Today's Daf Yomi
June 22, 2022 | 讻状讙 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘
-
This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.
-
Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".
Yevamot 107
Today’s daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of her son’s, Yosef Yeshaya’s, marriage yesterday to Rivkah Cohen. “May they be zocheh to build a bayit neeman b鈥檡israel, a binyan adei ad.”
Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding mi’un (refusal) on five different issues: Can a girl only do mi’un only from engagement or also from marriage? Can she “refuse” the yabam also if her husband dies? Does it need to be done in her husband’s presence? It is necessary to do it in a court? Can she do it to several different husbands or only one? Four different explanations are brought to explain why Beit Shamai holds that one cannot do mi’un after marriage. Is it due to concern that one may think one can do a marriage upon condition? Or because one does not want to engage in intercourse when in the end it will turn out to be znut, as they will retroactively not be married if she refuses him. Or because if he knows she may refuse him, he may use up even part of the principle of her assets she brings into the marriage. Or because he will not want to marry her out of concern that all the expenses on the wedding feast will go to waste if she later refuses. According to Beit Hillel, she can also do mi’un聽to the yabam. Rabbi Oshaya and Ulla disagree about whether her mi’un to a yabam can undo the zika or can only undo ma’amar. The reasoning behind each approach is explained and a difficulty is raised against each but is resolved. There is a three-way debate regarding the ramifications of refusing her yabam – is she forbidden now to do yibum with him, forbidden also to all the brothers, or permitted even to him? What is the reason behind each approach? Beit Hillel brings an actual case of Pishon the camel driver, who was refused not in his presence in order to disprove Beit Shamai’s opinion. But they explain that he dealt with her inappropriately and therefore the rabbis were permitted to deal with him inappropriately and permit refusal even not in his presence. Regarding the debate about whether or not a court is required, what exactly are the different opinions? There is a debate regarding how to understand the last line in the Mishna regarding Beit Shamai’s opinion about whether she refuses once, when can she remarry and what does she need to do before she remarries.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝-讬讜诪讬-诇谞砖讬诐): Play in new window | Download
诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪诪讗谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗专讜住讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗专讜住讜转 讜谞砖讜讗讜转
MISHNA: The Sages decreed that in the case of a minor girl whose father died, her mother or brothers may marry her off. However, such a marriage does not have the same legal status as the marriage of an adult. Therefore, if the minor regrets having married, she is allowed to make a declaration of refusal to her husband, thereby annulling the marital bond. The Sages disagreed with regard to the details of this halakha: Beit Shammai say: Only betrothed girls may refuse. A girl may refuse, upon reaching adulthood, to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father. But Beit Hillel say that both betrothed and fully married girls may refuse.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘注诇 讜诇讗 讘讬讘诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘注诇 讜讘讬讘诐
Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not at her yavam. In such a situation, she must perform 岣litza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say: It may be directed at her husband or her yavam.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉
Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in his presence or in his absence. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in court. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in court, or not in court.
讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 驻注诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讛驻拽专 讗诇讗 诪诪讗谞转 讜诪诪转谞转 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转诪讗谉 讜转谞砖讗
Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: She may refuse as long as she is a minor, even four or five times if her relatives married her off again to another man after each refusal. Beit Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not to be treated with disregard and should not be passed from one man to another. Rather, she refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转谞讗讬 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜讗讬 谞砖讜讗讛 转诪讗谉 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 讬砖 转谞讗讬 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the reason of Beit Shammai for ruling that a married minor girl may not perform refusal? It is because there are no conditions with regard to marriage. Although a betrothal can be conditional, the condition is nullified upon consummation of the marriage. Likewise, marriage cannot be conditional, as the sexual relationship is not subject to conditions. And if a married minor girl would refuse, others may mistakenly think this to be a condition with regard to the marriage of an adult woman, and they will come to say that there can be a condition with regard to marriage.
谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转谞讗讬 讘讞讜驻讛
The Gemara asks: But what is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not yet engage in sexual intercourse? The marriage goes into effect even though it has not yet been consummated. The Gemara replies: There are no conditions with regard to a wedding canopy, i.e., the wedding ceremony.
诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉
The Gemara asks further: But what is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband to be married, so that she was considered married even before the marriage ceremony took place? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances, and no marriages are conditional. It follows that refusal cannot take place once a minor girl is married.
讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚谞讬砖讜讗讬 拽讟谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 谞讬谞讛讜 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转
And with regard to Beit Hillel, what is their reasoning? It is known that marriage of a minor girl is by rabbinic law, and therefore no one would confuse this type of marriage with an adult marriage. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Beit Shammai鈥檚 reason is that a man would not readily render his sexual act licentious sexual intercourse. If he had intercourse with the minor girl and the marriage was later retroactively annulled by her refusal, then his sexual act was outside the context of marriage and is regarded as licentious.
谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬讛讜讬 讞讜驻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转
The Gemara asks: What is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not engage in sexual intercourse, as this reason would not apply to such a case? The Gemara answers: It would not be satisfactory for him, i.e., the husband, if his would be a forbidden marriage canopy, because if the marriage is later annulled by her refusal, he will have stood under the marriage canopy with a woman who was not permitted to him. The Gemara asks: What is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances. And how do Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai鈥檚 reasoning? Since there is both betrothal and a marriage contract in this case, no one will come to say that his sexual act was licentious intercourse. The primary reason Beit Shammai prohibit refusal after marriage is because it would render the sexual relationship of the marriage a licentious one. Beit Hillel do not regard sexual activity under such circumstances as licentious, so there is also no stigma attached to having stood under a wedding canopy with a girl who later refuses the marriage.
专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讬 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讜讗讛 转诪讗谉 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 诪讬谞讛 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 诇诪讬驻拽 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讚专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专转 转诪讗谉 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞 诇讛讜 住讘专 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬讬爪讬 诇讛 拽专讜讘讬讛 讜诪驻拽讬 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛
Rav Pappa said: The reasoning for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is because of the profits from the property she brings into the marriage, and the reasoning for Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is also because of the profits from her property. He explains: The reasoning for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is because of the profits from her property, for if you say that a married minor girl may perform refusal, then the husband of that minor might seize those profits from her and consume them, as ultimately she stands to leave him if she refuses him later. In the meantime, he will try to extract as much profit as he can. And Beit Hillel say: On the contrary: Since you say she may refuse, he will seek to improve her property. He will think: if I do not do so, her relatives will advise her to refuse him and they will take her from him.
专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 讘住注讜讚讛 讜诪驻住讬讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讻讚讬 讚诇讬驻讜拽 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诇讗 讚讗讬砖讜转
Rava said: This is the reasoning of Beit Shammai: A man will not bother to make a marriage feast and then lose it. If the wife is entitled to refuse him even after the marriage, the man will not be willing to marry a minor and bear the expenses of the wedding, when it is uncertain that she will stay with him. And Beit Hillel reason as follows: The marriage is convenient for both of them even if it is nullified later, so as to generate publicity about them that they are married.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘注诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪诪讗谞转 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讗诪专 讚诪讚注转讛 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讝讬拽讛 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诇讗 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗
搂 It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not her yavam. If she wishes to refuse her yavam, she must perform 岣litza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say that refusal may be directed at her husband or her yavam. Rabbi Oshaya said: A minor yevama may direct a refusal against a levirate betrothal but she may not direct a refusal against his levirate bond. Before the yavam betroths her, she cannot nullify the levirate bond by refusal. Rav 岣sda said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Oshaya? In the case of levirate betrothal, which is consensual, she can nullify it. But with regard to the levirate bond, which applies to her even against her will, she cannot nullify it.
讜讛专讬 讘讬讗讛 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛
The Gemara asks: But the consummation of the levirate bond may be against her will
讜诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讗诇讗 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讗诪专 讚讛讜讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讝讬拽讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 专诪讗 注诇讛 诇讗 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪诪讗谞转 讗祝 诇讝讬拽转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬 拽诪讗讬 拽讗 注拽专讗
and she can nullify it, as she can subsequently refuse the yavam with whom she entered into levirate marriage. Rather, the reasoning is: With regard to consummation of the levirate marriage and to levirate betrothal, both of which he performs, she can nullify them. But with regard to the levirate bond, which the Merciful One imposes upon her at the death of her first husband, she cannot nullify it. Whereas Ulla said: She may direct her refusal even to his levirate bond. What is the reason? By refusing, she nullifies the original marriage, rather than the levirate bond that resulted from the death of her husband.
讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讗诪讗讬 转诪讗谉 讛砖转讗 讜转注拽专讬谞讛讜 诇谞讬砖讜讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讜转转讬讬讘诐 爪专转讛 爪专转 注专讜讛 砖讗谞讬 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 诪讜转专转 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讘讬讜
Rava raised an objection to the statement made by Ulla. It is taught in a baraita: In any case of levirate marriage in which a minor girl is forbidden to the yavam and she could perform refusal but does not perform refusal, her rival wife performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Rava continues: Why? Let her perform refusal now and nullify the first marriage retroactively, so that the so-called rival wife was never really a rival wife of a forbidden relative at all, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: A rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, due to a rabbinic decree, as Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught in a baraita: A minor girl who refuses her husband is permitted to his father, because the marriage was annulled and she is no longer his daughter-in-law. But one who refuses a yavam is forbidden to his father.
讗诇诪讗 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻讻诇转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻爪专转 讘转讜
Evidently, at the time when she happens before her yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be his father鈥檚 daughter-in-law. Since people would not understand that her refusal later on would annul her first marriage, the Sages decreed that the father-in-law may no longer marry her. Here, too, in a case, for example, of the rival wife of a girl who was married to her uncle, since at the time she happened before the girl鈥檚 father for levirate marriage she appears to be his daughter鈥檚 rival wife, the Sages decreed that even if the girl refuses her original marriage, the rival wife is forbidden to the girl鈥檚 father.
讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘注诇转 讛讙讟 讘注诇转 讛讙讟 诇讗讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转住专讗 诇讛 诇讞讚 讗讬转住专讗 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗
搂 Rav said: A minor girl who refuses this yavam who married her in levirate marriage is forbidden to that yavam, his brother, just as it is in a case concerning a yevama who has received a bill of divorce from one of her yevamin. Is it not so that since the yevama who has received a bill of divorce is forbidden to one of them, i.e., the one who gave her the divorce, she is forbidden to all of them? Here too, it is no different.
讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 讚诪讬讗 诇讘注诇转 讛讙讟 讘注诇转 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛 讛讻讗 讛讬讗 拽注讘讚讗 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专讛 诇讗 专注讬谞讗 讘讱 讜诇讗 爪讘讬谞讗 讘讱 讘讱 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 专注讬谞讗 讛讗 讘讞讘专讱 专注讬谞讗
And Shmuel said: If she refused this yavam, she is permitted to that one, and it is not comparable to a yevama who has received a bill of divorce. For in the case of the yevama who has received a bill of divorce, it is he who performed the act of giving the bill of divorce to her, and he thereby renders her forbidden to his brothers as well. Here, she is performing an act on him, as she says: I do not desire you and I do not want you, indicating: It is you whom I do not desire, but I may desire your fellow.
专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜 诇讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜 讘讞讚 讬讘诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讛讻讗 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬谉 诪讬讗讜谉 诇讞爪讬 讝讬拽讛
Rav Asi said: If she refuses this yavam she is permitted even to him if she changes her mind. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, who said: She cannot refuse his levirate bond, and since the bond still exists and is not dissolved by her refusal, she is consequently permitted to engage in sexual relations with him to consummate it. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Asi鈥檚 opinion is consistent with that of Ulla, that refusal of a levirate bond is effective. In the case of one yavam who had no additional brothers, she can indeed nullify the levirate bond. However, here, we are dealing with two yevamin, and there cannot be refusal of half a levirate bond. Since she refuses only one yavam, her status as a yevama remains intact, the levirate bond remains intact, and she is permitted to consummate the levirate bond even with the one she initially refused.
讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讞讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 诪讗谉 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗住讬
The Gemara relates: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A minor girl who refuses this yavam is permitted to the brothers, and they did not agree with him. The Gemara asks: Who did not agree with him? Abaye said: It was Rav, as Rav claims that she is forbidden to the brothers. Rava said: It was Rabbi Oshaya, who claims that refusal cannot nullify the levirate bond. And some say: It was Rav Asi who did not agree with him, since according to Rav Asi she is permitted to marry even the brother she refused.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇讗 驻讬砖讜谉 讛讙诪诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讬砖讜谉 讛讙诪诇 讘诪讚讛 讻驻讜砖讛 诪讚讚 诇驻讬讻讱 诪讚讚讜 诇讜 讘诪讚讛 讻驻讜砖讛
搂 It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband, but Beit Hillel say: Either in his presence or in his absence. It is taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But didn鈥檛 the wife of Pishon the camel driver refuse him in his absence? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Pishon the camel driver measured using a defective standard, as he did not properly take care of the property she brought into the marriage, and therefore the Sages measured him with a defective standard [midda kefusha]. The marriage in that case was annulled by the Sages and the refusal was not treated as a standard refusal.
诪讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讬 驻砖讬讟讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞砖讜讗讛 诇讗 诪诪讗谞讛 转专讬 拽讬讟专讬 注讘讚讜 讘讬讛
The Gemara asks: Since he was consuming the profits from her property, it is obvious that it is speaking of a case where she was married, as a man is not entitled to the profits of the property of his betrothed. But didn鈥檛 Beit Shammai say that a married minor girl cannot perform refusal? The Gemara answers in accordance with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion: They tied him in two knots, i.e., the Sages punished Pishon in two ways: They permitted the refusal against him to take place in his absence, and they permitted it even though she was already married to him.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜讛诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 讘砖诇砖讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪讜诪讞讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇砖讛 讘注讬谞谉
搂 It was taught: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically before a court, but Beit Hillel say: It may take place either before a court, or not before a court. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Sanhedrin 2a): 岣litza and refusals take place in the presence of three judges. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabba said: It is Beit Shammai who say that refusal must take place specifically before a court. Abaye said: You can even say that it is Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel state only that we do not require expert judges for a refusal, but we do require three upright people, who constitute a court of laymen.
讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙
As it is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Before a court, and Beit Hillel say: Either before a court or not before a court, but both this school and that school concede that three people are required. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, validate a refusal in the presence of two. Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with that pair.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转诪讗谉 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讗谞讬 讘诪讬讗讜谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐
搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: She refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 she already refuse once? Why must she refuse again? Shmuel said: Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement means: The refusal does not take effect until she reaches majority and says: I wish to uphold my initial refusal, in case she changed her mind in the interim.
注讜诇讗 讗诪专 转专转讬 拽转谞讬 讗讜 砖转诪讗谉 讜转讙讚讬诇 讜转讬讗专住 讗讜 砖转诪讗谉 讜转谞砖讗 诇讗诇转专
Ulla said: Two different possibilities are taught in Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement: Either she should refuse, and then once she has matured she should become betrothed; or she should refuse and marry immediately. She should not refuse and then only become betrothed again. According to Beit Shammai, as a minor, she may not refuse again.
讘砖诇诪讗 注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转谞砖讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讗诪专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗
The Gemara challenges this: Granted, the explanation of Ulla is consistent with that which is taught: Until she reaches majority and marries. That is: Until she reaches majority, or until she marries. But according to the explanation of Shmuel, the mishna should have said: Until she reaches majority and says that she wishes to uphold the refusal. The Gemara comments: This phrase is difficult according to his explanation.
诪转谞讬壮 讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讗谉 讻诇 砖讛砖讬讗讜讛 讗诪讛 讜讗讞讬讛 诇讚注转讛 讛砖讬讗讜讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讗谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讻诇 转讬谞讜拽转 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖诪讜专 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讗谉
MISHNA: Who is a minor girl who needs to perform refusal in order to annul her marriage? Any minor whose mother or brother married her off with her consent. If they married her off without her consent, she need not refuse her husband at all and may leave her husband without a declaration of refusal. Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Any girl who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, safe does not need to refuse, as the Sages instituted marriage only for a girl old enough to understand what she is doing.
专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讻诪驻讜转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛
Rabbi Elazar says: The act of a minor girl is nothing, so that if a minor girl鈥檚 mother or brothers marry her off, the marriage is essentially invalid. Rather, her status is as though she were a seduced unmarried woman. Therefore, a minor daughter of a non-priest married to a priest may not eat teruma, and the minor daughter of a priest married to an Israelite may eat teruma.
专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗砖转讜 讻诇 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 讗砖转讜
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says otherwise: If there is any obstruction in the matter due to the man, it is as if she were his wife. If there is any obstruction in the matter that is not due to the man, it is as if she were not his wife. This statement will be explained in the Gemara.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讙讟 诪讬讗讜谉 诇讗 专注讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 爪讘讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜诇讬转 讗谞讗 讘注讬讗 诇讛转谞住讘讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚谞驻讬砖 讚讬讘讜专讗 讗诪专讬
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: At first, they would write a bill of refusal in this manner: I do not desire him, I do not want him, and I do not wish to be married to him. Once they saw that the text was too long, the Sages said:
-
This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.
-
Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Yevamot 107
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪诪讗谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗专讜住讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗专讜住讜转 讜谞砖讜讗讜转
MISHNA: The Sages decreed that in the case of a minor girl whose father died, her mother or brothers may marry her off. However, such a marriage does not have the same legal status as the marriage of an adult. Therefore, if the minor regrets having married, she is allowed to make a declaration of refusal to her husband, thereby annulling the marital bond. The Sages disagreed with regard to the details of this halakha: Beit Shammai say: Only betrothed girls may refuse. A girl may refuse, upon reaching adulthood, to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father. But Beit Hillel say that both betrothed and fully married girls may refuse.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘注诇 讜诇讗 讘讬讘诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘注诇 讜讘讬讘诐
Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not at her yavam. In such a situation, she must perform 岣litza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say: It may be directed at her husband or her yavam.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉
Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in his presence or in his absence. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in court. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in court, or not in court.
讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 驻注诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讛驻拽专 讗诇讗 诪诪讗谞转 讜诪诪转谞转 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转诪讗谉 讜转谞砖讗
Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: She may refuse as long as she is a minor, even four or five times if her relatives married her off again to another man after each refusal. Beit Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not to be treated with disregard and should not be passed from one man to another. Rather, she refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转谞讗讬 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜讗讬 谞砖讜讗讛 转诪讗谉 讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 讬砖 转谞讗讬 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the reason of Beit Shammai for ruling that a married minor girl may not perform refusal? It is because there are no conditions with regard to marriage. Although a betrothal can be conditional, the condition is nullified upon consummation of the marriage. Likewise, marriage cannot be conditional, as the sexual relationship is not subject to conditions. And if a married minor girl would refuse, others may mistakenly think this to be a condition with regard to the marriage of an adult woman, and they will come to say that there can be a condition with regard to marriage.
谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 转谞讗讬 讘讞讜驻讛
The Gemara asks: But what is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not yet engage in sexual intercourse? The marriage goes into effect even though it has not yet been consummated. The Gemara replies: There are no conditions with regard to a wedding canopy, i.e., the wedding ceremony.
诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉
The Gemara asks further: But what is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband to be married, so that she was considered married even before the marriage ceremony took place? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances, and no marriages are conditional. It follows that refusal cannot take place once a minor girl is married.
讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚谞讬砖讜讗讬 拽讟谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 谞讬谞讛讜 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转
And with regard to Beit Hillel, what is their reasoning? It is known that marriage of a minor girl is by rabbinic law, and therefore no one would confuse this type of marriage with an adult marriage. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Beit Shammai鈥檚 reason is that a man would not readily render his sexual act licentious sexual intercourse. If he had intercourse with the minor girl and the marriage was later retroactively annulled by her refusal, then his sexual act was outside the context of marriage and is regarded as licentious.
谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬讛讜讬 讞讜驻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转
The Gemara asks: What is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not engage in sexual intercourse, as this reason would not apply to such a case? The Gemara answers: It would not be satisfactory for him, i.e., the husband, if his would be a forbidden marriage canopy, because if the marriage is later annulled by her refusal, he will have stood under the marriage canopy with a woman who was not permitted to him. The Gemara asks: What is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances. And how do Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai鈥檚 reasoning? Since there is both betrothal and a marriage contract in this case, no one will come to say that his sexual act was licentious intercourse. The primary reason Beit Shammai prohibit refusal after marriage is because it would render the sexual relationship of the marriage a licentious one. Beit Hillel do not regard sexual activity under such circumstances as licentious, so there is also no stigma attached to having stood under a wedding canopy with a girl who later refuses the marriage.
专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讬 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 谞砖讜讗讛 转诪讗谉 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 诪讬谞讛 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 诇诪讬驻拽 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讚专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专转 转诪讗谉 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞 诇讛讜 住讘专 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬讬爪讬 诇讛 拽专讜讘讬讛 讜诪驻拽讬 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛
Rav Pappa said: The reasoning for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is because of the profits from the property she brings into the marriage, and the reasoning for Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is also because of the profits from her property. He explains: The reasoning for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is because of the profits from her property, for if you say that a married minor girl may perform refusal, then the husband of that minor might seize those profits from her and consume them, as ultimately she stands to leave him if she refuses him later. In the meantime, he will try to extract as much profit as he can. And Beit Hillel say: On the contrary: Since you say she may refuse, he will seek to improve her property. He will think: if I do not do so, her relatives will advise her to refuse him and they will take her from him.
专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 讘住注讜讚讛 讜诪驻住讬讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讻讚讬 讚诇讬驻讜拽 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诇讗 讚讗讬砖讜转
Rava said: This is the reasoning of Beit Shammai: A man will not bother to make a marriage feast and then lose it. If the wife is entitled to refuse him even after the marriage, the man will not be willing to marry a minor and bear the expenses of the wedding, when it is uncertain that she will stay with him. And Beit Hillel reason as follows: The marriage is convenient for both of them even if it is nullified later, so as to generate publicity about them that they are married.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讘注诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪诪讗谞转 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讗诪专 讚诪讚注转讛 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讝讬拽讛 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诇讗 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗
搂 It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not her yavam. If she wishes to refuse her yavam, she must perform 岣litza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say that refusal may be directed at her husband or her yavam. Rabbi Oshaya said: A minor yevama may direct a refusal against a levirate betrothal but she may not direct a refusal against his levirate bond. Before the yavam betroths her, she cannot nullify the levirate bond by refusal. Rav 岣sda said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Oshaya? In the case of levirate betrothal, which is consensual, she can nullify it. But with regard to the levirate bond, which applies to her even against her will, she cannot nullify it.
讜讛专讬 讘讬讗讛 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛
The Gemara asks: But the consummation of the levirate bond may be against her will
讜诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讗诇讗 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讗诪专 讚讛讜讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讝讬拽讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 专诪讗 注诇讛 诇讗 诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪诪讗谞转 讗祝 诇讝讬拽转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬 拽诪讗讬 拽讗 注拽专讗
and she can nullify it, as she can subsequently refuse the yavam with whom she entered into levirate marriage. Rather, the reasoning is: With regard to consummation of the levirate marriage and to levirate betrothal, both of which he performs, she can nullify them. But with regard to the levirate bond, which the Merciful One imposes upon her at the death of her first husband, she cannot nullify it. Whereas Ulla said: She may direct her refusal even to his levirate bond. What is the reason? By refusing, she nullifies the original marriage, rather than the levirate bond that resulted from the death of her husband.
讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讗诪讗讬 转诪讗谉 讛砖转讗 讜转注拽专讬谞讛讜 诇谞讬砖讜讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讜转转讬讬讘诐 爪专转讛 爪专转 注专讜讛 砖讗谞讬 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讘注诇 诪讜转专转 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讘讬讜
Rava raised an objection to the statement made by Ulla. It is taught in a baraita: In any case of levirate marriage in which a minor girl is forbidden to the yavam and she could perform refusal but does not perform refusal, her rival wife performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Rava continues: Why? Let her perform refusal now and nullify the first marriage retroactively, so that the so-called rival wife was never really a rival wife of a forbidden relative at all, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: A rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, due to a rabbinic decree, as Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught in a baraita: A minor girl who refuses her husband is permitted to his father, because the marriage was annulled and she is no longer his daughter-in-law. But one who refuses a yavam is forbidden to his father.
讗诇诪讗 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻讻诇转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 谞专讗讬转 讻爪专转 讘转讜
Evidently, at the time when she happens before her yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be his father鈥檚 daughter-in-law. Since people would not understand that her refusal later on would annul her first marriage, the Sages decreed that the father-in-law may no longer marry her. Here, too, in a case, for example, of the rival wife of a girl who was married to her uncle, since at the time she happened before the girl鈥檚 father for levirate marriage she appears to be his daughter鈥檚 rival wife, the Sages decreed that even if the girl refuses her original marriage, the rival wife is forbidden to the girl鈥檚 father.
讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘注诇转 讛讙讟 讘注诇转 讛讙讟 诇讗讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转住专讗 诇讛 诇讞讚 讗讬转住专讗 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗
搂 Rav said: A minor girl who refuses this yavam who married her in levirate marriage is forbidden to that yavam, his brother, just as it is in a case concerning a yevama who has received a bill of divorce from one of her yevamin. Is it not so that since the yevama who has received a bill of divorce is forbidden to one of them, i.e., the one who gave her the divorce, she is forbidden to all of them? Here too, it is no different.
讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 讚诪讬讗 诇讘注诇转 讛讙讟 讘注诇转 讛讙讟 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛 讛讻讗 讛讬讗 拽注讘讚讗 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专讛 诇讗 专注讬谞讗 讘讱 讜诇讗 爪讘讬谞讗 讘讱 讘讱 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 专注讬谞讗 讛讗 讘讞讘专讱 专注讬谞讗
And Shmuel said: If she refused this yavam, she is permitted to that one, and it is not comparable to a yevama who has received a bill of divorce. For in the case of the yevama who has received a bill of divorce, it is he who performed the act of giving the bill of divorce to her, and he thereby renders her forbidden to his brothers as well. Here, she is performing an act on him, as she says: I do not desire you and I do not want you, indicating: It is you whom I do not desire, but I may desire your fellow.
专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜 诇讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 诇讝讬拽转讜 讘讞讚 讬讘诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪爪讬讗 注拽专讗 讛讻讗 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬谉 诪讬讗讜谉 诇讞爪讬 讝讬拽讛
Rav Asi said: If she refuses this yavam she is permitted even to him if she changes her mind. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, who said: She cannot refuse his levirate bond, and since the bond still exists and is not dissolved by her refusal, she is consequently permitted to engage in sexual relations with him to consummate it. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Asi鈥檚 opinion is consistent with that of Ulla, that refusal of a levirate bond is effective. In the case of one yavam who had no additional brothers, she can indeed nullify the levirate bond. However, here, we are dealing with two yevamin, and there cannot be refusal of half a levirate bond. Since she refuses only one yavam, her status as a yevama remains intact, the levirate bond remains intact, and she is permitted to consummate the levirate bond even with the one she initially refused.
讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讞讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 诪讗谉 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗住讬
The Gemara relates: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A minor girl who refuses this yavam is permitted to the brothers, and they did not agree with him. The Gemara asks: Who did not agree with him? Abaye said: It was Rav, as Rav claims that she is forbidden to the brothers. Rava said: It was Rabbi Oshaya, who claims that refusal cannot nullify the levirate bond. And some say: It was Rav Asi who did not agree with him, since according to Rav Asi she is permitted to marry even the brother she refused.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇讗 驻讬砖讜谉 讛讙诪诇 诪讬讗谞讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讬砖讜谉 讛讙诪诇 讘诪讚讛 讻驻讜砖讛 诪讚讚 诇驻讬讻讱 诪讚讚讜 诇讜 讘诪讚讛 讻驻讜砖讛
搂 It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband, but Beit Hillel say: Either in his presence or in his absence. It is taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But didn鈥檛 the wife of Pishon the camel driver refuse him in his absence? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Pishon the camel driver measured using a defective standard, as he did not properly take care of the property she brought into the marriage, and therefore the Sages measured him with a defective standard [midda kefusha]. The marriage in that case was annulled by the Sages and the refusal was not treated as a standard refusal.
诪讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讬 驻砖讬讟讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞砖讜讗讛 诇讗 诪诪讗谞讛 转专讬 拽讬讟专讬 注讘讚讜 讘讬讛
The Gemara asks: Since he was consuming the profits from her property, it is obvious that it is speaking of a case where she was married, as a man is not entitled to the profits of the property of his betrothed. But didn鈥檛 Beit Shammai say that a married minor girl cannot perform refusal? The Gemara answers in accordance with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion: They tied him in two knots, i.e., the Sages punished Pishon in two ways: They permitted the refusal against him to take place in his absence, and they permitted it even though she was already married to him.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜讛诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 讘砖诇砖讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪讜诪讞讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇砖讛 讘注讬谞谉
搂 It was taught: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically before a court, but Beit Hillel say: It may take place either before a court, or not before a court. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Sanhedrin 2a): 岣litza and refusals take place in the presence of three judges. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabba said: It is Beit Shammai who say that refusal must take place specifically before a court. Abaye said: You can even say that it is Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel state only that we do not require expert judges for a refusal, but we do require three upright people, who constitute a court of laymen.
讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙
As it is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Before a court, and Beit Hillel say: Either before a court or not before a court, but both this school and that school concede that three people are required. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, validate a refusal in the presence of two. Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with that pair.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转诪讗谉 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讗谞讬 讘诪讬讗讜谞讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐
搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: She refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 she already refuse once? Why must she refuse again? Shmuel said: Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement means: The refusal does not take effect until she reaches majority and says: I wish to uphold my initial refusal, in case she changed her mind in the interim.
注讜诇讗 讗诪专 转专转讬 拽转谞讬 讗讜 砖转诪讗谉 讜转讙讚讬诇 讜转讬讗专住 讗讜 砖转诪讗谉 讜转谞砖讗 诇讗诇转专
Ulla said: Two different possibilities are taught in Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement: Either she should refuse, and then once she has matured she should become betrothed; or she should refuse and marry immediately. She should not refuse and then only become betrothed again. According to Beit Shammai, as a minor, she may not refuse again.
讘砖诇诪讗 注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转谞砖讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讗诪专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗
The Gemara challenges this: Granted, the explanation of Ulla is consistent with that which is taught: Until she reaches majority and marries. That is: Until she reaches majority, or until she marries. But according to the explanation of Shmuel, the mishna should have said: Until she reaches majority and says that she wishes to uphold the refusal. The Gemara comments: This phrase is difficult according to his explanation.
诪转谞讬壮 讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讗谉 讻诇 砖讛砖讬讗讜讛 讗诪讛 讜讗讞讬讛 诇讚注转讛 讛砖讬讗讜讛 砖诇讗 诇讚注转讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讗谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讻诇 转讬谞讜拽转 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖诪讜专 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讗谉
MISHNA: Who is a minor girl who needs to perform refusal in order to annul her marriage? Any minor whose mother or brother married her off with her consent. If they married her off without her consent, she need not refuse her husband at all and may leave her husband without a declaration of refusal. Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Any girl who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, safe does not need to refuse, as the Sages instituted marriage only for a girl old enough to understand what she is doing.
专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讻诪驻讜转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛
Rabbi Elazar says: The act of a minor girl is nothing, so that if a minor girl鈥檚 mother or brothers marry her off, the marriage is essentially invalid. Rather, her status is as though she were a seduced unmarried woman. Therefore, a minor daughter of a non-priest married to a priest may not eat teruma, and the minor daughter of a priest married to an Israelite may eat teruma.
专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讗砖转讜 讻诇 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 讗砖转讜
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says otherwise: If there is any obstruction in the matter due to the man, it is as if she were his wife. If there is any obstruction in the matter that is not due to the man, it is as if she were not his wife. This statement will be explained in the Gemara.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讙讟 诪讬讗讜谉 诇讗 专注讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 爪讘讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜诇讬转 讗谞讗 讘注讬讗 诇讛转谞住讘讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚谞驻讬砖 讚讬讘讜专讗 讗诪专讬
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: At first, they would write a bill of refusal in this manner: I do not desire him, I do not want him, and I do not wish to be married to him. Once they saw that the text was too long, the Sages said:
