Yevamot

IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR [and] GAVE etc. One can well understand why it was necessary [to lay down a rule  where] THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR; since it might have been assumed that provision was to be made  for a ma'amar that followed halizah  as a preventive measure against a ma'amar that preceded halizah,  it was consequently necessary to tell us that no such preventive measure was to be made. What need, however, was there for the ruling  where THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH AND THEN GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE?  — Read, then, according to your own view, the final clause, IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA' AMAR or if he cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE. One can well understand [it might be argued here also] why it was necessary [to lay down a ruling  where] the levir cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE; since it might have been assumed that provision was to be made for a divorce that followed cohabitation  as a preventive measure against a divorce that preceded cohabitation,  it was consequently necessary to tell us that no such preventive measure was required. But what need was there [for the ruling  where] HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR?  But [the fact is that] as he taught, IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR,  he also taught: IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR. And since he desired to teach the rule where 'he cohabited with her and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE' he also taught, IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH and then GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE. IF IT TOOK PLACE  etc. Our Mishnah cannot be reconciled with the opinion of the following Tanna: For it was taught: Abba Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem reported in the name of R. Meir, 'Alike in the case of cohabitation or of halizah, [if it took place] first,  no act that follows has any validity; but if it occurred in the middle  or at the end,  something valid still remains'. On this question, in fact, three different views have been expressed. The first Tanna is of the opinion that in the case of cohabitation, where a preventive measure is required,  a preventive measure was made,  but in the case of halizah where no preventive measure is called for  no preventive measure was made. R. Nehemiah, on the other hand, is of the opinion that in the case of cohabitation also no preventive measure is called for.  And as to your possible objection that provision should be made where cohabitation followed a letter of divorce as a preventive measure against cohabitation that followed a halizah,  [it may be replied that] as halizah is a Pentateuchal law it is well known.  And as to your objection that provision should be made where cohabitation followed a ma'amar as a preventive measure against cohabitation that followed another cohabitation, [it may also be replied that] as kinyan by cohabitation is a Pentateuchal law it is certainly well known.  And Abba Jose b. Hanan,  again, holds the same view as the Rabbis  who ordained a preventive measure in the case of cohabitation,  and he made similar provision in the case of halizah as a preventive measure against cohabitation. MISHNAH. IF A MAN COHABITED WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE,  WHETHER IN ERROR  OR IN PRESUMPTION,  WHETHER UNDER COMPULSION OR OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, EVEN IF HE ACTED IN ERROR AND SHE IN PRESUMPTION, OR HE IN PRESUMPTION AND SHE IN ERROR, OR HE UNDER COMPULSION AND SHE NOT UNDER COMPULSION, OR SHE UNDER COMPULSION AND HE NOT UNDER COMPULSION, WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST, OR ALSO THE FINAL STAGE OF CONTACT, HE CONSTITUTES THEREBY A KINYAN,  IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE  OF THE INTERCOURSE. SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE  WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, OR WITH ANY OF THOSE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO MARRY HIM AS, FOR INSTANCE, A WIDOW WITH A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH WITH A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH  WITH AN ISRAELITE OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WITH A BASTARD OR A NATHIN, HE HAS THEREBY RENDERED HER INELIGIBLE,  IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE INTERCOURSE. GEMARA. What is the purport of EVEN? — [The formula of] 'It is not necessary' is thereby to be understood: It is not necessary [to state that a kinyan is constituted where] he acted in error  and her intention was the performance of the commandment  or where he acted in presumption and her intention was the performance of the commandment,  but even if he acted in error and she in presumption,  or  he in presumption and she in error, so that the intention of neither of them was the fulfilment of the commandment,  a kinyan is nevertheless effected. R. Hiyya taught: Even if both acted in error, both in presumption, or both under compulsion.  How is one to understand the action UNDER COMPULSION in our Mishnah? If it be suggested [that] idolaters compelled him to cohabit with her, surely [it may be pointed out] Raba stated: There can be no compulsion in sexual intercourse since erection depends entirely on the will! But when he slept?  Surely Rab Judah ruled