שֶׁלְּנִישּׂוּאִין עַד שֶׁיֶּחֱרַשׁ הוּא אוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרְשָׁה הִיא אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. מֵת וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי הַיָּבָם אֲפִילוּ חֵרֵֵשׁ אוֹכֶלֶת. בְּזֶה יִיפֶּה כֹּחַ הַיָּבָם מִכּוֹחַ הַבַּעַל. שֶׁהַיָּבָם חֵרֵשׁ מַאֲכִיל וְהַבַּעַל חֵרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. May she eat heave28After an unintentional intercourse. This is a direct continuation of the previous discussion since if the levir acquires every power the husband had, then his wife eats heave and other sanctified food by biblical decree (Lev. 22:11). In the Babli, 56a, the position of R. Joḥanan is again represented by Rav.? Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: It is reasonable that she should eat if she was eating during her husband’s lifetime; otherwise she may not eat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats even if she did not eat before. Rebbi Yose said, even if she was only able to eat29Since the main act of acquisition is qiddushin, the Israel bride should be able to eat the Cohen’s food after betrothal. In praxi she is not allowed to use that food until she enters the Cohen’s household where everything is organized to vouchsafe the holiness of the sanctified food.
R. Yose clarifies the position of R. Joḥanan; he is not a third party in the disagreement.. There is a baraita in support of either one. There is a baraita supporting Samuel30Partial quote of Tosephta 10:1.: A hearing31She is of sane mind and therefore legally responsible for her actions in contrast to the deaf-mute. The qiddushin of a deaf-mute person are invalid since he has no standing in law. His marriage by cohabitation is valid but it is not an acquisition in the legal sense. Therefore, his wife cannot eat sanctified food under the terms of Lev. 22:11. daughter of an Israel who married a deaf-mute Cohen does not eat heave. If he died and she came before the levir, if he is hearing32The part of the Tosephta not quoted here specifies that she may eat heave only after intercourse that was intended to fulfill the conditions of Deut. 25:5. This supports the position of Samuel that the consequences of unintended intercourse are very limited., she eats, deaf-mute does not eat. There is a baraita supporting Rebbi Joḥanan33Tosephta 10:1, Babli 56a.: A hearing daughter of an Israel who became engaged to a hearing Cohen, who did not manage to bring her to the bridal chamber before he became deaf-mute or before she became deaf-mute34And who therefore was not acquired in the meaning of civil law., does not eat heave. If he died and she came before a levir she eats even if he is deaf-mute35No intercourse of the deaf-mute can have the legal status of being intentional. If Deut. 25:5 nevertheless decrees that the widow become the wife of the deaf-mute, it cannot make a distinction between intentional and unintentional intercourse. The Babli agrees that Samuel cannot explain this Tosephta (but its terminology implies that this is no reason for him to change his mind.). In this He increased the power of the levir over that of the husband since the deaf-mute levir enables her to eat, but the deaf-mute husband does not enable her to eat.