Yevamot 108a — the Talmud in English

It may be confused

a get of mi'un

with a get

of a woman.

That is, the Sages were concerned that an ignorant scribe of gittin might come and write the wording of a document of mi'un in the wording of a document of a woman’s get. Therefore, the Sages shortened the wording of a document of a get of mi'un, so that even the ignorant scribes would recognize that this is not the wording of a woman’s get, since the wording of a get is longer.

And

the Sages instituted

that one write in a document of a get of mi'un

as follows:

On such-and-such a day, such-and-such a girl, daughter of such-and-such a man, refused —

in our presence,

before us.

The Sages taught: What is

the manner in which

the mi'un is performed?

When

she says

the minor girl:

“I do not want such-and-such, my husband!”

Or she says:

“I do not want the betrothal with which my mother and my brother betrothed me!”

Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: Even

if the minor girl whom her mother or her brother betrothed

is sitting in a bridal litter,

a decorated seat of a bride,

and is going,

and they were carrying her in this bridal litter

from her father’s house to her husband’s house,

in order to enter there beneath the wedding canopy.

And she said

while they were carrying her in the bridal litter to the wedding canopy:

“I do not want such-and-such, my husband!” —

this is mi'un.

There is a novelty in this matter. For it might have been said that if she does not want her marriage, she should get down from the bridal litter and return to her house. And if she does not do so, this is proof that she desires her marriage. And her statement while they are carrying her in the bridal litter to the wedding canopy, that she does not want her husband, has no substance, since her actions prove that she indeed wants to enter beneath the wedding canopy with him. And Rabbi Yehuda innovated that nevertheless this statement is mi'un.

Moreover, Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda said: Even if guests were reclining in her husband’s house, and she was standing and serving them drink, and she said to them: “I do not want such-and-such, my husband!” —

this is mi'un.

And the novelty in the matter is that her mi'un is not before a court, and that her husband’s guests will remain silent and will not publicize this statement of hers, and nevertheless this statement is considered mi'un.

Moreover, Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda said: Even if her husband sent her to a shopkeeper to bring him an object of his, and she said: “I do not want such-and-such, my husband!” —

you have no greater mi'un than this.

And there is a novelty in the matter in that the mi'un is before the shopkeeper, who is a single person, and in that it might be said that her intention was not to refuse her husband, but she merely expressed herself in this manner because he troubled her by having her bring him an object of his from the shopkeeper. Nevertheless, her statement, “I do not want such-and-such, her husband” — you have no greater mi'un than this! For this is the wording of mi'un.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Every little girl

who is unable to safeguard her betrothal does not need to perform mi'un.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.

A tanna

in a beraita

taught: A minor girl who did not perform mi'un, and arose and married

another man —

In the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira they said: Her marriage

to another

is itself her mi'un

with regard to her husband.

And this means that a “light mi'un,” in which she does not explicitly say that she does not want him, is sufficient to remove her from him.

They raised a question before them:

A minor girl who did not perform mi'un and

became betrothed

to another, but did not marry him —

what is

the ruling: are her betrothal to another considered mi'un?

Come and hear

from that which was taught:

A minor girl who did not perform mi'un, and arose and became betrothed

to another —

in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira they said: Her betrothal

is itself her mi'un.

They raised a question before them

four uncertainties:

A. Whether

the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

and hold that her betrothal to another is not considered mi'un,

or not,

that the Sages did not disagree with him?

B. Also,

if you should say

that

they disagree,

the Sages disagree with him — there is still room for uncertainty:

Whether only

with regard to betrothal

to another did they disagree with him, and hold that her betrothal to another is not considered mi'un.

Or even with regard to marriage

the Sages disagree with him, and hold that even marriage to another is not considered mi'un with regard to her husband? C.

And if you should say that they disagree

the Sages

even with regard to marriage —

Is the halakha in accordance with him

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

or is the halakha not in accordance with him?

D.

And if you should say that the halakha is in accordance with him —

Is the halakha in accordance with him

with regard to marriage

to another,

or even with regard to betrothal?

Come and hear

a proof to resolve all four uncertainties:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

both with regard to betrothal and with regard to marriage,

And since Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the

halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in both cases —

by inference

you learn this:

A–B.

That they disagree

the Sages with him both with regard to betrothal and with regard to marriage!

C–D. The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in both cases.

And the Gemara adds another uncertainty:

And still

and yet

it is required for you to ask: Whether such a “light mi'un,” in which she does not explicitly say that she does not want him, is considered mi'un even in a case

когда

where she had originally been married,

where she had been married to her husband before she arose and became betrothed to another.

Or perhaps

this light mi'un is considered mi'un only in a case where she was merely

betrothed,

where she was only betrothed to him? For it is possible that for mi'un in a marriage, a “light mi'un” is not sufficient.

Come and hear: For the daughters-in-law of Avdan,

the minor daughters-in-law [the wives of the sons of] the tanna Avdan, who had been married off by their mother or their brothers —

rebelled,

they rebelled against their husbands and refused to be intimate with them.

He sent

sent

Rabbi pairs of Sages,

pairs of Sages,

to examine them,

to see whether they would retract their rebellion against their husbands.

The women said to them,

the women said to Avdan’s minor daughters-in-law regarding the pairs of Sages who had come to examine them:

“See your husbands, for they are coming!”

See your husbands arriving to you!

They said to them,

Avdan’s daughters-in-law said to those women:

“Let them be

these men

your husbands, yours,”

your husbands!

Rabbi said: Since Avdan’s daughters-in-law said that their husbands should be the husbands of the other women, even though they did not explicitly perform mi'un with their husbands —

Since Avdan’s daughters-in-law said that their husbands should be the husbands of the other women, even though they had not explicitly refused their husbands—

you have no greater mi'un than this!

And this means that even a light mi'un, which is not an explicit expression of mi'un, is considered mi'un.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

that the light mi'un is effective even in a place

where she had been married,

where she had been married to her husband, and it is thereby demonstrated that a light mi'un is effective even with a married woman!

And we reject this:

No,

it is speaking not of Avdan’s daughters-in-law who had been married, but only

where she had been betrothed with betrothal,

betrothed.

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben

Beteira,

that a light mi'un, which is not explicit, is effective,

and even

when this mi'un is mi'un

with regard to the marriage of the first

husband.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The action of a minor girl is nothing, but she is like one seduced.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: I have gone over all the positions of the Sages, and I have not found a person who made his measures consistent with regard to a minor girl —

like Rabbi Eliezer!

For Rabbi Elazar made her,

the minor girl married off by her mother or her brother,

like one strolling with him in the courtyard,

who is not his wife at all, and he had intercourse with her,

and she rises from his lap.

And

if she is the daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite, she is not disqualified from eating teruma, but

she immerses

for her purification, according to the law of every woman with whom intercourse has occurred, who is impure with evening impurity, that is, she immerses and becomes pure at sunset,

and eats teruma in the evening.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: The action of a minor girl

who is married

is nothing.

And her husband is entitled neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to the nullification of her vows.

And he does not inherit her, and he does not become impure for her

if he is a kohen.

The general rule is: She is not like his wife —

in any matter, except that she requires mi'un

in order to marry another.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Her husband is entitled —

to what she finds and to her handiwork

since the Sages have the power to place her property in his possession, by force of “the renunciation of the court is renunciation.”

And to the nullification of her vows.

When she reaches the age of eleven years and one day, her vows are examined, and if she knows for whom she is making the vow, her vow is a vow. And he can nullify her vows even though according to Torah law he is not her husband, since she makes her vow with regard to him.

And he inherits her.

By force of the renunciation of the court is renunciation.

And he becomes impure for her,

even if he is a kohen.

Since he inherits all her property, no one other than he will be found to bury her, and she is therefore like an unattended corpse, which has no buriers, for whom a kohen becomes impure.

The general rule is: She is like his wife —

in every matter.

Except that she leaves through mi'un

alone, and she does not require a get like a woman.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Eliezer appear preferable to the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

Since

Rabbi Eliezer made his measures consistent with regard to a minor girl.

And

if

Rabbi Yehoshua divided

his measures, considering her married on the one hand and considering her unmarried on the other hand.

Therefore, the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who made all her laws consistent, are preferable, and they are not in opposition to one another as are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

And the Gemara explains:

What

is this that Rabbi said about Rabbi Yehoshua, that he

divided

his measures?

For

if she is his wife,

according to the words of Rabbi Yehoshua —

she should require a get!

She should require a get in order to remove her, as with every married woman.

And we challenge: If so,

for Rabbi Eliezer as well

let us say that he divided his words —

For

if she is not his wife —

she should not require even mi'un!

And we answer: For Rabbi Eliezer this is not an argument, because —

Rather,

and is it so that

she should leave for nothing?

Is it possible to allow her to leave with nothing at all after she stayed with him? But with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua, this is indeed an argument: why did they not institute that she requires a get like a woman?

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Every impediment that is from the man — it is as though she is his wife.

Every impediment that is not from the man — it is as though she is not his wife.

And the Gemara discusses in what manner the impediment is from the man or the impediment is not from the man, and with regard to which law these words are stated:

What are the circumstances?

How is

an impediment that is from the man?

And

how is

an impediment that is not from the man?

And with regard to what matter are these words stated?

And the Gemara brings two explanations, with each explanation establishing the Mishna with regard to an entirely different matter.

The first explanation:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

A minor girl whom her mother or her brother married off, and

they demanded of her,

asked her

to marry

another man, and she refused to marry,

and she said

the reason:

“Because of such-and-such, my husband,”

I am not marrying another man! —

This is an impediment that is because of [

because of ]

the man!

That is, if she reveals her intention that she remains with him because she is his wife, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that in such a case she is truly his wife, and he is forbidden to her relatives. And if he gives her a get, she is thereby disqualified from the priesthood as a divorced woman.

But, on the other hand, if when they demanded that she marry another man, her answer was that she refuses to marry

because of “people who are not fitting for me,”

and not because she has a husband —

This is an impediment that is not because of [

because of ]

the man.

And since she reveals her intention that she does not remain with him because of a marital bond that he has with her, she is not his wife at all.

The second explanation:

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥanina bar Avin, both say:

If the minor girl did not perform mi'un, but rather

he gave her

her husband

a get —

This is an impediment that is from the man.

And

then —

A.

He is forbidden to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his relatives.

B.

And he disqualifies her from the priesthood.

But if the husband did not give her a get, but rather

she performed mi'un

with

him —

This is an impediment that is not from the man.

And

then —

A.

He is permitted to her relatives, and she is permitted to his relatives.

B.

And he does not disqualify her from the priesthood.

And we wonder: It is not possible to say that this is the explanation of the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, since

it was taught

in the following Mishna,

below,

this law according to everyone.

And it is not possible that the Mishna should repeat and state without attribution what it stated in the previous Mishna in the name of a particular tanna:

For we learned:

A woman who performs mi'un with a man —

He is permitted to her relatives, and she is permitted to his relatives, and he does not disqualify her from the priesthood.

If he gave her a get —

He is forbidden to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his relatives, and he disqualifies her from the priesthood!

And we answer: The following Mishna is not an independent Mishna that states without attribution the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Rather, it is a continuation of his words, and

it explains

what Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said.

Mishna:

A. A minor girl

who performs mi'un with a man [

with her husband], her betrothal is uprooted retroactively from this point onward. Therefore —

He is permitted to her relatives, and she is permitted

to his relatives.

And he does not disqualify her [

she is not disqualified by her mi'un]

from the priesthood.

B.

If he gave her a get,

even though she does not require a get, since she is a minor girl who can leave through mi'un alone, nevertheless, since her husband divorced her with a get, the divorce does not uproot her betrothal retroactively as does mi'un. Therefore —

He is forbidden to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his relatives,

as with every divorced woman.

And he disqualifies her from the priesthood.

C. The prohibition against taking back one’s divorced wife after she has married another man applies even to a minor girl, by rabbinic law. Therefore, if the husband divorced the minor girl, and she went and married another man, and her second husband divorced her or died, she is forbidden to return to her first husband.

When are these words said? When her husband divorced her, and after the divorce she married another man.

But if

he gave her

the minor girl

a get, and

she did not immediately go and marry another, but first

took her back

her first husband took her back to him.

And afterward

she performed mi'un with him.

And only afterward she went

and married another, and was widowed or divorced —

then

she is permitted to return to him,

her first husband.

And the reason for the matter is that since her first husband took her back after he divorced her, and she performed mi'un with him, the mi'un reveals to everyone that she is a minor girl, and the mi'un has the power to annul her get. Therefore, from then onward he is not considered one who takes back his divorced wife.

Therefore, her marriage to another man does not prohibit her by the law of one who takes back his divorced wife after she has married another.

D. And if

she performed mi'un with him, and he took her back.

And afterward

he gave her a get, and she married another, and was widowed or divorced —

she is forbidden to return to him.

For here it is impossible to say that the earlier mi'un will come and annul the get that was given after it.