Yevamot 107a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A.

Beit Shammai say: They perform mi'un only with

minor girls who are

betrothed, and not with minor girls who are married; and the Gemara disagrees concerning the reason of Beit Shammai.

but not by minor girls who are married. The Gemara discusses the reason for Beit Shammai's ruling.

And Beit Hillel say:

both

betrothed and

both

married

minor girls perform mi'un.

B.

Beit Shammai say:

The mi'un of a betrothed girl may be only

with the husband,

while he is alive,

and not

after his death,

with the yavam].

Therefore, if the husband dies before she performed mi'un with him, the minor girl waits until she grows up and performs halitza, because a minor girl cannot perform halitza.

And Beit Hillel say:

They perform mi'un both

with the husband

and

with the yavam,

and it uproots retroactively the marriage of his brother.

And it will be explained in the Gemara whether the mi'un is her saying that she does not want the yavam, or whether she performs mi'un with the betrothal of her deceased husband.

C.

Beit Shammai say:

She performs mi'un only

in his presence,

that of her betrothed husband.

And Beit Hillel say:

She performs mi'un whether

in his presence

or

not in his presence.

D.

Beit Shammai say:

The mi'un must be performed specifically

in a court.

And Beit Hillel say:

whether

in a court or

whether

not in a court.

E.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: She performs mi'un while she is a minor, even four or five times.

Beit Shammai said

to Beit Hillel:

The daughters of Israel are not ownerless!

For if they leave through mi'un, and again become betrothed, and again leave through mi'un—this is an ownerless practice.

Rather, she performs mi'un]

only once,

and waits

to become betrothed

until she grows up,

and then she becomes betrothed with a betrothal by Torah law, and she will no longer leave her second husband through mi'un.

And she performs mi'un

with the first,

and

then

she marries.

And the Gemara disagreed concerning what the meaning of this additional mi'un is, after she had already performed mi'un with him once.

Gemara:

The Gemara brings four explanations for the reason of Beit Shammai that only betrothed girls perform mi'un:

The first explanation -

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: What is the reason of Beit Shammai

who said that only betrothed girls perform mi'un and not married girls, yet the married girl is also a minor -

Because there is no condition in marriage!

That is, because even one who stipulates a condition with the woman who becomes betrothed to him—for example, he betroths her on the condition that she has no blemishes—when he has intercourse with her, he relinquishes his condition because of the affection of intercourse.

And if

a

married minor girl performs mi'un with her husband and we permit her to marry outside, people will not attribute her permission to marry outside to her mi'un with her husband; rather, they will attribute this to the condition which he made with her at the time of her betrothal, and when he married her it became clear that the condition had not been fulfilled, for example, that blemishes were found in her.

with her husband and we permitted her to marry someone else, people would not attribute her being permitted to marry someone else to her mi'un with her husband. Rather, they would attribute it to the condition he made with her at the time of her betrothal: when he married her, it became clear that the condition had not been fulfilled, for example, because she was found to have defects.

And

it might be said,

and people might come to err and say that

there is a condition in marriage. That is, that a person does not relinquish the condition he made when he betrothed her, even at the time of intercourse. And this is an error.

Therefore, they instituted that a married girl may not perform mi'un.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it: From the wording of Beit Shammai it is explained that only betrothed girls perform mi'un, and not those who entered under the canopy but have not yet had intercourse, and not those who have already been delivered to the husband’s agents.

For entering under the canopy, or “delivery to the husband’s agents,” are stages of marriage [for several matters explained in Tractate Ketubot].

And since there is still no affection of intercourse here, the condition which he made with her when he betrothed her remains in force, and if it becomes clear to him then that she has blemishes, the betrothal is annulled.

And if so, a difficulty arises:

She entered under the canopy but did not have intercourse—

what is there to say?

Why should she not be able to perform mi'un then? After all, no mishap will result if people say that she left because of the condition and do not attribute it to her mi'un.

For if there was indeed a condition in her betrothal, and it has now become clear that she has blemishes, the betrothal will be annulled!

And we answer:

Because there is no condition

even under the canopy. Since, because of the affection of the canopy, he relinquishes his condition.

And if she performs mi'un and they attribute her leaving him to his condition, a mishap will result from this.

But there is still a difficulty: If

the father delivered

his daughter

to the husband’s agents,

when there is still no affection of the canopy, and a person does not relinquish his condition then—

what is there to say?

Why do Beit Shammai maintain that she cannot perform mi'un already from the time of the handing over? No mishap would result, since people would attribute her leaving him to his condition?

Why do Beit Shammai hold that she cannot perform mi'un already from the time of the delivery? After all, no mishap will result if they attribute her leaving to his condition?

And we answer: because of

“The Sages did not distinguish!”

That is, the Sages instituted their enactment in a comprehensive manner: betrothed girls perform mi'un, and married girls do not, and they did not distinguish between the stages of marriage.

And now the Gemara comes to clarify why Beit Hillel disagreed -

And Beit Hillel

hold that

people know

the

marriage of a minor girl:

Marriage

is rabbinic,

and she may leave him through mi'un, and people will not come to attribute her leaving to his condition.

Thus far the Gemara explained the reason of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel in explaining the words of Beit Shammai. And now the Gemara brings another explanation for their reason.

The second explanation -

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The reason of Beit Shammai

who hold that married girls do not perform mi'un is -

Because a person does not make his intercourse an act of promiscuity.

For the entire reason that the Sages instituted betrothal for a minor girl was so that people would not treat her in an ownerless manner.

And if she could perform mi'un after marrying him, and the mi'un retroactively uproots his betrothal with her, men would refrain from taking minor girls, since they do not want their intercourse to be intercourse of promiscuity, after their betrothal would be retroactively uprooted when the girls perform mi'un with them. And thereby the Sages’ enactment for the benefit of minor girls would be uprooted.

And we raise a difficulty:

She entered under the canopy but did not have intercourse,

when the reason that a person does not make his intercourse an act of promiscuity does not apply—

what is there to say?

Why can she not perform mi'un then? And we answer: because

it is not pleasing to a person

that

his

canopy should be

“a canopy of prohibition.” That is, he does not want such a canopy, which is preparation for intercourse of promiscuity, if she subsequently performs mi'un with him.

But the Gemara still asks:

But the Gemara still asks:

The father delivered [her] to the husband’s agents [

that is, her mother or brother delivered her, as explained above in the preceding note]—

what is there to say?

After all, delivery to the husband’s agents does not constitute a canopy for intercourse of promiscuity, but it is a stage of marriage; so why should she not be able to perform mi'un then?

And we answer:

The Sages did not distinguish!

And Beit Hillel,

who disagree with Beit Shammai, hold:

Since there are betrothal and a marriage contract

in the betrothal of a minor girl—

they will not come to say that his intercourse was intercourse of promiscuity.

The third explanation -

Rav Pappa said: The reason of Beit Shammai

is -

because of the produce,

the eating of the produce of nichsei melog, which is something practiced only in marriage and not in betrothal, as will be explained immediately.

And likewise,

the reason of Beit Hillel

is

because of the produce -

And Rav Pappa explains his words:

The reason of Beit Shammai is because of the produce

which the husband eats from the wife’s nichsei melog:

if you say that a married girl performs mi'un]—

he withdraws,

that is, he withdraws and refrains from tending to her property so that it will be preserved; rather, he takes the produce and does not concern himself with safeguarding the property,

and he eats them,

the produce,

from her,

since

in the end

she is destined to leave; he estimates that she will perform mi'un with him and leave him.

And Beit Hillel

hold,

on the contrary, since you say that she performs mi'un—

he improves them,

her properties. Since he

thinks that if he does not

protect her property,

her relatives will advise

her

to perform mi'un with him,

and they will take her

and remove her

from him.

away from him.

The fourth explanation —

The fourth explanation -

Rava said: This is the reason of Beit Shammai:

because

a person does not trouble himself with the marriage feast

of marriage

and lose it

if she performs mi'un with him after her marriage, and men will refrain from marrying minor girls. Therefore, they instituted that only betrothed girls perform mi'un.

And Beit Hillel

hold that

both of them,

the husband and the wife,

are pleased

with the marriage feast, even on the possibility that afterward she will perform mi'un and uproot their marriage,

so that a reputation of marriage will go out concerning them,

that a report will circulate about them that they were married during the period until the mi'un, and people will not say about them that they lived a life of ownerlessness, without a marital bond between them.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say:

She performs mi'un

with the husband

and not with the yavam, while Beit Hillel say: with the husband and with the yavam.

Rabbi Oshaya said:

According to Beit Hillel, who hold that she may perform mi'un also with the yavam,

she performs mi'un

only

with regard to his ma'amar],

for if the yavam performed ma'amar with her, she can uproot through her mi'un with him the ma'amar that he performed with her, and she does not need a bill of divorce for his ma'amar.

But

she

does not perform mi'un with regard to her bond.

For the bond continues even after her mi'un, and she requires halitza from the yavam in order to be permitted to marry outside.

Rav Chisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi Oshaya?

Since he holds that only the betrothal of the

ma'amar, which

the yavam performed with her

with her consent—

she can uproot,

she can uproot through her mi'un.

But the

bond

to the yevama,

which is against her will

she is bound to him, for she falls to the yavam by virtue of her marriage to her deceased husband, with whom she did not perform mi'un during his lifetime—

she cannot uproot.

And the Gemara questions Rav Chisda’s explanation:

But intercourse

which the yavam has with his yevama,

which is against her will

he performs with the yevama,

and

nevertheless -