Yevamot 107aיבמות ק״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Yevamot 107a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
107aק״ז א

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים אין ממאנין אלא ארוסות ובית הלל אומרים ארוסות ונשואות

MISHNA: The Sages decreed that in the case of a minor girl whose father died, her mother or brothers may marry her off. However, such a marriage does not have the same legal status as the marriage of an adult. Therefore, if the minor regrets having married, she is allowed to make a declaration of refusal to her husband, thereby annulling the marital bond. The Sages disagreed with regard to the details of this halakha: Beit Shammai say: Only betrothed girls may refuse. A girl may refuse, upon reaching adulthood, to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father. But Beit Hillel say that both betrothed and fully married girls may refuse.

ב"ש אומרים בבעל ולא ביבם וב"ה אומרים בבעל וביבם

Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not at her yavam. In such a situation, she must perform ḥalitza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say: It may be directed at her husband or her yavam.

ב"ש אומרים בפניו ובית הלל אומרים בפניו ושלא בפניו ב"ש אומרים בב"ד וב"ה אומרים בב"ד ושלא בב"ד

Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in his presence or in his absence. Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in court. But Beit Hillel say: It may take place either in court, or not in court.

אמרו להם ב"ה לבית שמאי ממאנת והיא קטנה אפילו ד' וה' פעמים אמרו להם ב"ש אין בנות ישראל הפקר אלא ממאנת וממתנת עד שתגדיל ותמאן ותנשא:

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: She may refuse as long as she is a minor, even four or five times if her relatives married her off again to another man after each refusal. Beit Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not to be treated with disregard and should not be passed from one man to another. Rather, she refuses once. And then she must wait until she reaches majority, and refuse, and marry.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מאי טעמא דבית שמאי לפי שאין תנאי בנשואין ואי נשואה תמאן אתי למימר יש תנאי בנשואין

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the reason of Beit Shammai for ruling that a married minor girl may not perform refusal? It is because there are no conditions with regard to marriage. Although a betrothal can be conditional, the condition is nullified upon consummation of the marriage. Likewise, marriage cannot be conditional, as the sexual relationship is not subject to conditions. And if a married minor girl would refuse, others may mistakenly think this to be a condition with regard to the marriage of an adult woman, and they will come to say that there can be a condition with regard to marriage.

נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה מאי איכא למימר לפי שאין תנאי בחופה

The Gemara asks: But what is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not yet engage in sexual intercourse? The marriage goes into effect even though it has not yet been consummated. The Gemara replies: There are no conditions with regard to a wedding canopy, i.e., the wedding ceremony.

מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל מאי איכא למימר לא פלוג רבנן

The Gemara asks further: But what is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband to be married, so that she was considered married even before the marriage ceremony took place? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances, and no marriages are conditional. It follows that refusal cannot take place once a minor girl is married.

ובית הלל מידע ידעי דנישואי קטנה דרבנן נינהו רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו טעמא דבית שמאי לפי שאין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות

And with regard to Beit Hillel, what is their reasoning? It is known that marriage of a minor girl is by rabbinic law, and therefore no one would confuse this type of marriage with an adult marriage. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Beit Shammai’s reason is that a man would not readily render his sexual act licentious sexual intercourse. If he had intercourse with the minor girl and the marriage was later retroactively annulled by her refusal, then his sexual act was outside the context of marriage and is regarded as licentious.

נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה מאי איכא למימר לא ניחא ליה דתיהוי חופה דאיסורא מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל מאי איכא למימר לא פלוג רבנן ובית הלל כיון דאיכא קדושין וכתובה לא אתו למימר דבעילתו בעילת זנות

The Gemara asks: What is there to say if she entered the marriage canopy but did not engage in sexual intercourse, as this reason would not apply to such a case? The Gemara answers: It would not be satisfactory for him, i.e., the husband, if his would be a forbidden marriage canopy, because if the marriage is later annulled by her refusal, he will have stood under the marriage canopy with a woman who was not permitted to him. The Gemara asks: What is there to say if the father delivered his daughter to the agents of the husband? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances. And how do Beit Hillel respond to Beit Shammai’s reasoning? Since there is both betrothal and a marriage contract in this case, no one will come to say that his sexual act was licentious intercourse. The primary reason Beit Shammai prohibit refusal after marriage is because it would render the sexual relationship of the marriage a licentious one. Beit Hillel do not regard sexual activity under such circumstances as licentious, so there is also no stigma attached to having stood under a wedding canopy with a girl who later refuses the marriage.

רב פפא אמר טעמא דב"ש משום פירי טעמא דב"ה משום פירי טעמא דב"ש משום פירי דאי אמרת נשואה תמאן שמיט ואכיל להו מינה דסוף סוף למיפק קיימא ובית הלל אדרבה כיון דאמרת תמאן אשבוחי משבח להו סבר דאי לא עייצי לה קרוביה ומפקי לה מיניה

Rav Pappa said: The reasoning for Beit Shammai’s opinion is because of the profits from the property she brings into the marriage, and the reasoning for Beit Hillel’s opinion is also because of the profits from her property. He explains: The reasoning for Beit Shammai’s opinion is because of the profits from her property, for if you say that a married minor girl may perform refusal, then the husband of that minor might seize those profits from her and consume them, as ultimately she stands to leave him if she refuses him later. In the meantime, he will try to extract as much profit as he can. And Beit Hillel say: On the contrary: Since you say she may refuse, he will seek to improve her property. He will think: if I do not do so, her relatives will advise her to refuse him and they will take her from him.

רבא אמר היינו טעמא דב"ש שאין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה וב"ה תרוייהו ניחא להו כדי דליפוק עלייהו קלא דאישות:

Rava said: This is the reasoning of Beit Shammai: A man will not bother to make a marriage feast and then lose it. If the wife is entitled to refuse him even after the marriage, the man will not be willing to marry a minor and bear the expenses of the wedding, when it is uncertain that she will stay with him. And Beit Hillel reason as follows: The marriage is convenient for both of them even if it is nullified later, so as to generate publicity about them that they are married.

ב"ש אומרים בבעל וכו': אמר רבי אושעיא ממאנת למאמרו ואינה ממאנת לזיקתו אמר רב חסדא מאי טעמא דרבי אושעיא מאמר דמדעתה מציא עקרא זיקה דבעל כרחה לא מציא עקרא

§ It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: Refusal may be directed only at her husband and not her yavam. If she wishes to refuse her yavam, she must perform ḥalitza in order to dissolve the levirate bond. But Beit Hillel say that refusal may be directed at her husband or her yavam. Rabbi Oshaya said: A minor yevama may direct a refusal against a levirate betrothal but she may not direct a refusal against his levirate bond. Before the yavam betroths her, she cannot nullify the levirate bond by refusal. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Oshaya? In the case of levirate betrothal, which is consensual, she can nullify it. But with regard to the levirate bond, which applies to her even against her will, she cannot nullify it.

והרי ביאה דבעל כרחה

The Gemara asks: But the consummation of the levirate bond may be against her will