Yevamot 111a — the Talmud in English

She should remain with him,

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

And this is

from whichever side you examine it—

If she is acquired,

the deaf-mute woman, by her husband—

then she is acquired,

also by the yavam, and the minor leaves in the manner of ordinary yibbum, just as when he performs yibbum with one of two yevamot, her fellow-wife leaves through the yibbum of this one, since after the intercourse that the yavam performed with the deaf-mute woman, he has no further connection with the second one.

And if so, neither the intercourse nor the halitza of the second woman, the minor, can prohibit the deaf-mute woman to him [because once he has performed halitza, he no longer builds].

And if

the deaf-mute woman

is not acquired,

is considered acquired neither by her husband nor by the yavam—

then she is merely a gentile,

considered with regard to the yavam.

And it is obvious that neither the intercourse nor the halitza of the second woman, the minor, can prohibit her to him.

And if so, the deaf-mute woman can remain sitting under him, even after he performs halitza with the second woman, the minor [after she reaches majority].

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

And since Rav said, “He takes the deaf-mute woman and releases her with a get,” Rav Hisda proves that, according to Rav, it is the deaf-mute woman who is acquired and partially retained, and her yibbum does not exempt the second woman.

And therefore he cannot leave her under him, because according to the possibility that the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, it is superior to the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition, which is only a partially retained acquisition.

And therefore his intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, whose acquisition is weak, does not exempt the minor, whose acquisition is superior, from yibbum and halitza.

Rather, to the contrary, the halitza of the minor [when she reaches majority] will prohibit the deaf-mute woman to him, by the principle: “Since he did not build, he shall no longer build.”

And if you should say,

perhaps you will ask:

Why did Rav say, concerning a minor and a deaf-mute woman who fall to yibbum, that their remedy is that he should take the deaf-mute woman and release her with a get, and release the minor through halitza when she reaches majority—

The minor—

why should she wait until she reaches majority and perform halitza?

She should remain with him,

for he can first perform yibbum with the minor, and she can remain and sit under him, from whichever side you examine it—

If she is acquired,

the minor, through a complete acquisition, by her husband and by the yavam—

then she is acquired,

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

And

if she is not acquired

at all, the minor—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 under him—

The deaf-mute woman—

by what will she leave!?

For the deaf-mute woman does not leave through halitza. The only way to release her is to perform yibbum with her first and afterward release her with a get.

And if he first takes the minor, he will no longer be able to take the deaf-mute woman, because there is a possibility that the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, and it is even superior to the deaf-mute woman’s partially retained acquisition.

According to this possibility, the yibbum of the minor is effective to exempt the deaf-mute woman, and the deaf-mute woman cannot now undergo yibbum after she has left him through the yibbum of the minor.

On the other hand, the deaf-mute woman cannot leave him by virtue of the minor’s yibbum without halitza, because perhaps the minor’s acquisition is no acquisition, in which case the deaf-mute woman is the yevama requiring yibbum, and she is forbidden to marry outside without halitza, while a deaf-mute woman does not perform halitza.

And Rav wanted to state a manner in which there would be a remedy for both of them, and not only for one of them.

Rav Sheshet said: It is also logically evident, as Rav Hisda explains according to Rav,

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

And there is proof for this from the following,

as it was 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 now the minor, who is the sister of the deaf-mute woman, falls for yibbum [by rabbinic law] 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 the law of “the sister of one bound by yibbum.”

And we do not say the opposite: that the minor should be entirely removed from the connection of yibbum, since she is the forbidden relationship of a wife’s sister by rabbinic law, and has no connection 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, containing a partial retention.

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

The deaf-mute woman—

leaves with a get,

because she is forbidden to her husband by the law of the sister of one bound by yibbum.

And the minor—

shall wait until she reaches majority and perform halitza.

But if

the husband of the deaf-mute woman died,

and the deaf-mute woman, the sister of the minor, falls for yibbum before the husband of the minor, and the minor becomes forbidden to her husband by the law of the sister of one bound by yibbum,

for there is a possibility that the minor is not acquired at all, but is merely like one seduced; therefore she does not have the power to remove her deaf-mute sister [who is certainly acquired, although through a weak, partially retained acquisition] from the connection, according to the law of the sister of a wife. And therefore—

The minor—

leaves

from under her husband

with a get.

And

if

the deaf-mute woman—

is forbidden forever.

For he cannot take her, 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 by the law of a divorced wife’s sister.

And he cannot perform halitza for her, because a deaf-mute woman does not undergo halitza.

And if

he transgressed and

had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman

after divorcing her minor sister—

he gives her a get, and she is permitted

by this to marry outside, from whichever side you examine it—

If the minor sister is completely acquired by him, then her deaf-mute sister does not require halitza at all, since she leaves because of the law of a wife’s sister, whereas the intercourse that the yavam had with her was merely promiscuous intercourse.

And if the minor sister is not acquired by him at all, then the deaf-mute woman is the yevama, and the intercourse that he had with her was effective to acquire her. And once he gives her a get, she is permitted without the need for halitza.

And Rav Sheshet infers:

It is well if you say,

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

the deaf-mute woman

is the one who is

“acquired and partially retained,” whereas

the

minor

is the one who is

“acquired and not acquired”—

For that reason

the beraita states correctly 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, she is permitted to marry outside immediately when her husband dies].

And therefore

he gives her a get, and she is permitted

by this to marry outside, without the need for halitza.

Since

you say, from whichever side you examine it—

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 of the law of a wife’s sister.

And

if

the minor

is not acquired,

she—

he properly performs yibbum with

the deaf-mute woman, who is certainly acquired by him [although through a weak, partially retained acquisition], and through the get that he gives her he permits her to marry outside without halitza.

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 retained,” you encounter a difficulty—

For

when he has intercourse with the deaf-mute woman—

why does he give

her

a get, and she is thereby permitted

to marry outside without halitza!?

But since there is a possibility that the deaf-mute woman is completely acquired, and the minor is acquired through a weak, partially retained acquisition, the minor does not remove her deaf-mute sister from the connection of yibbum by the law of a wife’s sister.

Since the minor’s acquisition is not a complete acquisition, she cannot remove the yibbum connection 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, partially retained acquisition, he may not have intercourse with her, because she is his wife’s sister “in part.”

And if he transgressed and had intercourse with her, then

it becomes for him

his intercourse with the deaf-mute woman

“forbidden intercourse,”

since it is forbidden intercourse with his minor wife’s sister.

And forbidden intercourse—

does not exempt her

from yibbum, but she still requires halitza [in addition to the get that he must give her because of his intercourse]; and a deaf-mute woman does not undergo halitza. So how did you permit her to marry outside through a get alone!?

Rather, it is necessarily the case that one must say as Rav Hisda explained Rav’s position: that 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 retained.

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 retained.

And the law of the beraita will not be difficult for you: how, if the husband of the deaf-mute woman dies, is the deaf-mute woman released from the connection of yibbum when the husband of the minor has intercourse with her and can release her with a get, when the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman is forbidden intercourse, since she is his minor wife’s sister “in part,” and is therefore “forbidden intercourse”?

And forbidden intercourse does not permit her to marry outside through a get alone, but only together with halitza, and a deaf-mute woman does not undergo halitza.

For it may be said—

This—

this beraita, from which Rav Sheshet proved that it is logical to say in accordance with Rav’s position—

whose [opinion] is it?

According to whose position is it stated? It is according to the position of

Rabbi Nehemiah!

For Rabbi Nehemiah said:

Rabbi Nehemiah said:

forbidden intercourse—

exempts from halitza.

And therefore the deaf-mute woman can be released through the forbidden intercourse of 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 Nehemiah’s position, and not in accordance with Rav Hisda’s explanation of Rav’s position.

Rather, it is necessarily according to the Rabbis, and in accordance with Rav Hisda’s explanation of Rav’s position. For—

if

you wish to say that this beraita is stated according to the position of

Rabbi Nehemiah

—

Consider the latter clause,

which explains the law when a minor and a deaf-mute woman fell before him for yibbum, when they were married to one man and are not sisters—

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

And

the

yavam

had intercourse with the minor, and then again had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman

or his brother had intercourse

with the yavam who performed yibbum with the minor

with the deaf-mute woman—

both of them become forbidden to him!

The deaf-mute woman becomes forbidden to him because, according to the possibility that the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, the deaf-mute woman’s connection was removed when he had intercourse with the minor, and from that point the deaf-mute woman is forbidden to him like any yevama whose fellow-wife underwent yibbum.

As for the minor, according to the strict law she is permitted to him, from whichever side you examine it—

If the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, then after intercourse there is nothing further, 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 through the yibbum of the deaf-mute woman.

Nevertheless, she is prohibited to him by virtue of the Sages’ decree, lest people err and permit even the case in which the yavam acted in the opposite order, taking the deaf-mute woman first and afterward the minor.

For then 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 and partially retained acquisition of the deaf-mute woman does not override the connection of the minor, which is a complete connection.

And if he has intercourse with the minor after having intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, he will acquire the minor’s complete acquisition and nullify the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition, and the deaf-mute woman will become forbidden to him like a yevama whose fellow-wife underwent yibbum.

And since the Sages were concerned about such an error—that people would come to permit leaving the deaf-mute woman under him even if he took the deaf-mute woman first and afterward the minor—

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

And

how

is

their remedy?

The deaf-mute woman—

leaves

from him

with a get,

and she is permitted to marry outside, from whichever side you examine it—

If the minor’s acquisition, whom he took first, is a complete acquisition, then it exempts the deaf-mute woman from halitza.

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

And the minor—

shall wait

for her

until she reaches majority and performs halitza.

And as the Gemara will now explain.

And the Gemara proves:

It is well 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, and the beraita states that if he transgressed and had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, he gives her a get and thereby permits her to marry outside, the reason is: first, that

the deaf-mute woman

is

“acquired and partially retained,” whereas the

minor

is

“acquired and not acquired,”

as Rav said.

And the deaf-mute woman is permitted to marry outside through a get without halitza, from whichever side you examine it—

If the minor’s acquisition is a complete acquisition, then she is exempt by the law of a wife’s sister.

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

But if we say the opposite—that the minor’s acquisition is partially retained, and the deaf-mute woman’s acquisition is uncertain—then the deaf-mute woman will not leave through a get alone—

For perhaps the deaf-mute woman is completely acquired, and she does not leave by the law of a wife’s sister, since the minor’s acquisition, her sister’s, is not a complete acquisition but an acquisition only in part.

And likewise, the intercourse of the deaf-mute woman does not acquire her through a complete acquisition such that she could leave him through a get, since her intercourse is forbidden intercourse, because of her sister’s marriage in part, which prohibits yibbum with her by the law of a wife’s sister in part.

Second.

And

this beraita is stated according to the position of

the Rabbis:

it is according to the Rabbis,

who say that forbidden intercourse does not exempt, and from it Rav Sheshet brought proof for Rav Hisda’s statement according to Rav—

For that reason,

the beraita correctly continues and states in its latter clause that if a minor and a deaf-mute woman fell before him for yibbum, when they are not sisters but are unrelated to one another, and he had intercourse with both of them, both become forbidden!

And the minor becomes forbidden, even if he took her first, although according to the strict law she is permitted to him from whichever side you examine it [if her acquisition is complete, the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman will not 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 will not prohibit her].

Rather,

the minor shall wait

and not leave him now through a get,

until she reaches majority and

then

then

performs halitza, 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 the need for halitza.

And the reason for this is that the Sages decreed concerning her that she should not be permitted to him, and that he should not be able to release her now through a get alone; rather, she should wait until she reaches majority and then perform halitza—

For perhaps

the yavam will reverse the order and

will act first and have intercourse with

the

deaf-mute woman first,

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, partially retained acquisition, nevertheless, since it is an acquisition in part,

the minor’s intercourse becomes

afterward

“forbidden intercourse”!

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

And since the minor’s intercourse is forbidden intercourse, according to the Rabbis it does not exempt her from the connection of yibbum, and the minor requires both a get and halitza in order to leave him.

And the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman also does not exempt her, since the deaf-mute woman’s intercourse is the intercourse of one acquired in part, which does not exempt the one whose acquisition is complete.

And since the Sages were concerned that people would err and permit the minor to marry outside without halitza even in this case, they enacted that she should not leave through a get even if the minor underwent yibbum first; rather, she should wait until she reaches majority, and then perform halitza.

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

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

Accordingly, from the first clause, in which 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, forbidden as the sister of his wife in part, which is forbidden intercourse, nevertheless he gives her a get, because he acquired her and exempts her to marry outside without halitza—

we learn that forbidden intercourse exempts, in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah!

And if so, the latter clause that we learned presents a difficulty: if the yavam has intercourse with the minor and then again with the deaf-mute woman, the minor is not released through her own intercourse, but requires halitza. But the minor’s intercourse is valid intercourse, so why does she need to perform halitza after the intercourse?

If you would say that the deaf-mute woman’s connection disqualifies her from undergoing yibbum, because the deaf-mute woman may be completely acquired, then according to what we have now established, this beraita is stated according to the position of

Rabbi Nehemiah,

and

he said

that

forbidden intercourse—

exempted her!

Rather,

necessarily,

it follows

that this beraita

is that of the Rabbis.

It follows!

Rav Ashi said: From the opening clause,

from the law that we learned concerning two sisters,

it likewise follows

that this beraita

is that of the Rabbis, and it is not according to the method of Rabbi Nehemiah.

Because it teaches:

“If

the husband of the deaf-mute sister died, and the yavam went and

came upon

the sister

who is a deaf-mute—

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

And it does not teach

with regard to her:

“If

the husband of the younger sister died, and the

yavam came

upon

the younger one—

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

Rather, it teaches: When the husband of the younger one died—she must wait until she comes of age and perform halitza.

And it is proven from the fact that it was not mentioned in the beraita that the younger one is permitted through intercourse with her, to leave through a bill of divorce—that invalid intercourse does not release her, and it is according to the Rabbis.

And it is considered invalid intercourse because her deaf-mute sister is partially acquired, and she partially forbids the younger one through her acquisition, by the law of a wife’s sister.

And the residual acquisition of the deaf-mute cannot completely reject the younger one, by the law of a wife’s sister, since it is possible that the acquisition of the younger one is a complete acquisition, and the residual acquisition of the deaf-mute cannot reject her from yibbum by the law of a wife’s sister.

But the Gemara rejects this proof—

If it is because of this,

from this proof—

it is not relevant!

This is no proof.

For the reason that the tanna did not teach the regulation of the younger one through a bill of divorce, because he had intercourse with her, just as he taught this regulation with regard to the deaf-mute, but rather said that the younger one must wait until she comes of age and perform halitza, is not because invalid intercourse does not release her. Rather—

As for the deaf-mute, who has no

at all

regulation of permission,

for she is forbidden for him to have intercourse with her ever, and she is unable to leave through halitza—

he teaches

with regard to her

a regulation of prohibition,

in the case where the yavam transgressed and had intercourse with her.

But

the younger one, who does have a regulation of permission,

to wait until she comes of age and perform halitza—

he does not teach

with regard to her

a regulation of prohibition,

that if the yavam transgressed and had intercourse with her, she leaves then through a bill of divorce.

But in truth, if the yavam transgresses and has intercourse with her, it is possible that she can leave through a bill of divorce, according to Rabbi Nehemiah, who says that invalid intercourse releases her.

Mishna:

One who was married to two minor orphans, and died.

And

his

yavam brother came upon

his wife

first,

and performed yibbum with her by rabbinic enactment,

and then came upon the second.

Or his brother came upon the second