Yevamot 113b — the Talmud in English

If it is not a clear mind,

that is, he cannot direct his mind as an able-minded person does, since his mind is always not clear.

And forever —

it is one and the same state of mind.

Or perhaps,

his mind is not fixed at all times.

Rather,

it is obvious to him

to Rabbi Elazar

that his mind

of a deaf-mute

is weak, and

it is also obvious to him that

it is not a clear mind.

And here, this is the reason,

that his teruma is doubtful,

since there are times when he is sound-minded,

at times he is sound in his mind, like an able-minded person,

and at times

he is

a fool.

And since the matter is doubtful as to when he is sound-minded and when he is a fool, one must be concerned lest he separated the teruma while he was sound-minded and able-minded. And likewise, when he betroths a woman, one must be concerned lest he betrothed her while he was sound-minded and able-minded.

What practical difference does it make —

to divorce

his

wife with a get.

If you say

that throughout all the deaf-mute’s life

it is one and the same state of mind —

just as betrothal, so divorce.

If his mind is a mind, his betrothals are betrothals by Torah law, and likewise his divorces. And if his mind is not a mind, his betrothals are by rabbinic law, like those of the Sages, and likewise his divorces.

And if you say that at times he is sound-minded and at times a fool

he is —

Betrothal —

he is able to betroth,

with uncertainty by Torah law.

Divorce —

he is not able to divorce,

for perhaps he betrothed her while he was sound-minded and able-minded, and now, when he comes to divorce, he is not of sound mind.

And the question is asked:

What,

what is Rabbi Elazar’s view regarding the betrothals of a deaf-mute and his divorces?

And we conclude:

teyku!

We learned in the Mishna: An able-minded man who married an able-minded woman and

she became a fool —

he may not divorce her!

Rabbi Yitzhak said: By Torah law —

a fool is divorced!

Since her mind is not required for divorce,

is it not

like

it was with an able-minded woman,

who is divorced

against her will,

without her consent.

And for what reason did they say

the Sages that the fool

is not divorced? —

In order

that people should not treat her

people

with an unrestrained manner,

since she is a fool.

And we inquire about it:

What are the circumstances of

this fool?

If you say

that it is speaking of a fool

who knows how to safeguard her get,

who accepts and safeguards it, and does not take it and throw it away,

and knows how to safeguard herself

as a divorced woman.

This is not possible, for in such a fool —

would people treat her

people

with an unrestrained manner,

when she knows how to safeguard herself!?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the Mishna is speaking of a type of fool

who does not know how to safeguard either her get or herself —

For it is not possible to say about such a fool

“By Torah law a fool is divorced”!

For —

But the school of Rabbi Yannai said:

The verse says

“And he shall place it in her hand” —

The verse teaches that only

one who has a hand with which to divorce herself

is divorced.

Excluded

is a fool

who has no hand with which to divorce herself,

for she does not know how to safeguard herself and her get.

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written in the passage of divorce

“And he shall send her from his house.”

The verse teaches that only

one whom he sends

from his house

and she does not return

to him is divorced.

Excluded

is a fool

such as this,

who does not know how to safeguard herself as a divorced woman,

whom he sends

from his house

and she returns

to him — and therefore her divorce is not a divorce!

And we answer:

It is necessary,

here it is speaking in a case

where she knows how to safeguard her get,

when she receives it,

but

however

she does not know how to safeguard herself

from other people.

And therefore,

by Torah law a fool is divorced —

for

since she

knows how to safeguard her get,

and understands what divorce is.

But

however,

the Rabbis said: He should not take her out,

that he should not send her from his house — in order

that people should not treat her with an unrestrained manner.

Abaye said: It is also precise

that it is speaking of a fool who knows how to safeguard her get, and therefore by Torah law she is divorced —

For it teaches concerning her,

with regard to a foolish woman:

She became a fool —

he may not divorce her.

But

if

concerning him,

with regard to a foolish man, it teaches: He became a fool —

he may never divorce her.

And Abaye infers:

What is different here,

with regard to the husband who became a fool,

that it teaches

he may not divorce her

ever.

And what is different there,

with regard to the woman who became a fool,

that it does not teach

he may not divorce her

ever?

Rather, infer from it: This one,

where the man became a fool, is speaking of one who is entirely a fool, who does not divorce by

Torah law

and he may never take her out.

This one,

where the woman became a fool, is speaking of one who is not divorced only

by rabbinic law,

since she is not a complete fool, but rather understands her divorce, and therefore it is impossible to say concerning her that he may never take her out.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:

For what reason does the woman who became deaf go out, whereas the man who became deaf does not divorce?

They raised a dilemma before them:

Did

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, regarding a man

who is a deaf-mute —

find it obvious

that he does not divorce.

And regarding a woman

who is a deaf-mute —

it was a question for him

why she goes out.

Or perhaps, regarding a woman

who is a deaf-mute,

it was obvious to him

that she goes out.

And regarding a man

who is a deaf-mute —

it was a question for him

why he does not divorce.

And the Gemara resolves the dilemma:

ta shma

from the response of the Sages in our Mishna:

Since they said to him

the Sages in answer to his question:

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

because

the woman goes out willingly and unwillingly, but

whereas

the man takes out only willingly —

Infer from it

that concerning

a man

who is a deaf-mute,

it was a question for him, why

he does not divorce.

For if he had been asking the reason why a woman goes out, they would have needed to say to him: Because the woman is not comparable to the man.

And the Gemara raises an objection to this proof:

On the contrary, since they said to him

the Sages:

Even this one,

a woman who is a deaf-mute,

is like her,

like an able-minded woman who is divorced without her consent —

Infer from it —

a woman

who is a deaf-mute,

it was a question for him

why she goes out!

Rather,

the Gemara explains another explanation:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri —

according to their words

of the Sages

he said to them:

According to my view, just as a man is unable to divorce —

a woman also is not divorced.

But according to your view, what is different about a woman, and what is different about a man?

And concerning this they answered him that a distinction must be made between a woman and a man, and

they said to him: The man who divorces is not comparable to the woman who is divorced,

and they brought proof for this from an able-minded woman who goes out without her consent.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yohanan testified

ben Gudgada concerning a woman who is a deaf-mute, whom her father married off, that she goes out with a get.

Rava said: From the testimony of Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada

who says that even where there are complete betrothals by Torah law, a man can divorce his wife even when she is not competent-minded, we can learn that if

a man said

a man

to the witnesses: See this get that I am giving

to my wife, and afterward turned to the woman,

and said to her: Take this debt document,

and gave her the get, while she thought that it was a debt document and did not know that she was being divorced with it,

she is divorced.

For this situation is certainly no better than a deaf-mute woman who is divorced without understanding what divorce is and what the get is, and the proof is —

Who

whether

did Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada not say

that

we do not

require her consent,

in the case of a deaf-mute woman;

here too, we do not require consent.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious

that this is the law according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada, for this is the foundation of his law, that the woman’s consent is not required at all for her divorce!

And it answers:

Lest you say,

perhaps you will say,

since he said to her, “Take this debt document” —

he entirely nullified it

his divorce, for he regretted it.

He teaches us

that

if it were so that he had nullified it

the get — then

to the witnesses,

to whom he had previously said that he was about to divorce her with this get,

he would have said to them

that he was retracting.

And since he did not say to the witnesses

that he was retracting —

he did not nullify it

his divorce,

and nothing

[and nothing at all. For one cannot say otherwise].

And this that he said

to his wife

this way [take this debt document] —

because of embarrassment [the embarrassment that he feels before her because he is divorcing her],

he is saying to her

this way.

he is saying to her

this way.

And from this point the Gemara deals with the subject of a minor eating carrion, which it began to explain on the previous side.

Rav Yitzhak bar Bisna lost

there were lost to him

the keys of the beit-midrash, in the public domain —

on Shabbat.

He came before Rabbi Pedat

to ask him what to do: