Yevamot 19: The Levirate Bond; Disagreement About Rape

The Gemara questions differences in our rabbis' analyses of specific situations where there are multiple brothers marrying multiple sisters (or other close family members). They are concerned about the strength of the zika, the levirate bond.  Is yibum, levirate marriage, the same as any other marriage, or not?  If the zika is substantial, how can we easily exempt a woman from yibum, regardless of the  situation? If marriage is assumed and almost automatic for a yevama and her yibum, shouldn't chalitza or intercourse always be necessary to affirm or finalize the status of the relationship?  How could there possibly be situations where a brother-in-law is available, but a yevama is free to marry another man of her choice?  

The rabbis walk through and around this issue with different examples.  Usually they include cases where a third brother is born - when he is born before the marriage of his older brother(s), he has different obligations regarding yivam than when he is born after that marriage.  This is discussed using the idea of coexistence: did he coexist with the yevama? The rabbis question standing examples from past considerations, wondering whether Rabbi Shimon might have been referring to four men marrying two women each, two men marrying four women each, or some other configuration.  

What held my attention most in today's daf were two discreet items.  First, we were introduced to the principle of "v'lo zo af zo", Not only this but also that.  This style is used in the Mishna to express that when a law applies to an obvious case, it applies just as much to a less obvious case.  This concept is helpful as I continue to understand the thinking of the rabbis as they grapple with the text using their own internally understood methods.

Secondly, mention is made of  a yevama who is raped by her yivam.  Because yibum is considered to be the same as marriage, most rules apply: intercourse, whether or not it is consensual, results in a legal marriage.  But in 'regular' marriage, the woman must consent to her betrothal, if not the marriage.  So why not in this situation?  Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi calls this marriage legal. However, the rabbis disagree.  They decide that a non-consensual betrothal in yibum is "ineffectual".  The rabbis use the halacha that ensures women consent to betrothal in other marriages to prove their opinion on the importance of consent in yibum.  Rabbi Yehuda NaNasi, however, cites a halacha that allows rape to determine marriage to justify rape determining betrothal in yibum.

Again, these arguments - so legal, so logical - seem to be without emotion.  But of course they incited emotional responses!  How did these men feel when the women that they loved were subject to such hateful behaviour? The text only hints at reflections of the rabbis' thoughts about their wives' experiences and feelings.