Yevamot 215

אתי לאיחלופי בגיטא תקינו הכי ביום פלוני מיאנה פלונית בת פלוני באנפנא

people might mistake it for a letter of divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And might consequently include the formula in letters of divorce also. ');">¹</span> the following formula was instituted: 'On the Nth day, So-and-so the daughter of So-and-so made a declaration of refusal in our presence'. Our Rabbis taught: What is regarded as <i>mi'un</i>? — If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor. ');">²</span>

תנו רבנן אי זהו מיאון אמרה אי אפשי בפלוני בעלי אי אפשי בקידושין שקידשוני אמי ואחי יתר על כן אמר ר' יהודה אפילו יושבת באפריון והולכת מבית אביה לבית בעלה ואמרה אי אפשי בפלוני בעלי זהו מיאון

said, 'I do not want So-and-so my husband', or 'I do not want the betrothal which my mother or my brothers have arranged for me'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with which they have consecrated me'. ');">³</span> R. Judah said even more than this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., extended the scope of mi'un still further. ');">⁴</span> Even if while sitting in the bridal litter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], [G]. ');">⁵</span>

יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה אפי' היו אורחין מסובין בבית בעלה והיא עומדת ומשקה עליהם ואמרה להם אי אפשי בפלוני בעלי הרי הוא מיאון יתר על כן אמר רבי יוסי בר יהודה אפילו שיגרה בעלה אצל חנוני להביא לו חפץ משלו ואמרה אי אפשי בפלוני בעלי אין לך מיאון גדול מזה:

and being carried<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and goes ');">⁶</span> from her father's house to the home of her husband, she said, 'I do not want So-and-so my husband', her statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it might be objected that, had she really meant what she said, she would have refused to be carried to her husband. ');">⁷</span> is regarded as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is'. ');">⁸</span>

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כל תינוקת וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס תנא קטנה שלא מיאנה ועמדה ונשאת משום רבי יהודה בן בתירה אמרו נישואיה הן הן מיאוניה

a declaration of refusal. R. Judah said more than this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">⁹</span> Even if, while the wedding guests were reclining [on their dining couches] in her husband's house and she was standing and waiting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and giving drink'. ');">¹⁰</span> upon them, she said to them, 'I do not want my husband So-and-so', her statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her waiting upon the guests might seem to contradict her declaration, and though no proper Beth din is present. ');">¹¹</span>

איבעיא להו נתקדשה מהו תא שמע קטנה שלא מיאנה ועמדה ונתקדשה משום ר' יהודה בן בתירה אמרו קידושיה הן הן מיאוניה

is regarded as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold it'. ');">¹²</span> a declaration of refusal. R. Jose b. Judah said more than this: Even if, while her husband sent her to a shopkeeper to bring him something for himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'an object of his'. ');">¹³</span> she said, 'I do not want So-and-so my husband', you can have no <i>mi'un</i> more valid than this one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. XIII. Though her statement might possibly be the result of a mere outburst against her husband for troubling her with his errand, and though no one but the shopkeeper was present when she made the statement. ');">¹⁴</span>

איבעיא להו פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי יהודה בן בתירה או לא אם תימצי לומר פליגי בקידושין או אפי' בנישואין ואם תימצי לומר פליגי אפילו בנישואין הלכה כמותו או אין הלכה כמותו ואם תימצי לומר הלכה כמותו בנישואין או אפילו בקידושין

R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS RULED: ANY CHILD etc. Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Hanina b. Antigonus. A Tanna taught: If a minor who did not make a declaration of refusal married herself again, her marriage, it was stated in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra, is to be regarded as her declaration of refusal. It was asked: What is the law where she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor who did not make her declaration of refusal. ');">¹⁵</span>

תא שמע אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יהודה בן בתירה הלכה מכלל דפליגי

was only betrothed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not married. Has betrothal the same validity as marriage? ');">¹⁶</span> — Come and hear: If a minor who did not make a declaration of refusal betrothed herself [to another man], her betrothal, it was stated in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra, is regarded as her declaration of refusal. The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Judah b. Bathyra or not? If you can find some ground for holding that they differ, [it may be asked whether only] in respect of betrothal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do they require separate mi'un, but not in the case of marriage, where they agree with R. Judah. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואכתי תיבעי לך דהוה נסיבא מעיקרא או דלמא מיקדשא ת"ש דכלתיה דאבדן אימרוד שדר רבי זוגי דרבנן למיבדקינהו אמרי להו נשי חזו גברייכו דקאתו אמרי להו ניהוו גברייכו דידכו

or even in respect of marriage? And should you find some reason for holding that they differ even in respect of marriage [the question arises whether] the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah; though he is in the minority. ');">¹⁸</span> or not? And if you can find some ground for holding that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with him [it may be asked whether only] in respect of marriage or also in respect of betrothal? — Come and hear: Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah b. Bathyra;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of marriage as well as in that of betrothal. ');">¹⁹</span> [since it had to be stated that] the <i>halachah</i> [is so] it may be inferred that they differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had they all been of the same opinion there would have been no need to make the statement that the halachah agrees with him. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רבי אין לך מיאון גדול מזה מאי לאו דהוה נסיבא לא דהוה מיקדשא קדושי והלכה כרבי יהודה בן בתירה ואפי' בנישואין דקמא:

The question, however, still remains [whether the minor spoken of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning whom it was ruled that no mi'un is required. ');">²¹</span> is one who was married in the first instance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., to her first husband. ');">²²</span> or perhaps she is one who was only betrothed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if married, specific mi'un is required. ');">²³</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חוזרני על כל צדדי חכמים ולא מצאתי אדם שהשוה מדותיו בקטנה כרבי אלעזר שעשאה רבי אלעזר כמטיילת עמו בחצר ועומדת מחיקו וטובלת ואוכלת בתרומה לערב

— Come and hear: Abdan's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abdan was one of Rabbi's disciples, who, after an incident with R. Ishmael, lost his two sons the husbands of the young women here mentioned. Cf. supra 105b. ');">²⁴</span> daughters-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were minors. ');">²⁵</span> rebelled [against their husbands].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Refusing to perform their marital obligations. ');">²⁶</span>

תניא רבי אליעזר אומר אין מעשה קטנה כלום ואין בעלה זכאי לא במציאתה ולא במעשה ידיה ולא בהפרת נדריה ואינו יורשה ואין מיטמא לה כללו של דבר אינה כאשתו לכל דבר אלא שצריכה מיאון

When Rabbi sent a pair of Rabbis to interrogate then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ascertain whether their refusal was in earnest. ');">²⁷</span> some women said to them, 'See your husbands are coming'. 'May they', they replied, 'be your husbands!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you are welcome to them. ');">²⁸</span> and 'Rabbi decided: 'No more significant <i>mi'un</i> than this is required'. Was not this a case of marriage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what not (but) that she was married', i.e., each of them was married to her husband, and, since a mere casual remark was nevertheless accepted by Rabbi as mi'un, it may be inferred that an actual marriage with, or a betrothal to another man may even more so be regarded as mi'un. ');">²⁹</span>

רבי יהושע אומר בעלה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה ויורשה ומיטמא לה כללו של דבר הרי היא כאשתו לכל דבר אלא שיוצאה במיאון

— No, one of betrothal only. The <i>halachah</i>, however, is in agreement with R. Judah b. Bathyra, even where marriage with the first husband has taken place. R. ELIEZER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 746, n. 4. ');">³⁰</span> RULED etc. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: I have surveyed [the rulings] of the Sages from all aspects and found no man who was so consistent in his treatment of the minor as R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 746, n. 4. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי אליעזר מדברי רבי יהושע שרבי אליעזר השוה מדותיו בקטנה ורבי יהושע חלק מאי חלק אי אשתו היא תיבעי גט

For R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 746, n. 4. ');">³⁰</span> regarded her as one taking a walk with [her husband] in his courtyard who, when she rises from his bosom, performs her ritual immersion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Necessitated by their connubial intercourse. ');">³¹</span> and is permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> in the evening.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If her father is a priest, though her husband is an Israelite. R. Eliezer does not regard the minor as a wife either in respect of the requirement of mi'un or in respect of any other restrictions or privileges such as those relating to terumah. ');">³²</span>

לרבי אליעזר נמי אי לאו אשתו היא מיאון נמי לא תיבעי אלא בכדי תיפוק:

It was taught: R. Eliezer stated: There is no validity whatsoever in the act of a minor, and her husband is entitled neither to anything she may find,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which a lawful husband is entitled. ');">³³</span> nor to the work of her hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which a lawful husband is entitled. ');">³³</span> nor may he annul her vows;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the privilege of a husband. Cf. Num. XXX. 71f. ');">³⁴</span>

ר"א בן יעקב אומר וכו': ה"ד עכבה שהיא מן האיש ועכבה שאינה מן האיש א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל תבעוה לינשא ואמרה מחמת פלוני בעלי זו היא עכבה שהיא מן האיש מחמת בני אדם שאינם מהוגנין לי זו היא עכבה שאינה מן האיש

he is not her heir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which a lawful husband is entitled. ');">³³</span> and he may not defile himself for her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is a priest. Only a lawful husband may. Cf. Lev. XXI, 2. ');">³⁵</span> This is the general rule: She is in no respect regarded as his wife, except that it is necessary for her to make a declaration of refusal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she wishes to marry another man. ');">³⁶</span>

אביי בר אבין ורב חנינא בר אבין דאמרי תרוייהו נתן לה גט זו היא עכבה שהיא מן האיש והוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו ופסלה מן הכהונה מיאנה בו זו היא עכבה שאינה מן האיש והוא מותר בקרובותיה והיא מותרת בקרוביו ולא פסלה מן הכהונה

R. Joshua stated: Her husband has the right to anything she finds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinic law has conferred upon him the same rights as those of a lawful husband. Cf. supra n. 4. ');">³⁷</span> and to the work of her hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinic law has conferred upon him the same rights as those of a lawful husband. Cf. supra n. 4. ');">³⁷</span> to annul her vows,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the privilege of a husband. Cf. Num. XXX. 71f. ');">³⁴</span>

הא קתני לקמן הממאנת באיש הוא מותר בקרובותיה והיא מותרת בקרוביו ולא פסלה מן הכהונה נתן לה גט הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו ופסלה מן הכהונה פרושי קמפרש:

to be her heir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinic law has conferred upon him the same rights as those of a lawful husband. Cf. supra n. 4. ');">³⁷</span> and to defile himself for her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he is a priest (cf. supra n. 6). She is regarded as a meth mizwah (v. Glos.), hence he may defile himself for her though Pentateuchally she is not his proper wife. ');">³⁸</span> the general principle being that she is regarded as his wife in every respect, except that she may leave him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she wishes to marry another man. ');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הממאנת באיש הוא מותר בקרובותיה והיא מותרת בקרוביו ולא פסלה מן הכהונה נתן לה גט הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו ופסלה מן הכהונה

by a declaration of refusal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no letter of divorce is required. ');">³⁹</span> Said Rabbi: The views of R. Eliezer are more acceptable than those of R. Joshua; for R. Eliezer is consistent throughout in his treatment of the minor while R. Joshua makes distinctions. What [unreasonable] distinctions does he make? — If she is regarded as his wife, she should also require a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un should not have been allowed. ');">⁴⁰</span> But according to R. Eliezer also [it may be argued] if she is not regarded as his wife, she should require no <i>mi'un</i> either! — Should she then depart without any formality whatever?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Hence the requirement of mi'un. ');">⁴¹</span>

נתן לה גט והחזירה מיאנה בו ונשאת לאחר ונתארמלה או נתגרשה מותרת לחזור לו מיאנה בו והחזירה נתן לה גט ונשאת לאחר ונתארמלה או נתגרשה אסורה לחזור לו

R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: etc. What is to be understood by a HINDRANCE THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND and a HINDRANCE THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: If when she was asked to marry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While she was still living with her first husband. ');">⁴²</span> she replied, '[I must refuse the offer] owing to So-and-so my husband'; such a HINDRANCE is one THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the minor has shewn by her declaration that it was her desire to continue to live with him. ');">⁴³</span> [If, however, she refused the offer] 'because', [she said] 'the men [who proposed] are not suitable for me'; such a HINDRANCE is one THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND. Both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin gave the following explanation: If he gave her a letter of divorce, the HINDRANCE IS one THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she did not exercise her right of refusal it is obvious that as far as she was concerned the union would never have been broken. ');">⁴⁴</span> and, therefore, he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives, and he also disqualifies her from marrying a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like any other divorced woman. ');">⁴⁵</span> If, however, she exercised her right of refusal against him, the HINDRANCE is one THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND and, therefore, he is permitted to marry her relatives and she is permitted to marry his relatives, and he does not disqualify her from marrying a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is not regarded as his wife. ');">⁴⁶</span> But surely, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah according to the explanation of Abaye and R. Hanina. ');">⁴⁷</span> was specifically stated below: If a minor made a declaration of refusal against a man, he is permitted to marry her relatives and she is permitted to marry his relatives, and he does not disqualify her from marrying a priest; but if he gave her a letter of divorce he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives, and he also disqualifies her from marrying a priest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah intro. Why then should the same ruling be recorded twice? ');">⁴⁸</span> — The latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited. ');">⁴⁹</span> is merely an explanation [of the former].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer b. Jacob's ruling in our Mishnah. ');">⁵⁰</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MINOR MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL AGAINST A MAN, HE IS PERMITTED [TO MARRY] HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS PERMITTED TO [MARRY] HIS RELATIVES, AND HE DOES NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM [MARRYING] A PRIEST;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is not regarded as his wife. ');">⁵¹</span> BUT IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO [MARRY] HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO [MARRY] HIS RELATIVES, AND HE ALSO DISQUALIFIES HER FROM [MARRYING] A PRIEST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like any other divorced woman. ');">⁵²</span> IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIED HER AND, AFTER SHE HAD EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HIM, SHE WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only a divorced woman that must not be remarried by her first husband after she had been married to another (v. Deut. XXIV, 2-4) but not a minor who left her husband by mi'un which even cancels her status of divorcee in which she may find herself after a previous separation from her husband. ');">⁵³</span> IF, HOWEVER, SHE EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her first husband. ');">⁵⁴</span> AND HE REMARRIED HER, AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN SHE WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since her second separation from her first husband was by means of a letter of divorce, she retains the status of a divorcee. Cf. supra n. 6. ');">⁵⁵</span>