Yevamot 110b (קי:) — the Talmud in English

But to

perform halitza

for her—he is

not

able, since she is not capable of reciting.

And it follows that even in the case of a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset, the Sages did not institute that he should perform halitza for her through gestures; rather, he may only marry her, and afterward divorce her with a get.

And Rava answers him:

No!

This Mishna is not speaking of a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset, because she can indeed leave through halitza by means of gestures, just as she entered into marriage with her husband by means of gestures.

Rather, this Mishna is speaking

of a woman who was competent and subsequently became deaf-mute!

She cannot perform halitza by Torah law without recitation, since her marriage to her husband was a fully valid marriage when she was competent, and not one effected through gestures.

Ta shma

another proof against Rava, from the continuation of that Mishna [below, 112b]:

As we learned:

Two competent brothers

who were

married to two

women

unrelated

to each other—that is, they were not sisters—one woman

was competent, and

one woman

was deaf-mute.

And

the competent husband of the deaf-mute woman died

, and the deaf-mute woman fell before the second brother for yibbum.

What should

the second brother, who is

a competent man married to a competent woman

, do with his deaf-mute yevama, since he cannot perform halitza for her, as she is not capable of reciting?—

He marries

the deaf-mute woman.

And

then,

if

he

wishes

to divorce

her with a get, he

shall divorce her

with a get alone, without needing to perform halitza for her.

And if

the

competent

husband of

the

competent woman

dies, and the competent woman falls before the brother who is married to a deaf-mute woman,

what should the competent husband of the deaf-mute woman do?

He either performs halitza or performs yibbum

with the competent woman.

And Abaye analyzes this:

Is it not

stated that

since he

, as the yavam, is

competent from the outset

[that is, with regard to the yavam, it makes no difference what his status was in the past; the essential factor is his present status, at the time she fell before him for yibbum]—

so

she

, the deaf-mute yevama mentioned in the Mishna,

also

—that is, she is being discussed even if she was

deaf-mute from the outset?

And

nevertheless it

teaches

: If the brother married to a deaf-mute woman dies, and she falls before his brother for yibbum, he

marries

her. Then, if he wishes to divorce her, he divorces her with a get.

And this implies: He marries her and afterward divorces her with a get—

yes

, he may do so.

But that he should

perform halitza

for her and thereby divorce her, without first marrying her—he is

not

able!

And it follows that even in the case of a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset, halitza by means of gestures is ineffective; this is a difficulty against Rava.

And Rava answers this difficulty as he answered the preceding one:

Is that necessarily so?

Is it necessary to infer from the fact that the competent man mentioned in the Mishna was competent from the outset that the deaf-mute woman mentioned in the Mishna was likewise deaf-mute from the outset? It is possible to distinguish and say that

this one

, the competent man,

as it is stated

, is being discussed as one who was competent from the outset,

but

if

this one

, the deaf-mute woman,

as it is stated

, is being discussed specifically as one who was not deaf-mute from the outset.

But in the case of a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset, he can perform halitza for her through gestures, as Rava stated: Just as she entered into marriage with his brother through gestures, so he can perform halitza for her through gestures.

But now Abaye proves from a third halakha, adjacent to the two preceding halakhot in that Mishna, that that Mishna indeed speaks of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman from the outset, and not of a competent woman who subsequently became deaf-mute.

Thus the two preceding difficulties against Rava from that Mishna return: It follows from the two halakhot in that Mishna that even a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset cannot leave the yavam through halitza by means of gestures.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rava; that is, Abaye now brings proof from a third halakha in that Mishna that the Mishna is discussing a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset.

For it is reasonable that all three halakhot adjacent to one another in that Mishna, which discuss a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, are speaking of the same type of deaf-mute man and woman. If so, it is reasonable to say that the two preceding halakhot cited by the Gemara are also speaking of a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset.

And the two difficulties [from the two preceding halakhot!] against Rava return:

As we learned:

Two brothers—

one competent and one deaf-mute

—who were

married to two sisters—

one competent and one deaf-mute.

The deaf-mute husband of the deaf-mute woman died

, and the deaf-mute woman fell for yibbum before the competent man married to the competent woman.

What should the competent husband of the competent woman do?—

He does nothing. Rather, the deaf-mute woman leaves without halitza, because she is the sister of his wife. She has the status of a forbidden relative who comes before a brother for yibbum and does not require halitza in order to become permitted to marry someone outside the levirate bond. But if the competent brother, the husband of the competent woman, dies, and the competent woman comes before the deaf-mute brother, who cannot perform halitza because he cannot recite the passage—what should the deaf-mute man who is married to a deaf-mute woman do? ]The deaf-mute man divorces his deaf-mute wife with a bill of divorce, because her competent sister, who comes before him for yibbum by Torah law, renders his wife forbidden to him, like the sister of a woman bound to him through the levirate bond [according to the opinion that “there is a levirate bond.”]

He does nothing; rather,

the deaf-mute woman leaves

without halitza,

because she is his wife’s sister

, in accordance with the law of an erva who falls for yibbum, who does not require halitza in order to marry someone outside the levirate bond.

But if

the competent husband of the competent woman dies

, and the competent woman falls before the deaf-mute brother, who is not capable of halitza because he cannot recite,

what should the deaf-mute husband of the deaf-mute woman do?

The deaf-mute man divorces

the

wife

who is

deaf-mute

with a get, because her competent sister, who has fallen before him for yibbum, prohibits his wife from him by Torah law, like the sister of a woman subject to the levirate bond [according to the one who says: “There is a levirate bond”].

For the marriage of his deaf-mute wife, which is only rabbinic, does not have the power to displace the levirate bond of her competent sister, who falls before him by virtue of the Torah marriage of his competent brother.

Therefore, his deaf-mute wife is now forbidden to him as the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond.

And

if

his brother’s wife

, the competent woman who falls before him for yibbum, is

forbidden

to him

forever!

For he cannot perform halitza for her, since he is deaf-mute and is not capable of reciting.

And he cannot marry her and afterward divorce her with a get, since he has at least partial betrothal with his deaf-mute wife, and by virtue of this her sister is forbidden to him as his wife’s sister. Even after he divorces his wife, her sister remains forbidden to him like the sister of a divorced wife.

And Abaye proves that the Mishna is discussing a deaf-mute man from the outset—

since

if you would say

that

here too

, this halakha is speaking

of a competent man who subsequently became deaf-mute

, and correspondingly, with regard to the deaf-mute woman, it is speaking of a competent woman who subsequently became deaf-mute—

there would be a difficulty:

Can he divorce her?

How can a competent man who subsequently became deaf-mute divorce his wife with a get? The wording of the Mishna implies that she would thereby be permitted to marry others.

But he betrothed her when he was competent, and a get that he gives after becoming deaf-mute cannot dissolve the betrothal with which he betrothed her when he was competent!

And

the proof is that

we learned

: If a man betrothed his wife when she was competent, and she

became deaf-mute

while married to him, he

shall divorce

her with a get, if he wishes.

But if he betrothed her when she was competent, and she

became mentally incompetent

while married to him, he

shall not divorce her

, since the Sages instituted that he should keep her married to him, so that people would not treat her licentiously because she is mentally incompetent.

And if a man betrothed a woman when he was competent, and afterward

he became deaf-mute or became mentally incompetent

, he

shall never divorce her!

Rather, is it not

, then, necessarily the case that when we learned: The competent man died, and her sister fell before the deaf-mute man for yibbum, the deaf-mute man divorces his wife [her sister, because she is the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond] with a get—this is speaking of

a man who was deaf-mute from the outset

, since a competent man who subsequently became deaf-mute cannot divorce, as stated.

And since he

, the deaf-mute man mentioned in the Mishna, was

deaf-mute from the outset—

she

, the deaf-mute woman mentioned in the Mishna,

also

—she too was

deaf-mute from the outset.

And from

this

that

the deaf-mute women mentioned in the halakha of

“deaf-mute sisters”

were deaf-mute

from the outset—

it follows that the deaf-mute women mentioned in the two adjacent halakhot, which discuss sisters who are

unrelated, also

—they too were

deaf-mute from the outset.

And we learned concerning

sisters who are

unrelated

that if a deaf-mute woman, who was thus deaf-mute from the outset, falls before him, he marries her, and only afterward can he divorce her with a get.

And it follows that

he marries her—yes

, only then can he divorce her with a get; but

perform halitza

immediately—

no!

This is a refutation of Rava, who holds that a woman deaf-mute from the outset leaves the yavam through halitza by means of gestures, just as she entered into marriage with his brother through gestures.

Rava fell silent

and did not answer Abaye’s difficulty.

When he came

, when Abaye came

before Rav Yosef

and told him of his difficulty against Rava’s statement,

he said to him

—Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Why did you raise this objection against him?

Why did you challenge him from these statements of the Mishna,

when he could have answered

, since Rava could have answered

you

that this is not a conclusive difficulty, as it is possible to distinguish and explain that not all the halakhot were taught with regard to the same type of deaf-mute woman, but rather:

With regard to the two women who are

sisters—the Mishna is indeed speaking of

women who were

deaf-mute from the outset.

But with regard to the two women who are

unrelated

, from which you raised the difficulty against Rava, the Mishna is speaking of

women who were competent and subsequently became deaf-mute

, and therefore they cannot perform halitza through gestures.

But a woman who was deaf-mute from the outset, just as her brother-in-law betrothed her through gestures, likewise leaves the yavam through halitza by means of gestures, in accordance with Rava’s statement.

Rather, you should have raised the objection from this

: You should have challenged him from another halakha in that Mishna:

As we learned:

Two deaf-mute brothers

who were

married to two competent sisters, or to two deaf-mute sisters, or to two sisters

—

one competent and one deaf-mute.

And the marriages of the two brothers are equivalent, since they are deaf-mute: They marry their wives through gestures, whether the woman was competent or whether she was deaf-mute.

And likewise, two deaf-mute sisters

who were

married to two competent brothers, or to two deaf-mute brothers, or to two brothers, one competent and one deaf-mute.

Here too, the marriages of the two sisters are equivalent: Both are married through gestures, whether the husband was competent or whether he was deaf-mute.

And one of the brothers dies—

these women

, his wives who fall before the second brother, -

are exempt from halitza and from yibbum

, like a wife’s sister.

But if

the two women were

unrelated

to one another, as they were not sisters, the yevamim should not perform halitza for them: If he is deaf-mute, he is not capable of halitza, and if she is deaf-mute, she is not capable of halitza.

Rather,

the yevamim should marry

them, since they are not excluded as a wife’s sister.

And if they wish

afterward

to divorce

them, they

shall divorce

them with a get!

And Rav Yosef analyzes this:

What are the circumstances?

With regard to what type of deaf-mute man and woman is the Mishna speaking?

If you say it is speaking of people who were competent and ultimately became deaf-mute—

can they divorce?

How can the deaf-mute men divorce with a get the women whom they married when they were competent?

But we learned: If he became deaf-mute or became mentally incompetent—

he shall never divorce

the woman whom he betrothed when he was competent!

Rather, is it not

that the Mishna is speaking

of people who were deaf-mute from the outset?

And since they

, the brothers, were

deaf-mute from the outset—

they

, the women,

were likewise deaf-mute from the outset.

And it teaches: If they were unrelated—

they should marry them.

And this implies:

They should marry them—yes; they should perform halitza—no.

And from here there is

a refutation of Rava

, who said that a woman deaf-mute from the outset leaves through halitza by means of gestures, just as she entered into marriage through gestures.

And we conclude: Indeed, it is

a refutation

of him.

We learned in the Mishna:

A minor and a deaf-mute woman

—the yavam’s intercourse with neither one of them exempts her rival wife.

Rav Naḥman said: I found

—I found

Rav Adda bar Ahava, and Rav Ḥana, his son-in-law

,

sitting

and

gathering people around them

, students who came to hear their words,

in the marketplace of Pumbedita, and they said:

This that we learned

in our Mishna, that

a minor and a deaf-mute woman

who were married to one man, and he died, and they fell for yibbum—

the yavam’s intercourse

with

either one of them does not exempt her rival wife—

These matters apply

specifically where it was the case

that she fell before him

for yibbum

from a brother

who was

competent!

For then we are uncertain which of the two would have been more pleasing to his deceased brother, and her betrothal was more effective than that of her fellow wife.

Since

we do not know—

whether he preferred the minor

more, in which case her levirate bond with the yavam is also stronger than her fellow wife’s bond,

or whether he preferred the deaf-mute woman

more, and hers is the stronger levirate bond.

Therefore, the yavam’s intercourse with either one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Perhaps he had intercourse with the one whose levirate bond was weaker, and she cannot exempt her fellow wife, whose levirate bond is stronger.

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Whether he preferred the minor

more, since

she will come

—she is destined to attain

the status of understanding

when she matures, whereas a deaf-mute woman will never attain the status of understanding.

Or whether he preferred the deaf-mute woman

more, since

she is an adult and capable of intercourse

already.

But

if

she fell

for yibbum before a competent brother, a minor and a deaf-mute woman

from a brother

who was himself

deaf-mute

—

certainly

he preferred the deaf-mute woman

more.

For with regard to the deaf-mute woman, his deaf-mute brother had two considerations in her favor. The first was that

she is capable of intercourse

now.

And

the second was that

she is of his kind

, as he was deaf-mute and she was deaf-mute.

Whereas with regard to the minor, there is only one consideration in her favor: She is destined to attain the status of understanding when she matures.

And Rav Naḥman added:

And I said to them

,

I say: Even if she fell before him from a deaf-mute brother

—it is

also uncertain to him whether he preferred the deaf-mute woman or the minor.

Therefore, whether she fell from a competent brother or fell from a deaf-mute brother, the Mishna states that the intercourse of one of them does not exempt her rival wife.

And now the Gemara comes to explain

how

her

their remedy

is to be arranged for the deaf-mute woman and the minor who fell before him.

For since, if he marries one, the other is not exempt, how can he permit the other one?

After all, neither the minor nor the deaf-mute woman is capable of halitza [the deaf-mute woman is never capable of halitza, and the minor is not capable of halitza until she matures]!

And to have intercourse with both of them is certainly forbidden, since he establishes one household and not two households.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Rav: He marries

the

deaf-mute woman, and divorces her with a get

, since she has no other remedy by which she can leave.

And he should hasten to marry her before the minor matures and he performs halitza for her, because once the minor performs halitza [when she matures], the deaf-mute woman becomes disqualified from yibbum, by virtue of the principle: “Once he has not built, he may no longer build.”

And

as for

the minor—she should

wait until she matures, and then perform halitza.

But if he marries the minor, the deaf-mute woman can no longer leave, neither through halitza nor through yibbum. For the yavam is forbidden to marry her even if he divorces the minor, because of the principle: “He establishes one household, and he does not establish two households.”

Rav Ḥisda said: Learn from this

, from Rav’s statement, that

Rav holds

that the Sages defined the nature of the minor’s and the deaf-mute woman’s rabbinic acquisition as follows:

A deaf-mute woman—

she is

acquired

rabbinically,

but

nevertheless she is

“her acquisition is reserved”

—her acquisition is not considered a complete rabbinic acquisition, but only an acquisition “to some extent” [and there remains the possibility, rabbinically, for another man’s betrothal to take effect with regard to her].

A minor—she is in the category of “acquired conditionally”: It is possible that she is

she is in the category of “acquired doubtfully”: it is possible that she is

acquired

completely, on the one hand,

and

it is possible that she

is not acquired

at all, on the other hand.

And Rav Ḥisda explains the proof for his statement, according to Rav’s view:

For if it would enter your mind

to say the opposite—that

the deaf-mute woman

is the one who is

“acquired and not acquired”

, whereas

the minor

is

“acquired and her acquisition is reserved”—

there would be a difficulty:

With regard to the deaf-mute woman—

why does he marry her and divorce her

afterward

with a get!?