1 people might mistake it for a letter of divorce, the following formula was instituted: 'On the Nth day, So-and-so the daughter of So-and-so made a declaration of refusal in our presence'. Our Rabbis taught: What is regarded as mi'un? — If she said, 'I do not want So-and-so my husband', or 'I do not want the betrothal which my mother or my brothers have arranged for me'. R. Judah said even more than this: Even if while sitting in the bridal litter, and being carried from her father's house to the home of her husband, she said, 'I do not want So-and-so my husband', her statement is regarded as a declaration of refusal. R. Judah said more than this: Even if, while the wedding guests were reclining [on their dining couches] in her husband's house and she was standing and waiting upon them, she said to them, 'I do not want my husband So-and-so', her statement is regarded as a declaration of refusal. R. Jose b. Judah said more than this: Even if, while her husband sent her to a shopkeeper to bring him something for himself, she said, 'I do not want So-and-so my husband', you can have no mi'un more valid than this one. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS RULED: ANY CHILD etc. Rab Judah reported in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Hanina b. Antigonus. A Tanna taught: If a minor who did not make a declaration of refusal married herself again, her marriage, it was stated in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra, is to be regarded as her declaration of refusal. It was asked: What is the law where she was only betrothed? — Come and hear: If a minor who did not make a declaration of refusal betrothed herself [to another man], her betrothal, it was stated in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra, is regarded as her declaration of refusal. The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Judah b. Bathyra or not? If you can find some ground for holding that they differ, [it may be asked whether only] in respect of betrothal, or even in respect of marriage? And should you find some reason for holding that they differ even in respect of marriage [the question arises whether] the halachah is in agreement with him or not? And if you can find some ground for holding that the halachah is in agreement with him [it may be asked whether only] in respect of marriage or also in respect of betrothal? — Come and hear: Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel that the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Bathyra; [since it had to be stated that] the halachah [is so] it may be inferred that they differ. The question, however, still remains [whether the minor spoken of] is one who was married in the first instance or perhaps she is one who was only betrothed? — Come and hear: Abdan's daughters-in-law rebelled [against their husbands]. When Rabbi sent a pair of Rabbis to interrogate then, some women said to them, 'See your husbands are coming'. 'May they', they replied, 'be your husbands!' and 'Rabbi decided: 'No more significant mi'un than this is required'. Was not this a case of marriage? — No, one of betrothal only. The halachah, however, is in agreement with R. Judah b. Bathyra, even where marriage with the first husband has taken place. R. ELIEZER RULED etc. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: I have surveyed [the rulings] of the Sages from all aspects and found no man who was so consistent in his treatment of the minor as R. Eliezer. For R. Eliezer regarded her as one taking a walk with [her husband] in his courtyard who, when she rises from his bosom, performs her ritual immersion and is permitted to eat terumah in the evening. It was taught: R. Eliezer stated: There is no validity whatsoever in the act of a minor, and her husband is entitled neither to anything she may find, nor to the work of her hands, nor may he annul her vows; he is not her heir and he may not defile himself for her. This is the general rule: She is in no respect regarded as his wife, except that it is necessary for her to make a declaration of refusal. R. Joshua stated: Her husband has the right to anything she finds and to the work of her hands, to annul her vows, to be her heir, and to defile himself for her; the general principle being that she is regarded as his wife in every respect, except that she may leave him by a declaration of refusal. Said Rabbi: The views of R. Eliezer are more acceptable than those of R. Joshua; for R. Eliezer is consistent throughout in his treatment of the minor while R. Joshua makes distinctions. What [unreasonable] distinctions does he make? — If she is regarded as his wife, she should also require a letter of divorce. But according to R. Eliezer also [it may be argued] if she is not regarded as his wife, she should require no mi'un either! — Should she then depart without any formality whatever? R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: etc. What is to be understood by a HINDRANCE THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND and a HINDRANCE THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: If when she was asked to marry she replied, '[I must refuse the offer] owing to So-and-so my husband'; such a HINDRANCE is one THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND. [If, however, she refused the offer] 'because', [she said] 'the men [who proposed] are not suitable for me'; such a HINDRANCE is one THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND. Both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin gave the following explanation: If he gave her a letter of divorce, the HINDRANCE IS one THAT WAS DUE TO THE HUSBAND and, therefore, he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives, and he also disqualifies her from marrying a priest. If, however, she exercised her right of refusal against him, the HINDRANCE is one THAT WAS NOT DUE TO THE HUSBAND and, therefore, 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. But surely, this was specifically stated below: 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; but if he gave her a letter of divorce he is forbidden to marry her relatives and she is forbidden to marry his relatives, and he also disqualifies her from marrying a priest! — The latter is merely an explanation [of the former]. MISHNAH. 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; BUT IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO [MARRY] HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO [MARRY] HIS RELATIVES, AND HE ALSO DISQUALIFIES HER FROM [MARRYING] A PRIEST. IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIED HER AND, AFTER SHE HAD EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HIM, SHE WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM. IF, HOWEVER, SHE EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HIM AND HE REMARRIED HER, AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN SHE WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO HIM.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜ
2 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF DIVORCE FOLLOWED MI'UN SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO HIM, AND IF MI'UN FOLLOWED DIVORCE SHE IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM. IF A MINOR EXERCISED HER RIGHT 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 THE MAN FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, BUT IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY HER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF MI'UN. GEMARA. It is thus evident that mi'un has the power to cancel divorce; but this, surely, is contradicted by the following: IF A MINOR EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST A MAN AND THEN 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 THE MAN FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, BUT IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY HER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF MI'UN, from which it is evident that mi'un against his fellow has no power to cancel his own divorce! — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: There is a break [in our Mishnah], the one who taught the former did not teach the latter. Raba said: But what contradiction is this? It is possible that mi'un cancels his own divorce, but that the mi'un against his fellow does not cancel his own letter of divorce! But in what way is the mi'un against his fellow different from one against himself] that it should not cancel his own divorce? [Obviously for the reason that] as she is familiar with his hints and gesticulations he might allure her and marry her again. [But if this is the case] mi'un against himself also should not cancel his divorce, [for the same reason] that as she is familiar with his hints and gesticulations he might allure her and marry her again! Surely, he had already tried to allure her but she did not succumb. If a contradiction, however, [exists it is that between one ruling] concerning his fellow against [another ruling] concerning his fellow: IF, HOWEVER, SHE EXERCISED HER RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HIM AND HE REMARRIED HER, AND HAVING SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE SHE MARRIED ANOTHER MAN AND BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO HIM. The reason [then why she is forbidden to return to him is] because she BECAME A WIDOW OR WAS DIVORCED, but had she exercised her right of refusal she would have been permitted to return to him, from which it is evident that the mi'un against his fellow has the power to cancel his own divorce; but this view is contradictory to the following: IF A MINOR EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL AGAINST HER HUSBAND AND THEN WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN WHO DIVORCED HER, AND AFTERWARDS TO AN OTHER MAN AGAINST WHOM SHE MADE A DECLARATION OF REFUSAL, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO RETURN TO THE MAN FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE, BUT IS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO HIM FROM WHOM SHE WAS SEPARATED BY HER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF MI'UN. From this, then, it is evident that the mi'un against his fellow has no power to cancel his own divorce! R. Eleazar replied: There is a break [in our Mishnah]; the one who taught the former did not teach the latter. 'Ulla replied: [The latter statement refers to a case where], for instance, she was thrice divorced, so that she appears like a grown up. Who taught [the two respective statements of our Mishnah]? Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: To this may be applied the Scriptural text, We have drunk our water for money; our wood cometh to us for price. In the time of proscription the following halachah was inquired for: If a minor left her first husband with a letter of divorce and her second husband through mi'un, may she return to her first husband? They hired a man for four hundred zuz, and [through him] they addressed the enquiry to R. Akiba in prison, and he stated that she was forbidden. R. Judah b. Bathyra [also was asked] at Nesibis and he too forbade her. Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose: There was no need for us to [ascertain] such [an halachah], For if in a prohibition involving the penalty of kareth he has been permitted how much more so in one [involving only the penalty of] a negative commandment. But the enquiry was in this manner: If [a minor] was the wife of his mother's brother, and consequently forbidden to him as a relative of the second degree, and his paternal brother [subsequently] married her and died, may she now exercise her right of mi'un, and thus annul her first marriage and so be permitted to contract the levirate marriage? Is mi'un valid after [a husband's] death where a religious performance is involved, or not? Two men were hired for four hundred zuz and when they came and asked R. Akiba in prison he ruled [that such levirate marriage was] forbidden; and when R. Judah b. Bathyra [was asked] at Nesibis he also decided that it was forbidden. R. Isaac b. Ashian stated: Rab, however, admits that she is permitted to marry the brother of the man whom she is forbidden [to remarry]. Is not this obvious? For it is only he with whose hints and gesticulations she is familiar but not his brother! — It might have been assumed that [marriage with] the one should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the other hence we were taught [that his brother may marry her]. Another reading: R. Isaac b. Ashian stated: As she is forbidden to him so is she forbidden to his brothers. But, surely, she is not familiar with their hints and gesticulations! — His brothers were forbidden [marriage with her] as a preventive measure against [marriage] with him. ᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱᶜʲᶜᵏᶜˡᶜᵐᶜⁿᶜᵒᶜᵖᶜᵠᶜʳᶜˢᶜᵗᶜᵘᶜᵛᶜʷᶜˣᶜʸᶜᶻᵈᵃᵈᵇᵈᶜᵈᵈᵈᵉᵈᶠ