Yevamot 110b — the Talmud in English

But to be

perform halitza

for her—he is

not

able, since she is not capable of reciting.

And it is proven that even in the case of one who was deaf-mute from the outset, the Sages did not institute that he should perform halitza for her by signaling; rather, he can only take her in marriage and afterward release her with a get.

And Rava answers:

No!

This Mishna is not speaking of one who was deaf-mute from the outset, for she can indeed leave through halitza by signaling, just as she entered marriage with her husband by signaling.

Rather, this Mishna is speaking

—

of a woman who was competent and afterward became deaf-mute! For she does not perform halitza by Torah law without recitation, since her marriage to her husband was a complete betrothal while she was competent, and not by signaling.

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,

that is, not sisters—one woman

one competent, and

one woman

one deaf-mute.

And

the competent husband of the deaf-mute died,

and the deaf-mute woman fell before the second brother for levirate marriage.

What shall

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, because she is not capable of reciting?—

He takes

the deaf-mute woman in marriage.

And

then,

if

he

wishes

to release

her with a get—

he releases her

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

And if

the

brother, the

competent husband of

the

competent woman,

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

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

Either he performs halitza or he performs levirate marriage

with the competent woman.

And Abaye analyzes:

Is it not

said that

since he

is, as the levir is,

competent from the outset [that is, regarding the levir there is no distinction what his condition was in the past; the essential matter is his present condition, at the time she falls before him for levirate marriage]—

[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, the case speaks of her even if she is

deaf-mute from the outset?

And

nevertheless

it teaches:

if the brother married to the deaf-mute woman dies, and she falls before his brother for levirate marriage, he

takes

her in marriage. And then, if he wishes to release her, he releases her with a get.

And it implies: he takes her in marriage, and afterward releases her with a get—

no,

this is what he can do.

But that he should

perform halitza

for her and release her in this way, without taking her in marriage first—he is

not

able!

And it is proven that even in the case of a woman deaf-mute from the outset, halitza by signaling is ineffective; and this is a difficulty against Rava.

And regarding this difficulty as well, Rava answers as he answered regarding the previous difficulty:

Midei irya?

Is there necessarily a proof 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 also deaf-mute from the outset? For it is possible to distinguish and say that

this,

the competent man,

as it is found,

is a case of one competent from the outset,

but

if

this,

the deaf-mute woman,

as it is found,

the case speaks specifically of one who was not deaf-mute from the outset.

But a woman deaf-mute from the outset can have halitza performed for her by signaling, in accordance with Rava’s words, because just as she entered marriage with his brother by signaling, so he can perform halitza for her by signaling.

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

And thereby the two previous difficulties against Rava from that Mishna return, for it is proven from the two halakhot in that Mishna that even a woman deaf-mute from the outset cannot leave through halitza by signaling.

He raised an objection

Abaye to Rava; that is, Abaye now brings a proof from a third halakha in that Mishna that this Mishna deals with a woman deaf-mute from the outset.

For it is reasonable that all three halakhot adjacent to one another in that Mishna, which deal with a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, speak of the same type of deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman—and if so, it is reasonable to say that the two previous halakhot brought by the Gemara also speak of a woman deaf-mute from the outset.

And the two difficulties [from the two previous 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 levirate marriage before the competent man married to the competent woman.

What shall 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.

This is the law of a forbidden relation who falls for levirate marriage: she does not require halitza in order to marry outside.

But if

the competent husband of the competent woman dies,

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

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

The deaf-mute man releases

the

his wife,

the deaf-mute woman,

with a get,

because her competent sister, who falls before him for levirate marriage, forbids his wife to him by Torah law, as the sister of a woman subject to 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 marriage, does not have the power to displace the levirate bond of her competent sister, who falls to him by Torah law through the marriage of his competent brother, which is by Torah law.

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

And

if

his brother’s wife,

the competent woman who falls before him for levirate marriage,

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 take her in marriage and afterward release her with a get, since he has a partial betrothal with his deaf-mute wife, and by virtue of this her sister is forbidden to him as his wife’s sister. And even after he divorces his wife, she continues to be forbidden to him like the sister of his divorced wife.

And Abaye proves that the Mishna speaks of a deaf-mute man from the outset—

since,

and if you would say,

if you say that

here too,

this halakha also speaks

of one competent and afterward deafened, and similarly, regarding the deaf-mute woman, the case speaks of a competent woman who afterward became deaf-mute—

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

it would be difficult:

Can he release her?

How can a competent man who afterward became deaf-mute release his wife with a get, with the implication from the language of the Mishna that she becomes permitted to marry others on account of this get?

But he betrothed her when he was competent, and a get that he gives after he became deaf-mute cannot release her from the betrothal with which he betrothed her while he was competent!

And

the proof is,

as we did not learn:

one who betrothed his wife when she was competent, and

she became deaf-mute

while married to him—

he shall release

her with a get, if he wishes.

But if he betrothed her when she was competent, and

she became insane

while married to him—

he shall not release

her, since the Sages instituted that he should keep her with him, so that they would not treat her licentiously on account of her being insane.

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

he became deaf-mute or became insane—

he shall never release her!

Since his divorces when he is deaf-mute or insane, when he lacks understanding, cannot nullify his complete betrothal, which he performed with her while he was competent.

Rather, is it not

the case, then, that it is necessarily so: this that we learned, that the competent man died and her sister fell before the deaf-mute man for levirate marriage, and the deaf-mute man releases his wife [her sister, by virtue of the status of the sister of a woman subject to a levirate bond] with a get, is

in the case of one deaf-mute from the outset,

for a competent man who became deaf-mute does not release, 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”

are women deaf-mute

from the outset—

it follows that the deaf-mute women mentioned in the two adjacent halakhot, which deal with sisters

unrelated, also,

are also

deaf-mute from the outset.

And we learned regarding

sisters

unrelated,

that if a deaf-mute woman, who is, as stated, deaf-mute from the outset, falls before him, he takes her in marriage, and only afterward can he release her with a get.

And it is proven that

he takes her in marriage, that is all,

only then can he release her with a get, but

perform halitza

immediately—

no!

And this is a conclusive refutation of Rava, who holds that a woman deaf-mute from the outset leaves the levir through halitza by signaling, just as she entered marriage with his brother by signaling.

Rava was silent

and did not answer Abaye regarding this difficulty.

When he came,

when Abaye came

before Rav Yosef,

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

he said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Why did you raise an objection against him from this?

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

for he could have answered

that Rava could have answered

you

that this is not a conclusive difficulty, since it is possible to distinguish and answer that not all the halakhot were taught regarding the same type of deaf-mute woman, but:

With regard to the two women

sisters—the Mishna indeed speaks of

women who were

women deaf-mute from the outset.

But with regard to the two women

unrelated, from which you raised your difficulty against Rava—the Mishna speaks of

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

competent women who afterward became deaf-mute, and therefore they do not perform halitza by signaling.

, and therefore they cannot perform halitza through gestures.

But a woman deaf-mute from the outset, just as her brother-in-law betrothed her by signaling, leaves even from the levir through halitza by signaling, in accordance with Rava’s words.

Rather, you should have raised an objection against him from this,

you should have raised the difficulty 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.

one competent and one deaf-mute.

And the marriages of the two brothers are equal, since they are deaf-mute: they marry their wives by signaling, 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 equal, since both are married by signaling, whether the husband was competent or whether he was deaf-mute.

And one of the brothers dies—

these

his wives who fall before the second brother -

are exempt from halitza and from levirate marriage,

as is the law of a wife’s sister.

And if

the two women

are unrelated

to one another, not being sisters, the levirs shall not perform halitza for them, for 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 levirs shall take

them in marriage, since they do not leave on account of the status of a wife’s sister.

And if they wish

afterward

to release

them—

they shall release

them with a get!

And Rav Yosef analyzes:

What is the case?

What type of deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman does the Mishna speak of?

If you say it is concerning competent men who eventually became deaf-mute—

can they release them?

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

But we did not learn: he became deaf-mute or became insane—

he shall never release

the woman whom he betrothed while he was competent!

Rather, is it not

that the Mishna speaks

of men deaf-mute from the outset?

And since they,

the brothers, were

deaf-mute from the outset—

they,

the women,

also were deaf-mute from the outset.

And it teaches: if they were unrelated—

they shall take them in marriage.

And it implies:

they shall take them in marriage, that is all; they shall not perform halitza.

And from here,

a conclusive refutation of Rava,

who said that a woman deaf-mute from the outset leaves through halitza by signaling, just as she entered by signaling.

And we conclude: indeed,

it is a conclusive refutation

of him.

We learned in the Mishna:

a minor and a deaf-mute woman—

the intercourse of the levir with [one of] them does not exempt her rival wife.

Rav Naḥman said: I found

I found

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

his son-in-law,

sitting

who were sitting

and gathering a crowd around themselves

and assembling students around them, 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 levirate marriage—

the intercourse of

the levir with

one of them does not exempt her rival wife—

these words

apply specifically in a case

where she fell to him

for levirate marriage

from a brother

who was

competent!

For then we have a doubt with which of them it would have been more satisfactory for the deceased brother, and her betrothal was superior to that of her fellow wife.

Since

we do not know—

whether he was more satisfied with the minor

the deceased brother, and therefore her levirate bond to the levir is also superior to her fellow’s bond,

or whether he was more satisfied with the deaf-mute woman,

the brother was more satisfied with her, and hers is the superior levirate bond.

Therefore, the intercourse of the levir with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. For perhaps he had intercourse with the one whose levirate bond was inferior to that of her fellow, and she does not exempt her fellow, whose levirate bond is superior.

And the sides of the doubt are:

whether he was more satisfied with the minor

than with the other—since

she will come

she is destined to come

to the state of understanding,

when she grows up, whereas the deaf-mute woman will never come to the state of understanding.

Or whether he was more satisfied with the deaf-mute woman

than with the other—since

she is an adult, and is capable of intercourse

already now.

But

if

she falls

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

from a brother

who was also

deaf-mute—

certainly

for his deaf-mute brother,

he was more satisfied with the deaf-mute woman

than with the other.

For in the deaf-mute woman his deaf-mute brother had two considerations in her favor. The first, because

she is capable of intercourse

now.

And

the second, because

she is of his kind,

for he is deaf-mute and she is deaf-mute.

Whereas in the minor there is only one consideration in his favor: that she is destined to come to the state of understanding when she grows up.

And Rav Naḥman added:

And I said to them

and I said to them,

I: even if she fell to him from a deaf-mute brother—

it is also doubtful to him,

it remains doubtful whether he was more satisfied with the deaf-mute woman or with the minor.

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

And now the Gemara comes to explain

how

her

remedy

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

For since, if he takes one in marriage, the other is not exempt—how, then, can he permit the other?

But 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 grows up]!

And to have intercourse with both of them is certainly forbidden, for he builds one house and not two houses.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Rav: He takes

the

deaf-mute woman in marriage, and releases her with a get,

for she has no other remedy by which she can leave.

And he should hasten to take her in marriage before the minor grows up and he performs halitza for her, for when the minor performs halitza [when she grows up], the deaf-mute woman becomes disqualified for levirate marriage, by the rule: “Since he did not build, he shall no longer build.”

And

as for the

minor—

she shall wait until she grows up, and he shall perform halitza.

But if he takes the minor in marriage, the deaf-mute woman can no longer leave, neither through halitza nor through levirate marriage. For it is forbidden for the levir to take her even if he divorces the minor, because “he builds one house and does not build two houses.”

Rav Ḥisda said: Learn from this,

from Rav’s words, that

Rav holds

that the Sages defined their acquisition, by rabbinic law, as follows:

The deaf-mute woman—

she is

acquired

by rabbinic law,

but

nevertheless she is

“partially reserved”

in her acquisition: she is not considered completely acquired by rabbinic law, but only “partially acquired” [and there is room for the betrothal of another man to take effect in her, by rabbinic law].

The minor—

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 words, according to Rav’s method:

If it enters your mind

to say the opposite, that

the deaf-mute woman

is the one who is

“acquired and not acquired”,

whereas

the minor

is the one who is

“acquired and partially reserved”—

it would be difficult:

the deaf-mute woman—

why does he take her in marriage and release her

afterward

with a get!?