לרפואת מיכה חיים בן שרה בתוך שח"י
The Gemara [Yevamos 54a] says:
The Gemara [Yevamos 54a] says:
תניא אידך יבמה יבא עליה כדרכה ולקחה שלא כדרכה ויבם ביאה גומרת בה ואין כסף ושטר גומרין בה ויבמה בעל כרחה ד"א יבמה יבא עליה בין בשוגג כו'
It is taught in another baraita that the phrase: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” indicates that levirate marriage has been performed if they engage in typical sexual intercourse. The next phrase, “and take her,” includes even atypical, i.e., anal, sexual intercourse. The concluding phrase of the verse, “and consummate the levirate marriage,” indicates that sexual intercourse completes her acquisition, but money and a marriage document do not complete her acquisition to him as his fully betrothed wife, in contrast to the regular halakhot of marriage. By emphasizing “and consummate the levirate marriage with her,” the verse teaches that he acquires her even if he acted against her will. Alternatively: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” indicates that levirate marriage has occurred whether the parties acted unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to coercion or willingly.
והא אפיקתי' לכדרכה ההוא (דברים כה, ז) מלהקים לאחיו שם נפקא במקום שמקים שם וכי אתא קרא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון
The Gemara asks: Didn’t you derive from this phrase that levirate marriage has been performed if they engage in typical sexual intercourse? How can it also indicate that it does not matter what the intentions of the two parties were during the act of intercourse? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from a different verse: “To establish a name for his brother” (Deuteronomy 25:7), which indicates that intercourse must occur in the place where he establishes a name, i.e., where it can lead to childbirth. Therefore, when the verse cited above came, it indicated that levirate marriage has occurred whether the parties acted unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to coercion or willingly.
It would appear that these drashos aren't just chiddushim to include bias shogeg or biah she-lo ki-darka but rather they teach that there are two distinct dinim in the act of Yibum!
1] Yibum is a form of Kiddushin where the Yavam activates the kinyan as a result of his action. This din is derived from "ולקחה לו לאשה" meaning that the Yavam performs the kinyan ["ליקוחין"] which must be done with ביאה and not kesef or shtar. The Maharik [Shoresh 139] writes explicitly that there is a Kiddushin aspect to Yibum.
2] There is another din of Yibum which is not due to the actions of the Yavam but rather is a continuation of the Ishus [marriage] of the dead person. This is implied by the Rambam who writes at the beginning of Hilchos Yibum: Scriptural law does not require a man to consecrate ["li-kadesh"] his yevamah, for she is his wife that heaven acquired for him. [All that is necessary] is that he cohabit with her. Her deceased husband's estate is responsible for her marriage contract.
In Yevamos 39 it says that the reason that the late husband's estate is responsible for her marriage contract is that she is the wife that heaven acquired for him [and therefore the Yavam may sell his property because it was never משועבד (how do you say that in English?😳) to this marriage].
The Nafka Minah between these two dinim that for the din of Yibum vis a vis ולקחה לו לאשה, it makes sense that we require the דעת יבם just as we require דעת בעל in the context of Kiddushin. But with regard to the din Yibum of אשה הקנו לו מן השמים which is a continuation of the אישות of the מת and is not a מעשה ליקוחין of the Yavam - we don't require דעת יבם but automatically she is קנויה לו מן השמים.
Another Nafka Minah: For the din Yibum of the woman that הקנו לו מן השמים we require ביאה כדרכה. The tachlis of the din יבמה יבוא עליה is to להקים שם לאחיו - establish a name for his brother, so we need ביאה דרך הקמת שם - which is ביאה כדרכו [can't have a child if it is not כדרכו...]. But for the din of Yibum of ולקחה לו לאשה it makes sense that ביאה שלא כדרכה is enough as every Kiddushin where ביאה שלא כדרכה is enough [Rambam Ishus 3-5].
According to this, the Gemara in Yevamos we quoted is very precise. That specifically from the pasuk of יבמה יבוא עליה we learn the ביאת שוגג acquires, because in this parsha we don't require דעת יבם and the אישות is a continuation of the אישות of the dead brother. But from the pasuk of ולקחה לו לאשה we don't find that we learn that ביאת שוגג acquires. On the contrary, since it is a מעשה ליקוחין of the יבם we require his דעת. On the other hand, the chiddush that he is קונה even with ביאה שלא כדרכה is specifically from the pasuk of ולקחה לו לאשה, since it is a מעשה ליקוחין of the יבם like standard Kiddushin where ביאה שלא כדרכה is sufficient. However, according to the pasuk of יבמה יבוא עליה we would require ביאה כדרכה as it says in the Gemara that כדרכה is derived from להקים לאחיו שם. This יבמה יבוא עליה in order להקים לאחיו שם MUST be כדרכה.
[מתורת הגאון רבי מרדכי אליפנט ז"ל]
The Nafka Minah between these two dinim that for the din of Yibum vis a vis ולקחה לו לאשה, it makes sense that we require the דעת יבם just as we require דעת בעל in the context of Kiddushin. But with regard to the din Yibum of אשה הקנו לו מן השמים which is a continuation of the אישות of the מת and is not a מעשה ליקוחין of the Yavam - we don't require דעת יבם but automatically she is קנויה לו מן השמים.
Another Nafka Minah: For the din Yibum of the woman that הקנו לו מן השמים we require ביאה כדרכה. The tachlis of the din יבמה יבוא עליה is to להקים שם לאחיו - establish a name for his brother, so we need ביאה דרך הקמת שם - which is ביאה כדרכו [can't have a child if it is not כדרכו...]. But for the din of Yibum of ולקחה לו לאשה it makes sense that ביאה שלא כדרכה is enough as every Kiddushin where ביאה שלא כדרכה is enough [Rambam Ishus 3-5].
According to this, the Gemara in Yevamos we quoted is very precise. That specifically from the pasuk of יבמה יבוא עליה we learn the ביאת שוגג acquires, because in this parsha we don't require דעת יבם and the אישות is a continuation of the אישות of the dead brother. But from the pasuk of ולקחה לו לאשה we don't find that we learn that ביאת שוגג acquires. On the contrary, since it is a מעשה ליקוחין of the יבם we require his דעת. On the other hand, the chiddush that he is קונה even with ביאה שלא כדרכה is specifically from the pasuk of ולקחה לו לאשה, since it is a מעשה ליקוחין of the יבם like standard Kiddushin where ביאה שלא כדרכה is sufficient. However, according to the pasuk of יבמה יבוא עליה we would require ביאה כדרכה as it says in the Gemara that כדרכה is derived from להקים לאחיו שם. This יבמה יבוא עליה in order להקים לאחיו שם MUST be כדרכה.
[מתורת הגאון רבי מרדכי אליפנט ז"ל]
