The AVB Sit edition of the audio series on the Talmud Bavli, specifically Daf Chet Yevamot, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife in honor of their family. We pray for their success and prosperity in all their endeavors. May he merit raising his children in the ways of the Torah, and may they bring him much joy. We wish him health and happiness, and may he continue to be blessed alongside his entire family. Amen.
Today’s study of Daf Kof Zayin is dedicated to the memory of Avraham ben Esther. May his soul find rest in Gan Eden. Amen. Additionally, we study today for the speedy recovery of Sara bat Rachel. May she experience healing of both body and soul. We call upon the Divine: El na refa na lah, El na refa na lah, El na refa na lah. May it be Your will, and let us say Amen.
We begin today’s Daf in the new chapter, Perek Shelsha Asar, specifically Perek Beit Shammai, starting with the Mishna. Beit Shammai states, “Ein memaanin ela arusot.” This means that one can only refuse (mi'un) from the level of engagement (erusin), but not from the level of marriage (nissuin). In previous chapters, we discussed the concept of mi'un, which applies when a father passes away. According to Torah law, a father has the right to marry off his daughter, and this marriage is considered a kiddushin de-Oraita. However, if the father dies, the sages permitted the mother or brother to marry her off, but this kiddushin is only de-rabbanan. Therefore, before she reaches the age of twelve, she has the right to refuse, which is termed mi'un.
Our chapter will delve into the laws surrounding mi'un. The first law presented by Beit Shammai states that one can only make a mi'un from the arusa level, meaning from the kiddushin stage, but not from the nissuin stage. Rashi explains this further, indicating that it applies specifically to a minor girl who was married off by her mother or brother only from the engagement stage.
In contrast, Beit Hillel holds that a mi'un can be made both from the arusa and the nesua levels. This introduces a second machloket. Beit Shammai states that mi'un can only be made regarding the husband, while Beit Hillel states that it can also be made regarding the yavam (brother-in-law). Rashi clarifies that if the husband dies and she did not make a mi'un, she cannot simply refuse the yavam; she must wait until she matures and then perform chalitza.
Beit Shammai emphasizes that the refusal must be made in front of the husband, while Beit Hillel argues that it can be made whether in front of him or not. A further distinction arises regarding the necessity of judges. Beit Shammai insists that the process must occur in front of judges who are experts, while Beit Hillel allows it to be valid even with ordinary judges.
Beit Hillel challenges Beit Shammai by stating that a girl can make a mi'un multiple times while she is still a minor. Beit Shammai responds that Jewish girls are not hefker; they cannot simply move from one engagement to another without consequence. They assert that a girl must wait until she matures before making any further engagements.
Rashi elaborates on this by explaining that even if a girl refuses once, she cannot continue to refuse and engage with others until she becomes a gedolah. Once she matures, she can engage in a legitimate kiddushin, which is a kiddushin de-Oraita, and thus is no longer subject to mi'un.
The Mishna states that a girl who makes a mi'un cannot simply refuse again. The Gemara will analyze the implications of this statement. The Gemara also explores the reasoning behind Beit Shammai's stance that mi'un can only occur from the arusa level. The rationale is that there are no conditions in nissuin; thus, allowing a mi'un could lead people to mistakenly believe that conditions apply to nissuin, which is not the case.
In a scenario where a girl is married and wishes to make a mi'un, Beit Shammai argues that allowing mi'un could lead to confusion regarding the status of other marriages, particularly for an adult woman. Rashi explains that this is a cautionary measure to prevent misunderstandings regarding the validity of marriages.
The Gemara then examines a case where a girl enters the chuppah but does not have relations with her husband. Here, one might argue that she could still make a mi'un, but the Gemara concludes that the prohibition remains due to the potential for misinterpretation regarding the nature of her marriage.
As we continue through the discussions, we see that the Gemara raises various scenarios and questions regarding the application of mi'un and the differing opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The discussions highlight the complexities of these halachic principles and the careful consideration given to the implications of each ruling.
Ultimately, the halacha follows Beit Hillel, allowing for a mi'un from both the erusin and nissuin stages, as codified in the Shulchan Aruch. This decision reflects the need for clarity and understanding in the application of halachic rulings, particularly concerning the rights and status of women in marital relationships.
In conclusion, today's Daf has illuminated the intricate laws surrounding mi'un, the differing opinions of the sages, and the practical implications for those involved. As we continue our studies, may we gain deeper insights into the Torah's teachings and apply them in our lives.