Yevamot 29: When is the Acquisition Final?

A new Mishna helps us understand the relative strength of the me'amar, the levirate betrothal.   Two of three single brothers marry two sisters and one sister becomes a yevama (her husband dies).   The yevama is betrothed to the unmarried brother and then, before the wedding, the second husband dies, leaving a sister as another yevama.  Beit Shammai teaches that the betrothal is as strong a bond as marriage, and that the yavam can perform chalitza with the second sister as he is already 'married' to the first sister.  Beit Hillel teaches that the yavam must divorce the first sister and then perform chalitza with both sisters, as both are forbidden to him by Torah prohibition.

The Gemara outlines the rabbinical arguments for and against these views.  Some of the questions explored include whether or not the second yevama is the same as a rival wife, whether or not levirate betrothal is considered to be full or partial acquisition, whether or not a wedding canopy (ie. a wedding that includes consummation) is required in levirate marriage, and whether or not consent is required as part of the levirate marriage process.

Once rape has been re-introduced in this conversation, the rabbis wonder whether or not a yevama's vows can be annulled by her yavam after betrothal but before marriage.  In other circumstances, a husband or a father is legally allowed to annul his wife or daughter's vows within 24 hours of learning of those vows.  Is a yavam, betrothed but not married to his yevama, able to annul her vows on his own?  Would he require the presence of her father, as well?  

Rabbi Pinchas shares his opinion in the name of Rava.  We learned in a court case based on this Mishna that a woman was left in limbo - her yavam refused to consummate the marriage nor to perform chalitza.  She appeared in court insisting that he provide for her sustenance in one way or the other.  The court agreed.  Thus, says R. Pinchas in the name of Rava, a yavam is responsible for his yevama's sustenance; he is as good as married to her, simply because they are betrothed.  And thus he has the right to annul her vows.

So much of today's daf is disappointing.  Although I don't yet know how the rabbis continue to interpret these Mishnayot, I watch them making decisions that disproportionally disadvantage women's efficacy in their own lives.  Yes, the rabbis help to create structures that encourage women's survival after the death of her husband (as long as she has no children).  But those structures maintain the status quo: women are property.  That is indisputable.