Yevamot 112b — the Talmud in English

They request

of him to perform halitza;

it should have said

“the tanna says, 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 her vow during her husband’s lifetime, they request of the yavam to perform halitza, but they do not compel him to do so”!?

And the Gemara rejects Abaye’s proof from our Mishna in support of Rav—

Here,

in our Mishna, which said “they compel” and did not say “they request,”

with what are we dealing—

with a woman who has sons

from her husband,

for she does not entertain all this in her mind,

that her sons might die during her husband’s lifetime, and she might fall to yibum when her husband dies after the death of her sons.

Therefore, when she makes herself forbidden by vow to her yavam during her husband’s lifetime, she does not intend thereby to prevent her yibum if her husband dies, and for this reason they compel the yavam to perform halitza for her.

But the Gemara upholds Abaye’s proof, and raises a difficulty against the rejection of the proof—

According to your words, that you established our Mishna specifically with a woman who has sons, this should be asked:

But

a woman who

does not have sons—

what—

They request

of him to perform halitza. But they do not compel him to perform halitza for her, because she entertains the possibility that she may fall to yibum, and she intended to forbid the yavam to herself so that she would not be taken to yibum with him.

And if so, this is difficult:

rather than teach

until the tanna makes a new distinction and says: “And

if she intended this,

to vow benefit forbidden from her yavam—

even

if she made this vow

during her husband’s lifetime,

only

they request of him that he perform halitza for her,

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

let him divide,

let the tanna make a distinction,

and teach,

and state this distinction

in her case,

in that same woman and in that same matter of which he is speaking, and let him make the distinction as follows:

In what case are these words said,

that they compel the yavam, whose yavamet vowed benefit forbidden from him during her husband’s lifetime, to perform halitza—

with

a woman

who has sons,

who does not entertain the possibility that her sons might die during her husband’s lifetime and that she might fall to yibum.

But

with a woman who

does not have sons,

and who vowed benefit forbidden from her yavam, as she entertains the possibility that her husband might die and that she might fall to yibum, and by her vow intends to prevent the yibum—

they request

of 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 this distinction,

infer from it

that

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

they compel him

to perform halitza for her, because at the time of her vow she does not entertain the possibility that she might fall to yibum.

And

like Rav,

who said this.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it!

We shall return to you, chapter Beit Shammai

See the introductory remarks for this chapter, in the first note. The Mishna before us is divided into four parts: the first part deals with the laws of marriage and divorce of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, whereas the other three parts deal with the laws of yibbum and chalitza of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman.

The

first part

explains the laws of

marriage and divorce

for

one couple,

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

The

second part

deals with matters of

yibbum and chalitza

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

two brothers

married to two sisters or two unrelated women, where the brothers were deaf-mute or their wives were deaf-mute.

It speaks specifically of a situation in which the marriages of the two brothers were

equal,

for both were married only by rabbinic law, and neither of them had an acquisition according to Torah law.

The

third part

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

two brothers married to two sisters in a different manner,

where one brother was married according to Torah law—he was intellectually capable and his wife was also intellectually capable—whereas the other brother was married by rabbinic law.

The Mishna explains the three situations in which the second brother is married by rabbinic law: either he and his wife were deaf-mutes, or he was a deaf-mute and his wife was intellectually capable, or he was intellectually capable and his wife was a deaf-mute.

The

fourth part

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

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

unrelated women,

and not to two sisters.

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

Mishna:

The first part —

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

1.

A deaf-mute man who married an intellectually capable woman,

with the betrothal that the Sages instituted for him,

and an intellectually capable man who married a deaf-mute woman,

with the betrothal that the Sages instituted for her —

If he wishes to remove

his wife with a bill of divorce —

he shall remove her,

for the Sages instituted that even a deaf-mute man could remove his wife with a bill of divorce, from the marriage that the Sages instituted for her.

And if he wishes to retain

her under him —

he shall retain her.

marries

The Mishna explains how the intellectually capable man betroths a deaf-mute woman, and how the deaf-mute man divorces an intellectually capable woman —

Just as he,

the deaf-mute man who married an intellectually capable woman or the intellectually capable man who married a deaf-mute woman,

brings into marriage

his wife

by gestures,

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

so he removes

her with a bill of divorce, which he gives her

by gestures,

gesturing to her with his finger that his intention is to divorce her by giving the bill of divorce.

That is, their betrothal and divorce are equal when one of the spouses is a deaf-mute: in both cases the matter is done by gestures.

b. An intellectually capable man who betrothed his wife when she was intellectually capable, and

she became deaf-mute

while under him —

he shall remove her

with a bill of divorce, if he wishes, because for a bill of divorce only the husband’s understanding is required, and not the woman’s understanding.

But if he betrothed her when she was intellectually capable, and

she became insane

while under him —

he shall not remove her!

Since the Sages instituted that he should leave her under him, so that people should not treat her licentiously on account of her being insane.

But if he betrothed a woman while he was intellectually capable, and afterward

he became deaf-mute or became insane —

he can never remove her!

Since his divorce, when he is deaf-mute or insane and thus lacks understanding, cannot remove her from his complete betrothal, which he made with her while he was intellectually capable.

c.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:

He asked:

Why does the woman who became deaf-mute

after her marriage

leave, whereas

if

the man became deaf-mute

after he married a woman,

he cannot remove

her?

They said to him,

the Sages:

The man who divorces is not comparable to the woman who is divorced —

because

the woman leaves willingly or unwillingly.

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

But

the

man removes her only willingly.

And the will of a deaf-mute is not considered will, since his understanding is not complete understanding.

d.

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

when she was a minor, whose betrothal by her father is according to Torah law,

that she leaves through a bill of divorce

even after she grew up and left her father’s authority with regard to receiving her bill of divorce, and she receives her bill of divorce herself [and while she was a minor, her father received her bill of divorce for her].

They said to him,

the Sages:

Even this one,

an intellectually capable woman who married and became deaf-mute,

is like her,

for she can receive her bill of divorce, since the divorce does not depend on her will.

The second part —

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

Two deaf-mute brothers

who were

married to two intellectually capable sisters, or to two deaf-mute sisters, or to two sisters —

one intellectually capable and one deaf-mute.

And the marriages of the two brothers are equal, since both are deaf-mutes, and they bring their wives into marriage by gestures, whether the woman was intellectually capable or whether she was a deaf-mute.

And likewise two deaf-mute sisters

who were

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

Here too, the marriages of the two sisters are equal, since both are married by gestures, whether the husband was intellectually capable or whether he was a deaf-mute.

And one of the brothers died —

Behold these,

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

exempt from chalitza and from yibbum,

as is the law of a wife’s sister. For the betrothals of both are equal, as they are rabbinic; 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

the two women

unrelated

to one another, who were not sisters and do not leave by the law of a wife’s sister, the yavamim shall not perform chalitza for them. For if he is a deaf-mute, he is not fit for chalitza, and if she is a deaf-mute, she is not fit for chalitza, since they cannot read the verses that they are obligated to read during chalitza.

Rather,

they shall bring them into marriage,

the yavamim, since here the two women are unrelated to one another and do not leave on account of a wife’s sister.

And if they wished,

the yavamim, after they brought them into marriage,

to remove

them —

they shall remove them with a bill of divorce by gestures!

can occur in three ways:

The third part —

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

in a different manner —

where one brother was married according to Torah law, because he was intellectually capable and his wife was intellectually capable, while the other brother was married by rabbinic law.

And the marriage of

the second brother by rabbinic law

can occur in three ways:

a. He is a deaf-mute and his wife is intellectually capable.

b. He is intellectually capable and his wife is a deaf-mute.

c. Both of them are deaf-mutes.

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

Two brothers, one a deaf-mute and one intellectually capable,

who were

married to two intellectually capable sisters,

and

the deaf-mute, husband of the intellectually capable woman, died,

who had been married by rabbinic law.

What shall the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, do

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

He shall do nothing. Rather,

she shall leave,

his brother’s wife’s sister according to Torah law, without chalitza,

because of

the forbidden relation of

a wife’s sister,

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

But if

the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, died —

what shall the deaf-mute man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, do,

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

He removes his wife with a bill of divorce,

because she is forbidden to him as the sister of his bound woman, for her sister falls before him according to Torah law.

And his brother’s wife is forbidden

to him

forever,

since he cannot perform yibbum with her because she is his wife’s sister by rabbinic law. Nor can he perform chalitza for her, since a deaf-mute man has no power to perform chalitza.

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

Two intellectually capable brothers

who were

married to two sisters, one a deaf-mute,

whose betrothal is by rabbinic law,

and one intellectually capable,

whose betrothal is according to Torah law.

The intellectually capable man, husband of the deaf-mute, died —

what shall the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable 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 shall do nothing. Rather,

she shall leave

his brother’s wife without chalitza,

because of

the forbidden relation of

a wife’s sister,

according to Torah law. And his wife is not the sister of his bound woman, since there is no bond with a forbidden relation.

And if

the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, died —

what shall the intellectually capable man, 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 his bound woman according to Torah law? —

He has no remedy by which to leave his wife with him; rather,

he removes his wife with a bill of divorce

because she is forbidden to him by the prohibition of the sister of his bound woman,

and his brother’s wife

he removes

through chalitza

according to Torah law; he shall not perform yibbum with her, because 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 intellectually capable and one a deaf-mute,

who were

married to two sisters —

one intellectually capable and one a deaf-mute.

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

and the deaf-mute woman fell for yibbum before the intellectually capable man married to the intellectually capable woman.

What shall the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, do

with his yevama and with his wife? —

He does nothing. Rather,

she shall leave

the deaf-mute woman without chalitza,

because of a wife’s sister.

As is the law of a forbidden relation who falls for yibbum, and his wife is permitted to him, since she is not the sister of his bound woman.

But if

the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, died,

and the intellectually capable woman fell before the deaf-mute man, who is not fit for chalitza because he cannot read —

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

He removes

the deaf-mute man

his wife

the deaf-mute woman

with a bill of divorce,

because she is forbidden to him as the sister of his bound woman.

But

if

his brother’s wife,

the intellectually capable woman who falls before him for yibbum,

is forbidden

to him

forever!

For he cannot perform chalitza for her, since he is a deaf-mute and is not capable of reading.

And he cannot bring her into marriage and afterward remove her with a bill of divorce, because he has partial betrothal with his deaf-mute wife by rabbinic law, and by virtue of this her sister is forbidden to him as a wife’s sister. And even after he divorces his wife, she continues to be forbidden to him like the sister of his divorced wife.

The fourth part —

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

unrelated [

and not sisters as in the preceding part], in a different manner: one brother was married according to Torah law, being an intellectually capable man married to an intellectually capable woman, and the second brother was married by rabbinic law.

Here too, there are three ways in which the second brother is married by rabbinic law: either the brother was a deaf-mute and his wife was intellectually capable, or the brother was intellectually capable and his wife was a deaf-mute, or both of them were deaf-mutes.

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

Two brothers, one a deaf-mute and one intellectually capable,

who were

married to two intellectually capable unrelated women.

The deaf-mute, husband of the intellectually capable woman, died —

what shall the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, do

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

Either he performs chalitza or he performs yibbum.

And if

the intellectually capable man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, died —

what shall the deaf-mute man, husband of the intellectually capable woman, do

with his yevama, who falls before him according to Torah law, for he cannot perform chalitza for her since he cannot read? —

He brings her into marriage,

her,

and he does not remove

her

ever,

since the yibbum of the deaf-mute man cannot remove his brother’s bond, and his bill of divorce cannot permit her to the public without chalitza, while he cannot perform chalitza because he cannot read at the time of chalitza.

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

Two competent brothers

who were

married to two

women

unrelated to one another,

that is, not sisters — one woman

competent, and

one woman

a deaf-mute woman.

And

the competent brother, the husband of the deaf-mute woman, died,

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

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 chalitza for her, because she is not capable of reciting?

He takes

the deaf-mute woman in yibbum.

And

then,

if he wishes

he

to divorce

her with a bill of divorce —

he shall divorce her

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

And if

the

brother,

the competent husband

of the

competent woman,

died, and the competent woman fell before the brother married to the deaf-mute woman,

what shall the competent man married to the deaf-mute woman do?

Either he performs chalitza or he performs yibbum

with the competent woman.

The third arrangement — the second brother and his wife, both of them are deaf-mutes.

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

who were

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

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

what shall the competent man married to the competent woman do

with his yevama?

He takes

her in yibbum, but he cannot release her through chalitza, because she is a deaf-mute woman and cannot recite.

And if

after he took her in yibbum

he wished to release

her with a bill of divorce —

he releases

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

The competent husband of the competent woman died —

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

with his yevama מן התורה?

He takes her in yibbum,

because he cannot perform chalitza, since he is a deaf-mute and cannot recite.

And he does not release

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman do not perform chalitza, and it follows that even though the deaf-mute is not capable of understanding and מן התורה his acquisition is not an acquisition, nevertheless they have betrothal and marriage, and falling for yibbum, by rabbinic enactment, except that they do not perform chalitza.

Rami bar Hama said: What is different about a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, that the Sages enacted marriage for them, and what is different about a shoteh and a shoteh —

that the Sages did not enact marriage for them,

as we learned in a beraita.

For it was taught: A shoteh and a minor who married women, and died —

their wives are exempt from chalitza and from yibbum,

because the marriages of a shoteh and a minor are nothing.

And Rami bar Hama explains:

A deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, for whom a rabbinic enactment can stand,

that is, the Sages’ enactment that they should be married can be maintained, since they can live together peacefully, whether they were a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, a deaf-mute man and a competent woman, or a competent man and a deaf-mute woman —

the Sages enacted marriage for them.

But

a shoteh and a shoteh, for whom a rabbinic enactment cannot stand,

since peace cannot exist between the couple even if only one of them is a shoteh, because

“a person does not dwell with a snake in one basket

inside one basket

alone” —

the Sages did not enact

for them

marriage.

And what is different about a minor, that the Sages did not enact marriage for him, and

what is different

about a deaf-mute,

that

the Sages enacted marriage for him?

A deaf-mute, who will not come

— who will never reach

the status of marriage

the Sages enacted

for him

marriage,

so that he would not be prevented from procreation and from 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 enact marriage.

The Gemara raises an objection:

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 enacted

for her

marriage

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

And it answers:

There,

the Sages enacted for her that they could marry her off in order

that people should not treat her as ownerless property.

And what is different about a minor girl, who can perform mi'un,

and uproot the marriage that the Sages enacted for her,

and what is different about a deaf-mute woman, who cannot perform mi'un

but leaves through a bill of divorce, by gestures?

For if so,

if a deaf-mute woman could perform mi'un forever —