Yevamot

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.