Yevamot 112b (קיב:) — the Talmud in English

They ask

him to perform halitza;

it should have taught

“and they do not compel him to perform halitza,” as he said.

For at the end of the Mishna we learned: If she intended this, even if she made the vow during her husband’s lifetime, they ask the yavam to perform halitza, but they do not compel him to do so!?

The Gemara rejects Abaye’s proof from our Mishna in support of Rav:

Here,

in our Mishna, which stated “they compel” but did not state “they ask,”

with what are we dealing

with a woman who has sons

from her husband,

for she would not have considered at all

that her sons would die during her husband’s lifetime, and that she would be subject to yibbum when her husband died after the death of her sons.

Therefore, when she prohibits herself to her yavam during her husband’s lifetime, she does not intend thereby to prevent her yibbum if her husband should die, and consequently the yavam is compelled to perform halitza for her.

However, the Gemara upholds Abaye’s proof and raises an objection to the rejection of his proof:

According to your words, since you established our Mishna specifically with regard to a woman who has sons, the following question arises:

But

a woman who

does not have sons—

what

do they do?

They ask him to perform halitza. But they do not compel him to perform halitza for her, because she would consider the possibility that she might become subject to yibbum, and she intended to prohibit the yavam to herself so that she would not undergo yibbum with him.

If so, the following objection can be raised:

Rather than teach

until the tanna introduces a new distinction and says:

“And if she intended this,”

to make a vow prohibiting herself from deriving benefit from her yavam,

even

if she made this vow

during her husband’s lifetime,

only

they ask him to perform halitza for her,

but they do not compel him to perform halitza for her—

let him differentiate,

let the tanna make the distinction,

and teach,

and state this distinction

in her case,

in the very woman and the very matter under discussion, as follows:

In what case are these words said,

that the yavam is compelled to perform halitza when his yevama vowed during her husband’s lifetime that she would derive no benefit from him?

With

a woman

who has sons,

as she would not consider the possibility that her sons would die during her husband’s lifetime and that she would become subject to yibbum.

But

with regard to a woman who

does not have sons,

and who vowed not to derive benefit from her yavam, as she considers the possibility that her husband might die and that she might become subject to yibbum, and she intended through her vow to prevent the yibbum—

they ask

him to perform halitza for her, but they do not compel him to do so.

Rather,

from the fact that the tanna did not make such a distinction,

infer

that

it makes no difference whether she has sons or whether she does not have sons—

they compel him

to perform halitza for her, because at the time of her vow she does not consider the possibility that she will become subject to yibbum.

And this is

in accordance with Rav,

who stated this.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer it!

We shall return to you, chapter Beit Shammai

See the introductory remarks to this chapter, in the first note. The Mishna before us is divided into four sections. The first section deals with the laws of marriage and divorce of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, while the other three sections deal with the laws of yibbum and halitza of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman.

The

first section,

in which the laws of

marriage and divorce

are explained for

one couple,

when one of the spouses is a deaf-mute man or deaf-mute woman.

The

second section

deals with the laws of

yibbum and halitza

of a deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman involving

two brothers

who are married to two sisters or to two unrelated women, and either the brothers or their wives are deaf-mutes.

It refers specifically to a situation in which the marriages of the two brothers are

equal,

meaning that both are valid only by rabbinic law, and neither involved an acquisition by Torah law.

The

third section

also deals with the laws of yibbum and halitza involving a deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman and two brothers, but it explains the law of

two brothers married to two sisters in different ways,

where one brother was married by Torah law, being competent and married to a competent woman, while the other brother was married by rabbinic law.

The Mishna explains the three ways in which the second brother’s marriage is valid by rabbinic law: either he and his wife were both deaf-mutes, or he was a deaf-mute and his wife was competent, or he was competent and his wife was a deaf-mute.

The

fourth section

also deals with the laws of yibbum and halitza involving a deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman and two brothers married in different ways.

However, unlike the third section, it deals with two brothers who were married to two

unrelated women,

rather than to two sisters.

Here too, the Mishna explains the three possibilities in which the second brother’s marriage is valid by rabbinic law: either both were deaf-mutes, or he was competent and she was a deaf-mute, or he was a deaf-mute and she was competent.

Mishna:

The first section –

The laws of kiddushin and divorce of a deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman.

1.

A deaf-mute man who married a competent woman,

through the kiddushin that the Sages instituted for him,

and a competent man who married a deaf-mute woman,

through the kiddushin that the Sages instituted for her—

If he wishes to divorce

his wife with a get—

he may divorce her,

for the Sages instituted that even a deaf-mute man may divorce his wife with a get from a marriage that the Sages instituted for her.

And if he wishes to keep

her as his wife—

he may keep her.

marries

The Mishna explains how the competent man betroths a deaf-mute woman, and how the deaf-mute man divorces a competent woman:

Just as he,

the deaf-mute man who married a competent woman or the competent man who married a deaf-mute woman,

takes

his wife

through gestures,

gesturing to her with his finger until she agrees to be betrothed to him—

so he divorces

her with a get, which he gives her

through gestures,

gesturing to her with his finger to indicate that he intends to divorce her by giving her the get.

That is, their kiddushin and divorce are alike when one of the spouses is a deaf-mute: in both cases the act is performed through gestures.

b. A competent man who betrothed his wife when she was competent and

became deaf

while married to him—

may divorce her

with a get, if he wishes, since for a get only the husband’s intellectual capacity is required, and not that of the wife.

But if he betrothed her when she was competent and

became mentally incompetent

while married to him—

he may not divorce her!

Since the Sages instituted that he must keep her as his wife, so that people would not treat her promiscuously on account of her being a shoteh.

But if he betrothed a woman while he was competent and afterward

he became deaf-mute or mentally incompetent—

he can never divorce her!

Since his divorce, when he is a deaf-mute or shoteh and therefore lacks intellectual capacity, cannot remove her from the fully valid kiddushin that he performed with her while he was competent.

c.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said—

he asked:

Why is it that a woman who became deaf

after her marriage

may leave, whereas

if

a man became deaf

after he married a woman,

he cannot divorce

her?

The Sages said to him:

The Sages replied:

A man who divorces is not comparable to a woman who is divorced—

because

a woman leaves whether willingly or unwillingly.

Therefore, a deaf-mute woman can also be divorced.

But

a man

can divorce only willingly.

And the will of a deaf-mute man is not considered valid will, since his intellectual capacity is not complete.

d.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute woman whom her father married off

when she was a minor, whose kiddushin performed by her father are valid by Torah law,

that she may leave through a get

even after she has grown up and left her father’s authority for the receipt of her get, and she receives her get herself [while, as a minor, her father receives her get on her behalf].

The Sages said to him:

The Sages replied:

This one too,

a competent woman who married and became deaf,

is like her,

for she can receive her get, since divorce is not dependent on her will.

The second section –

The laws of yibbum of a deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman, involving two brothers married to two women [sisters or unrelated women] in equal marriages, valid by rabbinic law.

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.

The marriages of the two brothers are equal, since both brothers are deaf-mutes, and they take their wives through gestures, whether the woman is competent or a 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 through gestures, whether the husband is competent or a deaf-mute.

And one of the brothers dies—

These,

their wives, do not fall for yibbum before the second brother; rather, they are

exempt from both halitza and yibbum,

like the law of a wife’s sister. For the kiddushin of both brothers are equal, as they are valid by rabbinic law, and the prohibition of a wife’s sister by rabbinic law comes and removes the rabbinic bond of the yevama.

But

if

the two women were

unrelated

to one another,

as they were not sisters and are not excluded by the law of a wife’s sister, the yavamim should not perform halitza for them. For if he is a deaf-mute, he is not fit to perform halitza, and if she is a deaf-mute, she is not fit for halitza, since they cannot recite the verses that they are obligated to recite at the time of halitza.

Rather,

they shall take them in marriage,

for here the two women are unrelated to one another and are not excluded by the prohibition of a wife’s sister.

And if they wish,

the yavamim, after taking them in marriage,

to divorce

them—

they shall divorce them with a get through gestures!

can occur in three ways:

The third section –

The laws of halitza and yibbum involving two brothers married to two sisters

in different ways—

where one brother was married by Torah law, since he was competent and his wife was competent, and the second brother was married by rabbinic law.

The marriage of

the second brother by rabbinic law

can take place in three ways:

a. He is a deaf-mute and his wife is competent.

b. He is competent and his wife is a deaf-mute.

c. Both are deaf-mutes.

The first case—the second brother is a deaf-mute and his wife is competent.

Two brothers, one a deaf-mute and one competent,

who were

married to two competent sisters,

and

the deaf-mute husband of the competent woman dies,

whose marriage was valid by rabbinic law.

What shall the competent husband of the competent woman do

with his wife’s sister, who falls before him from her deaf-mute brother-in-law through rabbinic kiddushin, and what shall he do with his wife, who is the sister of the yevama who falls before him?—

He does nothing. Rather,

the sister

of his wife leaves by Torah law without halitza,

because of

the sexual prohibition of

a wife’s sister,

and his wife is permitted to him, since she is not the sister of a woman bound to him, as there is no bond of yibbum involving a forbidden woman.

But if

the competent husband of the competent woman dies—

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

whose marriage to her was valid by rabbinic law, with his yevama, his wife’s sister, who falls before him for Torah-law yibbum, and what shall he do with his wife, who is the sister of the woman bound to him?—

He divorces his wife with a get,

since she is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman bound to him, for her sister falls before him by Torah law.

And his brother’s wife is forbidden

to him

forever,

since he cannot perform yibbum with her, as she is his wife’s sister by rabbinic law. Nor can he perform halitza for her, since a deaf-mute man is incapable of performing halitza.

The second case—the second brother is competent and his wife is a deaf-mute.

Two competent brothers

who were

married to two sisters, one a deaf-mute,

whose kiddushin are valid by rabbinic law,

and one competent,

whose kiddushin are valid by Torah law.

The competent husband of the deaf-mute woman dies—

what shall the competent husband of the competent woman do

with his brother’s wife, who is his wife’s sister and falls before him, and what shall he do with his wife, who is the sister of the yevama who falls before him?

He does nothing. Rather,

she leaves,

his brother’s wife, without halitza,

because of

the sexual prohibition of

a wife’s sister

by Torah law. And his wife is not the sister of a woman bound to him, since there is no bond in the case of a forbidden woman.

And if

the competent husband of the competent woman dies—

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

with his brother’s wife, who is his wife’s sister by rabbinic law, and what shall he do with his wife, who is the sister of a woman bound to him by Torah law?—

He has no way to keep his wife with him; rather,

he divorces his wife with a get

because she is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman bound to him,

and his brother’s wife

he divorces

through halitza

by Torah law; he may not perform yibbum with her, since she is his wife’s sister by rabbinic law.

The third case—the second brother and his wife are both deaf-mutes.

Two brothers—

one competent and one a deaf-mute,

who were

married to two sisters—

one competent and one a deaf-mute.

The deaf-mute husband of the deaf-mute woman dies,

and the deaf-mute woman falls for yibbum before the competent brother who is married to the competent woman.

What shall the competent husband of the competent woman do

with his yevama and his wife?—

He does nothing. Rather,

the deaf-mute woman leaves

without halitza,

because of the prohibition of a wife’s sister.

She has the status of a forbidden woman who falls for yibbum, and his wife is permitted to him, since she is not the sister of a woman bound to him.

But if

the competent husband of the competent woman dies,

and the competent woman falls before the deaf-mute, who is not fit to perform halitza because he cannot recite—

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

The deaf-mute divorces

the deaf-mute

woman,

his deaf-mute

wife, with a get,

since she becomes forbidden to him as the sister of a woman bound to him.

But

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 a deaf-mute and is incapable of recitation.

And he cannot take her in marriage and subsequently divorce her with a get, since he has a partial rabbinic kiddushin 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, she remains forbidden to him, like the sister of his divorced wife.

The fourth section –

Yibbum and halitza involving a deaf-mute man and deaf-mute woman, with two brothers who were married to two

unrelated women

[rather than sisters, as in the preceding section], in different ways: one brother is married by Torah law, being a competent man married to a competent woman, while the second brother is married by rabbinic law.

Here too, there are three ways in which the second brother’s marriage is valid by rabbinic law: either the brother was a deaf-mute and his wife was competent, or the brother was competent and his wife was a deaf-mute, or both were deaf-mutes.

The first case—the second brother is a deaf-mute and his wife is competent.

Two brothers, one a deaf-mute and one competent,

who were

married to two competent unrelated women.

The deaf-mute husband of the competent woman dies—

what shall the competent husband of the competent woman do

with his yevama, who falls before him by rabbinic law?

He may either perform halitza or perform yibbum.

And if

the competent husband of the competent woman dies—

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

with his yevama, who falls before him by Torah law, since he cannot perform halitza for her because he cannot recite?—

He takes

her in marriage,

but he cannot divorce

her

ever,

since the yibbum of a deaf-mute man cannot remove his brother’s bond, and his get cannot permit her to marry someone else without halitza, while he cannot perform halitza because he cannot recite at the time of halitza.

Second case: The second brother is mentally competent and his wife is a deaf-mute.

Two mentally competent brothers

who were

married to two

women

who were unrelated,

that is, not sisters—one wife

was mentally competent, and

the other wife was

a deaf-mute.

And

the mentally competent brother, the husband of the deaf-mute, died, and the deaf-mute fell before the second brother for yibbum.

What should

the second brother do, who is

the

mentally competent husband of a mentally competent woman, with his deaf-mute yevama, since he cannot perform halitza with her because she is not capable of reciting the required passage?

He

takes in marriage

the deaf-mute.

And

then,

if he wishes

to

divorce

her with a bill of divorce, he

divorces her

with a bill of divorce alone, without needing to perform halitza with her.

And if

the

brother, the

mentally competent husband

of the

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

what should

the mentally competent husband of the deaf-mute do?

He either performs halitza or performs yibbum

with the mentally competent woman.

Third case: The second brother and his wife are both deaf-mutes.

Two brothers, one a deaf-mute and one mentally competent,

who were

married to two unrelated women, one a deaf-mute and one mentally competent.

The deaf-mute husband of the deaf-mute dies—

what should the mentally competent husband of the mentally competent woman do

with his yevama?

He takes her in marriage,

but cannot release her through halitza, because she is a deaf-mute and cannot recite the passage.

And if,

after taking her in marriage, he

wishes to divorce

her with a bill of divorce, he

divorces

her with a bill of divorce, because the yibbum acquisition of a mentally competent man with regard to the wife of his deaf-mute brother is a complete acquisition, and no bond with his deceased brother remains; therefore, he may release her to the outside world with a bill of divorce.

The mentally competent husband of the mentally competent woman dies—

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

with his yevama according to Torah law?

He takes her in marriage,

because he cannot perform halitza, since he is a deaf-mute and cannot recite the passage.

But he cannot divorce

her with a bill of divorce after taking her in marriage, because his taking her in marriage and his bill of divorce, as a deaf-mute, do not have the power to remove the bond of his deceased, mentally competent brother.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman cannot perform halitza. This implies that although a deaf-mute lacks legal understanding and, according to Torah law, his acquisition is no acquisition, they nevertheless have betrothal, marriage, and a falling for yibbum by rabbinic ordinance; they simply cannot perform halitza.

Rami bar Hama said: What is different about a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, for which the Sages instituted marriage for them, and what is different about a mentally incompetent man and a mentally incompetent woman

for which the Sages did not institute marriage for them,

as we learned in a beraita?

As it was taught: If a mentally incompetent man or a minor married women and then died—

their wives are exempt from halitza and from yibbum,

because the marriage of a mentally incompetent man or a minor has no legal effect.

Rami bar Hama explains:

With regard to a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, where a rabbinic ordinance is viable,

that is, where the Sages’ ordinance instituting marriage for them can be sustained, since they can live together peacefully—whether they are both deaf-mutes, or the man is a deaf-mute and the woman is mentally competent, or the man is mentally competent and the woman is a deaf-mute—

the Sages instituted marriage for them.

But

with regard to a mentally incompetent man and a mentally incompetent woman, where a rabbinic ordinance is not viable,

since peace cannot exist between the couple even when only one of them is mentally incompetent, because

“A person does not live with a snake in a single basket”

within one container

—

the Sages did not institute

for them

marriage.

And what is different about a minor, for whom the Sages did not institute marriage, and

what is different

about a

deaf-mute,

for whom the Sages instituted marriage?

A deaf-mute, who will not come

and will never reach

the status of marriage

according to Torah law,

the Sages instituted

for him

marriage,

so that he would not be prevented from fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and from contributing to the settlement of the world.

But

a minor, who will reach the status of marriage

when he grows up and becomes a man—

the Sages did not institute marriage for him.

The Gemara challenges:

But what of a minor girl,

who has no father,

who will reach the status of marriage

when she grows up,

and

nevertheless

the Sages instituted

for her

marriage

while she is a minor, through her mother or brothers?

It answers:

There, the Sages instituted this arrangement so that she could be married

in order

that people would not treat her as ownerless property.

And what is different about a minor girl, who can exercise refusal,

thereby uprooting the marriage instituted for her by the Sages,

and what is different about a deaf-mute woman, who cannot exercise refusal,

but leaves only through a bill of divorce, by means of gestures?

For if so,

if a deaf-mute woman could exercise refusal forever—