Yevamot

and yet she may annul it! — [This,] however, [is really the reason]: She may annul [a kinyan by] cohabitation or by a ma'amar, because it is the levir who effects it; she cannot, however, annul the levirate bond which the All Merciful has imposed upon her. 'Ulla said: She may exercise her right of refusal even in respect of his levirate bond. What is the reason?  [By her refusal] she annuls the marriage of her first husband. Raba raised an objection against 'Ulla: The rival of anyone, entitled to make a declaration of refusal,  who did not exercise her right, must perform the ceremony of halizah  [if her husband died childless] but may not contract levirate marriage.  But why? Let her exercise her right of refusal now and thereby annul the marriage of her first husband, and then let her rival  contract the levirate marriage!  — The rival of a forbidden relative is different.  For Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If a minor made a declaration of refusal against her husband she is permitted to marry his father,  but if against the levir  she is forbidden to marry his father. It is thus evident  that at the time she became subject to the levirate marriage she is looked upon as his  daughter-in-law;  similarly here also  [marriage of the rival is forbidden because] at the time of her subjection to the levirate marriage she is looked upon as his daughter's rival. Rab stated: If she  made a declaration of refusal against one  [of the levirs] she is forbidden [to marry] the others  also; her case being analogous to that of the recipient of a letter of divorce.  As  the recipient of a letter of divorce is forbidden to all [the brothers] as soon as she is forbidden to one  so is there no difference here also. Samuel, however, stated: If she  exercised her right of refusal against one  [of the levirs] she is permitted [to marry] the others;  her case being unlike that of the recipient of a letter of divorce.  For with the recipient of a letter of divorce  it is he  who took the initiative against her;  but here it is she who took the initiative against him, declaring, 'I do not like you and I do not want you; it is you whom I dislike but I do like your fellow'. R. Assi ruled: If she  made a declaration of refusal against one [levir] she is permitted [to marry] even him. May it be assumed that he is of the same opinion as R. Oshaia who maintains that a minor has no right to make a declaration of refusal in respect of his levirate bond?  — In respect of one levir she may well be entitled to annul [the levirate bond]; here, however, we are dealing with two levirs [the reason  being] that no declaration of refusal is valid against half a levirate bond. When Rabin came  he reported in the name of R. Johanan: If she  exercised her right of refusal against one  [of the levirs] she is permitted to marry the other brothers. [They], however did not agree with him. Who [are they who] did not agree with him? … Abaye said: Rab;  Raba said: R. Oshaia;  and others said: [Even] R. Assi. BETH SHAMMAI RULED … IN HIS PRESENCE etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, 'Did not the wife of Pishon the camel driver make her declaration of refusal in his absence?' 'Pishon the camel driver', answered Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel, 'used a reversible measure;  they, therefore, used against him also a reversible measure'.  Since, however, he was eating the usufruct  it is obvious that [the minor] was married to him;  but [if this was the case] did not Beth Shammai rule [it may be asked] that a married minor may not exercise the right of refusal!  They bound him with two bonds. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: … BEFORE BETH DIN etc. Elsewhere we learned: Halizah and declarations of mi'un [must be witnessed by] three men.  Who is the Tanna?  — Rabbah replied: This [ruling is that of] Beth Shammai.  Abaye said: You may even say [that it is the ruling of] Beth Hillel. All that  Beth Hillel really stated was that no experts  are required; three men, however, are indeed required. As it was, in fact, taught: Beth Shammai ruled [that mi'un must he declared] before Beth din,  and Beth Hillel ruled: Either before a Beth din or not before a Beth din. Both, however, agree that a quorum of three is required.  R. Jose son of R.  Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon  ruled: [Mi'un is] valid [even if It was declared] before two.  R. Joseph b. Manyumi reported in the name of R. Nahman that the halachah is in agreement with this pair. BETH SHAMMAI, HOWEVER, ANSWERED … AND SHE DECLARES HER REFUSAL etc. But, surely, she has already made a declaration of refusal!  — Samuel replied: [The meaning is] TILL SHE IS OF AGE and states, 'I am willing to abide by the first declaration of refusal'.  'Ulla replied: Two [different statements] are here made: Either she declares her refusal 'and is betrothed after she is of age,  or she declares her refusal, and is married forthwith. According to 'Ulla one can well understand why the expression, TILL SHE IS OF AGE OR DECLARES HER REFUSAL  AND MARRIES AGAIN, was used. According to Samuel, however, it should have been stated 'TILL SHE IS OF AGE and states'.  — This is a difficulty. MISHNAH. WHICH MINOR MUST MAKE THE DECLARATION OF REFUSAL?  ANY WHOSE MOTHER OR BROTHERS HAVE GIVEN HER IN MARRIAGE WITH HER CONSENT. IF, HOWEVER, THEY GAVE HER IN MARRIAGE WITHOUT HER CONSENT SHE NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS RULED: ANY CHILD WHO IS UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF HER TOKEN OF BETROTHAL  NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL. R. ELIEZER  RULED: THE ACT OF A MINOR HAS NO VALIDITY AT ALL, BUT [SHE  IS TO BE REGARDED] AS ONE SEDUCED. IF, THEREFORE, SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE [AND WAS MARRIED] TO A PRIEST SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH,  AND IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST [AND WAS MARRIED] TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IN THE CASE OF ANY HINDRANCE [IN REMARRYING]  THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND, [THE MINOR] IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN  HIS WIFE; BUT IN THE CASE OF ANY HINDRANCE [IN REMARRYING] THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND SHE IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN  HIS WIFE. GEMARA. Rab Judah stated, and others say that it was taught In a Baraitha: Originally, a certificate of mi'un was drafted [as follows]: 'I do not like him and I do not want him and I do not desire to be married to him'. When, however, it was observed that the formula was too long and it was feared that