## Yevamot Daf 108a

###### Yevamot 108a:1
[Yevamot 108a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:1)

אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּגִיטָּא. תַּקִּינוּ הָכִי: ״בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי מֵיאֲנָה פְּלוֹנִית בַּת פְּלוֹנִי בְּאַנְפַּנָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This document **may come to be confused with a bill of divorce** and perhaps a man will err and give a bill of divorce using the text of refusal. Therefore, **they decreed** that one should write **as follows: On such and such a day, so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, performed refusal in our presence,** and no more.


###### Yevamot 108a:2
[Yevamot 108a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵי זֶהוּ מֵיאוּן? אָמְרָה: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בִּפְלוֹנִי בַּעְלִי״, ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּקִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁקִּידְּשׁוּנִי אִמִּי וְאַחַי״. יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּאַפִּרְיוֹן וְהוֹלֶכֶת מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, וְאָמְרָה: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בִּפְלוֹנִי בַּעְלִי״ — זֶהוּ מֵיאוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: What** constitutes **a refusal?** If **she said: I do not want so-and-so as my husband,** or: **I do not want the betrothal in which my mother and brothers had me betrothed,** that is a refusal. **Rabbi Yehuda said more than that: Even if she is sitting in a bridal chair [*apiryon*] going from her father’s house to her husband’s house and said** along the way: **I do not want so-and-so as my husband, this** constitutes **a refusal.**


###### Yevamot 108a:3
[Yevamot 108a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:3)

יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ הָיוּ אוֹרְחִין מְסוּבִּין בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ וְהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת וּמַשְׁקָה עֲלֵיהֶם, וְאָמְרָה לָהֶם: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בִּפְלוֹנִי בַּעְלִי״ — הֲרֵי הוּא מֵיאוּן. יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ שִׁיגְּרָהּ בַּעְלָהּ אֵצֶל חֶנְוָנִי לְהָבִיא לוֹ חֵפֶץ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאָמְרָה: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בִּפְלוֹנִי בַּעְלִי״ — אֵין לְךָ מֵיאוּן גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said** even **more than that: Even if guests are reclining at her husband’s house and she is standing and serving them drinks** as hostess, **and** she **said to them: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, this** constitutes **a refusal,** even though it is possible that she is merely complaining about the effort she is expending. **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said more than that: Even if her husband sent her to a shopkeeper to bring him an article of his and she said: I do not want so-and-so as my husband, there is no greater refusal than this.**


###### Yevamot 108a:4
[Yevamot 108a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:4)

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כׇּל תִּינוֹקֶת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס. תָּנָא: קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא מֵיאֲנָה, וְעָמְדָה וְנִשֵּׂאת, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אָמְרוּ: נִישּׂוּאֶיהָ הֵן הֵן מֵיאוּנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any girl** who is so young that she cannot keep her betrothal safe does not need to refuse. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.** It was **taught:** In the case of **a minor girl who did not refuse** her husband, **but who went and married** someone else, **it was said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Her** new **marriage constitutes her refusal,** as she made her state of mind known, that she does not want him, and that is sufficient.


###### Yevamot 108a:5
[Yevamot 108a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִתְקַדְּשָׁה, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא מֵיאֲנָה וְעָמְדָה וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה — מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אָמְרוּ: קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ הֵן הֵן מֵיאוּנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What is** the *halakha* **if she was betrothed** to another man without performing refusal of the first husband? Is her acceptance of the betrothal sufficient to indicate that she refuses the first husband? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an answer from a *baraita*: If **a minor girl did not refuse** her husband **but went and became betrothed** to another man, then, as the Sages **said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Her betrothal constitutes her refusal.**


###### Yevamot 108a:6
[Yevamot 108a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:6)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹ לָא? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי: בְּקִידּוּשִׁין, אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בְּנִישּׂוּאִין? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּנִישּׂוּאִין: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ: בְּנִישּׂוּאִין אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira or not?** And further, **if you say** that **they do disagree** with him, do they disagree with him **with regard to betrothal** alone, **or** do they **also** disagree with him **with regard to marriage? And if you say** that **they disagree even with regard to marriage, is the *halakha* in accordance with his opinion or is the *halakha* not in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion, is** this only **with regard to marriage, or is** it **even with regard to betrothal?**


###### Yevamot 108a:7
[Yevamot 108a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה. הֲלָכָה — מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a tradition: **Come** and **hear: Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: The *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira** with regard to both marriage and betrothal. From the fact that he ruled the ***halakha*,** one may derive **by inference** that the Rabbis **disagree.**


###### Yevamot 108a:8
[Yevamot 108a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:8)

וְאַכַּתִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ: דַּהֲוָה נְסִיבָא מֵעִיקָּרָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִיקַּדְּשָׁא? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּכַלָּתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּדָן, אִימְּרוּד, שַׁדַּר רַבִּי זוּגֵי דְּרַבָּנַן לְמִיבְדְּקִינְהוּ. אָמְרִי לְהוּ נְשֵׁי: חֲזוּ גַּבְרַיְיכוּ דְּקָאָתוּ. אָמְרִי לְהוּ: נִיהְווֹ גַּבְרַיְיכוּ דִּידְכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But still, you should raise the dilemma:** Does Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira say that her betrothal to another counts as refusal even **when she had initially been married or perhaps** only if she **was betrothed** but not married beforehand? **Come** and **hear: The daughters-in-law of Abdan rebelled** against their husbands. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **sent a pair of Sages to examine them** and determine what could be done to rectify the matter. Some **women said to** the daughters-in-law: **See, it is your husbands that are coming. They said back to them: Let them be your husbands.**


###### Yevamot 108a:9
[Yevamot 108a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין לְךָ מֵיאוּן גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. מַאי לָאו, דַּהֲוָה נְסִיבָא? לָא, דַּהֲוָה מִיקַּדְּשָׁא קִידּוּשֵׁי. וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּנִישּׂוּאִין דְּקַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: There is no greater refusal than this. What** is the case? **Is it not that they were** already **married?** The Gemara rejects this: **No, they were merely betrothed,** but not married. This story cannot establish unequivocally what the *halakha* is in the case when the girl is married. The Gemara nevertheless concludes: **The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira** in all of these matters, **even with regard to her marriage to the first** husband: Even if she had actually been married to the first man, the marriage is invalidated by her betrothal to another.


###### Yevamot 108a:10
[Yevamot 108a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:10)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חוֹזְרַנִי עַל כׇּל צִדְדֵי חֲכָמִים וְלֹא מָצָאתִי אָדָם שֶׁהִשְׁוָה מִדּוֹתָיו בִּקְטַנָּה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כִּמְטַיֶּילֶת עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר, וְעוֹמֶדֶת מֵחֵיקוֹ וְטוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna: **Rabbi Elazar says:** The act of a minor girl is nothing. Rather, her status is as though she were a seduced unmarried woman. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: I reviewed all the opinions of the Sages** concerning these matters, **and I did not find any person who applied a consistent standard with regard to a minor like Rabbi Elazar** did. **For Rabbi Elazar portrayed her as a girl walking with** her husband **in a courtyard, who stands up from his bosom** after he engaged in intercourse with her, **and immerses** herself to become ritually pure, **and partakes of *teruma* by evening** as if there were no marital bond between them and as if she, as the daughter of a priest, could continue to partake of *teruma*. The daughter of a priest is prohibited from eating *teruma* once she is married to a non-priest.


###### Yevamot 108a:11
[Yevamot 108a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:11)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם, וְאֵין בַּעְלָהּ זַכַּאי לֹא בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ, וְאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: אֵינָהּ כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר, אֶלָּא שֶׁצְּרִיכָה מֵיאוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of a minor girl is nothing,** and therefore her marriage is not valid. **And her husband has no rights to items she finds, nor to her earnings; nor** does he have the right **to annul her vows; he does not inherit her** assets if she dies; **and** if she dies **he may not become ritually impure on her account** if he is a priest, i.e., through his presence in the same room as her corpse. **The principle is:** She is not **his wife in any sense, except that she must perform refusal** in order to marry someone else.


###### Yevamot 108a:12
[Yevamot 108a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:12)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ, וְיוֹרְשָׁהּ, וּמִיטַּמֵּא לָהּ. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר, אֶלָּא שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בְּמֵיאוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says:** In the case of a minor whose mother or brother married her off, **her husband has rights to items she finds, and to her earnings; and** he has the right **to annul her vows; and he inherits her** assets if she dies; **and** if she dies **he must become ritually impure on her account** even if he is a priest. **The principle is: She is his wife in every sense, except that she can leave** him **by** means of **refusal** and does not require a bill of divorce.


###### Yevamot 108a:13
[Yevamot 108a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִשְׁוָה מִדּוֹתָיו בִּקְטַנָּה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חָלַק. מַאי חָלַק? אִי אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא — תִּיבְעֵי גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears** to be more correct **than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Eliezer applied a consistent standard with regard to a minor, while Rabbi Yehoshua applied an inconsistent standard.** The Gemara asks: In **what** way is his standard **inconsistent?** The Gemara answers: **If she is his wife,** she **should require a bill of divorce** from him.


###### Yevamot 108a:14
[Yevamot 108a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:14)

לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי: אִי לָאו אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא — מֵיאוּן נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְעֵי! אֶלָּא בִּכְדִי תִּיפּוֹק?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to Rabbi Eliezer too,** there appears to be an inconsistency, as, **if she is not his wife, she should not be required to perform refusal either.** The Gemara answers: **But shall she leave with no** ritual at all? Some sort of act is required to indicate that their relationship is permanently severed. Rabbi Eliezer has a consistent standard, according to which the marriage of a minor has no substance and to dissolve it she need only indicate that she does not want her husband. Rabbi Yehoshua is inconsistent in treating the relationship as a marriage even though it can be dissolved easily.


###### Yevamot 108a:15
[Yevamot 108a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:15)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי עַכָּבָה שֶׁהִיא מִן הָאִישׁ וְעַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הָאִישׁ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּבָעוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא, וְאָמְרָה: ״מֵחֲמַת פְּלוֹנִי בַּעְלִי״ — זוֹ הִיא עַכָּבָה שֶׁהִיא מִן הָאִישׁ. ״מֵחֲמַת בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵינָם מְהוּגָּנִין לִי״ — זוֹ הִיא עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הָאִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated: **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:** If there is any obstruction in the matter due to the man, it is as if she were his wife. If there is any obstruction in the matter that is not due to the man, it is as if she were not his wife. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of an obstruction due to the man, and an obstruction that is not due to the man? Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** If someone **proposed marriage to her and she said:** I do not wish to marry **on account of so-and-so, my husband, this is an obstruction that is due to the man.** When she declined the proposal, she made it clear that she views herself as his wife. But if she says: I do not want to marry **because the men** suggested to me **are not suitable for me, this is an obstruction that is not due to the man,** and she is not considered to be his wife.


###### Yevamot 108a:16
[Yevamot 108a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:16)

אַבָּיֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חֲנִינָא בַּר אָבִין דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט — זוֹ הִיא עַכָּבָה שֶׁהִיא מִן הָאִישׁ, וְהוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וּפְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. מֵיאֲנָה בּוֹ — זוֹ הִיא עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הָאִישׁ, וְהוּא מוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וְלֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥanina bar Avin both say: If** the minor’s husband **gave her a bill of divorce, this is an obstruction** that is **due to the man,** since in presenting the bill of divorce, the marriage is being treated as valid. Therefore, from then onward, **he is prohibited from** marrying **her close relatives, and she is prohibited from** marrying **his close relatives; and,** as a divorced woman, **she is disqualified from** marrying into **the priesthood.** However, **if she refuses him, this is an obstruction** that is **not due to the man.** Therefore, **he is permitted to** marry **her close relatives, and she is permitted to** marry **his close relatives, and she is not disqualified from the priesthood,** since her refusal annuls the marriage retroactively.


###### Yevamot 108a:17
[Yevamot 108a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:17)

הָא קָתָנֵי לְקַמַּן: הַמְמָאֶנֶת בָּאִישׁ — הוּא מוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וְלֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט — הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וּפְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה! פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But it is taught** explicitly **below,** in the following mishna: If a minor girl **refuses a man, he is permitted to** marry **her close relatives and she is permitted to** marry **his close relatives, and he has not disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood. If he gave her a bill of divorce, he is prohibited from** marrying **her close relatives, and she is prohibited from** marrying **his close relatives, and he has disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood.** Since the difference between refusal and a bill of divorce is already addressed in the following mishna, why is the same ruling repeated here? The Gemara answers: The following mishna **is explaining** the latter part of this mishna.


###### Yevamot 108a:18
[Yevamot 108a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְמָאֶנֶת בָּאִישׁ — הוּא מוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וְלֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט — הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וּפְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a minor girl **refuses a man, he is permitted to** marry **her close relatives,** such as her mother or her sister, **and she is permitted to** marry **his close relatives,** such as his father or brother, **and he has not disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood,** as she is not considered divorced. However, if **he gave her a bill of divorce,** then even though the marriage was valid according to rabbinic law and not Torah law, **he is prohibited from** marrying **her close relatives, and she is prohibited from** marrying **his close relatives, and he has disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood.**


###### Yevamot 108a:19
[Yevamot 108a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/108a:19)

נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט וְהֶחְזִירָהּ, מֵיאֲנָה בּוֹ וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר, וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה — מוּתֶּרֶת לַחְזוֹר לוֹ. מֵיאֲנָה בּוֹ וְהֶחְזִירָהּ, נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר, וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה — אֲסוּרָה לַחְזוֹר לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If he gave her a bill of divorce but** afterward **remarried her, and** she subsequently **refused him and married another** man, **and then she was widowed or divorced** from her second husband, **she is permitted to return to him.** Since she left him the last time by means of refusal, the refusal cancels the bill of divorce that he gave her previously, and her status is that of a minor girl who refused her husband, who is not forbidden to her first husband after a second marriage. However, if the order was different, and **if she refused him and he** subsequently **remarried her, and** this time **he gave her a bill of divorce and she married another** man, **and she was widowed or divorced, she is forbidden to return to him,** like any divorced woman who married another man.