(Mishnah): Which minor needs to do Mi'un (to leave her husband without a Get)? It is anyone that her mother and brothers married her off with her Da'as (consent/knowledge). [If she was married] without her Da'as, she need not do Mi'un;

R. Chananyah ben Antigonus says, any girl too immature to guard her Kidushin money need not do Mi'un;

R. Eliezer says, the actions of a minor have no effect. She is like one who was enticed (to have Bi'ah);

If she is a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen, she does not eat Terumah. If she is a Bas Kohen married to a Yisrael, she may eat Terumah.

(Gemara) Question: What is considered with her Da'as?

Answer: They make a Chupah, clothe her with ornaments, and explain that this will be her husband.

What is without her Da'as? They make a Chupah, clothe her with ornaments, and do not explain that this will be her husband.

Note: What is 'with her Da'as' for an Arusah? It seems that it depends only on explaining that this will be her husband, i.e. even when they make a Chupah and clothe her with ornaments.

Question: Do [Chachamim] argue with R. Chananyah ben Antigonus?

Answer: Since R. Yochanan said 'which minor needs to be divorced (Mi'un does not suffice)? It is anyone that they give to her her Get and something else with it, and she takes out her Get afterwards [when they request it, i.e. she knows to guard it;

Inference: (This is older than the Shi'ur of R. Chananyah ben Antigonus.) This shows that Chachamim argue with R. Chananyah ben Antigonus [and R. Yochanan holds like Chachamim].

R. Lazar says, the actions of a minor have no effect. [Her husband] does not merit her Metzi'os or earnings, and he cannot annul her vows. It is as if she is not his wife in every way, just she needs Mi'un from him (i.e. she may not leave him without Mi'un or a Get).

R. Yehoshua says, he merits her Metzi'os and earnings, he can annul her vows, and she is like his wife in every way, just she can leave him through Mi'un.

(R. Shmuel): I pursued all Midos of Chachamim, and I did not find anyone consistent about a Ketanah except for R. Eliezer, just she needs Mi'un from him.

(R. Avahu): A case occurred with R. Eliezer's mother. She was pressuring him to marry the daughter of his sister, and he said to her 'my daughter, go marry! My daughter, go marry!', until she said 'I am a slave to you, to wash the feet of the slaves of my master';

Even so, he married her, but did not have Bi'ah with her until she brought two hairs (adulthood; after that, she cannot do Mi'un).

Question: According to R. Eliezer, may she do Mi'un to him and collect a fine from him (for he enticed her to have Bi'ah with him without marriage - PNEI MOSHE)?

Question: According to R. Yehoshua, [if there was Chupah, and witnesses testify that there was no Bi'ah], may she do Mi'un to him and collect a fine from others (is she like a Besulah who was never married)? (SHIREI KORBAN)

Question: May she do Mi'un and uproot her Get [in a case that she remarried a Kohen, and became] a Chalalah, or [before the Get, she had Bi'ah with another man and became pregnant with] a Mamzeres? (NO'AM YERUSHALMI - perhaps Chachamim did not enact that Mi'un uproots a Get in a case that she transgressed. Perhaps the text should say 'Mamzerus'. (PF))

Question (R. Yitzchak): Can she do Mi'un and return to food of her father's estate? (After a man dies, his sons inherit his property, but they must feed his daughters until Bagrus or Nisu'in. Is it as if she never married?)

Obviously, [if a minor was widowed, remarried mid'Rabanan, and did Mi'un,] she does not return to be fed from [the estate of] her [first] husband, for so he writes to her [in the Kesuvah] 'you will sit in my house and be fed from my property', and [once she left], this is not her house. We need not teach [that she is not fed. However, he asks] can she do Mi'un and return to food of her father's estate?

(Mishnah): A minor who did not bring two hairs - R. Yehudah says that [what he declares] Terumah is Terumah;

Note: SHIREI KORBAN and others connote that we discuss a Mufla Samuch l'Ish. This is a minor in the year before adulthood (Rashi), or one who reached the years of adulthood, but did not bring two hairs (Rambam).

(Beraisa - in the name of R. Meir): His Terumah is not Terumah until he brings two hairs.

(R. Avin Kahana citing R. Heila): [He learns from] "v'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet" - one who can bear sin [if he separates bad Peros for Terumah], he can be Torem (declare Terumah). One who cannot bear sin (e.g. a minor), he cannot be Torem.

Objection: A Nochri cannot bear sin [for Terumah], yet he can be Torem!

(R. Yosi citing R. Heila): [R. Meir learns from] "v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" - one about whom it is written intent (an adult), he can be Torem. One about whom it is not written intent, he cannot be Torem.

Question: Intent is not written about Nochrim, and they can be Torem, and R. Hoshayah taught that Nochrim do not have intent!

Answer: This (R. Hoshayah taught that Nochrim do not have intent) for Hechsher. This (Nochrim have intent) is for Terumah.

(R. Acha bar Chinena citing Kahana): According to the one who says that [a minor] cannot be Torem, he cannot make Hekdesh.

Question: Why didn't he say, according to the one who says that he can be Torem, he can make Hekdesh?

Answer: It is because (it is not totally true, for) R. Yehudah says that he can be Torem, he cannot make Hekdesh.

(R. Yochanan): Even according to the opinion that he cannot be Torem, he can make Hekdesh.

What can he be Makdish? Olah and Shelamim.

He cannot bring (be Makdish) a Chatas for Chelev, for he has no Chiyuv [to offer a] Chatas Chelev. He cannot [bring] a Chatas for blood, for he has no Chiyuv [to offer a] Chatas Dam.

Question: Can he bring Korban Zivah or Korban Tzara'as? Since it is an obligation, he does not bring. Or, since he receives these Tum'os, he brings?

Answer and question: Surely, he brings. Can he be a Shali'ach [for them]?

Since he receives these Tum'os, he can be a Shali'ach. Or, since he cannot be a Shali'ach for all things, he cannot be a Shali'ach?

Question (R. Yudan): (Relevance to the Parshah does not show that he can be a Shali'ach!) He has Tevel mid'Oraisa. Can he exempt his Tevel mid'Oraisa?! (R. Yosi says that he cannot. And even R. Yehudah holds that a minor without Da'as cannot make Terumah! We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

[Also] here, even though he receives these Tum'os, he cannot be a Shali'ach.

Question: Can [a minor] bring Bikurim?

Answer: According to R. Yehudah, that R. Yehudah says that [Bikurim] are equated to Kodshei ha'Gevul (e.g. Terumah), he does not bring (just like he cannot be Torem, i.e. according to the opinion that a minor cannot be Torem. R. Yehudah himself holds that a minor can be Torem);

According to Rabanan, who say that they are equated to Kodshei ha'Mikdash, he brings (just like he can bring Korbanos).

Question: Can he bring Chagigah?

Since it is an obligation, he does not bring. Or, since he changes it to a Shelamim (if he did not offer it during the Regel, he offers it for a Shelamim afterwards - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA), he brings?

Question: Can he bring Pesach?

Since it is an obligation, he does not bring. Or, since Reish Lakish said in the name of R. Hoshayah that one may bring Pesach and change it to a Shelamim, he brings?

Question: Can he bring Ma'aser Behemah?

Answer: If one holds like R. Meir, that R. Meir says that "mi'Kol Masroseichem" equates Ma'aseros to each other - just like he cannot bring Ma'aser of grain, so he cannot bring Ma'aser Behemah.

Question: Can [a minor] make Temurah?

Answer: If one holds like R. Meir, that R. Meir says that "mi'Kol Masroseichem" equates Ma'aseros to each other, and he holds like R. Shimon, who says that Ma'aser Behemah teaches about all Kodshim for Temurah - just like he cannot bring Ma'aser of grain, so he cannot bring Ma'aser Behemah. Just like he cannot bring Ma'aser Behemah, he cannot make Temurah [of it]. Just like he cannot make Temurah of it, he cannot make Temurah of all Kodshim. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL, PNEI MOSHE.)

Question: Is one liable for [Shechitah of a minor's] Kodshim outside [the Mikdash]?

Answer #1 (Kahana): One is not liable for his Kodshim outside.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): One is liable for his Kodshim outside.

Question (against R. Kahana): R. Yehudah [holds unlike him], for R. Yehudah [holds that the minor's Terumah] exempts his Tevel mid'Oraisa, and you say so (that one is exempt for Shechutei Chutz of his Kodshim)?!

Answer: [R. Yehudah] is like the opinion that they accepted Ma'aser on themselves (from Bayis Sheni and onwards, the obligation is only mid'Rabanan. There is no source that a minor can make Kedushah mid'Oraisa.)

Question (against R. Yochanan): R. Yehoshua [said above that her husband can annul her vows]. Her marriage is mid'Rabanan, and he can annul her vows [which R. Yochanan holds are] mid'Oraisa? Can you say so?!

Answer (R. Ze'ira): [The correct text of R. Yehoshua] does not say that he can annul her vows, based on R. Yochanan's opinion [lest it be unlike] this teaching of R. Yehoshua.

Question (R. Nisa): (Why must we change the text?) We can say that [R. Yehoshua means that he can annul her] Asuros (what she forbade to others)! R. Yochanan says that one is not lashed for Asuros (they are only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, he can annul them!)

Note: Also what she forbade to herself is forbidden only mid'Rabanan as long as she is a minor. However, if he can annul such vows, she will rely on this even after she matures, and then she is forbidden mid'Oraisa.

A Mishnah taught there - before this time (before the year before adulthood), even if [a boy and girl] said 'we know to Whom we vowed, and to Whom we made Hekdesh', their vows are not vows, and their Hekdesh is not Hekdesh;

After this time (adulthood), even if they said 'we do not know to Whom we vowed, and to Whom we made Hekdesh', their vows are vows, and their Hekdesh is Hekdesh. (During the year before adulthood, their vows and Hekdesh are valid only if they know to Whom they vowed and made Hekdesh.)

Question: Like whom is this Mishnah?

Answer: According to Kahana, [it is like one opinion] in the argument (i.e. the one who says that a minor can declare Terumah and Hekdesh). According to R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, it is like everyone. (R. Yochanan said that even according to the opinion that he cannot be Torem, he can be Makdish.)

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Any hindrance [to the marriage] from him, it is as if she [was] his wife (the coming Mishnah will explain how). Any hindrance not from him, it is as if she [was] not his wife.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Any hindrance from him, it is as if she [was] his wife - [this is when he divorced her] with a Get. Any hindrance not from him, it is as if she [was] not his wife - [this is when she left] through Mi'un. (OHR HA'YASHAR, OHR YAKOV)

Note: Why does it say 'any hindrance from the man'? There is only one! Perhaps this includes if they were married more than once, and sometimes she left through Mi'un. In any case that the last time, he divorced her, it is as if she was his wife, like the coming Mishnah says. Similarly, 'any hindrance not from the man' means any case in which the last time, she left through Mi'un.

(Mishnah): If a girl does Mi'un to her husband, he is permitted to her relatives, she is permitted to his relatives, and he did not disqualify her from Kehunah;

If he gave to her a Get, he is forbidden to her relatives, she is forbidden to his relatives, and he disqualified her from Kehunah.

If he gave her a Get and remarried her, and she did Mi'un, married someone else, and was widowed or divorced, she may return to [her first husband];

If she did Mi'un and he remarried her and divorced her, and she married someone else, and was widowed or divorced, she may not return to him.

The rule is, if the Get followed the Mi'un, she may not return to her first husband. If the Mi'un followed the Get, she may return.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): [When the Mi'un followed the Get,] she is not repulsed to Kehunah (Kohanim marry her l'Chatchilah), and Beis Din does not repulse her [to Kehunah. The clause about Beis Din was copied from R. Yochanan in the next Halachah; here, they are no Chidush. We explained this like OHR YAKOV.)

(Mishnah): If she did Mi'un to a man, married someone else, and was divorced. She married someone else and did Mi'un. She married another man, and was divorced. The rule is, she may not return to one who divorced her, but she may return to one she did Mi'un to.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): [If she was divorced from a man, and her last marriage ended through Mi'un,] she is only repulsed to Kehunah (Kohanim refrain from marrying her), but Beis Din does not repulse her (they rule that she is permitted. For Kehunah, Mi'un nullifies all previous Gitin that she received, for it proves that she was never married mid'Oraisa.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): (The Mishnah forbids her to return to one who divorced her.) This is if she left him the last time with a Get (but if the last time she left him was through Mi'un, she may return to him. I.e. the law of the previous Mishnah applies, even though she married also others. We explained this based on OHR YAKOV.)