Yevamot 216

זה הכלל גט אחר מיאון אסורה לחזור לו מיאון אחר גט מותרת לחזור לו

THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF DIVORCE FOLLOWED <i>MI'UN</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of the number of times the man married and divorced her and the number of times she exercised the right of mi'un. ');">¹</span> SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because her last separation was by means of a letter of divorce. Cf. supra. n. 8. ');">²</span> AND IF <i>MI'UN</i> FOLLOWED DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of the number of times the man married and divorced her and the number of times she exercised the right of mi'un. ');">¹</span>

הממאנת באיש ונשאת לאחר וגירשה לאחר ומיאנה בו לאחר וגירשה זה הכלל כל שיוצאה הימנו בגט אסורה לחזור לו במיאון מותרת לחזור לו:

SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 6. ');">³</span> IF A MINOR EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST A MAN, AND THEN SHE WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN WHO DIVORCED HER, AND AFTERWARDS TO ANOTHER MAN AGAINST WHOM SHE MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, AND THEN TO ANOTHER MAN WHO DIVORCED HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others insert here, 'to another against whom she exercised her right of refusal' (cf. separate edd. of the Mishnah, Alfasi and BaH). ');">⁴</span> SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'this is the general rule' is here omitted in accordance with the reading of the separate edd. of the Mishnah and Alfasi. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אלמא אתי מיאון ומבטל גט ורמינהי

IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO THE MAN FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, BUT IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY HER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF <i>MI'UN</i>. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It is thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was ruled that IF MI'UN FOLLOWED DIVORCE SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN to her husband, despite the divorce that preceded it. Cf. supra p. 751, 15, 6. ');">⁶</span> evident that <i>mi'un</i> has the power to cancel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes&nbsp;… and cancels'. ');">⁷</span>

הממאנת באיש ונשאת לאחר וגירשה לאחר ומיאנה בו לאחר וגירשה זה הכלל כל שיצתה הימנו בגט אסורה לחזור לו במיאון מותרת לחזור לו אלמא לא אתי מיאון דחבריה ובטיל גיטא דידיה

divorce; but this, surely, is contradicted by the following: IF A MINOR EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST A MAN AND THEN WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN WHO DIVORCED HER, AND AFTERWARDS TO ANOTHER MAN AGAINST WHOM SHE MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, AND THEN TO ANOTHER MAN WHO DIVORCED HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 1. ');">⁸</span> SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'this is the general rule' is here omitted in accordance with the reading of the separate edd. of the Mishnah and Alfasi. ');">⁵</span> IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO THE MAN FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, BUT IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY HER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF <i>MI'UN</i>, from which it is evident that <i>mi'un</i> against his fellow has no power to cancel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes&nbsp;… and cancels'. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו

his own divorce!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That preceded the mi'un. ');">⁹</span> — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: There is a break<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H], 'to break'). Others 'contradiction' (cf. Rashi, Levy and Jast ). ');">¹⁰</span> [in our Mishnah], the one who taught the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא ומאי קושיא ודלמא מיאון דידיה מבטל גט דידיה מיאון דחבריה לא מבטל גיטא דידיה ומאי שנא מיאון דחבריה דלא מבטל גיטא דידיה איידי דמכרת ברמיזותיו וקריצותיו אזל משבש ומייתי לה מיאון דידיה נמי לא ליבטל גיטא דידיה דאיידי דמכרת ברמיזותיו וקריצותיו אזיל משבש ומייתי לה

did not teach the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹¹</span> Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others, 'Rabbah'. Cf. BaH. ');">¹²</span> said: But what contradiction is this? It is possible that <i>mi'un</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case spoken of in the first statement of our Mishnah. ');">¹³</span>

הא כבר שבשא ולא אישבשא

cancels his own divorce, but that the <i>mi'un</i> against his fellow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of in the second statement. ');">¹⁴</span> does not cancel his own letter of divorce! But in what way is the <i>mi'un</i> against his fellow different from one against himself] that it should not cancel his own<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first husband. ');">¹⁵</span> divorce? [Obviously for the reason that] as she is familiar with his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first husband. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא אי קשיא דחבריה אדחבריה קשיא מיאנה בו והחזירה נתן לה גט ונשאת לאחר ונתארמלה או נתגרשה אסורה לחזור לו טעמא דנתארמלה או נתגרשה הא מיאנה מותרת לחזור לו אלמא אתי מיאון דחבריה ומבטל גיטא דידיה

hints and gesticulations he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first husband. ');">¹⁵</span> might allure her and marry her again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'entangle and bring her', i.e., he might take advantage of their earlier familiarity and insidiously ingratiate himself with her, creating dislike between her and her second husband so that she might be led to exercise her right of mi'un against the latter and return to him. ');">¹⁶</span> [But if this is the case] <i>mi'un</i> against himself also should not cancel his divorce, [for the same reason] that as she is familiar with his hints and gesticulations he might allure her and marry her again! Surely, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first husband. ');">¹⁵</span>

ורמינהי הממאנת באיש ונשאת לאחר וגירשה לאחר ומיאנה בו זה הכלל כל שיצתה ממנו בגט אסורה לחזור לו במיאון מותרת לחזור לו אלמא לא אתי מיאון דחבריה ומבטל גיטא דידיה

had already tried to allure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">¹⁷</span> her but she did not succumb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she was not entangled', 'confused'. The fact that she exercised the right of refusal against him after he had married her a second time and presumably made every effort to retain her, may be regarded as proof that she would not be induced to marry him a third time. When the mi'un, however, concerns a second husband. It is quite likely that, as her separation from her first husband was not due to her mi'un but to his divorcing her, she might readily consent to return to him and thus allow him to induce her to exercise her right of mi'un against her second husband. ');">¹⁸</span> If a contradiction, however, [exists it is that between one ruling] concerning his fellow against [another ruling] concerning his fellow: IF, HOWEVER, SHE EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HIM AND HE REMARRIED HER, AND HAVING SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE SHE MARRIED ANOTHER MAN AND BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO HIM. The reason [then why she is forbidden to return to him is] because she BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, but had she exercised her right of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against her second husband. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רבי אלעזר תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו עולא אמר כגון ששלשה בגיטין דמיחזיא כגדולה

she would have been permitted to return to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her first husband. ');">²⁰</span> from which it is evident that the <i>mi'un</i> against his fellow has the power to cancel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes&nbsp;… and cancels'. ');">²¹</span> his own divorce; but this view is contradictory to the following: IF A MINOR EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HER HUSBAND AND THEN WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN WHO DIVORCED HER, AND AFTERWARDS TO AN OTHER MAN AGAINST WHOM SHE MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 752, n. 2. ');">²²</span>

מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (איכה ה, ד) מימינו בכסף שתינו עצינו במחיר יבאו בשעת הסכנה נתבקשה הלכה זו הרי שיצאה מראשון בגט ומשני במיאון מהו שתחזור לראשון

IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO THE MAN FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, BUT IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY HER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF <i>MI'UN</i>. From this, then, it is evident that the <i>mi'un</i> against his fellow has no power to cancel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes and cancels'. ');">²³</span> his own divorce! R. Eleazar replied: There is a break<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 752, n. 7. ');">²⁴</span> [in our Mishnah]; the one who taught the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">²⁵</span>

שכרו אדם אחד בארבע מאות זוז ושאלו את ר' עקיבא בבית האסורין ואסר את רבי יהודה בן בתירה בנציבין ואסר

did not teach the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">²⁵</span> 'Ulla replied: [The latter statement refers to a case where], for instance, she was thrice divorced, so that she appears like a grown up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is in such a case only that she may not he remarried to any of the men, even though her separation from her last husband was by mi'un. If, however, she was divorced once or twice only, the mi'un against her last husband confirms her in the state of her minority, and she may be married again by either of the men who had previously divorced her. ');">²⁶</span> Who taught [the two respective statements of our Mishnah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning which it was said supra that they represent the views of different authors. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי לזו לא הוצרכנו לאיסור כרת התרת לאיסור לאו לא כל שכן

Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: To this may be applied the Scriptural text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (is the meaning) of that which was written'. ');">²⁸</span> We have drunk our water for money; our wood cometh to us for price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lam. v, 4. ');">²⁹</span> In the time of proscription<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'danger': the times of the suppression of the Bar Kokeba revolt in 135 C.E. when the study of the Torah and Rabbinic or oral law was forbidden by the Roman authorities under pain of death, ');">³⁰</span>

ברם כך שאלו הרי היתה אשת אחי אמו שהיא שנייה לו ונשאה אחיו מאביו ומת מהו שתמאן השתא ותעקרינהו לנישואין קמאי ותתייבם צרתה יש מיאון לאחר מיתה במקום מצוה או לא

the following <i>halachah</i> was inquired for: If a minor left her first husband with a letter of divorce and her second husband through <i>mi'un</i>, may she return to her first husband? They hired a man for four hundred <i>zuz</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³¹</span> and [through him] they addressed the enquiry to R. Akiba in prison,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The payment of the exorbitant sum of four hundred zuz for obtaining the required ruling recalled to Rab's mind the text of Lamentations quoted. ');">³²</span> and he stated that she was forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To return to her first husband. ');">³³</span>

שכרו שני בני אדם בארבע מאות זוז ובאו ושאלו את רבי עקיבא בבית האסורין ואסר את רבי יהודה בן בתירה בנציבין ואסר

R. Judah b. Bathyra [also was asked] at Nesibis and he too forbade her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To return to her first husband. ');">³³</span> Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose: There was no need for us to [ascertain] such [an <i>halachah</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, as is shewn presently, it is obvious that the minor is permitted to marry her first husband again after she has been separated from her second husband by mi'un. ');">³⁴</span> For if in a prohibition involving the penalty of <i>kareth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage with a married woman. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן ומודה רב שמותרת לאחיו של זה שנאסרה עליו

he has been permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a minor who has exercised the right of mi'un. ');">³⁶</span> how much more so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should one be permitted to marry her. ');">³⁷</span> in one [involving only the penalty of] a negative commandment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of again marrying one's divorced wife. Thus it has been shewn that the author of the first statement in our Mishnah was Rab and that the author of the second statement was R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. Rab, though he belonged to the first generation of Amoraim, was also among the last of the Tannaim. Hence he was sometimes described as Tanna. ');">³⁸</span>

פשיטא הוא ניהו דמכרת ברמיזותיו וקריצותיו אבל אחיו לא מהו דתימא ליגזר האי אטו האי קמ"ל

But the enquiry was in this manner: If [a minor] was the wife of his mother's brother, and consequently forbidden to him as a relative of the second degree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidden by Rabbinic law. Cf. supra 21a. ');">³⁹</span> and his paternal brother [subsequently] married her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of her first husband. ');">⁴⁰</span> and died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without issue, so that she became subject to levirate marriage with his paternal brother. ');">⁴¹</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן כשם שאסורה לו כך אסורה לאחין והא אינה מכרת בקריצותיהם ורמיזותיהם גזירה אחיו אטו הוא:

may she now exercise her right of <i>mi'un</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against her first husband, through marriage with whom she became forbidden to the levir, the man in question. ');">⁴²</span> and thus annul her first marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And remove thereby her forbidden relationship with the levir. ');">⁴³</span> and so be permitted to contract the levirate marriage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the levir between whom and herself no forbidden relationship any longer exists owing to her mi'un. Cf. supra notes 7 and 8. ');">⁴⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המגרש את האשה והחזירה מותרת ליבם

Is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis 'her rival'. ');">⁴⁵</span> <i>mi'un</i> valid after [a husband's] death where a religious performance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the levirate marriage (Deut. XXV, 5). ');">⁴⁶</span> is involved, or not? Two men were hired for four hundred <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁷</span> and when they came and asked R. Akiba in prison he ruled [that such levirate marriage was] forbidden; and when R. Judah b. Bathyra [was asked] at Nesibis he also decided that it was forbidden. R. Isaac b. Ashian stated: Rab, however, admits that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A divorced minor who may not be married again by the husband who divorced her though she was separated from her second husband by mi'un. ');">⁴⁸</span> is permitted to marry the brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is not regarded as his brother's divorcee. ');">⁴⁹</span> of the man whom she is forbidden [to remarry].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her mi'un does not alter her status of divorcee in respect of her former husband himself (for the reason stated supra) it does remove it as far as marriage with his brother is concerned. She is, as a result of her mi'un, no longer regarded as his brother's divorcee. ');">⁵⁰</span> Is not this obvious? For it is only he with whose hints and gesticulations she is familiar but not his brother!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since it is only this familiarity that is the cause of the prohibition, it is obvious that where it does not apply there should be no prohibition. ');">⁵¹</span> — It might have been assumed that [marriage with] the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁵²</span> should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁵²</span> hence we were taught [that his brother may marry her]. Another reading: R. Isaac b. Ashian stated: As she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 755, n. 13. ');">⁵³</span> is forbidden to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband who divorced her. ');">⁵⁴</span> so is she forbidden to his brothers. But, surely, she is not familiar with their hints and gesticulations!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 755, n. 16. Why then should she be forbidden to marry them? ');">⁵⁵</span> — His brothers were forbidden [marriage with her] as a preventive measure against [marriage] with him.