How is one to understand, 'Both under compulsion', taught at the School of R. Hiyya? — When, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and idolaters seized him, brought him and her into close contact and he cohabited with her. Whence these words? — From what our Rabbis taught: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her is a commandment. Another interpretation: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will. But, surely, deduction has already been made from this text that it is a commandment! — That it is a commandment may be inferred from And if the man like not which implies that if he likes he contracts the levirate marriage; so that the other text may serve the purpose of deducing, 'whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will'. Another [Baraitha] taught: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, in the natural way; and take her, even though in an unnatural way; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, only the cohabitation consummates her marriage, but neither money nor deed can consummate her marriage; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, even against her will. The Master said: 'Another interpretation: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her whether in error etc.' But, surely, deduction has been made from this text that it must be in the natural way! — This may be deduced from To raise up unto his brother a name, [i.e.,] only where a name is raised up; so that the other text may be employed for the deduction, 'whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.' [To turn to] the main text. 'Rab Judah ruled that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law, for Scripture stated, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, only when the cohabitation was intentional'. But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep! — Read: Whether she was awake or asleep. But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep; or whether she was awake or asleep! — This statement refers to one who was in a state of drowsiness. What state of drowsiness is hereby to be understood? R. Ashi replied: When a man is half asleep and half awake as, for instance, when he answers on being addressed but is unable to give any sensible reply, and when he is reminded of anything he can recall it. [To turn to] the main text. Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof, and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity for four things, and if the woman was his sister-in-law no kinyan is thereby constituted. [He must pay her for] bodily injury, for pain inflicted, for enforced unemployment, and for medical expenses; but he is not liable to indemnify her for indignity, for a Master said, 'One is not liable to pay any indemnity for indignity unless it was intentionally caused'. Raba said: If a levir's intention was to shoot against a wall and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, no kinyan is thereby constituted; if he intended, however, to shoot at a beast and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, kinyan is thereby constituted, since some sort of intercourse had been intended. WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST … STAGE. 'Ulla stated: Whence is it proved that the first stage of contact is pentateuchally forbidden? — It is said, And if a man shall lie with a menstruant woman, and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath made naked her fountain it is deduced from this text that the first stage of contact is pentateuchally forbidden. Thus the case of a menstruant has been arrived at; whence that of other forbidden unions? And were you to suggest that [their case] might be inferred from that of the menstruant, [it might be retorted] the menstruant is different since she causes the defilement of the man who cohabited with her. — Rather the deduction is made from 'a brother's wife' concerning whom it is written, And if a man shall take his brother's wife, she is a menstruant. Now is a brother's wife always menstruant? But [the meaning is] 'like a menstruant as with a menstruant the first stage constitutes the offence, so does the first stage constitute an offence with a brother's wife. But a brother's wife [it may be objected] is different since it is in his power to increase the number, for should he wish, he could go on betrothing as many as a thousand! — The deduction is rather made from the 'father's sister' and 'the mother's sister'. For it is written in Scriptures And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister, for he hath made naked his near kin. But it may be objected that a father's sister and a mother's sister come under a different category, since the prohibition in their case is natural. — If it cannot be deduced from one category then let it be deduced from the two categories. From which however shall deduction be made? Were it made from a brother's wife and a father's sister and a mother's sister, [it might be objected that] those stand in a different category, since the prohibition of these is due to relationship! — Deduction is rather made from the menstruant and a father's sister and a mother's sister. Those however [it may be objected] are in a different category since the prohibition is natural! — The deduction is rather made from the menstruant and a brother's wife; since no objection can be raised [against the two]. R. Aha son of R. Ika demurred: A menstruant and a brother's wife are different, since marriage with them cannot be permitted during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition! Would you, then, apply [their restrictions] to a married woman who might be permitted to marry even during the lifetime of the man who caused her prohibition? Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Are a menstruant and a brother's wife forbidden to marry only during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition but permitted after that? With a menstruant, surely,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜ