Commentary for Yevamot 13:19

בית שמאי אומרים אין ממאנין אלא ארוסות – an orphan girl whose mother and/or brothers married her off does not protest against/refuse her marriage other than from betrothal.

Beth Shammai says: Only those who are betrothed may exercise the right of refusal; But Beth hillel says: Both those who are betrothed and those who are married.
Beth Shammai says: [A declaration of refusal may be made] against a husband but not against a yavam; But Beth Hillel says: Either against a husband or against a yavam.
Beth Shammai says: [The declaration] must be made in his presence, But Beth Hillel says: Either in his presence or not in his presence.
Beth Shammai says: [The declaration must be made] before the court, But Beth Hillel says: Either before the court or not before the court.
Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: [A girl] may exercise the right of refusal while she is a minor even four or five times. Beth Shammai said to them: “The daughters of Israel are not ownerless property! Rather, either she makes a declaration of refusal and then waits until she is of age, or she makes a declaration of refusal and marries again [immediately]. Section one: According to Beth Shammai only those who are betrothed are allowed to make a declaration of refusal and thereby leave their husbands without a get. Beth Hillel says even if she was married she may do so. According to the Talmud, Beth Shammai allows only the betrothed woman to refuse because if the married woman also was able to refuse, men would not want to spend the money involved in marrying a minor, lest she later refuse the marriage. Section two: If the minor girl was married off by her mother or brother and then her husband died, according to Beth Shammai she cannot make a declaration against her yavam. Rather she must wait until she reaches majority age and then request halitzah. However, according to Beth Hillel she may make such a declaration against the yavam as well. However, even though she has annulled her marriage to the yavam’s brother, she cannot at a later point marry the yavam, since she was at one point his brother’s wife. Section three: According to Beth Shammai, she must make the declaration of refusal in front of him. According to Beth Hillel, this is not necessary. Section four: According to Beth Shammai, she must make the declaration of refusal in front of a court. According to Beth Hillel, this is not necessary. Section five: According to Beth Hillel, as long as she is still a minor, she may be married off as many times as her brothers and mother wish and she may later refuse as many marriages as they offer. Beth Shammai offers a moral objection to this possibility, for through it a girl could be betrothed (but according to Beth Shammai not to several men without ever having received a get. Rather she either waits until she is an adult or makes a declaration of refusal and then marries immediately, at which point she could no longer refuse, according to Beth Shammai. Note that this last section is phrased differently than the previous sections. According to some mishnaic commentators, since Beth Shammai explains their position the halakhah is according to them in this section. In all of the other sections, the halakhah follows Beth Hillel, as it usually does.
Chapter thirteen discusses the marriage of a minor, her right to refuse and thereby annul the marriage when she reaches majority age and the implications that this has on the laws of yibbum.
According to the rabbinic understanding of the Torah, a father can marry off his daughter when she is a minor and cause her to be fully married (deoraita). This marriage can only be severed by death or divorce. If the father dies, the daughter cannot be fully married until she reaches majority age. The rabbis, however, gave the girl’s mother and brother the ability to marry her off while still a minor. The status of such a marriage is rabbinic (derabanan). Since this is a lesser form of marriage, she may “refuse” the marriage and any point until she is no longer a minor. Such a refusal is called “meun”. If she does the marriage is annulled and she does not even require a get.
Our mishnah contains five debates between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel concerning this right of refusal.

בבעל – [but] if he died and she did not protest against him and fell before a levir, she does not leave with a protest/annulment, but rather, she should wait until she grows up and performs the ritual of Halitzah.

אין בנות ישראל הפקר – and even from betrothal, she should not refuse and become betrothed to another [man] and then return and protest [again], but rather, she protests/refuses this one and she should delay from becoming betrothed to another until she grows up.

ותמאן ותנשא – not to go back and to protest/annul another time. But rather, this is what he said: she protests/annuls and delays from becoming betrothed to another [man] until she grows up, or if he want to get married, she annuls/refuses her husband and gets married immediately, for furthermore she does not protest/annul, according to the School of Shammai, for she is married.

אין מעשה קטנה אלא כמפותה – for she is like someone who is not married, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos. But a seduced woman from the age of six is in the legal status of someone who does not know how to preserve her betrothal [gift], and she does not need to protest/refuse, but older than six years of age, is in the legal status of someone who knows how to keep her betrothal [gift], and even though she is more confused/foolish. But from age six until age ten, she requires an examination if she knows how to keep her betrothal gift or not. And the girl may refuse/annul until she reaches the age of twelve years and one day and she shows signs [of puberty]. After that she does not refuse/annul, even if he did not come upon her [sexually]. But if he came upon her [sexually] after the age of twelve years and one day, even though she did not bring forth signs [of puberty], we suspect lest these signs fell off and he acquired her.

Introduction This mishnah provides three statements as to which type of minor girl can be married off by her brother or mother and before reaching majority age make a declaration of refusal.

Which minor must make the declaration of refusal?
Any whose mother or brothers have given her in marriage with her consent. If they gave her in marriage without her consent she need not make any declaration of refusal. When the mother or brothers marry off the girl she must consent to the marriage. If she does, she may later on make a declaration of refusal and thereby annul the marriage. However, if she does not consent, she need not even make a declaration of refusal.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Any child who is unable to take care of her token of betrothal need not make any declaration of refusal. R. Hanina adds in another criterion for which type of girl must make a declaration of refusal in order to leave her marriage. If she was married off by her mother or brother at an age when she couldn’t even take care of her token of betrothal (either money or a document), then the marriage is totally invalid. According to the Rambam, a girl under six by definition cannot take care of her token of betrothal and a girl over ten can. Girls between six and ten are checked to see if they have this capability. If they do not, then they do not need to perform meun.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of a minor has no validity at all, rather [she is to be regarded] as one seduced. The daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest may not eat terumah, and the daughter of a priest [who was married] to an Israelite may eat terumah. According to R. Eliezer, even if her brother or mother married her off, she is not considered fully married, rather she has the status of one who has been seduced. This is a way of stating that there is no validity to the marriage and therefore if she is the daughter of an Israelite “married” to a priest, she does not gain the right to eat terumah and if she is the daughter of a priest “married” to an Israelite she does not lose the right to eat terumah. According to the Talmud, although she is not at all married to him, R. Eliezer still requires her to make a declaration of meun to leave the marriage.

כל עכבה שהיא מן האיש – he (i.e., the husband) gave her a Jewish bill of divorce, this is the hindrance that comes from the man, for since she did not refuse/protest him, she revealed her intention that all that she tarried/delayed with him was for him. If she protested/refused him, this is the hindrance that is not from the man, for she did not detain herself with him because of marriage, and our Mishnah explains that and continue.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: In the case of any hindrance that was due to the husband, she is considered to be his wife; But in the case of any hindrance that was not due to the husband she is not considered to be his wife. There are two explanations of this mishnah in the Babylonian Talmud and of what “a hindrance” is. According to one explanation, if while married to this man another man offers to marry her and she refuses that marriage because she prefers her current husband, then she is considered to be his wife. This is because she has expressed her opinion that she wishes to stay in the marriage, and it is unlikely that she will later make a declaration of refusal. In such a case if she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, she may eat terumah, and if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she loses her right to eat terumah. However, if the hindrance was caused by another factor, for instance the new man was not right for her, then she has not expressed a definite desire to stay with her husband and therefore she is not considered his wife. According to the second explanation, if her husband gave her a get before she made a declaration of refusal, she is considered to have been his wife. The “hindrance” is the get. The consequences is that he is subsequently forbidden to marry her relatives and she his. However, if she makes a declaration of refusal, this is considered a hindrance from her. She is not considered his wife and therefore may marry his relatives, as we will learn in the upcoming mishnah.

מותרת לחזור בו – even though that he did not restore her [as his wife] and she married another [man] as a result of divorce, and she became widowed [from the death of the second husband], she is prohibited to [marry again] the first, nevertheless, if he restored her [as his wife] and she refused/protested him, this refusal comes and reveals that she is a minor and her Jewish bill of divorce is annulled and there is nothing in her second return like restoring his divorced wife when she married another person.

Introduction This mishnah deals with various consequences of her refusing the marriage, especially on her subsequent marriages. Note that the mishnah does not talk about situations that are likely to arise. Rather by suggesting concrete cases, the mishnah teaches more abstract legal principles.

זה הכלל – meaning to say, even many times that he divorced her and restored her [as his wife] and she refused/protested him, if she married another man as a result of a Jewish bill of divorce, she is prohibited to return to him, but as a result/in the midst of a refusal/protest, she is permitted to return to him.

If a minor made a declaration of refusal against a man, he is permitted [to marry] her relatives and she is permitted to [marry] his relatives, and he does not disqualify her from[marrying] a priest. The declaration of refusal annuls the marriage, making it as if it never happened. Therefore, neither he nor she is subsequently forbidden to marry each other’s relatives, as would be the case with divorce. Since she is not a divorcee, she may later marry a priest.

If he gave her a get, he is forbidden to [marry] her relatives and she is forbidden to [marry] his relatives, and he also disqualifies her from [marrying] a priest. However, if he gave her a get, her status is that of a divorcee and the marriage was not annulled. Neither can marry each other’s relatives and she may not marry a priest. Although the marriage was only of rabbinic status, it is strong enough to create these prohibitions.

If he gave her a get and remarried her and then she a made a declaration of refusal against him, and then she was married to another man and became a widow or was divorced, she is permitted to return to him. If he gives her a get, and then remarries her (this is permitted if she has not yet married someone else) and then she makes a declaration of refusal and then marries someone else, if this last person divorces her or dies, she may still return to her first husband. Although generally a man may not remarry his divorcee if she has been married in the interim (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4), in this case the declaration of refusal, which came after the divorce, cancels the get and places her in the category of one who has refused her husband and takes her out of the category of a divorcee.

If she made a declaration of refusal against him and then he remarried her, and then he gave her a get and then she was married to another man and became a widow or was divorced, she is forbidden to return to him. However, in the opposite case, where she first makes a declaration of refusal, then returns to her husband and then is divorced, remarries, and is then divorced or widowed, she may not return to her first husband. Since the divorce was after the refusal, she is in the category of a divorcee.

This is the general rule: if divorce followed meun she is forbidden to return to him, and if meun followed divorce she is permitted to return to him. This general sums up what was learned in the previous two sections.

לאחר ומינה בו – meaning to say, she went back and got married to a third [man] and she refused him.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the remarriage of a girl who has made a declaration of refusal.

כל שיצתה ממנו בגט אסורה לחזור בו – even though she left from who came after him with refusal, his Jewish bill of divorce was not annulled.

If a minor made a declaration of refusal against a man, and then she was married to another man who divorced her, and afterwards to another man against whom she made a declaration of refusal, and then to another man who divorced her: she is forbidden to return to any man from whom she was separated by a get, but is permitted to return to any man from whom she was separated by her declaration of refusal. In the scenario in this mishnah, a minor is married to a series of men, while she is still a minor. Against the first she makes a declaration of refusal, by the second she is divorced, against the third she makes another declaration of refusal and by the fourth she is divorced. She may now remarry the first or third since their marriage ended by declaration of refusal, and although she was remarried in the interim, since the original marriage ended with refusal it is as if it never existed. She cannot remarry the second and fourth husbands, by whom she was divorced, because she was married in the interim. Although the subsequent marriage was annulled and therefore should be treated as if it never happened, our mishnah teaches that it is still sufficient to prevent her from remarrying.

מותרת לבים – and we don’t say that the first marriage cause the sister-in-law to fall before the levir, and from the time that his brother divorced her, it establishes upon her the prohibition of the brother’s wife, that would be for her upon the divorce of his brother.

Introduction This mishnah discusses whether or not a woman who has been divorced and remarried by the same man can have yibbum, should her husband die without children.

רבי אליעזר אוסר – he decrees all of these because of the orphan during the life of the father, for we say further on in our Mishnah that after her return, she is like a divorced woman even according to the Rabbis, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

If a man divorced his wife and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. When a man divorces his wife, she becomes forbidden to his brother under the category of “his brother’s divorcee”. In the case in our mishnah, a man divorces his wife, then remarries her and then dies without children, making her liable for yibbum. Although when she was divorced she was forbidden to her husband’s brother, since when her husband died she was married to him, she is in the category of “his dead brother’s wife” and if he had no children, she is liable for yibbum. Rabbi Elazar forbids this woman from having yibbum.

ביתומה בחיי האב – even though the father is living, she is like an orphan in regard to Kiddushin, for furthermore, the father does not have the power to receive her betrothal/Kiddushin. But if he restored her [as his wife] while she was a minor, she prohibited to engage in levirate marriage if he dies while she is a minor, for the return of betrothal/Kiddushin is not anything, for since the control of the father upon her has been released, she herself lacks a hand and she would be like a divorced woman continuously.

Similarly, if a man divorced an orphan and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. The same rules apply with regard to a girl whose father had died (she is called an orphan even though her mother is alive) and was married off by her mother or brother, and then was divorced and remarried. Since at the time of death she was married to the yavam’s brother, she is permitted to have yibbum with him. Again Rabbi Elazar forbids this.

If a minor was given in marriage by her father and was divorced she is like an orphan in her father’s lifetime and then her husband remarried her, all agree that she is forbidden to marry the yavam. This section deals with a minor married off by her father. When she is divorced she is legally considered to be an “orphan in her father’s life”. This is because her father no longer has the ability to marry her off. Once she is married she never returns to her father’s domain. When her original husband remarries her while she is a minor, this marriage is only of “rabbinic” status because a minor cannot fully contract marriage without her father. In contrast her divorce was a regular “Toraitic” divorce because a minor can be fully divorced. Since the divorce was biblically valid and the remarriage only rabbinically valid, she is still “biblically” considered the yavam’s brother’s divorcee and all of the sages agree that she is forbidden to the yavam.

תצא משום אחות אשה – and she is exempt from Halitzah and from levirate marriage.

Introduction This mishnah discusses situations where a woman becomes liable for yibbum or halitzah to her sister’s husband. Generally in such a case the woman is completely exempt. However, these cases are slightly different because at least on of the marriages is only of rabbinic status.

מת בעלה של גדולה – and she fell before the husband of the younger [sister], the levirate relation of the older [sister]which she according to the Torah prohibits the younger [sister] upon him because her marriage is according to the Rabbis and she would be the sister of her levirate relation. What are they to do?

If two brothers were married to two sisters who were minors and orphans, and the husband of one of them died, [the widow] is free since she is the [the yavam’s] wife’s sister. The marriage of these two brothers to these two sisters is of rabbinic status, since they were married off by their brothers or mother. We might have thought that since this was so, the sister whose husband died needs halitzah from the yavam, even though the yavam is married to her sister (and hence yibbum is forbidden). This is because the ties created by the necessity of halitzah are biblical whereas the marriage is only rabbinic. The mishnah teaches that just as in a case of regular marriage where the widow is exempt from yibbum and halitzah, so too here she is exempt.

רבי אליעזר אומר מלמדים הקטנה שתמאן בו – and uproot her marriage, and he would perform levirate marriage to the older, and the Halakha is according to him.

Similarly in the case of two deaf-mute [sisters]. The marriage of a girl deaf-mute is also only of rabbinic status, since she was legally considered by the rabbis to be lacking the required intelligence to contract marriage. This case is similar to the previous case because the marriage of both women is only of rabbinic status.

רבן גמליאל אומר – the levirate relation of the older [sister] does not prohibit the younger [sister], for Rabban Gamaliel holds that the levirate marriage is not strong to prohibit his wife upon him; therefore, if she refuses, it is better and the older [sister] should under go levirate marriage, and if not, the younger [sister] should wait with him until she grows up and her marriage will be according to the Torah, and afterwards, the older [sister] will leave because of [the prohibition of] the wife’s sister. But not to have Halitzah for the older [sister], because he has invalidated the first [sister] upon him because of being the sister of the woman who performed Halitzah.

[If the two brothers were married to two sisters one of whom was] of age and [the other] a minor, if the husband of the minor died, the minor is free since she is the [the yavam’s] wife’s sister. In this case two brothers were married to two sisters, one of whom was of majority age and hence her marriage was of biblical status (deoraita) and one of whom was a minor, whose marriage was only of rabbinic status (derabbanan). If the husband of the minor died, she certainly does not need yibbum or halitzah from the other husband, because he is married to her sister. Since the marriage to the older sister is deoraita, there is no question about this case.

אי לו – Woe to him who removes his wife with a Jewish bill of divorce and doesn’t teach her to refuse/protest, for we state that a person should distance himself protests/refusals.

If the husband of the elder sister died: Rabbi Eliezer says the minor is to be instructed to make a declaration of refusal against him. Rabban Gamaliel says: If she made a declaration of refusal, then she did so; but if [she did] not, let her wait until she is of age and then she will be free since she is the [the yavam’s] wife's sister. Rabbi Joshua says: Woe to him because of his wife and woe to him because of his brother’s wife! He must allow his wife to go by [giving her] a get, and [he must let go] his brother’s wife through halitzah. The more difficult and controversial case is if the elder sister’s husband dies. She now needs yibbum or halitzah from a deoraita marriage, but her sister is already married, at least rabbinically to the yavam. If the yavam were to have halitzah with the older sister, the younger sister to whom he is married would become forbidden to him as his halutzah’s sister. Rabbi Eliezer says that in order to get out of this problematic situation, the court instructs the younger sister to make a declaration of refusal, thereby annulling the marriage and making it possible for the elder sister to have yibbum. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the ties that the older sister has to the yavam (the younger sister’s husband) makes the younger sister forbidden to her husband. Therefore the only solution is for the younger sister to make a declaration of refusal. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and does not hold that the ties to the older sister make the younger sister forbidden. Therefore, the younger sister can either make a declaration of refusal immediately, or she may remain with her husband and the older sister can wait until the younger sister reaches majority age at which time she, the older sister, becomes exempt from yibbum and halitzah because her yavam is biblically married to her sister. Rabbi Joshua says that in this case the husband/yavam will lose both his wife and his yevamah. Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Eliezer that his minor wife is now forbidden to him due to the biblical ties that he has with her sister. However, Rabbi Joshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer’s strategy of teaching her to make a declaration of refusal. This is because Rabbi Joshua holds that declarations of refusal are not desirable and that one should distance himself from them as much as possible. The yavam cannot have yibbum with the yevamah since she is now the sister of his divorcee. Therefore he must have halitzah with her. In this way, he loses both women. Question for Further Thought:  What is the difference between the first case and the last case? Why in one does she not require halitzah but in the other she might?

לשתי יתומות – foreigners (i.e., not related to each other).

Introduction Usually when two women are married to a man and he dies without children, when one of the brothers performs yibbum or halitzah with one of the widows, the other is automatically exempt. Yibbum or halitzah are not performed for each wife. Our mishnah discusses situations in which at least one of the marriage was only “derabbanan” either because she was a minor or a deaf-mute. The general rule in such cases is that yibbum or halitzah with a wife whose marriage was only derabbanan does not exempt a wife whose marriage was deoraita. However, yibbum or halitzah with a wife whose marriage is deoraita does exempt a wife whose marriage was derabbanan. Furthermore, yibbum or halitzah with a wife whose marriage was derabbanan exempts another wife whose marriage was derabbanan, as long as both marriages were of the exact same status.

או חליצתה – after she grows up.

If a man who was married to two minors orphans died, intercourse or halitzah with one of them exempts her rival. In this section both marriages were “derabbanan”; therefore intercourse (yibbum) or halitzah by the yavam with one of the widows exempts the other one. Note that some commentators hold that the minor can perform halitzah only when she reaches majority age. Others hold that she may even do so as a minor (see above 12:4).

וכן שתי חרשות – meaning to say, that juste as the two minor-age girls, having a sexual act with one of them exempts her rival/co-wife, so also with two deaf-mute women, but there is no Halitzah, to state that a deaf-mute woman is not one who engages in Halitzah.

And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. Again both marriages are derabbanan therefore yibbum with one wife exempts the other. Note that in this case yibbum is the only option because as we learned in 12:4, a deaf-mute woman cannot perform halitzah.

אחת קטנה ואחת חרשת – even though that for both of them, their marriages are not complete marriages, nevertheless, we did not know which of them is satisfactory to him and she is considered more his wife.

[If a man was married to] a minor and to a deaf woman [and then died], intercourse with one of them does not exempt her rival. In this case, both marriages were derabbanan, but one was with a deaf-mute and one was with a minor. Since we don’t know who is “more” married, both require halitzah or yibbum. The minor may be “more” married because her marriage will be completed upon reaching majority age. On the other hand the deaf-mute may be more married because she is more capable of having intercourse.

If one was of sound senses and one was deaf, intercourse with the woman of sound senses exempts the deaf woman, but intercourse with the deaf woman does not exempt the woman of sound senses. In this case, one wife was of sound senses she was not a deaf-mute or insane and the other wife was a deaf-mute. Since the marriage with the former was of deoraita status, yibbum or halitzah with her exempts the latter. However, since the latter’s marriage was of derabbanan status, yibbum with her does not exempt the former.

If one was of age and the other a minor, intercourse with the one of age exempts the minor, but intercourse with the minor does not exempt the one of age. This section teaches the same rule as in the previous section; it just uses the example of a minor and a girl of majority age.

לא פסל את הראשונה – for their acts of sexual intercourse are equivalent, and if the first one is acquired, she is his wife, and the sexual intercourse of the latter is fornication. But, if she is not acquired, both of hem are considered as foreigners to him for they were not acquired to his brother and he sustains the first who was not invalidated to him but not the latter one, for perhaps they were acquired, and when he comes upon the first one, he fulfills that one upon her through the prohibition of two houses.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a case where a man has intercourse with both of his brother’s widows, or he has intercourse with one and his brother has intercourse with the other.

פסל את החרשת – for perhaps the younger was acquired completely, and the acquisition of the deaf-mute woman is leftover, and he has two homes, and we reach the conclusion in the Gemara (Tractate Yevamot 111a) that a minor girl that there is a doubt if she is acquired completely for since she is worthy of sexual intercourse after a time and there is doubt if she is not acquired at all. And a woman who is a deaf-mute is acquired and she is left over, meaning to say, that she is acquired partially and is not acquired in a complete manner but nevertheless, if he comes upon a deaf-mute after he came upon a minor, he did not invalidate the minor, whichever way you turn, if the minor woman is acquired completely, he has acquired her, and the sexual act with the deaf-mute comes after that is not anything, and if she is not acquired at all, even to his brother, she was not acquired, and she is a foreigner (i.e., not related to him), but if he came first upon the deaf-mute and afterwards upon the minor, he invalidate the deaf-mute, for perhaps the acquisition of the minor was a complete acquisition, and he invalidated the acquisition of the deaf-mute which is an acquisition with something leftover. But there are books that have the reading – if he comes upon the minor girl, for we decree that because of when he came upon the deaf-mute girl and afterwards came upon the minor.

If a man who was married to two orphans who were minors died, and the yavam had intercourse with one, and then he also had intercourse with the other, or his [the yavam’s] brother had intercourse with the other, he has not thereby disqualified the first [for him]; In this case the man had intercourse with both minor wives, or he had intercourse with one and his brother had intercourse with the other. In any case, the first minor widow is still permitted to the first yavam. This is because there is a doubt whether or not yibbum is truly effective in “acquiring” a minor as a wife. If it is effective, than the first act of yibbum makes her fully his wife, and the second act of intercourse is illicit but does not effect the first wife’s status. If it is ineffective, then he didn’t need to have yibbum with either minor widow, because they were not biblically married to his brother. In either case, he may remain married to the first one. He cannot stay with the second lest intercourse is effective for acquiring a minor and he has already acquired her rival wife.

And the same is true with regard to two deaf women. The same rule is true where both wives were deaf-mutes.

[If one was] a minor and the other deaf, and the yavam had intercourse with the minor and then he had intercourse with the deaf widow, or a brother of his had intercourse with the deaf widow, he has not disqualified the minor [for him]. In this case one widow was a deaf-mute and the other a minor. If the yavam had relations first with the minor and then with the deaf-mute, or the yavam’s brother had relations with the deaf-mute, the minor may remain married to the first yavam. This is for the same reasons that we explained above: if yibbum is effective in acquiring the minor, then she is married to the yavam and the intercourse with the deaf-mute wife is licentious, but does not effect the first wife’s status. If it is ineffective, then she was never liable for yibbum with him, because she was not married to his brother.

If the yavam had intercourse with the deaf widow and then he also had intercourse with the minor, or a brother of his had intercourse with the minor, he has disqualified the deaf widow [for him]. In this case, the yavam first has relations with the deaf-mute and then he or his brother has relations with the minor widow. In this case the deaf-mute wife becomes forbidden to him. This is because the “acquisition” of the deaf-mute is certainly valid, but is not a complete “acquisition”. The “acquisition” of the minor is doubtful, as we explained above, but if it does acquire it does so fully. If the acquisition of the minor was fully valid, then it disqualifies the deaf-mute, whose acquisition was only partially valid.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.

[If one was] of sound senses and the other deaf, and the yavam had intercourse with the woman of sound senses and then he also had intercourse with the deaf woman, or a brother of his had intercourse with the deaf woman, he does not disqualify the former [for him]. When the yavam has intercourse with the woman of sound senses, he fully acquires her as his wife. His subsequent act of intercourse, or his brother’s subsequent act of intercourse with her rival wife is licentious but does not effect the status of the first woman.

If the yavam had intercourse with the deaf woman, and then he also had intercourse with the woman of sound senses, or a brother of his had intercourse with the woman of sound senses, he disqualifies the deaf woman [for him]. As we learned yesterday, sexual intercourse does not effect a full acquisition of a deaf woman, but rather a partial acquisition. Therefore, there is the possibility of acquiring the second woman, and thereby creating a situation where both rival wives are somewhat “acquired” to him. Since it is forbidden to be with both, he must separate from both of them.

ר' אליעזר אומר בכולן מלמדין – And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Introduction This mishnah continues the subject discussed in the previous two mishnayoth.

[If one was] of age and the other a minor, and the yavam had intercourse with the one who was of age, and then he had intercourse with the minor, or a brother of his had intercourse with the minor, he does not disqualify the elder for him. In this case one of the widows was of majority age and one was a minor. If the yavam has intercourse (yibbum) with the one who is of age she is fully acquired to him as a wife. If he or his brother subsequently have intercourse with the other widow the act is forbidden (for she was his brother’s wife) but does not effect the status of the one who already had yibbum.

If the yavam had intercourse with the minor, and then he also had intercourse with the one who was of age, or a brother of his had intercourse with the one who was of age, he disqualifies the minor [for him]. If the yavam first had intercourse with the minor, there is a doubt whether or not she is acquired to him. If he then has intercourse with the one who is of majority age, that act would be an act of yibbum if the act of intercourse with the minor did not acquire her. Since the older widow may be his wife through yibbum (or his brother’s wife) he is forbidden to remain married to the minor widow. He also cannot be with the older widow, lest the minor was successfully acquired through yibbum.

Rabbi Elazar says: the minor is to be instructed to make a declaration of refusal. Rabbi Elazar states that in such a case we should instruct the younger widow to make a declaration of refusal, thereby annulling the marriage. This would allow yibbum with the widow of majority age.

יגדלו זה עם זה – and he is not able to divorce her until he grows up, for the Jewish divorce bill of a minor is not a Jewish divorce bill.

Introduction The first half of this mishnah discusses the case of a minor yavam (up until now the mishnah has concentrated mostly on the minor yevamah). The second half of the mishnah discusses the situation of a woman who claims that her yavam has not had yibbum with her and she wants halitzah.

היבמה שאמרה בתוך שלשים יום – that the levir took her in marriage, I have not had sexual relations with the levir and he states, “I had sexual relations with you,” and it is enough for you with a Jewish bill of divorce, they force him to perform Halitzah for she is believed that up to thirty days, we establish that a person sustains himself and doesn’t engage in sexual intercourse.

If a yavam who was a minor had intercourse with a yevamah who was a minor, they should be brought up together. If a minor yavam who is legally capable of having sexual intercourse (over nine years old) has intercourse with a minor yevamah, he cannot divorce her because he cannot give a get until he reaches majority age. Therefore, they must remain together until they reach majority age, at which point they can decide whether to remain married or separate through divorce.

לאחר שלשים יום – he is believed that a person does not restrain himself without sexual intercourse for more than thirty days [after his marriage] (see Talmud Yevamot 111b). But, however, she is not permitted and considers herself a piece [of meat] and she is forbidden and requires Halitzah and we request of hi that he perform Halitzah but we don’t for him, for he stated that he had sexual intercourse [with her]. That we force him to perform Halitzah is within thirty days and we request of him to perform Halitzah after thirty days, and we don’t force him and we request that he perform levirate marriage. The Gemara (Tractate Yevamot 112a) establishes such as the example that the Jewish bill divorce leaves from under her hand, for since he gave the Jewish bill of divorce to his levirate relation, she was invalidated to him; but, however, she requires Halizah to make her permissible to the world. But if she herself said, “I had sexual intercourse [with him]” and he states that “I did not have sexual intercourse [with her],” we don’t suspect his words, and she does not require Halitzah.

If he had intercourse with a yevamah who was of age, she should bring him up until he is of age. So too if he has intercourse with a yevamah who is of majority age; she must wait with him until he is of majority age.

If a yevamah declared within thirty days [after yibbum], “he has not had intercourse with me”, they force him to perform halitzah; The second part of the mishnah deals with a case where the yevamah claims that the yavam did not have intercourse with her, and she wants to have halitzah. If she makes this claim within thirty days, she is believed, and the court forces the husband to perform halitzah. This is because we assume that for thirty days the yavam may actually not have had yibbum with her.

[If her declaration was made] after thirty days, they request that he perform halitzah. If she makes this declaration after thirty days, she is no longer automatically believed, for there is an assumption that the yavam would not have waited for more than thirty days to have yibbum. In this case, all the court can do is request that he perform halitzah for her.

If he admits [that he did not have intercourse with her], they force him to perform halitzah. If he admits that he did not have yibbum with her, he is forced to have halitzah, even after twelve months. He has a responsibility to her and cannot just leave her hanging, legally bound to him and without the possibility of marrying another.

הנודרת הנאה מיבמה בחיי בעלה כופין אותו שיחלוץ לה – she did not intend that her husband should die, and that she would fall before him (i.e., the levir) for levirate marriage, and she takes her Ketubah [settlement]. But, after the death of her husband, she rebels and we establish that we write a document stating the wife’s refusal of duties on the sister-in-law waiting for the levir to act and we requires of him to perform Halitzah and to give her Ketubah if he desires, but if he doesn’t want to perform Halitzah and she rebels against him, and she comes to lose her Ketubah [settlement], we force him to perform Halitzah.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a woman who made a vow not to receive any benefit from her yavam (her brother-in-law). Since sexual intercourse is a benefit, for it is pleasurable, she cannot have yibbum. The question is, is the yavam forced by the courtto perform halitzah for her, or is he merely requested to do so.

If a woman vowed to have no benefit from her yavam:
If the vow was made during the husband’s lifetime they force him to perform halitzah, If the woman made the vow while her husband was still alive, and her brother-in-law was not yet her yavam, and then her husband dies, the court forces the yavam to perform halitzah. This is because her vow was not made with the intention of subverting yibbum. She may have made her vow just because she really didn’t like her brother-in-law or for any other reason.

[If her vow was made] after the death of her husband, they request of him to perform halitzah. If she made the vow after her husband died, it was obviously made in attempt to circumvent yibbum. While the vow is still valid, and the yavam may not have yibbum with her, she is not automatically granted halitzah. Rather the court requests of the yavam to perform halitzah, but does not force him to do so.

If this was her intention, [even if her vow was made] during the lifetime of her husband, they request of him to perform halitzah. Similarly, if it was clear that she made the vow only to avoid yibbum, even if she made the vow when her husband was alive, the yavam is not forced to perform halitzah. She cannot use this vow as a means to circumvent yibbum. Her intention would have been clear if, for instance, she said that she was doing so in order to avoid yibbum.