THE INTENTION REQUIRED FOR YIBUM [last line of previous Amud]
Answer #1: Rather, the case is, he was sleeping.
Objection: Rav Yehudah taught that if he was sleeping (when he did Yibum) he did not acquire her!
Answer #2: Rather, he (had Kishuy intending for his wife and) fell and had Bi'ah with his Yevamah.
Objection: Rabah taught that if one fell from the roof onto a person, he pays four of the five payments of damage. (He is exempt for embarrassment.) If he landed on his Yevamah and had Bi'ah, he does not acquire her!
Answer #3: Rather, he was intending (had Kishuy) for his wife, and his Yevamah grabbed his Ever and inserted it.
Question: R. Chiya discusses when they are both forced. Where do we find this?
Answer: He was intending for his wife, and Nochrim grabbed him and inserted his Ever into his Yevamah.
Question: What is the source that such Bi'ah acquires a Yevamah?
Answer (Beraisa #1): "Yevamah Yavo Aleha" is the Mitzvah (it is preferred to Chalitzah);
Also, "Yevamah Yavo Aleha", whether he is Shogeg or Mezid, whether forced or willing.
Question: We already expounded this to teach that that Yibum is the Mitzvah!
Answer: That is learned from "If he does not want". This implies that, if he wants, he should do Yibum. Our verse teaches that he acquires whether he is Shogeg or Mezid...
(Beraisa #2): "Yevamah Yavo Aleha" - k'Darkah (normal Bi'ah). "V'Lokchah" - (he acquires even) Lo k'Darkah (Bi'ah in the anus);
'V'Yibem' - Bi'ah fully acquires her, but money or a document does not. "V'Yibmah" - against her will.
Question: Beraisa #1 expounded "Yevamah Yavo Aleha" to teach about Shogeg or Mezid... and Beraisa #2 expounds it to teach about k'Darkah!
Answer: Really, we learn k'Darkah from "Lehakim Shem l'Achiv", i.e. Bi'ah that can lead to children;
"Yevamah Yavo Aleha" teaches about Shogeg or Mezid...
(Rav Yehudah): If one did Yibum while sleeping he did not acquire her. "Yevamah Yavo Aleha" - he must intend for her.
Question (Beraisa): Whether he is awake or asleep (he acquires her).
Answer: Rather, it should say 'whether she is awake or asleep.'
Question (Beraisa): Whether he is awake or asleep; whether she is awake or asleep.
Answer: The case is, he is dozing.
Question: What is the case of dozing?
Answer (Rav Ashi): He is asleep but not (fully) asleep, and awake but not awake. If one calls to him, he responds, but cannot give an answer that requires reasoning. When one reminds him (what he heard), he remembers.
(Rabah): If one fell from the roof and had Bi'ah, he pays four payments of damages. If she is his Yevamah, he did not acquire her.
He pays Nezek (decrease in her earning potential), pain, sick leave, and medical costs, but not embarrassment.
One pays for embarrassment only if he intended.
(Rava): If one intended to stick his Ever in the wall and it landed in his Yevamah, he does not acquire her;
If he intended to stick it in an animal and it landed in his Yevamah, he acquires her, since he intended for a type of Bi'ah.
HA'ARA'AH IS CONSIDERED LIKE BI'AH [line 36]
(Mishnah): Whether he did only Ha'ara'ah...
(Ula): We know that Ha'ara'ah is considered like Bi'ah from "V'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Ishah Davah... Es Mekorah He'erah".
Question: This discusses a Nidah. What is the source for other Arayos?
Suggestion: We learn from Nidah.
Rejection: We cannot learn from Nidah, because it has a stringency. She is Metamei one who has Bi'ah with her!
Answer #1: We learn from Eshes Ach.
Question: "V'Ish Asher Yikach Es Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi" - is his brother's wife always a Nidah?!
Answer: Rather, she is like a Nidah. Just like one is liable for Nidah for Ha'ara'ah, also for Eshes Ach.
Objection: We cannot learn (all Arayos) from Eshes Ach, for this Isur can be increased. His brother can be Mekadesh 1000 women! (We could learn similar Arayos, e.g. Eshes Av.)
Answer #2: Rather, we learn from the sister of one's father or mother - "V'Ervas Achos Imcha va'Achos Avicha Lo Segaleh... Es She'eiro He'erah."
Objection: We cannot learn (Arayos that come from Kidushin) from there, for the Isur comes automatically (without Kidushin)!
Answer #3: We cannot learn from any one of these three sources. Perhaps we learn from two of them.
Suggestion #1: Let us learn from Eshes Ach and an aunt.
Rejection: Those are both forbidden because they are kin!
Suggestion #2: Let us learn from Nidah and an aunt.
Rejection: In both of those, the Isur comes automatically!
Conclusion: We learn from Nidah and Eshes Ach. One cannot challenge this!
Objection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Neither of these becomes permitted in the 'life' of the Oser (the cause of the Isur, i.e. while Dam Nidah is flowing or while the brother is alive). We cannot learn to Eshes Ish, who can become permitted (through a Get) in her husband's lifetime!
Criticism (Rav Acha mi'Difti): This connotes that a Nidah and Eshes Ach are forbidden in the life of the Oser, and afterwards they are permitted. However, a Nidah is Temei'ah for seven days even after the blood stops, and Eshes Ach is forbidden even after he dies (if he died with children! Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika's objection is valid, just his words are misleading - Ritva.)
Correction (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Rather, say that we cannot learn from Nidah and Eshes Ach because the Oser cannot permit them. A husband, who forbids his wife to marry others, can permit her!
Answer #4 (R. Yonah): "All these abominations" - the Torah equates all Arayos to Nidah;
Just like Ha'ara'ah is like Bi'ah regarding Nidah, also regarding all Arayos.
Question: If so, why did the Torah need to write Nidah regarding Eshes Ach?
Answer: This teaches Rav Huna's law:
Question (Rav Huna): Where is a Yevamah hinted at in the Torah?
Objection: Yevamah is explicit in the Torah!
Correction: Rather, where does the Torah hint that a Yevamah is forbidden in the life of her husband?
Answer: This is logical. The Torah permits her after he dies, implying that she is forbidden during his lifetime!
Question: Perhaps after he dies Yibum is a Mitzvah, and in his lifetime it is optional!
Alternatively, perhaps she is forbidden during his lifetime due to a Mitzvas Aseh (Yibum should be after death, not before), and she is considered only Chayavei Aseh!
Answer - Question: "Es Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi" - is Eshes Ach always a Nidah?!
Answer: Rather, she is like a Nidah. Even though she is permitted later, when she is forbidden, she is Chayavei Kerisos. Also Eshes Ach, even though she is permitted later, when she is forbidden, she is Chayavei Kerisos.
Question: Why did the Torah need to write Ha'ara'ah regarding aunts?
Answer: This teaches like Ravina asked:
Question (Ravina): If a man did Ha'ara'ah to a man, what is the law?
Objection: This is obvious! Regarding Mishkav Zachar it says "like one lies with a woman" (in which Ha'ara'ah is considered like Bi'ah)!
Correction: Rather, if a man did Ha'ara'ah to an animal, what is the law?
Answer (Rava): Since Ha'ara'ah is not needed regarding aunts, since we know the law from R. Yonah's Hekesh, we use it to teach about Ha'ara'ah to an animal.
Question: Bestiality is Chayavei Misas Beis Din. Why is it learned from the sister of parents, which is only Chayavei Kerisus? Ha'ara'ah should have been written regarding Chayavei Misos, and we would learn Chayavei Misos from Chayavei Misos!
Answer: Since the entire verse (of aunts) is free to be expounded, also this was written in it.
THE ISUR OF ACHOS AVIV [line 28]
Question: What is expounded from this verse ("V'Ervas Achos Imcha va'Achos Avicha")?
Answer (Beraisa): "Ervas Achos Avicha" (this is a different verse) - your father's paternal and maternal sister are forbidden.
Question: Perhaps only the paternal sister is forbidden!
Suggestion #1: Just like the Isur Achoso (his own sister) applies to paternal and maternal sisters, also here.
Suggestion #2: Or, perhaps we should learn from Dodaso (his father's brother's wife). That Isur applies only to a paternal brother!
Decision: We should learn from the more similar case.
Suggestion #1: It is better to learn from Achoso, since this Isur comes by itself (like the Isur of aunts), but Dodaso is forbidden through Kidushin.
Suggestion #2: Or, we should learn from Dodaso, who is a relative of his father, rather than from his sister, who is his own relative!
Answer: "V'Ervas... va'Achos Avicha" (this verse is extra) forbids both his paternal and maternal sister.
"V'Ervas Achos Imcha..." - both her paternal and maternal sister.
Question: Why did the Torah need to teach this about the father's sister and the mother's sister?
Answer (R. Avahu): Had the Torah taught so only regarding a father's sister, one might have thought that this is because lineage comes through the father, but only the paternal sister of a mother is forbidden;
Had the Torah taught so only regarding a mother's sister, one might have thought that this is because there is no doubt about who is his mother, but since we are not certain who is his father, only the maternal sister is forbidden!
Question: The Tana knew that Dodaso applies only to the wife of the father' paternal brother. What is his source?
Answer (Rava): He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Dodo-Dodo".
It says here "Ervas Dodo (his uncle)", like it says in the Parashah of redeeming an Eved Ivri "Dodo... Yig'alenu". Just like there it refers only to his father's paternal brother, also here.
Question: How do we know that there it refers to a paternal brother?
Answer: "From his family" - only paternal relatives are called family.
THE ISUR OF ACHOS ISHTO [line 44]
Question (Mishnah): They told a man "Your wife died" and he married her paternal sister. They told him "she (your new wife) died", and he married her maternal sister. "She died", and he married her paternal sister. "She died", and he married her maternal sister.
In truth, all are alive. He is permitted to his first, third and fifth wives. If he dies, Yibum or Chalitzah of one of these three exempt the Tzaros. He is forbidden to his second and fourth wives; Yibum or Chalitzah of either of them does not exempt the Tzaros.
If he had Bi'ah with the second after the first died (before he married the third), he is permitted to the second and fourth; Yibum or Chalitzah of either of these exempt the Tzaros; he is forbidden to the third and fifth.
Inference: This shows that Achos Ishto is forbidden, both paternal and maternal. What is the source for this?