Yevamot 107a (קז.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

Beit Shammai say: mi'un is performed only by

minor girls who are

betrothed,

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

married

minor girls may perform mi'un.

2.

Beit Shammai say:

The betrothed girl's mi'un may be performed only

with the husband,

while he is alive,

and not

after his death,

with the yavam.

Therefore, if the husband dies before she performs mi'un with him, the minor girl waits until she comes of age and then performs halitza, since a minor girl cannot perform halitza.

And Beit Hillel say:

She may perform mi'un both

with the husband

and

with the yavam,

and thereby retroactively uproots her deceased husband's marriage to her.

The Gemara will explain whether the mi'un means that she says she does not want the yavam, or whether she rejects the betrothal of her deceased husband.

3.

Beit Shammai say:

She performs mi'un only

in the presence

of her betrothed husband.

And Beit Hillel say:

She performs mi'un either

in his presence or

whether

not in his presence.

4.

Beit Shammai say:

Mi'un must be performed specifically

before a court.

And Beit Hillel say:

Either

before a court or

whether

not before a court.

5.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: She may perform 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, then become betrothed again, and again leave through mi'un, this is an ownerless and promiscuous practice.

Rather, she performs mi'un

only once,

and waits

to become betrothed

until she comes of age.

She will then be betrothed through a Torah-law betrothal, and she will no longer leave her second husband through mi'un.

And she performs mi'un

with the first husband,

and

then

marries.

The Gemara discusses the meaning of this additional mi'un, after she has already performed mi'un with him once.

Gemara:

The Gemara presents four explanations for Beit Shammai's reason that only betrothed girls may 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, and not married girls, may perform mi'un? After all, the married girl is also a minor —

Because there is no condition in marriage!

That is, even when a man makes a condition with the woman he is betrothing, such as betrothing her on the condition that she has no defects, when he has intercourse with her, he waives his condition because of his affection for the intercourse.

And if

a minor

married girl were to perform mi'un

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.

6.

It might lead people to say,

and people might mistakenly say that

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

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

The Gemara asks: The wording of Beit Shammai indicates that mi'un may be performed only by betrothed girls, but not by girls who entered the wedding canopy and had not yet had intercourse, nor by girls who had already been handed over to the husband's agents.

This is because entering the wedding canopy, or “handing her over to the husband's agents,” constitutes a stage of marriage [for several matters explained in Tractate Ketubot].

Since the affection of intercourse does not yet exist, the condition he made with her when he betrothed her remains in force; and if it then becomes clear to him that she has defects, the betrothal is annulled.

If so, this is difficult:

She entered the wedding canopy but did not have intercourse —

what can be said?

Why should she not be able to perform mi'un then? No mishap would result if people said that she left because of the condition, rather than attributing it to her mi'un.

For if there truly was a condition in her betrothal, and it has now become clear that she has defects, the betrothal is annulled!

And we answer:

Because there is no condition

even under the wedding canopy, since because of his affection for the wedding canopy he waives his condition.

If she performs mi'un and people attribute her leaving him to his condition, this would result in a mishap.

But the Gemara still asks: If

the father handed over

his daughter

to the husband's agents,

when there is still no affection for the wedding canopy and a person does not waive his condition at that point —

what can be said?

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?

And we answer: Because of

“The Sages did not differentiate.”

That is, the Sages formulated their enactment comprehensively: betrothed girls may perform mi'un, but married girls may not, and they did not distinguish between the various stages of marriage.

The Gemara now clarifies why Beit Hillel disagree —

And Beit Hillel

maintain that

people know

that

the marriage of a minor girl

is a marriage

by rabbinic law,

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

Thus far, the Gemara has explained Rav Yehuda's reason in the name of Shmuel for Beit Shammai's ruling. The Gemara now presents another explanation for their reason.

The second explanation —

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

who maintain that married girls may not perform mi'un is —

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

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

If she could perform mi'un after marrying him, and the mi'un would retroactively uproot his betrothal to her, men would refrain from taking minor girls, since they would not want their intercourse to become an act of promiscuity after their betrothal was retroactively uprooted when the girls performed mi'un with them. This would nullify the Sages' enactment for the benefit of minor girls.

The Gemara asks:

She entered the wedding 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 can be said?

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

it is not agreeable to a person

that his

wedding canopy should be

a

“wedding canopy of prohibition.”

That is, he does not want such a wedding canopy, which prepares for intercourse that would be regarded as promiscuous if she later performed mi'un with him.

But the Gemara still asks:

The father handed her over to the husband's agents [

that is, her mother or brothers handed her over, as explained in the preceding note] —

what can be said?

The handing over to the husband's agents does not constitute a wedding canopy for promiscuous intercourse; it is nevertheless a stage of marriage. Why, then, should she not be able to perform mi'un at that point?

And we answer:

The Sages did not differentiate!

And Beit Hillel,

who disagree with Beit Shammai, maintain:

Since there is betrothal and a marriage contract

in the betrothal of a minor girl —

people will not come to say that his intercourse was an act of promiscuity.

The third explanation —

Rav Pappa said: The reason of Beit Shammai

is —

because of the produce,

the consumption of the produce of nichsei melog, which applies only in marriage and not in betrothal, as will be explained immediately.

And likewise,

the reason of Beit Hillel

is

because of the produce —

Rav Pappa explains his words:

The reason of Beit Shammai is because of the produce,

which the husband consumes from the wife's nichsei melog.

For if you say that a married girl may perform mi'un —

he withdraws;

he will withdraw and refrain from tending her property so that it will be preserved. Instead, he takes the produce and does not concern himself with preserving the property,

and he consumes it

from her,

the produce

from her,

since

ultimately —

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

And Beit Hillel

maintain,

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

he improves her property,

since

he

reasons that if he does not

preserve her property,

her relatives will advise

her

to perform mi'un with him,

and they will take

her

away from him.

The fourth explanation —

Rava said: This is the reason of Beit Shammai,

because

a person does not trouble himself over a wedding feast

for

marriage,

and lose it

if she performs mi'un with him after their marriage; therefore, men will refrain from marrying minor girls. The Sages consequently instituted that only betrothed girls may perform mi'un.

And Beit Hillel

maintain that

both of them,

the husband and the wife,

are pleased

with the wedding feast, even in the event that she will later perform mi'un and uproot their marriage,

so that a reputation of marriage will be made concerning them,

so that it will be publicly known that they were married during the period until the mi'un, and people will not say that they lived promiscuously without any marital relationship between them.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say:

She performs mi'un

with the husband

but not with the yavam, whereas Beit Hillel say that she may perform it with the husband and with the yavam.

Rabbi Oshaya said:

According to Beit Hillel, who say that she may perform mi'un with a yavam,

she performs mi'un

only

with regard to his ma'amar: if the yavam performed ma'amar with her, she can uproot through her mi'un the ma'amar he performed with her, and she does not require a get for his ma'amar.

But

she

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

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

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

Since he maintains that only the betrothal of the

ma'amar, which

the yavam performed with her

with her consent

—

she can uproot

through her mi'un.

But the

bond

to the yevama,

which is against her will,

she is bound to him, since 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.

The Gemara challenges Rav Hisda's explanation:

But what about intercourse,

which the yavam has with his yevama,

which is against her will

when he performs it with the yevama,

and nevertheless —