Yevamot 214:1

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 yet she may annul it! — [This,] however, [is really the reason]: She may annul [a <i>kinyan</i> by] cohabitation or by a ma'amar, because it is the levir who effects it; she cannot, however, annul the levirate bond which the All Merciful has imposed upon her. 'Ulla said: She may exercise her right of refusal even in respect of his levirate bond. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could she annul a bond which the 'All Merciful has imposed upon her'? ');">¹</span> [By her refusal] she annuls the marriage of her first husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deceased; so that the levirate bond ceases to exist retrospectively as if it had never been in existence. ');">²</span> Raba raised an objection against 'Ulla: The rival of anyone, entitled to make a declaration of refusal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a girl who married while she was a minor and whose father did not receive the token of her betrothal. This may occur even during the lifetime of her father if she marries a second time after she had been divorced by her first husband to whom she had been given in marriage by her father. After a divorce the father's right to give his 'minor' daughter in marriage ceases. ');">³</span>

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

who did not exercise her right, must perform the ceremony of <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the levir, though he is the father or any other forbidden relative of the minor. It is only the rival of a woman whose marriage is Pentateuchally valid who is exempt from both levirate marriage and halizah with the forbidden relative of that woman. The marriage of a minor, who could exercise her right of refusal at any moment, is only Rabbinically valid. ');">⁴</span> [if her husband died childless] but may not contract levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2b. Since after all the minor did not exercise her right of refusal her marriage is valid enough to forbid her rival's levirate marriage, as is the case with a Pentateuchally valid marriage. ');">⁵</span> But why? Let her exercise her right of refusal now and thereby annul the marriage of her first husband, and then let her rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, by the declaration of refusal of the minor, ceases to be her rival. ');">⁶</span> contract the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the minor's forbidden relative. ');">⁷</span>

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

— The rival of a forbidden relative is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a minor who becomes subject to halizah. While the minor may, by annulling her marriage retrospectively by the exercise of the right of mi'un, procure exemption from the halizah, her rival cannot, through the minor's exercise of this right, obtain the freedom to marry the minor's forbidden relative. ');">⁸</span> For Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If a minor made a declaration of refusal against her husband she is permitted to marry his father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, owing to her retrospective annulling by mi'un of her marriage with his son, is to him now a mere stranger. ');">⁹</span> but if against the levir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom she has become bound by the levirate obligation when her husband, against whom she did not exercise her right of mi'un, died childless. ');">¹⁰</span> she is forbidden to marry his father. It is thus evident<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is forbidden to marry the levir's father. ');">¹¹</span>

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

that at the time she became subject to the levirate marriage she is looked upon as his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's father's. ');">¹²</span> daughter-in-law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A status which she retains despite the mi'un. ');">¹³</span> similarly here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her mi'un which annulled her marriage retrospectively exempted her from halizah. ');">¹⁴</span> [marriage of the rival is forbidden because] at the time of her subjection to the levirate marriage she is looked upon as his daughter's rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her subsequent estrangement, effected by the minor's mi'un, cannot remove her known status of forbidden relative's rival. Cf. supra note 10. ');">¹⁵</span>

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

Rab stated: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor. ');">¹⁶</span> made a declaration of refusal against one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹⁷</span> [of the levirs] she is forbidden [to marry] the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹⁷</span> also; her case being analogous to that of the recipient of a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the levirs. ');">¹⁸</span>

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

As<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not?' ');">¹⁹</span> the recipient of a letter of divorce is forbidden to all [the brothers] as soon as she is forbidden to one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who gave her the letter of divorce. ');">²⁰</span> so is there no difference here also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mi'un which causes her to be forbidden to marry one of the brothers causes her, as in the case of divorce, to be equally forbidden to all the other brothers. ');">²¹</span> Samuel, however, stated: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor. ');">¹⁶</span>

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:

exercised her right of refusal against one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who gave her the letter of divorce. ');">²⁰</span> [of the levirs] she is permitted [to marry] the others;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹⁷</span> her case being unlike that of the recipient of a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the levirs. ');">¹⁸</span> For with the recipient of a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the levirs. ');">¹⁸</span>

בית שמאי אומרים בפניו וכו': תניא אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי והלא פישון הגמל מיאנה אשתו שלא בפניו אמרו להן ב"ש לבית הלל פישון הגמל במדה כפושה מדד לפיכך מדדו לו במדה כפושה

it is he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who gave her the letter of divorce. ');">²⁰</span> who took the initiative against her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is presumed to have acted on behalf of all his brothers. ');">²²</span> but here it is she who took the initiative against him, declaring, 'I do not like you and I do not want you; it is you whom I dislike but I do like your fellow'. R. Assi ruled: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor. ');">¹⁶</span>

מדקא אכיל פירי פשיטא נשואה היא והאמרי ב"ש נשואה לא ממאנה תרי קיטרי עבדו ביה:

made a declaration of refusal against one [levir] she is permitted [to marry] even him. May it be assumed that he is of the same opinion as R. Oshaia who maintains that a minor has no right to make a declaration of refusal in respect of his levirate bond?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if she did exercise It she still remains permitted to the levir, v. supra p. 741, n. 8. ');">²³</span> — In respect of one levir she may well be entitled to annul [the levirate bond]; here, however, we are dealing with two levirs [the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the invalidity of the mi'un. ');">²⁴</span> being] that no declaration of refusal is valid against half a levirate bond.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is equally bound to the two levirs, and her refusal was declared against one of them only. ');">²⁵</span> When Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">²⁶</span>

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

he reported in the name of R. Johanan: If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor. ');">¹⁶</span> exercised her right of refusal against one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹⁷</span> [of the levirs] she is permitted to marry the other brothers. [They], however did not agree with him. Who [are they who] did not agree with him? … Abaye said: Rab;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated supra that if a minor made a declaration of refusal against one of the brothers she is forbidden to all. ');">²⁷</span> Raba said: R. Oshaia;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan permitted her to marry the brothers only where there were several of them (the reason being the same as that of R. Assi that a part of a levirate bond cannot be severed); where, however, there was only one brother R. Johanan forbids him to marry the minor who made a declaration of refusal against him. This ruling is contrary to that of R. Oshaia who in all cases regards mi'un against a levirate bond as invalid. ');">²⁸</span>

כדתניא בית שמאי אומרים בפני בית דין וב"ה 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:

and others said: [Even] R. Assi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Much more so R. Oshaia (v. supra n. 13). Even R. Assi who, unlike R. Oshaia agrees with R. Johanan in permitting the marriage of a minor, after her mi'un, only where the number of levirs is more than one, differs, nevertheless, from him in allowing the minor to marry the very levir against whom her declaration of refusal was made. ');">²⁹</span> BETH SHAMMAI RULED&nbsp;… IN HIS PRESENCE etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, 'Did not the wife of Pishon the camel driver make her declaration of refusal in his absence?' 'Pishon the camel driver', answered Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel, 'used a reversible measure;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] 'to bend' [H], a measure of capacity having a deep receptacle at one end and a shallow one at the other, to defraud thereby sellers and buyers; 'a false measure'. This is a metaphor expressing Pishon's double dealing with his wife in pretending merely to eat the fruit of her melog property, to which he was in fact entitled, while in reality he was encroaching upon the property itself which belonged to her. ');">³⁰</span> they, therefore, used against him also a reversible measure'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was paid 'measure for measure', 'tit for tat'. In other cases, however, mi'un must be declared before Beth din only. ');">³¹</span> Since, however, he was eating the usufruct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the minor's melog property. ');">³²</span>

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

it is obvious that [the minor] was married to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not merely betrothed. Before marriage, even if betrothal had taken place, a husband is not entitled to the usufruct of his wife's melog property. ');">³³</span> but [if this was the case] did not Beth Shammai rule [it may be asked] that a married minor may not exercise the right of refusal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could she here at all make such a declaration! ');">³⁴</span> They bound him with two bonds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Metaph. He was subjected to two penalties. [H] sing. [H] (Heb. [H]) 'knot', 'bond'. ');">³⁵</span> BETH SHAMMAI RULED:&nbsp;… BEFORE <i>BETH DIN</i> etc. Elsewhere we learned: <i>Halizah</i> and declarations of <i>mi'un</i> [must be witnessed by] three men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 101b, Sanh. 2a. ');">³⁶</span>

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

Who is the Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose ruling this statement represents. ');">³⁷</span> — Rabbah replied: This [ruling is that of] Beth Shammai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who require the presence of a Beth din (v. our Mishnah) which consists of three men. ');">³⁸</span> Abaye said: You may even say [that it is the ruling of] Beth Hillel. All that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until here'. ');">³⁹</span> Beth Hillel really stated was that no experts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mumhin, plur. of mumhe, v. Glos. ');">⁴⁰</span>

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

are required; three men, however, are indeed required. As it was, in fact, taught: Beth Shammai ruled [that <i>mi'un</i> must he declared] before <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of experts'. This is the reading supra 101b. ');">⁴¹</span> and Beth Hillel ruled: Either before a <i>Beth din</i> or not before a <i>Beth din</i>. Both, however, agree that a quorum of three is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which confirms Abaye's opinion. ');">⁴²</span> R. Jose son of R.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., [H] (= 'son'), is apparently a misprint for [H] (= 'son of R.'), which is the reading supra, loc. cit. ');">⁴³</span> Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. loc. cit. where the reading is 'Jose'. ');">⁴⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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

ruled: [<i>Mi'un</i> is] valid [even if It was declared] before two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 2a, supra loc. cit. ');">⁴⁵</span> R. Joseph b. Manyumi reported in the name of R. Nahman that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with this pair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who require a quorum of two only, v. supra loc. cit. ');">⁴⁶</span> BETH SHAMMAI, HOWEVER, ANSWERED&nbsp;… AND SHE DECLARES HER REFUSAL etc. But, surely, she has already made a declaration of refusal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she was a minor. Why then does our Mishnah speak of a second declaration of refusal after she has become of age? ');">⁴⁷</span> — Samuel replied: [The meaning is] TILL SHE IS OF AGE and states, 'I am willing to abide by the first declaration of refusal'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the second refusal (cf. supra n. 8) only the confirmation of the first was intended. Without such confirmation it might be possible to assume that she had changed her opinion and withdrawn her first declaration. ');">⁴⁸</span>

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

'Ulla replied: Two [different statements] are here made: Either she declares her refusal 'and is betrothed after she is of age,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she may no more exercise the right of mi'un even after a betrothal only. ');">⁴⁹</span> or she declares her refusal, and is married forthwith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While still a minor. Since, according to Beth Shammai, mi'un after a marriage is invalid she would not be able, once she was married, to exercise that right again. The word [H] translated AND DECLARES etc. should be rendered OR DECLARES etc. ');">⁵⁰</span> According to 'Ulla one can well understand why the expression, TILL SHE IS OF AGE OR DECLARES HER REFUSAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'OR&nbsp;… REFUSAL is wanting in cur. edd., but is to be added (cf. our Mishnah). ');">⁵¹</span> AND MARRIES AGAIN, was used. According to Samuel, however, it should have been stated 'TILL SHE IS OF AGE and states'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she abides by her declaration. ');">⁵²</span>

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

— This is a difficulty. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHICH MINOR MUST MAKE THE DECLARATION OF REFUSAL?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she desires to leave her husband. ');">⁵³</span> ANY WHOSE MOTHER OR BROTHERS HAVE GIVEN HER IN MARRIAGE WITH HER CONSENT. IF, HOWEVER, THEY GAVE HER IN MARRIAGE WITHOUT HER CONSENT SHE NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She may leave her husband without any legal formality, and may marry any other man. ');">⁵⁴</span> R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS RULED: ANY CHILD WHO IS UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF HER TOKEN OF BETROTHAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money or object whereby the kinyan of betrothal is effected. Cf. Kid. 2af. ');">⁵⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> 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

NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She may leave her husband without any legal formality, and may marry any other man. ');">⁵⁴</span> R. ELIEZER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH, Bomb. ed. and separate edd. of the Mishnah; Cur. edd., 'Eleazar'. ');">⁵⁶</span> RULED: THE ACT OF A MINOR HAS NO VALIDITY AT ALL, BUT [SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she was given away in marriage. ');">⁵⁷</span> IS TO BE REGARDED] AS ONE SEDUCED. IF, THEREFORE, SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE [AND WAS MARRIED] TO A PRIEST SHE MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her marriage being invalid, she remains in her father's control, and, like any other daughter of an Israelite who never married a priest, is forbidden to eat terumah. ');">⁵⁸</span> AND IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST [AND WAS MARRIED] TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the daughter of a priest who never married an Israelite. Cf. supra n. 6. ');">⁵⁹</span> R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IN THE CASE OF ANY HINDRANCE [IN REMARRYING]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'retention (in the house of her husband)'. ');">⁶⁰</span> THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND, [THE MINOR] IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as if she was'. ');">⁶¹</span> HIS WIFE; BUT IN THE CASE OF ANY HINDRANCE [IN REMARRYING] THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND SHE IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as if she was not'. ');">⁶²</span> HIS WIFE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah stated, and others say that it was taught In a Baraitha: Originally, a certificate of <i>mi'un</i> was drafted [as follows]: 'I do not like him and I do not want him and I do not desire to be married to him'. When, however, it was observed that the formula was too long and it was feared that