Yevamot 213:1

מתני׳ <big><strong>בית שמאי</strong></big> אומרים אין ממאנין אלא ארוסות ובית הלל אומרים ארוסות ונשואות

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ONLY THOSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Young girls who are minors and whose fathers are dead. v. infra n. 2. ');">¹</span> WHO ARE BETROTHED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the permission of their mother or brothers into whose charge they pass after the death of their fathers. ');">²</span> MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un (v. Glos.) and no divorce is required. ');">³</span> BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: BOTH THOSE WHO ARE BETROTHED AND THOSE WHO ARE MARRIED. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un (v. Glos.) and no divorce is required. ');">³</span>

ב"ש אומרים בבעל ולא ביבם וב"ה אומרים בבעל וביבם

MAY BE MADE] AGAINST A HUSBAND BUT NOT AGAINST A LEVIR;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate bond with whom can he severed by halizah only. BaH deletes 'but not&nbsp;… levir'. ');">⁴</span> BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER AGAINST A HUSBAND OR AGAINST A LEVIR. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [THE DECLARATION]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">⁵</span> MUST BE MADE IN HIS PRESENCE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER IN HIS PRESENCE OR NOT IN HIS PRESENCE. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [THE DECLARATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">⁵</span> MUST BE MADE] BEFORE <i>BETH DIN</i>, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER BEFORE <i>BETH DIN</i> OR NOT BEFORE <i>BETH DIN</i>.

ב"ש אומרים בפניו ובית הלל אומרים בפניו ושלא בפניו ב"ש אומרים בב"ד וב"ה אומרים בב"ד ושלא בב"ד

BETH HILLEL SAID TO BETH SHAMMAI: [A GIRL] MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL WHILE SHE IS A MINOR EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may marry again after each refusal. ');">⁶</span> BETH SHAMMAI, HOWEVER, ANSWERED THEM: THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL ARE NOT OWNERLESS PROPERTY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be taken up by man after man without receiving proper divorce from the one before being betrothed or married to the other ');">⁷</span> BUT, [IF ONE] MAKES A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, SHE MUST WAIT TILL SHE IS OF AGE, AND DECLARE HER REFUSAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra. ');">⁸</span> AND MARRY AGAIN.

אמרו להם ב"ה לבית שמאי ממאנת והיא קטנה אפילו ד' וה' פעמים אמרו להם ב"ש אין בנות ישראל הפקר אלא ממאנת וממתנת עד שתגדיל ותמאן ותנשא:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: What is Beth Shammai's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For ruling that ONLY BETROTHED WOMEN MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL and that consequently a married minor may not exercise the right. ');">⁹</span> Because no stipulation is attachable to a marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the validity of the marriage is not in any way impaired even if the condition that was attached to it was not fulfilled. The law assumes that the man tacitly renounces, on cohabitation, the condition. ');">¹⁰</span> and were a married minor to be allowed to exercise the right of refusal, it would come to be assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The invalidity of her marriage being assumed to be due, not to her minority, but to some unfulfilled stipulation that was attached to her marriage. ');">¹¹</span> that a stipulation is attachable to a marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of one who is of age. Hence Beth Shammai's ruling in our Mishnah. Cf. supra note 1. ');">¹²</span>

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

What reason, however, could be advanced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the prohibition of mi'un. V. Glos. ');">¹³</span> where she only entered the bridal chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Huppah, v. Glos. ');">¹⁴</span> and no cohabitation had taken place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case, since consummation of marriage has not taken place, there is, surely, no need to provide against the erroneous assumption of the validity of a stipulation in consummated marriage! ');">¹⁵</span> Because no condition is attachable to an entry into the bridal chamber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a minor at such a stage in her marriage were allowed mi'un it might be assumed that the reason why her union was severed without a divorce was not because of her minority but owing to an unfulfilled condition that was attached to her entry into the bridal chamber, and so it would be concluded erroneously that even in the case of one who is of age a condition attached is valid. ');">¹⁶</span>

נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה מאי איכא למימר לפי שאין תנאי בחופה

What reason, however, could be advanced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the prohibition of mi'un. V. Glos. ');">¹³</span> where the father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his successors in authority over the minor, after his death, viz., his wife and sons. (Cf. supra p. 738, n. 2). Where a father is alive the law of mi'un (with the exception of the case mentioned supra p. 2, n. 6) does not apply, since he has the right to give her away in perfect and proper marriage while she is a minor. ');">¹⁷</span> entrusted her to the representatives of the husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An act which, though regarded as marriage, is a stage preceding that of entry into the bridal chamber, where a condition is valid, even in the case of a bride who is of age. ');">¹⁸</span> — The Rabbis made no distinction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between a marriage fully consummated and one in its earlier stage. Since both are cases of marriage, permissibility of mi'un in the latter might lead to an erroneous conclusion concerning the former. ');">¹⁹</span>

מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל מאי איכא למימר לא פלוג רבנן

And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do they not provide against the possibility of erroneous conclusions. ');">²⁰</span> — It is well known that the marriage of a minor is only Rabbinically valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No one would draw comparisons between a marriage the validity of which is only Rabbinical and one which is Pentateuchally binding. ');">²¹</span> Both Rabbah and R. Joseph declared: The reason of Beth Shammai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 739, n. 1. ');">²²</span> is that no man wishes to treat his cohabitation as mere fornication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would be the case were a married minor to be allowed to leave her husband by mi'un only without a proper divorce. Mi'un was, therefore, forbidden in order to encourage the marriage of orphan minors who, if they remain unmarried, are subject to the dangers of immorality and prostitution. Cf. infra 112b. ');">²³</span>

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

What, however, can be the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 739, n. 1. ');">²²</span> where she only entered the bridal chamber and no cohabitation took place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the reason given is inapplicable. ');">²⁴</span> No man would like his bridal chamber to be [an introduction to] a forbidden act.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Retrospective prostitution. ');">²⁵</span> What reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 739, n. 1. ');">²²</span>

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

then, could be advanced where the father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 739, n. 9. ');">²⁶</span> had entrusted her to the representatives of the husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though such an act on the part of the minor's mother or brothers constitutes marriage in accordance with Rabbinic law, as does such an act on the part of the father even in the case of one who is of age (cf. Keth. 48b), nevertheless the question of fornication does not in such a case arise. Why, then, do Beth Shammai forbid mi'un even at this stage of marriage? ');">²⁷</span> — The Rabbis made no distinction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 739, n. 11. ');">²⁸</span> And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of the reason advanced, could they allow mi'un even in marriage! ');">²⁹</span>

רב פפא אמר טעמא דב"ש משום פירי טעמא דב"ה משום פירי טעמא דב"ש 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

— Since [a minor's marriage] involves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is'. ');">³⁰</span> betrothal and <i>kethubah</i> no one would suggest that her husband's cohabitation was an act of fornication. R. Papa explained: Beth Shammai's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 739, n. 1. ');">³¹</span> is because of the usufruct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the minor's melog (v. Glos.) property. ');">³²</span>

רבא אמר היינו טעמא דב"ש שאין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה וב"ה תרוייהו ניחא להו כדי דליפוק עלייהו קלא דאישות:

and Beth Hillel's reason also is because of the usufruct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the minor's melog (v. Glos.) property. ');">³²</span> 'Beth Shammai's reason is because of the usufruct', for should you say that a married minor may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who after marriage is entitled to the usufruct of his wife's melog property. ');">³³</span> might [indiscriminately] pluck [the fruit] and consume it, [knowing as he does] that she might leave him at any moment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for in the end she stands to go out'. ');">³⁴</span> Beth Hillel, however, [say]: On the contrary; since it is laid down that she may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband] would make every effort to improve her property, fearing that if [he should] not [do this], her relatives might give her their advice [against him] and thus take her away from him.

ב"ש 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

Raba stated: The real reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 739, n. 1. ');">³¹</span> of Beth Shammai is because no man would take the trouble to prepare a meal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wedding feast. ');">³⁵</span> and then spoil it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had mi'un been allowed after a marriage no one would, for this reason, ever marry a minor; and this might lead to immoral consequences. Cf. supra p. 740, n. 2. ');">³⁶</span> And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 740, n. 8. ');">³⁷</span>

והרי ביאה דבעל כרחה

— Both are pleased [to be married to each other]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the objections pointed out by Beth Shammai. ');">³⁸</span> in order that they may be known as married people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The possible loss does not, therefore, prevent a man from marrying a minor. ');">³⁹</span> BETH SHAMMAI RULED&nbsp;… AGAINST A HUSBAND etc. R. Oshaia stated: She may<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Beth Hillel who allow the right of refusal even against a levir. ');">⁴⁰</span> make a declaration of refusal in respect of his ma'amar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the levir made a ma'amar, she can annul it by mi'un, and no divorce is required. ');">⁴¹</span> but she has no right to make a declaration of refusal in respect of his levirate bond.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only halizah can sever the levirate bond. In ordinary cases where the levir addressed to the yebamah a ma'amar, she requires for her freedom both a divorce to annul the effect of the ma'amar, and halizah to sever the levirate bond. ');">⁴²</span> Said R. Hisda: What is R. Oshaia's reason? — She has the power to annul a ma'amar which is effected with her consent; she has no power, however, to sever the levirate bond since it is binding on her against her will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is due to her marriage with the deceased brother, which, since she did not exercise her right of refusal against him, remained valid. ');">⁴³</span> But, surely, [levirate marriage by] cohabitation may be effected against her will<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 53b, 54a. ');">⁴⁴</span>