Yevamot 111a (קיא.) — the Talmud in English

Let her remain with him,

for the deaf-mute woman can remain and sit with him, without the intercourse or the ḥalitza of the second woman, the minor, disqualifying her.

And this follows

either way—

If she is acquired,

the deaf-mute woman to her husband,

then she is acquired

also to the yavam, and the minor leaves him as in ordinary yibbum. This is analogous to the case where one performs yibbum with one of two yevamot, in which case her rival leaves through the yibbum of this woman, since after the yavam has had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, there is no further effect involving the second woman, and he no longer has a bond with her.

And if so, the intercourse or ḥalitza of the second woman, the minor, cannot prohibit the deaf-mute woman to him [since once he has performed ḥalitza, he may no longer perform yibbum].

And if

the deaf-mute woman

is not acquired,

that is, she is considered acquired neither to her husband nor to the yavam,

then she is merely a gentile,

that is, she is considered a gentile with regard to the yavam.

And it is obvious that the intercourse or ḥalitza of the second woman, the minor, cannot prohibit her to him.

And if so, the deaf-mute woman can remain with him even after he performs ḥalitza with the second woman, the minor [after she comes of age].

For since the deaf-mute woman herself is not a yevama, the ḥalitza of the second woman cannot disqualify her.

And since Rav said: “He takes the deaf-mute woman in yibbum and divorces her with a bill of divorce,” Rav Ḥisda proves that, according to Rav, it is the deaf-mute woman who is acquired and partially acquired, and her yibbum does not exempt the second woman.

Therefore, he cannot leave her with him, because if the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, it is superior to the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition, which is only a partial acquisition.

Consequently, his intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, whose acquisition is weaker, does not exempt the minor, whose acquisition is superior, from yibbum and ḥalitza.

Rather, to the contrary, the ḥalitza of the minor [when she comes of age] will prohibit the deaf-mute woman to him, by virtue of the principle: “Since he did not build, he may no longer build.”

And if you would say,

perhaps one might ask:

Why did Rav say, with regard to a minor and a deaf-mute woman who fall before him for yibbum, that their remedy is for him to take the deaf-mute woman in yibbum and divorce her with a bill of divorce, and to divorce the minor through ḥalitza when she comes of age—

The minor—

why should she wait until she comes of age and perform ḥalitza?

Let her remain with him,

for he can first perform yibbum with the minor, and she can remain and sit with him, either way—

If she is acquired,

the minor through a complete acquisition, both to her husband and to the yavam,

then she is acquired,

and he has no further bond with the second woman, the deaf-mute woman.

And

if she is not acquired,

the minor at all—then

she is merely a gentile,

and it is obvious that she is not disqualified to him on account of the second woman!?

Your answer:

If so,

if he first takes the minor, and she indeed remains with him—

The deaf-mute woman—

how will she leave?

For the deaf-mute woman cannot leave through ḥalitza. The only way to release her is to perform yibbum with her first and then divorce her with a bill of divorce.

And if he first takes the minor, he can no longer take the deaf-mute woman, because there is a possibility that the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, and is even superior to the partial acquisition of the deaf-mute woman.

According to this possibility, the minor’s yibbum exempts the deaf-mute woman, and the deaf-mute woman may not now undergo yibbum after she has left him through the minor’s yibbum.

On the other hand, the deaf-mute woman cannot leave him by virtue of the minor’s yibbum without ḥalitza, because perhaps the minor’s acquisition is no acquisition, in which case the deaf-mute woman is the yevama who remains subject to yibbum and is forbidden to marry outside without ḥalitza—and a deaf-mute woman cannot perform ḥalitza.

And Rav wished to state a procedure that would provide a remedy for both of them, and not merely for one of them.

Rav Sheshet said: It is likewise reasonable that this is the case, as Rav Ḥisda explains according to Rav,

just as Rav Ḥisda explained Rav’s position: the deaf-mute woman is acquired and partially acquired, whereas the minor is possibly acquired through a complete acquisition and possibly not acquired at all.

And proof of this is from that

as it is taught:

Two brothers

who were

married to two sisters,

one

a minor, and

the other

a deaf-mute woman.

And

the husband of the minor died,

and the minor, who is the deaf-mute woman’s sister, now falls for yibbum [by rabbinic enactment] before her husband’s brother, who is the husband of her deaf-mute sister—

And therefore the deaf-mute woman becomes forbidden to her husband by virtue of the prohibition against the sister of one’s yevama.

And we do not say, to the contrary, that the minor should be completely dismissed from the bond of yibbum, since she is a prohibited relative, the sister of a wife, by rabbinic enactment, and has no bond of yibbum—

because there is a possibility that the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, whereas the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition is certainly a weak acquisition, involving partial acquisition.

And the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition does not override the bond of her minor sister, which is a complete bond. Therefore—

The deaf-mute woman—

leaves through a bill of divorce,

since she has become forbidden to her husband as the sister of his yevama.

And the minor—

must wait until she comes of age and perform ḥalitza.

However, if

the husband of the deaf-mute woman died,

and the deaf-mute woman, the minor’s sister, falls for yibbum before the husband of the minor, the minor becomes forbidden to her husband as the sister of his yevama.

For there is a possibility that the minor is not acquired at all, but is merely like a seduced woman; therefore, she cannot cause her deaf-mute sister [who is certainly acquired, although through a weak, partial acquisition] to lose her bond, as would the sister of a wife. Therefore—

The minor—

leaves

from her husband

through a bill of divorce.

And

if

the deaf-mute woman—

she is forbidden forever.

For he cannot take her in yibbum, even after divorcing his minor wife, because perhaps the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, and the deaf-mute woman is forbidden to him as the sister of his divorced wife.

And he cannot perform ḥalitza with her, because a deaf-mute woman cannot perform ḥalitza.

And if

he transgressed and

had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman

after divorcing her minor sister—

he gives her a bill of divorce, and she is permitted

through this for marriage outside, either way—

If the minor sister is completely acquired by him, then her deaf-mute sister does not require ḥalitza at all, since she leaves because she is the sister of his wife, whereas the intercourse that the yavam had with her was merely licentious intercourse.

And if the minor sister is not acquired by him at all, then the deaf-mute woman is the yevama, and the intercourse he had with her was effective in acquiring her. Once he gives her a bill of divorce, she is permitted without requiring ḥalitza.

And Rav Sheshet infers:

Granted, if you say,

in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s explanation of Rav’s position, that

the deaf-mute woman

is the one who is

“acquired and partially acquired,” whereas

the

minor

is

“acquired and not acquired”—

For this reason

the beraita states properly

that when he has intercourse with the deaf-mute woman,

he acquires her, according to the possibility that her minor sister is not acquired at all [and according to the possibility that she is completely acquired, the deaf-mute woman is immediately permitted to marry outside when her husband dies].

Therefore,

he gives her a bill of divorce, and she is permitted

through this to marry outside, without requiring ḥalitza.

Since

you have said, either way—

If the minor is acquired—

then she has left,

for the deaf-mute woman leaves for marriage outside immediately upon her husband’s death,

because she is the sister of his wife.

And

if

the minor

is not acquired,

then

he properly performs yibbum with

the deaf-mute woman, who is certainly acquired by him [although through a weak, partial acquisition], and the bill of divorce that he gives her permits her to marry outside without ḥalitza.

Rather, if you say

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 acquired,” then there is a difficulty—

When he has intercourse with the deaf-mute woman—

why does he give

her

a bill of divorce, and she is permitted

through this to marry outside without ḥalitza!?

But since there is a possibility that the deaf-mute woman is completely acquired, while the minor is acquired through a weak, partial acquisition, the minor does not cause her deaf-mute sister to lose her bond of yibbum by virtue of the prohibition against the sister of a wife.

For since the minor’s acquisition is not a complete acquisition, she cannot nullify the yibbum bond of her deaf-mute sister, whose acquisition is a complete acquisition.

Yet, on the other hand, since the deaf-mute woman is the sister of his minor wife, who is certainly acquired by him through a weak, partial acquisition, he may not have intercourse with her, because she is “partially” his wife’s sister.

And if he transgressed and had intercourse with her, then

his intercourse

with the deaf-mute woman

is

“invalid intercourse,”

since it is forbidden intercourse with the sister of his minor wife.

And invalid intercourse—

does not exempt

her from yibbum. Rather, she still requires ḥalitza [in addition to the bill of divorce that he must give her because of his intercourse with her]. But a deaf-mute woman cannot perform ḥalitza, so how could you permit her to marry outside through a bill of divorce alone!?

Rather, it is necessarily the case, as Rav Ḥisda explained Rav’s position: the minor is possibly completely acquired and possibly not acquired at all, while the deaf-mute woman is the one who is acquired and partially acquired.

And the Gemara attempts to reject Rav Sheshet’s proof—

It may be said that in fact the deaf-mute woman is possibly completely acquired and possibly not acquired at all, while the minor is acquired and partially acquired.

And the law of the beraita will not be difficult for you: How, when the husband of the deaf-mute woman dies, is the deaf-mute woman released from her bond of yibbum when her minor sister’s husband has intercourse with her and can divorce her with a bill of divorce? After all, the deaf-mute woman’s intercourse is forbidden intercourse, since she is “partially” the sister of his minor wife, and is therefore “invalid intercourse.”

And invalid intercourse does not permit her to marry outside through a bill of divorce alone, but only together with ḥalitza—and a deaf-mute woman cannot perform ḥalitza.

For it may be said—

This beraita, from which Rav Sheshet proved that it is reasonable to adopt Rav’s position,

the baraita from which he brought the proof—

whose?

Whose position does it reflect? It reflects the position of

Rabbi Neḥemya!

For

Rabbi Neḥemya said:

Invalid intercourse—

exempts from ḥalitza.

Therefore, the deaf-mute woman can be released through the invalid intercourse with her minor sister.

But the Gemara proves from the latter clause of this beraita that it is impossible to establish the beraita according to Rabbi Neḥemya, and that Rav Ḥisda’s explanation of Rav’s position is not correct.

Rather, it must be according to the Rabbis, and in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s explanation of Rav’s position. For

if

you wish to say that this beraita reflects the position of

Rabbi Neḥemya,

then—

Come and hear the latter clause,

which sets out the law when a minor and a deaf-mute woman, who are not sisters, were married to one man—

If one was married to two orphan girls, a minor and a deaf-mute woman, and he died,

and

the yavam came

to

the minor, and then came again to the deaf-mute woman,

or his brother came

the brother of the yavam who had performed yibbum with the minor

to the deaf-mute woman—

both of them are forbidden to him!

The deaf-mute woman becomes forbidden to him because if the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, then the deaf-mute woman’s bond ended when he had intercourse with the minor, and from that point the deaf-mute woman is forbidden to him like any yevama whose rival underwent yibbum.

As for the minor, according to the strict law she should be permitted to him, either way—

If the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, then after intercourse there is no further effect, and the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman cannot prohibit the minor to him.

And if the minor’s acquisition is no acquisition at all, then she is a gentile, and she is not disqualified by the yibbum of the deaf-mute woman.

Nevertheless, she is prohibited to him by virtue of a rabbinic decree, lest people err and permit the case in which the yavam did the reverse—first taking the deaf-mute woman in yibbum and afterward taking the minor.

In that case, the deaf-mute woman is forbidden to him, since there is a possibility that the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, and the weak, partial acquisition of the deaf-mute woman does not override the bond of the minor, which is a complete bond.

And if he has intercourse with the minor after having intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, he acquires the minor through her complete acquisition and nullifies the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition, and the deaf-mute woman becomes forbidden to him like a yevama whose rival underwent yibbum.

And since the Sages were concerned that people might make such an error and permit leaving the deaf-mute woman with him even when he first takes the deaf-mute woman in yibbum and afterward takes the minor—

therefore the Sages prohibited both of them, even if he acted first and took the minor in yibbum.

And

how

is

their remedy?

The deaf-mute woman—

leaves

him

through a bill of divorce,

and she is permitted to marry outside, either way—

If the minor’s acquisition, since he took her first, is a complete acquisition, it exempts the deaf-mute woman from ḥalitza.

And if the minor’s acquisition is nothing, then the deaf-mute woman underwent yibbum through the intercourse, and from that point she is permitted to marry outside through a bill of divorce alone.

And the minor—

must wait

for

her until she comes of age and performs ḥalitza.

As the Gemara will now explain.

And the Gemara proves:

Granted, if you say

that in the first clause, concerning two sisters, one a deaf-mute woman and one a minor, when the husband of the deaf-mute woman dies and the deaf-mute woman falls before the brother who is married to the minor sister, the beraita states that if he transgressed and had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, he gives her a bill of divorce and thereby permits her to marry outside, the reason is that: first,

the deaf-mute woman

is

“acquired and partially acquired,” whereas

the

minor

is

“acquired and not acquired,” as Rav said.

And the deaf-mute woman is permitted to marry outside through a bill of divorce without ḥalitza, either way—

If the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, then the deaf-mute woman is exempt as the sister of a wife.

And if the acquisition of her minor sister is no acquisition, then the deaf-mute sister’s acquisition is a permitted acquisition, and she leaves him through a bill of divorce alone.

But if we say the opposite—that the minor’s acquisition is a partial acquisition, while the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition is uncertain—the deaf-mute woman would not leave through a bill of divorce alone—

For perhaps the deaf-mute woman is acquired through a complete acquisition, and she does not leave because she is the sister of a wife, since the acquisition of the minor, her sister, is not complete, but only partial.

Likewise, the deaf-mute woman’s intercourse does not acquire her through a complete acquisition that would enable her to leave him through a bill of divorce, since her intercourse is invalid intercourse, due to the partial marriage of her sister, which prohibits yibbum with her as the partially established sister of his wife.

Second.

And

this beraita is stated according to the position of

the Rabbis, who say that invalid intercourse does not exempt, as Rav Sheshet brought proof from it for Rav Ḥisda’s explanation of Rav’s position—

For this reason,

the beraita properly continues in its latter clause that if a minor and a deaf-mute woman who are not sisters, but unrelated women, fall before him for yibbum, and he has intercourse with both of them, both are forbidden!

And the minor becomes forbidden even if he took her first, although according to the strict law she should be permitted to him, either way [if her acquisition is complete, the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman cannot prohibit her; and if her acquisition is nothing, she is a gentile, and it is obvious that the subsequent intercourse with the deaf-mute woman cannot prohibit her].

Rather,

the minor must wait,

and she does not leave him now through a bill of divorce,

until she comes of age and

then

performs ḥalitza,

even though according to the strict law she is permitted to him for yibbum, and he could divorce her and permit her to marry outside immediately, without requiring ḥalitza.

The reason for this is that the Sages decreed that she not be permitted to him and that he not be able to divorce her now with a bill of divorce alone; rather, she must wait until she comes of age and then perform ḥalitza—

Lest

the yavam reverse the order and

have intercourse first with the

deaf-mute woman,

and afterward have intercourse with the minor.

And

then, since he had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman first, although her acquisition is only a weak, partial acquisition, nevertheless, since it is an acquisition to some degree,

the minor’s intercourse

afterward

is “invalid intercourse”!

For he had already had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman and acquired her to some degree, and the Torah said: “He builds one house, but does not build two houses.”

And since the minor’s intercourse is invalid intercourse, according to the Rabbis it does not exempt her from the bond of yibbum, and the minor requires both a bill of divorce and ḥalitza in order to leave him.

Nor does the deaf-mute woman’s intercourse exempt her, since her intercourse is the intercourse of one who is acquired only partially, and it does not exempt the woman whose acquisition is complete.

And since the Sages were concerned that people might err and permit the minor to marry outside without ḥalitza in this case as well, they instituted that she not leave through a bill of divorce even if the minor underwent yibbum first; rather, she must wait until she comes of age and then perform ḥalitza.

Rather, if you say that the minor is acquired and partially acquired

while the deaf-mute woman is possibly completely acquired and possibly not acquired at all—

Since the Sages were concerned that people might err and permit the minor to marry outside without shoe-removal in this case as well, they enacted that she should not leave through a bill of divorce even if the minor entered into levirate marriage first; rather, she must wait until she reaches majority and then perform shoe-removal.

But if you say that the minor is acquired but only partially

whereas the deaf-mute woman is of uncertain status—perhaps she is acquired completely, and perhaps she is not acquired at all—

Accordingly, from the first clause, where we learned that if the husband of the deaf-mute sister dies and the deaf-mute woman falls before the yavam married to her minor sister, and he has intercourse with her, in violation of the prohibition against the partially established sister of his wife—an invalid intercourse—nevertheless he gives her a bill of divorce, since he acquired her, and thereby permits her to marry outside without ḥalitza—

we learn that invalid intercourse exempts, in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya!

If so, there is a difficulty from what we learned in the latter clause: if the yavam has intercourse with the minor and then again with the deaf-mute woman, the minor is not exempted by her own intercourse, but requires ḥalitza. Yet the minor’s intercourse is valid intercourse; why, then, must she perform ḥalitza after the intercourse?

Perhaps you might say that the deaf-mute woman’s bond disqualifies her from undergoing yibbum, since it is possible that the deaf-mute woman is completely acquired. However, according to the way we have now established this beraita, it is stated according to the position of

Rabbi Neḥemya,

and

he said

that

invalid intercourse—

exempts!