וּמָצְיָא עָקְרָא! אֶלָּא: בִּיאָה וּמַאֲמָר, דְּהוּא קָעָבֵיד, מָצְיָא עָקְרָא, זִיקָּה דְּרַחֲמָנָא רְמָא עֲלָהּ לָא מָצְיָא עָקְרָא. עוּלָּא אָמַר: מְמָאֶנֶת אַף לְזִיקָּתוֹ. מַאי טַעֲמָא? נִישּׂוּאֵי קַמָּאֵי קָא עָקְרָא.

and she can nullify it, as she can subsequently refuse the yavam with whom she entered into levirate marriage. Rather, the reasoning is: With regard to consummation of the levirate marriage and to levirate betrothal, both of which he performs, she can nullify them. But with regard to the levirate bond, which the Merciful One imposes upon her at the death of her first husband, she cannot nullify it. Whereas Ulla said: She may direct her refusal even to his levirate bond. What is the reason? By refusing, she nullifies the original marriage, rather than the levirate bond that resulted from the death of her husband.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְעוּלָּא: כָּל שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן וְלֹא מֵיאֲנָה – צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. וְאַמַּאי? תְּמָאֵן הָשְׁתָּא, וְתַעַקְרִינְהוּ לְנִישּׂוּאֵי קַמָּאֵי, וְתִתְיַיבֵּם צָרָתָהּ! צָרַת עֶרְוָה שָׁאנֵי, דְּתָנֵי רָמִי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: מֵיאֲנָה בְּבַעַל מוּתֶּרֶת לְאָבִיו, בְּיָבָם – אֲסוּרָה לְאָבִיו.

Rava raised an objection to the statement made by Ulla. It is taught in a baraita : In any case of levirate marriage in which a minor girl is forbidden to the yavam and she could perform refusal but does not perform refusal, her rival wife performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Rava continues: Why? Let her perform refusal now and nullify the first marriage retroactively, so that the so-called rival wife was never really a rival wife of a forbidden relative at all, and let her rival wife enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: A rival wife of a forbidden relative is different, due to a rabbinic decree, as Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught in a baraita : A minor girl who refuses her husband is permitted to his father, because the marriage was annulled and she is no longer his daughter-in-law. But one who refuses a yavam is forbidden to his father.

אַלְמָא: בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּכַלָּתוֹ, הָכָא נַמִי: בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה נִרְאֵית כְּצָרַת בִּתּוֹ.

Evidently, at the time when she happens before her yavam for levirate marriage she appears to be his father’s daughter-in-law. Since people would not understand that her refusal later on would annul her first marriage, the Sages decreed that the father-in-law may no longer marry her. Here, too, in a case, for example, of the rival wife of a girl who was married to her uncle, since at the time she happened before the girl’s father for levirate marriage she appears to be his daughter’s rival wife, the Sages decreed that even if the girl refuses her original marriage, the rival wife is forbidden to the girl’s father.

אָמַר רַב: מֵיאֲנָה בָּזֶה – אֲסוּרָה לָזֶה, מִידֵי דַּהֲוָה אַבַּעֲלַת הַגֵּט: בַּעֲלַת הַגֵּט, לָאו כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַּסְּרָא לָהּ לְחַד אִיתַּסְּרָא לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ, הָכָא נַמִי לָא שְׁנָא.

§ Rav said: A minor girl who refuses this yavam who married her in levirate marriage is forbidden to that yavam , his brother, just as it is in a case concerning a yevama who has received a bill of divorce from one of her yevamin . Is it not so that since the yevama who has received a bill of divorce is forbidden to one of them, i.e., the one who gave her the divorce, she is forbidden to all of them? Here too, it is no different.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מֵיאֲנָה בָּזֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת לָזֶה, וְלָא דָּמְיָא לְבַעֲלַת הַגֵּט. בַּעֲלַת הַגֵּט – הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד בָּהּ, הָכָא – הִיא קָעָבְדָא בֵּיהּ, דְּאָמְרָה: ״לָא רָעֵינָא בָּךְ וְלָא צָבֵינָא בָּךְ״, בָּךְ הוּא דְּלָא רָעֵינָא, הָא בְּחַבְרָךְ – רָעֵינָא.

And Shmuel said: If she refused this yavam , she is permitted to that one, and it is not comparable to a yevama who has received a bill of divorce. For in the case of the yevama who has received a bill of divorce, it is he who performed the act of giving the bill of divorce to her, and he thereby renders her forbidden to his brothers as well. Here, she is performing an act on him, as she says: I do not desire you and I do not want you, indicating: It is you whom I do not desire, but I may desire your fellow.

רַב אַסִי אָמַר: מֵיאֲנָה בָּזֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת אֲפִילּוּ לוֹ. לֵימָא כְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר: אֵינָהּ מְמָאֶנֶת לְזִיקָּתוֹ! בְּחַד יָבָם הָכִי נַמִי דְּמָצְיָא עָקְרָא, הָכָא בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין עָסְקִינַן, דְּאֵין מֵיאוּן לַחֲצִי זִיקָּה.

Rav Asi said: If she refuses this yavam she is permitted even to him if she changes her mind. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, who said: She cannot refuse his levirate bond, and since the bond still exists and is not dissolved by her refusal, she is consequently permitted to engage in sexual relations with him to consummate it. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Asi’s opinion is consistent with that of Ulla, that refusal of a levirate bond is effective. In the case of one yavam who had no additional brothers, she can indeed nullify the levirate bond. However, here, we are dealing with two yevamin , and there cannot be refusal of half a levirate bond. Since she refuses only one yavam , her status as a yevama remains intact, the levirate bond remains intact, and she is permitted to consummate the levirate bond even with the one she initially refused.

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵיאֲנָה בָּזֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת לָאַחִין, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. מַאן לֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ? אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: רַב. רָבָא אָמַר: רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: רַב אַסִי.

The Gemara relates: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A minor girl who refuses this yavam is permitted to the brothers, and they did not agree with him. The Gemara asks: Who did not agree with him? Abaye said: It was Rav, as Rav claims that she is forbidden to the brothers. Rava said: It was Rabbi Oshaya, who claims that refusal cannot nullify the levirate bond. And some say: It was Rav Asi who did not agree with him, since according to Rav Asi she is permitted to marry even the brother she refused.

״בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנָיו״ וכו׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: וַהֲלֹא פִּישׁוֹן הַגַּמָּל מֵיאֲנָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: פִּישׁוֹן הַגַּמָּל בְּמִדָּה כְּפוּשָׁה מָדַד, לְפִיכָךְ מָדְדוּ לוֹ בְּמִדָּה כְּפוּשָׁה.

§ It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband, but Beit Hillel say: Either in his presence or in his absence. It is taught in a baraita : Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But didn’t the wife of Pishon the camel driver refuse him in his absence? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Pishon the camel driver measured using a defective standard, as he did not properly take care of the property she brought into the marriage, and therefore the Sages measured him with a defective standard [ midda kefusha ]. The marriage in that case was annulled by the Sages and the refusal was not treated as a standard refusal.

מִדְּקָא אָכֵיל פֵּירֵי, פְּשִׁיטָא נְשׂוּאָה הִיא, וְהָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי נְשׂוּאָה לֹא מְמָאֲנָה! תְּרֵי קִיטְרֵי עָבְדוּ בֵּיהּ.

The Gemara asks: Since he was consuming the profits from her property, it is obvious that it is speaking of a case where she was married, as a man is not entitled to the profits of the property of his betrothed. But didn’t Beit Shammai say that a married minor girl cannot perform refusal? The Gemara answers in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion: They tied him in two knots, i.e., the Sages punished Pishon in two ways: They permitted the refusal against him to take place in his absence, and they permitted it even though she was already married to him.

״בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין״ וכו׳. תְּנַן הָתָם: הַחֲלִיצָה וְהַמֵּיאוּנִין – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מַאן תַּנָּא? אֲמַר רַבָּה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא. אַבַּיֵי אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל אֶלָּא דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן מוּמְחִין, אֲבָל שְׁלֹשָׁה – בָּעֵינַן.

§ It was taught: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically before a court, but Beit Hillel say: It may take place either before a court, or not before a court. We learned in a mishna elsewhere ( Sanhedrin 2a): Ḥalitza and refusals take place in the presence of three judges. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabba said: It is Beit Shammai who say that refusal must take place specifically before a court. Abaye said: You can even say that it is Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel state only that we do not require expert judges for a refusal, but we do require three upright people, who constitute a court of laymen.

כִּדְתַנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, וְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בִּשְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מַנְיוּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג.

As it is taught in a baraita : Beit Shammai say: Before a court, and Beit Hillel say: Either before a court or not before a court, but both this school and that school concede that three people are required. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, validate a refusal in the presence of two. Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with that pair.

״בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים תְּמָאֵן״ וכו׳. וְהָא מֵיאֲנָה חֲדָא זִימְנָא! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִּיל וְתֹאמַר: רוֹצָה אֲנִי בַּמֵּיאוּנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.

§ The mishna states that Beit Shammai say: She refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry. The Gemara asks: Didn’t she already refuse once? Why must she refuse again? Shmuel said: Beit Shammai’s statement means: The refusal does not take effect until she reaches majority and says: I wish to uphold my initial refusal, in case she changed her mind in the interim.

עוּלָּא אֲמַר: תַּרְתֵּי קָתָנֵי: אוֹ שֶׁתְּמָאֵן וְתַגְדִּיל וְתֵיאָרֵס, אוֹ שֶׁתְּמָאֵן וְתִנָּשֵׂא לְאַלְתַּר.

Ulla said: Two different possibilities are taught in Beit Shammai’s statement: Either she should refuse, and then once she has matured she should become betrothed; or she should refuse and marry immediately. She should not refuse and then only become betrothed again. According to Beit Shammai, as a minor, she may not refuse again.

בִּשְׁלָמָא עוּלָּא – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִּיל וְתִנָּשֵׂא״, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל – ״עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִּיל וְתֹאמַר״ מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara challenges this: Granted, the explanation of Ulla is consistent with that which is taught: Until she reaches majority and marries. That is: Until she reaches majority, or until she marries. But according to the explanation of Shmuel, the mishna should have said: Until she reaches majority and says that she wishes to uphold the refusal. The Gemara comments: This phrase is difficult according to his explanation.

מתני׳ אֵי זוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה לְמָאֵן – כָּל שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוּהָ אִמָּהּ וְאָחִיהָ לְדַעְתָּהּ, הִשִּׂיאוּהָ שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתָּהּ – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְמָאֵן. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כָּל תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִשְׁמוֹר קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְמָאֵן.

Who is a minor girl who needs to perform refusal in order to annul her marriage? Any minor whose mother or brother married her off with her consent. If they married her off without her consent, she need not refuse her husband at all and may leave her husband without a declaration of refusal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any girl who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, safe does not need to refuse, as the Sages instituted marriage only for a girl old enough to understand what she is doing.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם, אֶלָּא כִּמְפוּתָּה. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

Rabbi Elazar says: The act of a minor girl is nothing, so that if a minor girl’s mother or brothers marry her off, the marriage is essentially invalid. Rather, her status is as though she were a seduced unmarried woman. Therefore, a minor daughter of a non-priest married to a priest may not eat teruma , and the minor daughter of a priest married to an Israelite may eat teruma .

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כָּל עַכָּבָה שֶׁהִיא מִן הָאִישׁ – כְּאִילּוּ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ, כָּל עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הָאִישׁ – כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָהּ אִשְׁתּוֹ.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says otherwise: If there is any obstruction in the matter due to the man, it is as if she were his wife. If there is any obstruction in the matter that is not due to the man, it is as if she were not his wife. This statement will be explained in the Gemara.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט מֵיאוּן: ״לָא רָעֵינָא בֵּיהּ, וְלָא צָבֵינָא בֵּיהּ, וְלֵית אֲנָא בָּעֲיָא לְהִתְנְסַבָּא לֵיהּ״. כֵּיוָן דְּחָזוּ דְּנָפֵישׁ דִּיבּוּרָא אָמְרִי

Rav Yehuda said, and some say it was taught in a baraita : At first, they would write a bill of refusal in this manner: I do not desire him, I do not want him, and I do not wish to be married to him. Once they saw that the text was too long, the Sages said: