Yevamot

MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ONLY THOSE  WHO ARE BETROTHED  MAY EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL;  BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: BOTH THOSE WHO ARE BETROTHED AND THOSE WHO ARE MARRIED. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL  MAY BE MADE] AGAINST A HUSBAND BUT NOT AGAINST A LEVIR;  BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER AGAINST A HUSBAND OR AGAINST A LEVIR. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [THE DECLARATION]  MUST BE MADE IN HIS PRESENCE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER IN HIS PRESENCE OR NOT IN HIS PRESENCE. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [THE DECLARATION  MUST BE MADE] BEFORE BETH DIN, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER BEFORE BETH DIN OR NOT BEFORE BETH DIN. 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, HOWEVER, ANSWERED THEM: THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL ARE NOT OWNERLESS PROPERTY,  BUT, [IF ONE] MAKES A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, SHE MUST WAIT TILL SHE IS OF AGE, AND DECLARE HER REFUSAL  AND MARRY AGAIN. GEMARA. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: What is Beth Shammai's reason?  Because no stipulation is attachable to a marriage;  and were a married minor to be allowed to exercise the right of refusal, it would come to be assumed  that a stipulation is attachable to a marriage.  What reason, however, could be advanced  where she only entered the bridal chamber  and no cohabitation had taken place?  Because no condition is attachable to an entry into the bridal chamber.  What reason, however, could be advanced  where the father  entrusted her to the representatives of the husband?  — The Rabbis made no distinction.  And Beth Hillel?  — It is well known that the marriage of a minor is only Rabbinically valid. Both Rabbah and R. Joseph declared: The reason of Beth Shammai  is that no man wishes to treat his cohabitation as mere fornication.  What, however, can be the reason  where she only entered the bridal chamber and no cohabitation took place?  No man would like his bridal chamber to be [an introduction to] a forbidden act.  What reason,  then, could be advanced where the father  had entrusted her to the representatives of the husband?  — The Rabbis made no distinction.  And Beth Hillel?  — Since [a minor's marriage] involves  betrothal and kethubah no one would suggest that her husband's cohabitation was an act of fornication. R. Papa explained: Beth Shammai's reason  is because of the usufruct,  and Beth Hillel's reason also is because of the usufruct.  'Beth Shammai's reason is because of the usufruct', for should you say that a married minor may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband]  might [indiscriminately] pluck [the fruit] and consume it, [knowing as he does] that she might leave him at any moment.  Beth Hillel, however, [say]: On the contrary; since it is laid down that she may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband] would make every effort to improve her property, fearing that if [he should] not [do this], her relatives might give her their advice [against him] and thus take her away from him. Raba stated: The real reason  of Beth Shammai is because no man would take the trouble to prepare a meal  and then spoil it.  And Beth Hillel?  — Both are pleased [to be married to each other]  in order that they may be known as married people. BETH SHAMMAI RULED … AGAINST A HUSBAND etc. R. Oshaia stated: She may  make a declaration of refusal in respect of his ma'amar  but she has no right to make a declaration of refusal in respect of his levirate bond. Said R. Hisda: What is R. Oshaia's reason? — She has the power to annul a ma'amar which is effected with her consent; she has no power, however, to sever the levirate bond since it is binding on her against her will.  But, surely, [levirate marriage by] cohabitation may be effected against her will