Yevamot 107b (קז:) — the Talmud in English

And this uproots it!

For Beit Hillel said that she can perform mi'un with the yavam, just as she performs mi'un with her husband.

And if, after the yavam's intercourse, which takes place against her will, and after the yavam has already acquired her, she can perform mi'un with him and leave him after his intercourse without a get, then all the more so she should be able to perform mi'un with regard to her bond to him, despite the fact that she is bound to him against her will, and leave him without halitza!

Rather,

this must be the reason for Rabbi Oshaya's ruling: whether

intercourse

by the yavam

or

whether

a ma'amar

by him,

which he

the yavam himself

performs—

she can uproot it;

she can uproot, through her mi'un with the yavam, the acts that he performed with her.

But

the bond, which the Merciful One imposed upon her,

for with the betrothal of an adult, which is from the Torah, the bond of the yevama to the yavam takes effect without any act on the part of the yavam; rather, the Torah imposed this bond upon her. Similarly, with the betrothal of a minor, which is by rabbinic ordinance, the bond takes effect automatically, without any act on the part of the yavam—

she cannot uproot it

through her mi'un, since the bond took effect automatically.

Ulla

disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya, and

said: She can perform mi'un even with regard to her bond to him,

and she does not require halitza from the yavam.

Ulla explains his statement:

What is the reason

that she can perform mi'un with regard to her bond to the yavam, which took effect automatically, without an act on the part of the yavam?—

Because she is not performing mi'un with regard to the bond—which indeed cannot be nullified through mi'un, since it took effect automatically—but she is now performing mi'un with regard to the marriage of her deceased husband, and

the first marriage,

her original marriage to her husband, which her husband brought about,

she is uprooting

; she is now uprooting it through her mi'un with regard to it.

And since her marriage is uprooted retroactively from that point onward, she has no bond to the yavam.

Rava raised an objection to Ulla

from the words of the first Mishna in tractate Yevamot:

Every

minor whose husband dies, and she is forbidden as an erva to his brother, the yavam,

who could

have

performed mi'un

with her husband during his lifetime [that is, she married him through her mother or her brother when she was a minor, and her marriage to her husband was only by rabbinic ordinance],

but did not perform mi'un

with her husband during his lifetime, and her husband died, and now she falls to levirate marriage together with another woman, her rival wife, who had been married to the deceased husband [even] according to Torah law. Therefore—

her rival wife,

who is a rabbinic rival of an erva,

performs halitza

by Torah law

but may not enter into levirate marriage,

since she is a rabbinic rival of an erva.

And Rava challenges Ulla:

But why

can her rival wife not enter into levirate marriage!?

Let

the minor who is the erva

now

perform mi'un with regard to her deceased husband's marriage,

and let her uproot it

retroactively from this point onward,

from the first marriage, and

then her rival wife will no longer be the rival of an erva, and

her rival wife should enter into levirate marriage!?

And since it is implicit from the Mishna that there is no remedy by which her rival wife can enter into levirate marriage, it is proven that the yevama cannot uproot through her mi'un the marriage of her deceased husband, unlike what you said—that she uproots the deceased husband's marriage, and therefore the bond to the yavam does not take effect.

Ulla said to Rava: In fact, she can uproot through her mi'un even the marriage of her deceased husband, and then the bond to the yavam would be annulled.

Rather,

the rival of an erva—

is different!

Its law is different, for another reason.

Because

Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught:

If

the minor performed mi'un

with

her husband

during his lifetime, her marriage is uprooted retroactively from that point onward, and from then on she is considered as one who was never betrothed to him at all, and she is

permitted to his father,

as though she had never been his daughter-in-law; and similarly, she is permitted to his other relatives.

But if during her husband's lifetime she did not perform mi'un with him, and only after his death did she perform mi'un

with the yavam—

then she is

forbidden to his father.

Apparently,

it is evident from here that in a case of levirate marriage the Sages prohibited the one who performs mi'un to the father of her husband, so that the matter would not be considered as though her betrothal had been uprooted retroactively, since

at the time of her falling

to levirate marriage she

appears

in the eyes of the people

as his daughter-in-law.

That is, as long as her husband is alive, and people see that he is married to a minor girl, her marriage does not appear in their eyes to be a complete marriage. If she performs mi'un and leaves without a get, and his father takes her, this does not appear in their eyes as though he is taking his daughter-in-law.

But from the time the husband dies, if she did not perform mi'un with him, and she falls to levirate marriage by virtue of his marriage, and is forbidden to marry anyone outside the levirate bond without halitza, it appears to people that his marriage to this woman was effective as though it were a complete marriage, since she did not leave him through mi'un during his lifetime.

Therefore, at the time of her falling to levirate marriage, people see her as his father's daughter-in-law.

And even if now, after her falling to levirate marriage, she performs mi'un with regard to her husband's marriage, and her betrothal is indeed uprooted retroactively, the matter does not appear so in the eyes of the people.

Therefore, they prohibited his father from taking her, since she now appears as his daughter-in-law.

Here too,

when a minor who is forbidden as an erva to the yavam falls to levirate marriage together with her rival wife—even if the minor now performs mi'un and thereby retroactively uproots her marriage to her husband, and in truth her rival wife was not the rival of an erva at the time of the falling—

nevertheless, the rival wife is forbidden to enter into levirate marriage, as is the law of the rival of an erva, who may not enter into levirate marriage.

For since she did not perform mi'un during the husband's lifetime, and she fell to levirate marriage together with her rival wife, and performed mi'un only after her husband's death and her falling to levirate marriage—

at the time of the falling

she

appears

to the people

as the rival wife of his daughter,

and she no longer has a dispensation [just as at that time she appears to the people as his father's daughter-in-law, and she no longer has a dispensation].

The Gemara now brings a dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning a case in which there are two yevamim, and the minor yevama performed mi'un with only one of them—

Rav said: If she performed mi'un with

one

yavam, she is

forbidden

also

to

the other

yavam.

That is, mi'un with one of the yevamim renders her forbidden to all of them. The reason is—

Is it not

like

what would be the case with

a yevama

who received a get?

A yevama who received a get from one of the brothers is disqualified by rabbinic ordinance from levirate marriage with all the brothers; similarly, one who performs mi'un with one of the yevamim is disqualified with regard to all the brothers.

A yevama

“who received a get,”

who received a get from one of the brothers,

is it not

the case that

since she became forbidden to one

of her yevamim, the one who gave her the get,

she became forbidden to all of them,

the yevamim?

Here too,

mi'un with one of the yevamim severs her connection to him, like the giving of a get by him; therefore

it makes no difference

: mi'un is no different from a get, and her mi'un with one renders her forbidden to all the brothers, just as a get from one renders her forbidden to all of them.

And

if

Shmuel said: If she performed mi'un with

one

yavam, she is

permitted to

the other

yavam,

the second one, since

she is not comparable

to the yevama who performed mi'un

with

the yevama

who received a get—

because

the one who received a get—

the yavam

is the one who performs an act with her

of divorce, when he gives her the get.

Whereas

here,

in the case of mi'un,

she

is the one who

performs an act with regard to him

through the fact

that she says: “I do not want you and I do not desire you!”

I do not want you, and I do not desire you.

The meaning of this wording is: only

you,

this yavam,

are the one I do not want.

I do not want you.

With your fellow—

I do want,

I desire him!

And since she performed mi'un only with him, she is forbidden only to him.

But a get given to her by one of the brothers disqualifies her by rabbinic ordinance with regard to all the brothers.

For the get of one of the brothers impairs her bond by rabbinic ordinance, just as the halitza of one of the brothers removes the bond from all the brothers by Torah law.

Whereas

Rav Asi

disagrees both with Rav and with Shmuel, and

said:

If she performed mi'un with this one, she is

permitted even to him,

the one with whom she performed mi'un.

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rav Asi:

Shall we say

that Rav Asi

holds in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya, who said that she cannot perform mi'un with regard to her bond,

and therefore she is permitted even to the yavam with whom she performed mi'un?

The Gemara rejects this: In fact,

in

a case where there is only

one yavam, here too,

even according to Rav Asi it is possible

that she can uproot

the bond through her mi'un with the yavam, since the entire bond is only to the sole yavam.

Whereas

here,

the statement of Rav Asi that if she performed mi'un with this one she is permitted even to him—

we are dealing with two yevamim.

And the reason that her mi'un is ineffective is

that there is no mi'un with regard to half a bond.

This yevama, who performed mi'un with only one yavam, is performing mi'un with regard to half the bond, and it is impossible to remove half the bond, that is, the bond to one of two yevamim.

When Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: If she performed mi'un with this one, she is

permitted to the brothers.

But they did not agree with him

Rabbi Yohanan.

The Gemara explains:

Who

is the one who

“did not agree with him”?

Abaye said: Rav

is the one who disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan and did not agree with his statement.

As we learned above, Rav said: If she performed mi'un with this one, she is forbidden to that one.

Rava said: Rabbi Oshaya

is the one who disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan, as we learned above: Rabbi Oshaya said that she performs mi'un with regard to his ma'amar, but she does not perform mi'un with regard to his bond.

And some say

that

Rav Asi

also disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan, as we learned above: according to Rav Asi, one who performs mi'un with this one is permitted even to him, whereas Rabbi Yohanan maintains [according to the understanding of those who say this] that she is forbidden to him himself.

And all the more so, Rabbi Oshaya disagrees with him.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say:

She performs mi'un

in his presence

and not in his presence.

It was taught in a beraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But Pishon the camel-driver

[who led camels],

his wife performed mi'un not in his presence!

And the Sages treated her mi'un as valid mi'un.

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Pishon the camel-driver—

he was measured with a corrupt measure!

He would ruin his minor wife's nichsei melog while consuming their produce, and this was ingratitude: on the one hand, he consumed the produce of her property, and on the other hand, he damaged the property for her.

Therefore, they measured him—

the Sages punished him measure for measure—

with a corrupt measure.

That is, the Sages accepted his minor wife's mi'un even when it was not in his presence, and permitted her to leave, although strictly speaking the mi'un should have taken place specifically in his presence.

And we challenge this: How could Beit Shammai state this reason for punishing him by accepting his wife's mi'un not in his presence?

But

since Pishon the camel-driver was consuming

the

produce—

obviously

his wife who performed mi'un

was married,

for if she had been betrothed, Pishon the camel-driver would not have been entitled to consume the produce of her property.

And

if so, the question arises:

did Beit Shammai say that

a

married woman

cannot perform mi'un!?

And we answer:

They applied two knots—

they made against him.

The Sages “tied” two “knots” to his detriment, in order to penalize him—

The first: they accepted his wife's mi'un even though she was married.

The second: they accepted the mi'un when it was not in his presence. We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say:

She performs mi'un

before a court.

We learned there

in the chapter “The mitzva of halitza” [107a]:

Halitza and mi'un—

with three.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Who is the tanna

who taught the Mishna above, which states that mi'un must take place before a court of three?

Rabba said: It is Beit Shammai,

who require mi'un to take place before a court, and an unspecified court consists of three judges.

Abaye said: You may even say

that this Mishna is according to

Beit Hillel,

who do not require mi'un to take place before a court.

For

Beit Hillel stated only

in our Mishna that a court is not required

in that we do not require

that the judges be

experts.

But three

judges

are required;

they must be present at the time of the mi'un, even according to Beit Hillel.

As it was explicitly taught:

explicitly:

Beit Shammai say:

Mi'un—

before a court.

And Beit Hillel say: Before a court and not before a court. And both agree that it is necessary

for the mi'un to take place before

three

judges.

Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon deem it valid before two

judges.

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is in accordance with that pair.

We learned two words at the end of the Mishna whose meaning is not self-evident:

Beit Shammai say:

The daughters of Israel are not ownerless [and therefore she cannot perform mi'un and marry several times].

Rather, she performs mi'un [only once, and afterward she] waits until she comes of age.

And she should perform mi'un and marry!

These two words are seemingly incomprehensible!

But

she already

performed mi'un

with her husband

once!

And now she waits only until she comes of age, at which point she can marry on her own by Torah law; what need is there for another mi'un!?

Shmuel said:

This is what Beit Shammai said: She must wait

until she comes of age and says: “I consent to the earlier mi'unim!”

For we must be concerned that perhaps she retracted her first mi'un.

Ulla said,

the intent of Beit Shammai is not that she must return and perform mi'un when she comes of age, but rather

two things

—two different possibilities—

are taught:

Either she performs mi'un—

and

waits and does not become betrothed to a second man, lest she also perform mi'un with him, with the result that the daughters of Israel would be ownerless; rather, she waits until she

comes of age, and

only then

becomes betrothed

through a betrothal recognized by Torah law.

Or she performs mi'un—

and does not become betrothed again to a second man, since she could then also perform mi'un with the second man; rather,

she marries immediately,

immediately after her betrothal, and does not wait between her betrothal and her marriage. Once she has married, she can no longer perform mi'un according to Beit Shammai.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, according to Ulla,

who says that two matters are being stated, it is well:

this is what is taught: “Until she comes of age

and performs mi'un and marries.”

But according to Shmuel,

who says that one matter is being stated,

“until she comes of age and says

‘I consent to the earlier mi'unim’”—

it should have said

so explicitly!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult!

Mishna:

Which minor must perform mi'un?

Every

minor

whom her mother or brothers married off with her consent.

But if

her mother or brothers married her off

without her consent,

she does not need to perform mi'un.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Every young girl who cannot safeguard her betrothal

—

[as will be explained in the Gemara, whether the reference is to safeguarding the money of the betrothal or to safeguarding the betrothal itself, conducting herself as a betrothed woman]—

does not need to perform mi'un.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of

betrothal of a

minor is nothing!

Rabbi Eliezer holds that the enactment permitting a minor to be married off by her mother or brothers did not make her like a married woman to him even by rabbinic ordinance,

but

only

like a seduced woman

merely, as one who is destined for intercourse.

But if she wishes to separate from him, she must perform mi'un with him.

Therefore, if she is a minor

Israelite woman

who marries

a koen—

she may not eat teruma,

not even teruma by rabbinic ordinance, since she is not married to him at all.

Similarly, if she is a minor

daughter of a koen

who marries

an Israelite—

she may eat

under his authority

teruma,

since she is not considered as one who married a non-koen.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Any impediment that is because of the man,

that she is held back with him on his account, is considered

as though she were his wife.

And

any impediment that is not because of the man—

it is as though she were not his wife.

The amoraim disagree in the Gemara concerning the explanation of his statement:

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said, and some say

that

in a beraita

he

taught

it:

At first, they would write

a

get of mi'un,

which the court would write for the girl who performed mi'un, so that she would have a court document confirming her mi'un in accordance with halakha: “Before us the woman said,

I do not desire him,

I have no desire for him,

and I do not wish for him,

and I have no wish for him,

and I do not wish to marry him,

and I do not wish to marry him.”

Since they saw that there was an excess of words.

Since they saw that the get of mi'un contained many words—

They said,

the Sages were concerned and said: