Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 23, 2022 | 讻状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 108

Presentation in PDF format

What is the text that they put in a mi’un document? Why was the original text shortened? The refusal of a minor can be done in many different ways – even if the girls somehow indicates that she is not interested in being married to him, without saying it directly, she is free from her marriage. several different examples of this are brought. According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira if she went ahead and married someone else, that would be an indication that she did mi’un.聽What about betrothal to another? Do the rabbis disagree with him? Would Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permit this kind of ‘weak’ refusal only if she was betrothed to the first husband or even if she was married to him? The Gemara raises all these questions. In the end, they rule like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira even in the case where she was married to the first husband. Rabbi Eliezer doesn’t consider marriage to the first husband valid at all, however, he does require mi’un. Shmuel likes his approach as he is consistent and does not consider her married at all (other than requiring mi’un). How is this different from Rabbi Yehoshua who fully considered a minor married, other than the fact that she can get out with mi’un alone – that also seems to be a mostly consistent position? The Gemara brings two different explanations for Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s statement in the Mishna that if there is any obstruction due to the man, she is married and and obstruction not from the man, she is not married. If she does mi’un, she is permitted to his relatives and he to hers, as it as if they were never married. This differs from divorce, by which she is prohibited to his relative and he to hers. If they were married, he gave her a get, then remarried her and she did mi’un. the mi’un uproots the original marriage as well. Therefore, if she marries someone else after that and gets divorced or widowed, she can go back to the original husband, as it is if they were not married before. But if she did mi’un with one man, they got a get from the next husband, then mi’un with the next, etc. she cannot return to the man she got a get from. The Gemara assumes that the reason the mi’un in the first case, uproots the marriage entirely is because the mi’un indicated she was too young and when her mother or brother married her off, the marriage was never a real marriage. If so, then why does it only uproot her marriage with the same person and not if she was married and divorced from someone else? Shmuel says that the two parts of the Mishna reflect two different opinions. Rava distinguishes between the cases – it really should uproot the first marriage, even if it was to someone else, but for a different reason, the rabbis forbid her to return to the first husband, as they want to prevent him from trying to seduce her back while she is married to another in an attempt to get her to ‘refuse’ the other man. The Gemara raises another contradiction in the Mishna. Rabbi Elazar says that the two parts of the Mishna reflect two different opinions. Ulla distinguishes between the cases. Where do we find two different opinions regarding this issue, as stated by Rabbi Elazar? A story is told of how they brought this question to be asked to Rabbi Akiva when he was jailed by the Romans.

聽refusal

 

讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讬讟讗 转拽讬谞讜 讛讻讬 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讬讗谞讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗谞驻谞讗

This document may come to be confused with a bill of divorce and perhaps a man will err and give a bill of divorce using the text of refusal. Therefore, they decreed that one should write as follows: On such and such a day, so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, performed refusal in our presence, and no more.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讝讛讜 诪讬讗讜谉 讗诪专讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖讜谞讬 讗诪讬 讜讗讞讬 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜砖讘转 讘讗驻专讬讜谉 讜讛讜诇讻转 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诇讘讬转 讘注诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讝讛讜 诪讬讗讜谉

The Sages taught: What constitutes a refusal? If she said: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, or: I do not want the betrothal in which my mother and brothers had me betrothed, that is a refusal. Rabbi Yehuda said more than that: Even if she is sitting in a bridal chair [apiryon] going from her father鈥檚 house to her husband鈥檚 house and said along the way: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, this constitutes a refusal.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讜 讗讜专讞讬谉 诪住讜讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讜诪砖拽讛 注诇讬讛诐 讜讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪讬讗讜谉 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讙专讛 讘注诇讛 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讞驻抓 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讬讗讜谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

Rabbi Yehuda said even more than that: Even if guests are reclining at her husband鈥檚 house and she is standing and serving them drinks as hostess, and she said to them: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, this constitutes a refusal, even though it is possible that she is merely complaining about the effort she is expending. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said more than that: Even if her husband sent her to a shopkeeper to bring him an article of his and she said: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, there is no greater refusal than this.

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 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 转谞讗 拽讟谞讛 砖诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞砖讗转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗诪专讜 谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 讛谉 讛谉 诪讬讗讜谞讬讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Any girl who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal safe does not need to refuse. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus. It was taught: In the case of a minor girl who did not refuse her husband, but who went and married someone else, it was said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Her new marriage constitutes her refusal, as she made her state of mind known, that she does not want him, and that is sufficient.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞转拽讚砖讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 拽讟谞讛 砖诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗诪专讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讛谉 讛谉 诪讬讗讜谞讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if she was betrothed to another man without performing refusal of the first husband? Is her acceptance of the betrothal sufficient to indicate that she refuses the first husband? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from a baraita: If a minor girl did not refuse her husband but went and became betrothed to another man, then, as the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Her betrothal constitutes her refusal.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜 诇讗 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira or not? And further, if you say that they do disagree with him, do they disagree with him with regard to betrothal alone, or do they also disagree with him with regard to marriage? And if you say that they disagree even with regard to marriage, is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, is this only with regard to marriage, or is it even with regard to betrothal?

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara cites a tradition: Come and hear: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to both marriage and betrothal. From the fact that he ruled the halakha, one may derive by inference that the Rabbis disagree.

讜讗讻转讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讛讜讛 谞住讬讘讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讬拽讚砖讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讻诇转讬讛 讚讗讘讚谉 讗讬诪专讜讚 砖讚专 专讘讬 讝讜讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 诇诪讬讘讚拽讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 谞砖讬 讞讝讜 讙讘专讬讬讻讜 讚拽讗转讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 谞讬讛讜讜 讙讘专讬讬讻讜 讚讬讚讻讜

But still, you should raise the dilemma: Does Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira say that her betrothal to another counts as refusal even when she had initially been married or perhaps only if she was betrothed but not married beforehand? Come and hear: The daughters-in-law of Abdan rebelled against their husbands. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a pair of Sages to examine them and determine what could be done to rectify the matter. Some women said to the daughters-in-law: See, it is your husbands that are coming. They said back to them: Let them be your husbands.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讬讗讜谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讛讜讛 谞住讬讘讗 诇讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讬拽讚砖讗 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讚拽诪讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There is no greater refusal than this. What is the case? Is it not that they were already married? The Gemara rejects this: No, they were merely betrothed, but not married. This story cannot establish unequivocally what the halakha is in the case when the girl is married. The Gemara nevertheless concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in all of these matters, even with regard to her marriage to the first husband: Even if she had actually been married to the first man, the marriage is invalidated by her betrothal to another.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜讝专谞讬 注诇 讻诇 爪讚讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗讚诐 砖讛砖讜讛 诪讚讜转讬讜 讘拽讟谞讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖注砖讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诪讟讬讬诇转 注诪讜 讘讞爪专 讜注讜诪讚转 诪讞讬拽讜 讜讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

搂 It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: The act of a minor girl is nothing. Rather, her status is as though she were a seduced unmarried woman. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: I reviewed all the opinions of the Sages concerning these matters, and I did not find any person who applied a consistent standard with regard to a minor like Rabbi Elazar did. For Rabbi Elazar portrayed her as a girl walking with her husband in a courtyard, who stands up from his bosom after he engaged in intercourse with her, and immerses herself to become ritually pure, and partakes of teruma by evening as if there were no marital bond between them and as if she, as the daughter of a priest, could continue to partake of teruma. The daughter of a priest is prohibited from eating teruma once she is married to a non-priest.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讛 讝讻讗讬 诇讗 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖爪专讬讻讛 诪讬讗讜谉

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of a minor girl is nothing, and therefore her marriage is not valid. And her husband has no rights to items she finds, nor to her earnings; nor does he have the right to annul her vows; he does not inherit her assets if she dies; and if she dies he may not become ritually impure on her account if he is a priest, i.e., through his presence in the same room as her corpse. The principle is: She is not his wife in any sense, except that she must perform refusal in order to marry someone else.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讛 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘诪讬讗讜谉

Rabbi Yehoshua says: In the case of a minor whose mother or brother married her off, her husband has rights to items she finds, and to her earnings; and he has the right to annul her vows; and he inherits her assets if she dies; and if she dies he must become ritually impure on her account even if he is a priest. The principle is: She is his wife in every sense, except that she can leave him by means of refusal and does not require a bill of divorce.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛砖讜讛 诪讚讜转讬讜 讘拽讟谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讞诇拽 诪讗讬 讞诇拽 讗讬 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 转讬讘注讬 讙讟

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears to be more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Eliezer applied a consistent standard with regard to a minor, while Rabbi Yehoshua applied an inconsistent standard. The Gemara asks: In what way is his standard inconsistent? The Gemara answers: If she is his wife, she should require a bill of divorce from him.

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 诪讬讗讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讚讬 转讬驻讜拽

According to Rabbi Eliezer too, there appears to be an inconsistency, as, if she is not his wife, she should not be required to perform refusal either. The Gemara answers: But shall she leave with no ritual at all? Some sort of act is required to indicate that their relationship is permanently severed. Rabbi Eliezer has a consistent standard, according to which the marriage of a minor has no substance and to dissolve it she need only indicate that she does not want her husband. Rabbi Yehoshua is inconsistent in treating the relationship as a marriage even though it can be dissolved easily.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘注讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗诪专讛 诪讞诪转 驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 诪讞诪转 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞诐 诪讛讜讙谞讬谉 诇讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖

搂 The mishna stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: 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. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an obstruction due to the man, and an obstruction that is not due to the man? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If someone proposed marriage to her and she said: I do not wish to marry on account of so-and-so, my husband, this is an obstruction that is due to the man. When she declined the proposal, she made it clear that she views herself as his wife. But if she says: I do not want to marry because the men suggested to me are not suitable for me, this is an obstruction that is not due to the man, and she is not considered to be his wife.

讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nina bar Avin both say: If the minor鈥檚 husband gave her a bill of divorce, this is an obstruction that is due to the man, since in presenting the bill of divorce, the marriage is being treated as valid. Therefore, from then onward, he is prohibited from marrying her close relatives, and she is prohibited from marrying his close relatives; and, as a divorced woman, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. However, if she refuses him, this is an obstruction that is not due to the man. Therefore, he is permitted to marry her close relatives, and she is permitted to marry his close relatives, and she is not disqualified from the priesthood, since her refusal annuls the marriage retroactively.

讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 驻专讜砖讬 拽诪驻专砖

The Gemara challenges: But it is taught explicitly below, in the following mishna: If a minor girl refuses a man, he is permitted to marry her close relatives and she is permitted to marry his close relatives, and he has not disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is prohibited from marrying her close relatives, and she is prohibited from marrying his close relatives, and he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. Since the difference between refusal and a bill of divorce is already addressed in the following mishna, why is the same ruling repeated here? The Gemara answers: The following mishna is explaining the latter part of this mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

MISHNA: If a minor girl refuses a man, he is permitted to marry her close relatives, such as her mother or her sister, and she is permitted to marry his close relatives, such as his father or brother, and he has not disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as she is not considered divorced. However, if he gave her a bill of divorce, then even though the marriage was valid according to rabbinic law and not Torah law, he is prohibited from marrying her close relatives, and she is prohibited from marrying his close relatives, and he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜

If he gave her a bill of divorce but afterward remarried her, and she subsequently refused him and married another man, and then she was widowed or divorced from her second husband, she is permitted to return to him. Since she left him the last time by means of refusal, the refusal cancels the bill of divorce that he gave her previously, and her status is that of a minor girl who refused her husband, who is not forbidden to her first husband after a second marriage. However, if the order was different, and if she refused him and he subsequently remarried her, and this time he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man, and she was widowed or divorced, she is forbidden to return to him, like any divorced woman who married another man.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讙讟 讗讞专 诪讬讗讜谉 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 诪讬讗讜谉 讗讞专 讙讟 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜

This is the principle concerning a minor girl who refused her husband and then married several times: If the bill of divorce followed the refusal and she remarried, she is forbidden to return to him. If the refusal followed the bill of divorce, she is permitted to return to him. Since the refusal followed the bill of divorce it is clear that she was a minor and neither the marriage nor the divorce were valid by Torah law. However, when the ultimate separation is by means of a bill of divorce, there is no indication that she was a minor at the time and there is potential for confusion with an adult divorc茅e.

讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讙讟 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜

If a minor girl refuses one man and marries another, and he divorces her, and then she marries another man and refuses him, and then she marries another man and he divorces her, this is the principle for this case: With regard to anyone she leaves by means of a bill of divorce, it is prohibited for her to return to him. With regard to anyone she leaves by means of refusal, she is permitted to return to him.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讜诪讘讟诇 讙讟

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that if the man gave his minor wife a bill of divorce but subsequently remarried her and she refused him, and then she married someone else, she is permitted to remarry the first husband when her marriage to the second is concluded. Apparently, refusal comes and nullifies a bill of divorce.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬爪转讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讙讟 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜讘讟讬诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara raises a contradiction from the end of the mishna: If a minor girl refuses one man and marries another, and he divorces her, and then she marries another man and refuses him, and then she marries another man and he divorces her, this is the principle: With regard to anyone she leaves by means of a bill of divorce, she is prohibited from returning to him. With regard to anyone she leaves by means of refusal, she is permitted to return to him. Apparently, a refusal of another man does not come and nullify one鈥檚 own bill of divorce. If the refusal completely nullified the marriage to the second husband, there would be no obstacle to her remarrying her first husband, as an ex-wife who did not marry another man is permitted to remarry her first husband. However, the divorce, combined with the second marriage, does generate a prohibition, and she is prohibited from remarrying in this case.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This mishna is disjointed, and he who taught this halakha, that she may remarry her first husband if she refused him after he divorced her, did not teach that halakha, that her refusal of another man does not render her permitted to her divorced husband.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讚诇诪讗 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讘讟诇 讙讟 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讻专转 讘专诪讬讝讜转讬讜 讜拽专讬爪讜转讬讜 讗讝诇 诪砖讘砖 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讻专转 讘专诪讬讝讜转讬讜 讜拽专讬爪讜转讬讜 讗讝讬诇 诪砖讘砖 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

Rava said: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps her refusal of him nullifies his bill of divorce, while her refusal of the other man does not nullify the original husband鈥檚 bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: In what way is her refusal of the other man different, that it does not nullify his bill of divorce? Isn鈥檛 it that because she is familiar with the intimations and gestures [keritzotav] of her first husband, he will lead her astray and bring her back to him, by causing her to refuse her new husband and then return to him? Consequently, it was decreed that she may not return to her first husband by refusing the second. But for this same reason the refusal against the first husband himself also should not nullify his own bill of divorce, as, since she is familiar with his intimations and gestures, he will lead her astray and bring her back to him after she has married another man.

讛讗 讻讘专 砖讘砖讗 讜诇讗 讗讬砖讘砖讗

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers: But he already tried to lead her astray and she was not led astray. In other words, he already remarried her after the divorce and she still refused him, which proves that he does not have sufficient influence to lead her astray.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讚讞讘专讬讛 拽砖讬讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讟注诪讗 讚谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讛讗 诪讬讗谞讛 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛

But if there is a difficulty, it is the contradiction between one halakha involving a another man and a different halakha involving another man that is difficult, as the mishna states: If she refused him and he subsequently remarried her, and this time he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man, and she was widowed or divorced, she is prohibited from returning to her original husband. The reason is specifically that she was widowed or divorced by the other man. But if she had refused the second husband, she would be permitted to return to the first husband. Apparently, a refusal of the other man would have come and nullified his bill of divorce, permitting her to remarry the first husband, despite her erstwhile marriage to the other man.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬爪转讛 诪诪谞讜 讘讙讟 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛

This raises a contradiction, as it is taught later: If a minor girl refuses one man and marries another and he divorces her, and then she marries another and refuses him, this is the principle: With regard to anyone she leaves by means of a bill of divorce, she is prohibited from returning to him. With regard to anyone she leaves by means of refusal, she is permitted to return to him. Apparently, refusal of the other man cannot come and nullify his own bill of divorce.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诇砖讛 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讚诪讬讞讝讬讗 讻讙讚讜诇讛

Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed, and he who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha. Ulla said: The last clause, in which it says her refusal does not nullify the bill of divorce, is referring to a case where she was divorced three times. Since she was divorced three times, she appears to be an adult, and therefore the Sages did not allow her refusal to cancel the effect of the divorce.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬诪讬谞讜 讘讻住祝 砖转讬谞讜 注爪讬谞讜 讘诪讞讬专 讬讘讗讜 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 谞转讘拽砖讛 讛诇讻讛 讝讜 讛专讬 砖讬爪讗讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 讘讙讟 讜诪砖谞讬 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讛讜 砖转讞讝讜专 诇专讗砖讜谉

搂 The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the mishna is disjointed, who is the tanna that taught that a minor may always remarry a husband she refused but not one who divorced her? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This can be determined based on the following incident. What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲e have drunk our water for money; our wood comes to us for a price鈥 (Lamentations 5:4), implying that Torah, which is analogous to water, can be purchased with money. The Gemara explains: During the time of danger, i.e., religious persecution by the Romans, this halakhic ruling was requested: If she, a minor, left her first husband by means of a bill of divorce and her second by refusal, what is the halakha with regard to her returning to the first?

砖讻专讜 讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗住专 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 讜讗住专

Those involved hired one person for four hundred dinars for the dangerous mission and asked Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated in prison by the Romans for teaching Torah, and he ruled that it is forbidden. They asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Netzivin, in Babylonia, and he also deemed it forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讝讜 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻谞讜 诇讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讛转专转 诇讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: This question was not what they asked, as it was unnecessary: If you rendered permitted a prohibition for whose violation one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet], i.e., if the prohibition against sexual intercourse with a married woman is dissolved by the refusal, as the marriage is nullified retroactively, then is it not clear all the more so that after a refusal, the regular prohibition against remarrying one鈥檚 ex-wife after she was married to another should be permitted? The opinion in the mishna that refusal does not cancel the effect of divorce is in accordance with that of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, while the opinion that she is permitted to return to her first husband after refusing the second one is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.

讘专诐 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 讛专讬 讛讬转讛 讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗诪讜 砖讛讬讗 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讜 讜谞砖讗讛 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 诪讛讜 砖转诪讗谉 讛砖转讗 讜转注拽专讬谞讛讜 诇谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 拽诪讗讬 讜转转讬讬讘诐 (爪专转讛) 讬砖 诪讬讗讜谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, continued: Rather, this is what they asked: If the minor was the wife of someone鈥檚 mother鈥檚 brother, a secondary forbidden relative, i.e., a relative forbidden to him by rabbinic law, and afterward his paternal brother married her and died, so that she became eligible to him for levirate marriage, what is the halakha with regard to the following: May she refuse now and uproot the first marriage to the mother鈥檚 brother, so that she will no longer be a forbidden relative, and likewise her rival wife will not be the rival wife of a forbidden relative, so that her rival wife may enter into levirate marriage? In other words, in a case where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, is refusal after the husband鈥檚 death valid or not?

砖讻专讜 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗住专 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 讜讗住专

Those involved hired two people for four hundred dinars, and they came and asked Rabbi Akiva in prison and he deemed it prohibited. They asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Netzivin and he deemed it prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 砖诪讜转专转 诇讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 砖谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜

Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: Rav concedes that she is permitted to the brother of the man to whom she is forbidden. Rav Yitz岣k is referring to a case of a minor who refused her husband, remarried the same man, and was subsequently divorced, and then married another man and refused him. Although she may not remarry the first husband, she may marry his brother, despite the fact that one may not ordinarily marry one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 divorc茅e.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚诪讻专转 讘专诪讬讝讜转讬讜 讜拽专讬爪讜转讬讜 讗讘诇 讗讞讬讜 诇讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝专 讛讗讬 讗讟讜 讛讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious. It is he, her former husband, whose hints and gestures she recognizes, but not those of his brother, so that there is no concern that the brother will persuade her to refuse her husband. The Gemara explains: Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan saw fit to point this out, lest you say: Issue a decree rendering it prohibited for her to marry this brother due to the risk that such a marriage would lead people to think she is permitted to marry that brother, her original husband. Therefore, he teaches us that no such decree was instituted.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讻砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讜 讻讱 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讞讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻专转 讘拽专讬爪讜转讬讛诐 讜专诪讬讝讜转讬讛诐 讙讝讬专讛 讗讞讬讜 讗讟讜 讛讜讗

And there are those who say a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: Just as she is forbidden to him, to the man who divorced her, so is she forbidden to his brothers. The Gemara asks: But she is not familiar with their intimations and gestures. Why is it prohibited for her to marry them? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree concerning the ex-husband鈥檚 brothers due to him, the ex-husband. If she were to be permitted to her ex-husband鈥檚 brothers, people might mistakenly think that she is even permitted to remarry the ex-husband himself.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬讘诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces a woman and remarries her and then dies childless, his wife is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with her yavam,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 108: Not against Her Will

A mishnah from 107b: defining a minor girl, who would then need to and be able to refuse a betrothal...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 13: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For previous...
apiryon european 18th c

I’m Getting Married in the Morning

In the context of a conversation about when a young bride can refuse to marry the man chosen for her...

Yevamot 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 108

讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讬讟讗 转拽讬谞讜 讛讻讬 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讬讗谞讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讘转 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗谞驻谞讗

This document may come to be confused with a bill of divorce and perhaps a man will err and give a bill of divorce using the text of refusal. Therefore, they decreed that one should write as follows: On such and such a day, so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, performed refusal in our presence, and no more.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讝讛讜 诪讬讗讜谉 讗诪专讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖讜谞讬 讗诪讬 讜讗讞讬 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜砖讘转 讘讗驻专讬讜谉 讜讛讜诇讻转 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诇讘讬转 讘注诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讝讛讜 诪讬讗讜谉

The Sages taught: What constitutes a refusal? If she said: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, or: I do not want the betrothal in which my mother and brothers had me betrothed, that is a refusal. Rabbi Yehuda said more than that: Even if she is sitting in a bridal chair [apiryon] going from her father鈥檚 house to her husband鈥檚 house and said along the way: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, this constitutes a refusal.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讜 讗讜专讞讬谉 诪住讜讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讜诪砖拽讛 注诇讬讛诐 讜讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪讬讗讜谉 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讙专讛 讘注诇讛 讗爪诇 讞谞讜谞讬 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讞驻抓 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诪专讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讬讗讜谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

Rabbi Yehuda said even more than that: Even if guests are reclining at her husband鈥檚 house and she is standing and serving them drinks as hostess, and she said to them: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, this constitutes a refusal, even though it is possible that she is merely complaining about the effort she is expending. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said more than that: Even if her husband sent her to a shopkeeper to bring him an article of his and she said: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, there is no greater refusal than this.

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 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 转谞讗 拽讟谞讛 砖诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞砖讗转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗诪专讜 谞讬砖讜讗讬讛 讛谉 讛谉 诪讬讗讜谞讬讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Any girl who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal safe does not need to refuse. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus. It was taught: In the case of a minor girl who did not refuse her husband, but who went and married someone else, it was said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Her new marriage constitutes her refusal, as she made her state of mind known, that she does not want him, and that is sufficient.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞转拽讚砖讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 拽讟谞讛 砖诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗诪专讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讛谉 讛谉 诪讬讗讜谞讬讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if she was betrothed to another man without performing refusal of the first husband? Is her acceptance of the betrothal sufficient to indicate that she refuses the first husband? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from a baraita: If a minor girl did not refuse her husband but went and became betrothed to another man, then, as the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Her betrothal constitutes her refusal.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜 诇讗 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira or not? And further, if you say that they do disagree with him, do they disagree with him with regard to betrothal alone, or do they also disagree with him with regard to marriage? And if you say that they disagree even with regard to marriage, is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, is this only with regard to marriage, or is it even with regard to betrothal?

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara cites a tradition: Come and hear: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to both marriage and betrothal. From the fact that he ruled the halakha, one may derive by inference that the Rabbis disagree.

讜讗讻转讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讛讜讛 谞住讬讘讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讬拽讚砖讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讻诇转讬讛 讚讗讘讚谉 讗讬诪专讜讚 砖讚专 专讘讬 讝讜讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 诇诪讬讘讚拽讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 谞砖讬 讞讝讜 讙讘专讬讬讻讜 讚拽讗转讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 谞讬讛讜讜 讙讘专讬讬讻讜 讚讬讚讻讜

But still, you should raise the dilemma: Does Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira say that her betrothal to another counts as refusal even when she had initially been married or perhaps only if she was betrothed but not married beforehand? Come and hear: The daughters-in-law of Abdan rebelled against their husbands. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a pair of Sages to examine them and determine what could be done to rectify the matter. Some women said to the daughters-in-law: See, it is your husbands that are coming. They said back to them: Let them be your husbands.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讬讗讜谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讛讜讛 谞住讬讘讗 诇讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讬拽讚砖讗 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讚拽诪讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There is no greater refusal than this. What is the case? Is it not that they were already married? The Gemara rejects this: No, they were merely betrothed, but not married. This story cannot establish unequivocally what the halakha is in the case when the girl is married. The Gemara nevertheless concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in all of these matters, even with regard to her marriage to the first husband: Even if she had actually been married to the first man, the marriage is invalidated by her betrothal to another.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜讝专谞讬 注诇 讻诇 爪讚讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗讚诐 砖讛砖讜讛 诪讚讜转讬讜 讘拽讟谞讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖注砖讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诪讟讬讬诇转 注诪讜 讘讞爪专 讜注讜诪讚转 诪讞讬拽讜 讜讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

搂 It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: The act of a minor girl is nothing. Rather, her status is as though she were a seduced unmarried woman. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: I reviewed all the opinions of the Sages concerning these matters, and I did not find any person who applied a consistent standard with regard to a minor like Rabbi Elazar did. For Rabbi Elazar portrayed her as a girl walking with her husband in a courtyard, who stands up from his bosom after he engaged in intercourse with her, and immerses herself to become ritually pure, and partakes of teruma by evening as if there were no marital bond between them and as if she, as the daughter of a priest, could continue to partake of teruma. The daughter of a priest is prohibited from eating teruma once she is married to a non-priest.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注砖讛 拽讟谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讛 讝讻讗讬 诇讗 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖爪专讬讻讛 诪讬讗讜谉

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of a minor girl is nothing, and therefore her marriage is not valid. And her husband has no rights to items she finds, nor to her earnings; nor does he have the right to annul her vows; he does not inherit her assets if she dies; and if she dies he may not become ritually impure on her account if he is a priest, i.e., through his presence in the same room as her corpse. The principle is: She is not his wife in any sense, except that she must perform refusal in order to marry someone else.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讛 讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讛 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗诇讗 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘诪讬讗讜谉

Rabbi Yehoshua says: In the case of a minor whose mother or brother married her off, her husband has rights to items she finds, and to her earnings; and he has the right to annul her vows; and he inherits her assets if she dies; and if she dies he must become ritually impure on her account even if he is a priest. The principle is: She is his wife in every sense, except that she can leave him by means of refusal and does not require a bill of divorce.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛砖讜讛 诪讚讜转讬讜 讘拽讟谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讞诇拽 诪讗讬 讞诇拽 讗讬 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 转讬讘注讬 讙讟

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears to be more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Eliezer applied a consistent standard with regard to a minor, while Rabbi Yehoshua applied an inconsistent standard. The Gemara asks: In what way is his standard inconsistent? The Gemara answers: If she is his wife, she should require a bill of divorce from him.

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 诪讬讗讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讚讬 转讬驻讜拽

According to Rabbi Eliezer too, there appears to be an inconsistency, as, if she is not his wife, she should not be required to perform refusal either. The Gemara answers: But shall she leave with no ritual at all? Some sort of act is required to indicate that their relationship is permanently severed. Rabbi Eliezer has a consistent standard, according to which the marriage of a minor has no substance and to dissolve it she need only indicate that she does not want her husband. Rabbi Yehoshua is inconsistent in treating the relationship as a marriage even though it can be dissolved easily.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘注讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗诪专讛 诪讞诪转 驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 诪讞诪转 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞诐 诪讛讜讙谞讬谉 诇讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖

搂 The mishna stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: 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. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an obstruction due to the man, and an obstruction that is not due to the man? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If someone proposed marriage to her and she said: I do not wish to marry on account of so-and-so, my husband, this is an obstruction that is due to the man. When she declined the proposal, she made it clear that she views herself as his wife. But if she says: I do not want to marry because the men suggested to me are not suitable for me, this is an obstruction that is not due to the man, and she is not considered to be his wife.

讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nina bar Avin both say: If the minor鈥檚 husband gave her a bill of divorce, this is an obstruction that is due to the man, since in presenting the bill of divorce, the marriage is being treated as valid. Therefore, from then onward, he is prohibited from marrying her close relatives, and she is prohibited from marrying his close relatives; and, as a divorced woman, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. However, if she refuses him, this is an obstruction that is not due to the man. Therefore, he is permitted to marry her close relatives, and she is permitted to marry his close relatives, and she is not disqualified from the priesthood, since her refusal annuls the marriage retroactively.

讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 驻专讜砖讬 拽诪驻专砖

The Gemara challenges: But it is taught explicitly below, in the following mishna: If a minor girl refuses a man, he is permitted to marry her close relatives and she is permitted to marry his close relatives, and he has not disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is prohibited from marrying her close relatives, and she is prohibited from marrying his close relatives, and he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. Since the difference between refusal and a bill of divorce is already addressed in the following mishna, why is the same ruling repeated here? The Gemara answers: The following mishna is explaining the latter part of this mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

MISHNA: If a minor girl refuses a man, he is permitted to marry her close relatives, such as her mother or her sister, and she is permitted to marry his close relatives, such as his father or brother, and he has not disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as she is not considered divorced. However, if he gave her a bill of divorce, then even though the marriage was valid according to rabbinic law and not Torah law, he is prohibited from marrying her close relatives, and she is prohibited from marrying his close relatives, and he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜

If he gave her a bill of divorce but afterward remarried her, and she subsequently refused him and married another man, and then she was widowed or divorced from her second husband, she is permitted to return to him. Since she left him the last time by means of refusal, the refusal cancels the bill of divorce that he gave her previously, and her status is that of a minor girl who refused her husband, who is not forbidden to her first husband after a second marriage. However, if the order was different, and if she refused him and he subsequently remarried her, and this time he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man, and she was widowed or divorced, she is forbidden to return to him, like any divorced woman who married another man.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讙讟 讗讞专 诪讬讗讜谉 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 诪讬讗讜谉 讗讞专 讙讟 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜

This is the principle concerning a minor girl who refused her husband and then married several times: If the bill of divorce followed the refusal and she remarried, she is forbidden to return to him. If the refusal followed the bill of divorce, she is permitted to return to him. Since the refusal followed the bill of divorce it is clear that she was a minor and neither the marriage nor the divorce were valid by Torah law. However, when the ultimate separation is by means of a bill of divorce, there is no indication that she was a minor at the time and there is potential for confusion with an adult divorc茅e.

讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讙讟 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜

If a minor girl refuses one man and marries another, and he divorces her, and then she marries another man and refuses him, and then she marries another man and he divorces her, this is the principle for this case: With regard to anyone she leaves by means of a bill of divorce, it is prohibited for her to return to him. With regard to anyone she leaves by means of refusal, she is permitted to return to him.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讜诪讘讟诇 讙讟

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that if the man gave his minor wife a bill of divorce but subsequently remarried her and she refused him, and then she married someone else, she is permitted to remarry the first husband when her marriage to the second is concluded. Apparently, refusal comes and nullifies a bill of divorce.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬爪转讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讙讟 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜讘讟讬诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara raises a contradiction from the end of the mishna: If a minor girl refuses one man and marries another, and he divorces her, and then she marries another man and refuses him, and then she marries another man and he divorces her, this is the principle: With regard to anyone she leaves by means of a bill of divorce, she is prohibited from returning to him. With regard to anyone she leaves by means of refusal, she is permitted to return to him. Apparently, a refusal of another man does not come and nullify one鈥檚 own bill of divorce. If the refusal completely nullified the marriage to the second husband, there would be no obstacle to her remarrying her first husband, as an ex-wife who did not marry another man is permitted to remarry her first husband. However, the divorce, combined with the second marriage, does generate a prohibition, and she is prohibited from remarrying in this case.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This mishna is disjointed, and he who taught this halakha, that she may remarry her first husband if she refused him after he divorced her, did not teach that halakha, that her refusal of another man does not render her permitted to her divorced husband.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讚诇诪讗 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讘讟诇 讙讟 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讻专转 讘专诪讬讝讜转讬讜 讜拽专讬爪讜转讬讜 讗讝诇 诪砖讘砖 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪讻专转 讘专诪讬讝讜转讬讜 讜拽专讬爪讜转讬讜 讗讝讬诇 诪砖讘砖 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

Rava said: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps her refusal of him nullifies his bill of divorce, while her refusal of the other man does not nullify the original husband鈥檚 bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: In what way is her refusal of the other man different, that it does not nullify his bill of divorce? Isn鈥檛 it that because she is familiar with the intimations and gestures [keritzotav] of her first husband, he will lead her astray and bring her back to him, by causing her to refuse her new husband and then return to him? Consequently, it was decreed that she may not return to her first husband by refusing the second. But for this same reason the refusal against the first husband himself also should not nullify his own bill of divorce, as, since she is familiar with his intimations and gestures, he will lead her astray and bring her back to him after she has married another man.

讛讗 讻讘专 砖讘砖讗 讜诇讗 讗讬砖讘砖讗

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers: But he already tried to lead her astray and she was not led astray. In other words, he already remarried her after the divorce and she still refused him, which proves that he does not have sufficient influence to lead her astray.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讚讞讘专讬讛 拽砖讬讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讟注诪讗 讚谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讛讗 诪讬讗谞讛 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛

But if there is a difficulty, it is the contradiction between one halakha involving a another man and a different halakha involving another man that is difficult, as the mishna states: If she refused him and he subsequently remarried her, and this time he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another man, and she was widowed or divorced, she is prohibited from returning to her original husband. The reason is specifically that she was widowed or divorced by the other man. But if she had refused the second husband, she would be permitted to return to the first husband. Apparently, a refusal of the other man would have come and nullified his bill of divorce, permitting her to remarry the first husband, despite her erstwhile marriage to the other man.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛诪诪讗谞转 讘讗讬砖 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讙讬专砖讛 诇讗讞专 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讘讜 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬爪转讛 诪诪谞讜 讘讙讟 讗住讜专讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讞讝讜专 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬讗讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜诪讘讟诇 讙讬讟讗 讚讬讚讬讛

This raises a contradiction, as it is taught later: If a minor girl refuses one man and marries another and he divorces her, and then she marries another and refuses him, this is the principle: With regard to anyone she leaves by means of a bill of divorce, she is prohibited from returning to him. With regard to anyone she leaves by means of refusal, she is permitted to return to him. Apparently, refusal of the other man cannot come and nullify his own bill of divorce.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诇砖讛 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讚诪讬讞讝讬讗 讻讙讚讜诇讛

Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed, and he who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha. Ulla said: The last clause, in which it says her refusal does not nullify the bill of divorce, is referring to a case where she was divorced three times. Since she was divorced three times, she appears to be an adult, and therefore the Sages did not allow her refusal to cancel the effect of the divorce.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬诪讬谞讜 讘讻住祝 砖转讬谞讜 注爪讬谞讜 讘诪讞讬专 讬讘讗讜 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 谞转讘拽砖讛 讛诇讻讛 讝讜 讛专讬 砖讬爪讗讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 讘讙讟 讜诪砖谞讬 讘诪讬讗讜谉 诪讛讜 砖转讞讝讜专 诇专讗砖讜谉

搂 The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the mishna is disjointed, who is the tanna that taught that a minor may always remarry a husband she refused but not one who divorced her? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This can be determined based on the following incident. What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲e have drunk our water for money; our wood comes to us for a price鈥 (Lamentations 5:4), implying that Torah, which is analogous to water, can be purchased with money. The Gemara explains: During the time of danger, i.e., religious persecution by the Romans, this halakhic ruling was requested: If she, a minor, left her first husband by means of a bill of divorce and her second by refusal, what is the halakha with regard to her returning to the first?

砖讻专讜 讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗住专 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 讜讗住专

Those involved hired one person for four hundred dinars for the dangerous mission and asked Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated in prison by the Romans for teaching Torah, and he ruled that it is forbidden. They asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Netzivin, in Babylonia, and he also deemed it forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讝讜 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻谞讜 诇讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讛转专转 诇讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: This question was not what they asked, as it was unnecessary: If you rendered permitted a prohibition for whose violation one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet], i.e., if the prohibition against sexual intercourse with a married woman is dissolved by the refusal, as the marriage is nullified retroactively, then is it not clear all the more so that after a refusal, the regular prohibition against remarrying one鈥檚 ex-wife after she was married to another should be permitted? The opinion in the mishna that refusal does not cancel the effect of divorce is in accordance with that of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, while the opinion that she is permitted to return to her first husband after refusing the second one is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.

讘专诐 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 讛专讬 讛讬转讛 讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗诪讜 砖讛讬讗 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讜 讜谞砖讗讛 讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 诪讛讜 砖转诪讗谉 讛砖转讗 讜转注拽专讬谞讛讜 诇谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 拽诪讗讬 讜转转讬讬讘诐 (爪专转讛) 讬砖 诪讬讗讜谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, continued: Rather, this is what they asked: If the minor was the wife of someone鈥檚 mother鈥檚 brother, a secondary forbidden relative, i.e., a relative forbidden to him by rabbinic law, and afterward his paternal brother married her and died, so that she became eligible to him for levirate marriage, what is the halakha with regard to the following: May she refuse now and uproot the first marriage to the mother鈥檚 brother, so that she will no longer be a forbidden relative, and likewise her rival wife will not be the rival wife of a forbidden relative, so that her rival wife may enter into levirate marriage? In other words, in a case where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, is refusal after the husband鈥檚 death valid or not?

砖讻专讜 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗住专 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 讜讗住专

Those involved hired two people for four hundred dinars, and they came and asked Rabbi Akiva in prison and he deemed it prohibited. They asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Netzivin and he deemed it prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 砖诪讜转专转 诇讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 砖谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜

Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: Rav concedes that she is permitted to the brother of the man to whom she is forbidden. Rav Yitz岣k is referring to a case of a minor who refused her husband, remarried the same man, and was subsequently divorced, and then married another man and refused him. Although she may not remarry the first husband, she may marry his brother, despite the fact that one may not ordinarily marry one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 divorc茅e.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚诪讻专转 讘专诪讬讝讜转讬讜 讜拽专讬爪讜转讬讜 讗讘诇 讗讞讬讜 诇讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝专 讛讗讬 讗讟讜 讛讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious. It is he, her former husband, whose hints and gestures she recognizes, but not those of his brother, so that there is no concern that the brother will persuade her to refuse her husband. The Gemara explains: Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan saw fit to point this out, lest you say: Issue a decree rendering it prohibited for her to marry this brother due to the risk that such a marriage would lead people to think she is permitted to marry that brother, her original husband. Therefore, he teaches us that no such decree was instituted.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讻砖诐 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讜 讻讱 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讞讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻专转 讘拽专讬爪讜转讬讛诐 讜专诪讬讝讜转讬讛诐 讙讝讬专讛 讗讞讬讜 讗讟讜 讛讜讗

And there are those who say a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: Just as she is forbidden to him, to the man who divorced her, so is she forbidden to his brothers. The Gemara asks: But she is not familiar with their intimations and gestures. Why is it prohibited for her to marry them? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree concerning the ex-husband鈥檚 brothers due to him, the ex-husband. If she were to be permitted to her ex-husband鈥檚 brothers, people might mistakenly think that she is even permitted to remarry the ex-husband himself.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 诪讜转专转 诇讬讘诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces a woman and remarries her and then dies childless, his wife is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with her yavam,

Scroll To Top