Most Achronim learn the Gemara as follows: the argument in our Gemara is that if an act was done ENTIRELY B'ones, but in the middle of the act she starts to want to do it willingly (but she still is forced and cannot back out), the question is then ONLY whether she is permitted to her husband. Meaning, that for all other purposes she is still considered forced since sha cannot back-out and her willingness doesn't change that, but to be permitted to her husband is different based on the Maharik that explains a Rambam that M'aala M'aal is said even if technically she is an O'nes as long as in her mind she is willing. The main source for this is Rashi in 3b that seems to say that if she is forced but wants in her mind - then is not permitted to her husband.
The Bais Yaakov, however, learns that the issue in the gemara is EVEN if the ACT itself was switched from being forced to B'ratzon, still according to Rava she is permitted to her husband since in the beginning of the act she was forced. (see rav elyashiv and Bircas Avrohom). My only add-on to this is that it would seem that Tosfos in Bava Kama 41a that R' Akiva Eiger brings seem to hold like the Bais Yaakov, as he says that in that case there with the Ox the reason there is no P'tur of T'chila B'ones (see case there) is that the O'nes was BEFORE the beginning of the B'iah, it Mashma that if, however, the beginning of the B'iah was B'ones, then it would not change the consequence EVEN if that changed in the middle. see there.
No comments:
Post a Comment