Yerushalmi Yevamot 5:6 ירושלמי יבמות ה׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: If there are bills of divorce for both of them, they need a ḥalîṣah⁷⁴As if no divorce had happened. However, both are forbidden to him and to any Cohen.. If there is a bill of divorce to one and he copulated with the other, [the latter] needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah⁷⁵See Note 72. The case is repeated to show that the order in which the acts follow one another is irrelevant.. If he gave a bill of divorce to one and “bespoke” the other, [the second one] needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah⁷¹The intercourse was illegal, he may not keep his wife and has to divorce her. The first one needs a rabbinic divorce for her rabbinic “bespeaking”.. If he gave a bill of divorce to one and performed ḥalîṣah with the other, nothing follows after ḥalîṣah.

HALAKHAH: “How? If he ‘bespoke’,” etc. ⁷⁶This is a direct continuation of the previous paragraph. In the opinion of Rebbi, what about his “bespeaking”, may a nine-year-old “bespeak”? The intercourse of an adult is final; his “bespeaking” partially acquires. The intercourse of a minor is final⁷⁷It is not really final since a minor cannot acquire. However, since the sister-in-law becomes a wife of the levir by the fact of cohabitation irrespective of any thought process, the only way she might be freed from the underage levir is by divorce, which requires an adult partner. So, while she becomes the wife of the levir to the effect that adultery on her part will be a capital crime only through intercourse after he will have reached the age of 13 years and one day, in all other aspects she is his wife from the day of her first copulation.; does his “bespeaking” partially acquire? What is the difference between his intercourse and his “bespeaking”⁷⁸The answer is too simple to need spelling out: Intercourse is an act of reality which is in the power of the minor; “bespeaking” is a legal act outside the power of a minor.? But some want to formulate: What is the difference between “bespeaking” of an adult and “bespeaking” of a minor? Samuel said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: They made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult⁷⁹In the Babli, 96a, this is generally accepted. “Bespeaking” which does not lead to marriage has to be dissolved by divorce, which is outside the power of a minor.. And as you said, they made the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult, they made the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult. But the rabbis said, the ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day is nothing⁸⁰The last two sentences have no parallel in the Babli.. And why did they make the intercourse of a child of nine years and one day like “bespeaking” of an adult? Because the intercourse of an adult acquires whether intentional or not intentional⁸¹The mind of neither party has to be engaged in this activity; therefore, it is applicable to a minor.. The ḥalîṣah of a child of nine years and one day was made like a bill of divorce by an adult⁸²This is R. Meïr’s opinion in the Babli, 96a. The divorce of a “bespoken” woman is insufficient to free her for outside marriage; so is the ḥalîṣah of the minor. She remains forbidden for everyone, levir or unrelated, until she is freed after the minor grows up.. But ḥalîṣah by an adult can free only if it is intentional⁸³Probably addition by the scribe from the preceding paragraph..