Yevamot 107

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים אין ממאנין אלא ארוסות ובית הלל אומרים ארוסות ונשואות

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.

בית שמאי אומרים בבעל ולא ביבם ובית הלל אומרים בבעל וביבם

Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not at her yavam. In such a situation, she must perform ḥalitza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say: It may be directed at her husband or her yavam.

בית שמאי אומרים בפניו ובית הלל אומרים בפניו ושלא בפניו בית שמאי אומרים בבית דין ובית הלל אומרים בבית דין ושלא בבית דין

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.

אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי ממאנת והיא קטנה אפילו ארבע וחמש פעמים אמרו להם בית שמאי אין בנות ישראל הפקר אלא ממאנת וממתנת עד שתגדיל ותמאן ותנשא

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מאי טעמא דבית שמאי לפי שאין תנאי בנשואין ואי נשואה תמאן אתי למימר יש תנאי בנשואין

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.

נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה מאי איכא למימר לפי שאין תנאי בחופה

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.

מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל מאי איכא למימר לא פלוג רבנן

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.

ובית הלל מידע ידעי דנישואי קטנה דרבנן נינהו רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו טעמא דבית שמאי לפי שאין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות

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’s 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.

נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה מאי איכא למימר לא ניחא ליה דתיהוי חופה דאיסורא מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל מאי איכא למימר לא פלוג רבנן ובית הלל כיון דאיכא קדושין וכתובה לא אתו למימר דבעילתו בעילת זנות

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’s 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.

רב פפא אמר טעמא דבית שמאי משום פירי טעמא דבית הלל משום פירי טעמא דבית שמאי משום פירי דאי אמרת נשואה תמאן שמיט ואכיל להו מינה דסוף סוף למיפק קיימא ובית הלל אדרבה כיון דאמרת תמאן אשבוחי משבח להו סבר דאי לא עייצי לה קרוביה ומפקי לה מיניה

Rav Pappa said: The reasoning for Beit Shammai’s opinion is because of the profits from the property she brings into the marriage, and the reasoning for Beit Hillel’s opinion is also because of the profits from her property. He explains: The reasoning for Beit Shammai’s 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.

רבא אמר היינו טעמא דבית שמאי שאין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה ובית הלל תרוייהו ניחא להו כדי דליפוק עלייהו קלא דאישות

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.

בית שמאי אומרים בבעל וכו׳ אמר רבי אושעיא ממאנת למאמרו ואינה ממאנת לזיקתו אמר רב חסדא מאי טעמא דרבי אושעיא מאמר דמדעתה מציא עקרא זיקה דבעל כרחה לא מציא עקרא

§ 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 ḥalitza 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 Ḥisda 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.

והרי ביאה דבעל כרחה

The Gemara asks: But the consummation of the levirate bond may be against her will

ומציא עקרא אלא ביאה ומאמר דהוא קעביד מציא עקרא זיקה דרחמנא רמא עלה לא מציא עקרא עולא אמר ממאנת אף לזיקתו מאי טעמא נישואי קמאי קא עקרא

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.

איתיביה רבא לעולא כל שיכולה למאן ולא מיאנה צרתה חולצת ולא מתייבמת ואמאי תמאן השתא ותעקרינהו לנישואי קמאי ותתייבם צרתה צרת ערוה שאני דתני רמי בר יחזקאל מיאנה בבעל מותרת לאביו ביבם אסורה לאביו

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 ḥalitza 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 Yeḥezkel 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.

אלמא בשעת נפילה נראית ככלתו הכא נמי בשעת נפילה נראית כצרת בתו

Evidently, at the time when she happens before her yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be his father’s 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’s father for levirate marriage she appears to be his daughter’s rival wife, the Sages decreed that even if the girl refuses her original marriage, the rival wife is forbidden to the girl’s father.

אמר רב מיאנה בזה אסורה לזה מידי דהוה אבעלת הגט בעלת הגט לאו כיון דאיתסרא לה לחד איתסרא להו לכולהו הכא נמי לא שנא

§ 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.

ושמואל אמר מיאנה בזה מותרת לזה ולא דמיא לבעלת הגט בעלת הגט הוא דקא עביד בה הכא היא קעבדא ביה דאמרה לא רעינא בך ולא צבינא בך בך הוא דלא רעינא הא בחברך רעינא

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.

רב אסי אמר מיאנה בזה מותרת אפילו לו לימא כרבי אושעיא סבירא ליה דאמר אינה ממאנת לזיקתו בחד יבם הכי נמי דמציא עקרא הכא בשני יבמין עסקינן דאין מיאון לחצי זיקה

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’s 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.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן מיאנה בזה מותרת לאחין ולא הודו לו מאן לא הודו לו אמר אביי רב רבא אמר רבי אושעיא ואמרי לה רב אסי

The Gemara relates: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

בית שמאי אומרים בפניו וכו׳ תניא אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי והלא פישון הגמל מיאנה אשתו שלא בפניו אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל פישון הגמל במדה כפושה מדד לפיכך מדדו לו במדה כפושה

§ 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’t 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.

מדקא אכיל פירי פשיטא נשואה היא והאמרי בית שמאי נשואה לא ממאנה תרי קיטרי עבדו ביה

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’t Beit Shammai say that a married minor girl cannot perform refusal? The Gemara answers in accordance with Beit Shammai’s 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.

בית שמאי אומרים בפני בית דין וכו׳ תנן התם החליצה והמיאונין בשלשה מאן תנא אמר רבה בית שמאי היא אביי אמר אפילו תימא בית הלל עד כאן לא קאמרי בית הלל אלא דלא בעינן מומחין אבל שלשה בעינן

§ 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): Ḥalitza 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.

כדתניא בית שמאי אומרים בפני בית דין ובית הלל אומרים בפני בית דין ושלא בפני בית דין ואלו ואלו מודים שצריך שלשה רבי יוסי בר יהודה ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מכשירין בשנים אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן הלכה כאותו הזוג

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 Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with that pair.

בית שמאי אומרים תמאן וכו׳ והא מיאנה חדא זימנא אמר שמואל עד שתגדיל ותאמר רוצה אני במיאונים הראשונים

§ 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’t she already refuse once? Why must she refuse again? Shmuel said: Beit Shammai’s 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.

עולא אמר תרתי קתני או שתמאן ותגדיל ותיארס או שתמאן ותנשא לאלתר

Ulla said: Two different possibilities are taught in Beit Shammai’s 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.

בשלמא עולא היינו דקתני עד שתגדיל ותנשא אלא לשמואל עד שתגדיל ותאמר מיבעי ליה קשיא

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.

מתני׳ אי זו היא קטנה שצריכה למאן כל שהשיאוה אמה ואחיה לדעתה השיאוה שלא לדעתה אינה צריכה למאן רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כל תינוקת שאינה יכולה לשמור קידושיה אינה צריכה למאן

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 Ḥanina 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.

רבי אלעזר אומר אין מעשה קטנה כלום אלא כמפותה בת ישראל לכהן לא תאכל בתרומה בת כהן לישראל תאכל בתרומה

Rabbi Elazar says: The act of a minor girl is nothing, so that if a minor girl’s 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.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כל עכבה שהיא מן האיש כאילו היא אשתו כל עכבה שאינה מן האיש כאילו אינה אשתו

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא בראשונה היו כותבין גט מיאון לא רעינא ביה ולא צבינא ביה ולית אנא בעיא להתנסבא ליה כיון דחזו דנפיש דיבורא אמרי

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: