Coerced to have sex TB Yevamot 53

Today with daf TB Yevamot 53 we finish the fifth chapter of our massekhet and begin the sixth chapter. Before we begin studying the Mishnah on our daf we have to know a basic halakhic difference between a human being and an animal.

Animals are considered ordinary or not dangerous (tam- תָּם). If the animal is a repeat offender, it is then considered warned (muad-  מוּעָד) Let’s take the example of an ox. When an ox causes damage by goring another animal, it is considered a tam for the first three times it gores. After the third time, it is considered a muad. For the first three gorings, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay only half the damages done. When the ox becomes a muad, the owner must pay full damages from his best property because the owner did not guard his ox now knowing that it is muad.

Human beings always know the difference between right and wrong; consequently, they are always forewarned. In the words of the Mishnah “The legal status of a person is always (adam muad leolam- אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם ) that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep” (TB Baba Kama 2:6, Sefaria.org, translation)

The sixth chapter of TB Yevamot begins to explore how the halakhic principle “a person is always that of one forewarned” applies when a yavam and yevamah have intimate relations even when the intention is not for the purpose of levirate marriage, yibum.

“MISHNA: One who had intercourse with his yevama, whether unwittingly, i.e., he thought he was having intercourse with someone else, or intentionally, i.e., he knew she was his yevama and nevertheless had intercourse with her without intent to perform levirate marriage; whether due to coercion or willingly; even if he was unwitting and her participation was intentional, his participation was intentional and she was unwitting, he was coerced and she was not coerced, or she was coerced and he was not coerced; both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse has thereby acquired his yevama…” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara has to explain how a person in our situation could be coerced. The first suggestion is rejected. “What are the circumstances the mishna is referring to when it mentions a man who was coerced? If we say that it is when gentiles coerced him by threatening to kill him if he did not have intercourse with her and he therefore had intercourse with her, didn’t Rava say that there is no such thing as coercion of a man to have intercourse with a woman with whom relations are forbidden, because there is no erection of the male organ without intent? Consequently, even if he acted due to the threat, his action is considered intentional.”

The second suggestion is also rejected. “Rather, the mishna must be referring to one who was sleeping and became erect, and his yevama drew him onto herself. However, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that a sleeping man has not acquired his yevama, as he did not intend to perform the act of intercourse at all?”

The third suggestion is rejected as well. “Rather, the mishna was referring to one who was inserted into his yevama by accident. But didn’t Rabba say: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another: Injury, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as he did not intend to perform the act, and if she is his yevama, he has not acquired her in this manner.”

Finally the fourth suggestion is accepted as a real possibility no matter how unlikely the scenario is. “Rather, it is a case where he intended to have intercourse with his wife and became erect, and his yevama forcefully grabbed hold of him and he had intercourse with her. The Gemara further asks: If so, what are the circumstances of the case when both of them were coerced that was mentioned by the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he intended to have intercourse with his wife, and gentiles grabbed hold of him and pressed him and his yevama against each other, and he thereby had intercourse with her.”  (All the above quotes are from dappim 53b-54b, Sefaria.org translation)