Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 22, 2015 | 讘壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 110

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讚讘注诇 讗讬 讚讘注诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽住讘专 讻诇 讛讘讜注诇 注诇 讚注转 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

What, is it not a case where he did not have intercourse with her after she reached majority? If so, Rav thinks that even when he did not have intercourse with her, her marriage is fully realized once she reaches majority. The Gemara rejects this: No, this is referring to a case where he did have intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: If it is referring to a case where he had intercourse with her, what is Shmuel鈥檚 reasoning? If the first one engaged in intercourse with her after she reached majority, then the marriage was fully realized. Under such circumstances, the second betrothal would not take effect. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds that when anyone has sexual intercourse with a woman he married as a minor, his intention is that the intercourse is within the framework established by the initial betrothal and is not a new act of acquisition.

讜讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讬转诪专 拽讚砖讛 注诇 转谞讗讬 讜讻谞住讛 住转诐 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟

The Gemara asks: But if this is the basis of the dispute, they already disagreed about this once, as it was stated with regard to the following case: A man betrothed a woman on some condition, and married her without mentioning the condition, and the condition was not fulfilled. Rav says: She requires a bill of divorce from him, and Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him.

专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讻讬讜谉 讚谞住讘讛 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讻诇 讛讘讜注诇 注诇 讚注转 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

The Gemara explains: Rav says she requires a bill of divorce from him, for since he married her, he apparently retracted his condition, and is therefore married to her even though the condition was not met. And Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him, because anyone who has sexual intercourse with his wife, his intention is that the intercourse is within the framework established by the initial betrothal and the condition he set at the time of betrothal still stands. Since it was not fulfilled, the marriage is annulled. If so, Rav and Shmuel already disagreed about this same issue.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 转谞讗讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讗讞诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state the dispute in both contexts, for if only that halakha about conditional betrothal was stated, one might think: In this case Rav says she needs a divorce since there is a condition with regard to the betrothal, but when he had intercourse with her, he retracted the condition. But in this case of betrothal to a minor, say that Rav would concede to Shmuel that the intercourse was not performed with the intention of it constituting a full betrothal. And if only this case of betrothal to a minor was stated, one might think: Shmuel said that the marriage is effective in this case of betrothal to a minor, but in that case of a conditional betrothal, say that he would concede to Rav. Therefore, it was necessary to state the dispute explicitly in both instances.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讛讗 讛讛讬讗 注讜讘讚讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谞专砖 讜讗讬拽讚讬砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讙讚诇讛 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讗讘讬 讻讜专住讬讬讗 讜讗转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讞讟驻讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞谞谞讗诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讛讜讜 讛转诐 讜诇讗 讛爪专讬讻讜讛 讙讬讟讗 诪讘转专讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rav actually say that when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, yes, the original marriage is valid, and if he did not have intercourse with her, no, it is not valid? Wasn鈥檛 there an incident in the city of Neresh where a woman was betrothed when she was a minor, and she reached majority, and the husband seated her in a bridal chair under the marriage canopy and had not yet had intercourse with her, and another man came and seized her from him and married her? And Rav Bruna and Rav 岣nanel, the students of Rav, were there and they did not require her to receive a bill of divorce from the latter husband. Presumably, they regarded her as fully married to the first husband, so the marriage to the second marriage never took effect, despite the fact that the first marriage had not yet been consummated.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘谞专砖 诪讬谞住讘 谞住讬讘讬 讜讛讚专 诪讜转讘讬 讗讘讬 讻讜专住讬讬讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉 诇驻讬讻讱 注砖讜 讘讜 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Pappa said: There is a difference, because in Neresh their practice is to first marry a woman and have intercourse with her, and afterward they seat her in the bridal chair. In this incident, the husband had already had intercourse with her once she was an adult, and that is why Rav鈥檚 students did not require a bill of divorce from the second man. Rav Ashi says: There was a different reason, even if the practice was not as Rav Pappa describes. This bride snatcher acted improperly. Consequently, they treated him improperly by annulling the legal validity of his actions, and the Sages abrogated his betrothal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well if the second man betrothed her with money, as then the Sages could declare that money to be ownerless property and void the betrothal. If he betrothed her by means of intercourse, what is the halakha? How can the Sages dissolve the betrothal when the sexual act took place? The Gemara answers: The Sages rendered his sexual act a licentious sexual act, which does not create a bond of betrothal. With regard to the dispute in the mishna, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and the minor is instructed to make a declaration of refusal. Likewise, Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 诇砖转讬 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讜诪转 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛诐 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讞专砖讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

MISHNA: If a man was married to two orphaned minors and died, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza with one of them exempts her rival wife from either levirate marriage or 岣litza, rendering her free to remarry. Likewise, if two deaf-mutes were married to one man who died, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza with one of them exempts her rival wife. In both of these cases, both women are married by rabbinic law and consequently become yevamot by rabbinic law. Since their statuses are equal, one can exempt the other. If one wife is a minor and the other is a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Although both women are married by rabbinic law, their statuses are not the same and one cannot exempt the other.

驻拽讞转 讜讞专砖转 讘讬讗转 讛驻拽讞转 驻讜讟专转 讛讞专砖转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讛讞专砖转 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讛驻拽讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讘讬讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 驻讜讟专转 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 驻讜讟专转 讛讙讚讜诇讛

If one of them was halakhically competent and one was a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage with the halakhically competent wife exempts the deaf-mute, as the halakhically competent women鈥檚 marriage and levirate marriage are by Torah law. But consummation of levirate marriage with the deaf-mute does not exempt the halakhically competent wife. Likewise, if one was an adult woman and one a minor girl, consummation of levirate marriage with the adult exempts the minor but consummation of levirate marriage with the minor does not exempt the adult.

讙诪壮 讜讞专砖转 讘转 讞诇讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讞专砖 砖谞讞诇抓 讜讞专砖转 砖讞诇爪讛 讜讞讜诇爪转 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 驻住讜诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna states that 岣litza by one deaf-mute exempts the other. The Gemara asks: Can a deaf-mute perform 岣litza? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (104b): If a male deaf-mute performs 岣litza, and if a female deaf-mute performs 岣litza, and if a woman performs 岣litza on a minor boy, her 岣litza is disqualified?

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讬讗讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞诇讬爪讛 讻讗谉 讘讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讗谉 讘驻拽讞转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讛

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a deaf-mute鈥檚 岣litza, but rather to consummation of levirate marriage with one of the deaf-mutes. Rava said: You can even say it is referring to 岣litza. Here, the mishna is referring to a woman who was a deaf-mute from the outset, when he married her, and there the mishna that disqualifies the 岣litza is referring to someone who was halakhically competent when she was married and afterward became a deaf-mute.

讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚注诇 讛讻讬 谞驻拽 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讛 诇讗 讚诪注讻讘讗 讘讛 拽专讬讬讛

The difference is that a deaf-mute from the outset, just as she entered into marriage with her first husband so she leaves the levirate bond by means of 岣litza. Both her marriage and her status as a yevama are by rabbinic law. However, one who was halakhically competent, so that she was married by Torah law, and later became a deaf-mute, no, she cannot be released by 岣litza, since recitation is indispensable for her 岣litza, and she cannot recite the text that a yevama must recite.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讘转 讞诇讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讞专砖 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 诪转 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讻讜谞住 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗

Abaye raised an objection to this: And is one who is a deaf-mute from the outset a candidate for 岣litza? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 112b): Two brothers, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute, are married to two unrelated women, one who is halakhically competent and one deaf-mute. If the male deaf-mute, who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, dies, what should the halakhically competent man, who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman, do? He may consummate the levirate marriage, but there is no option of performing 岣litza. And if he wants to divorce her later, he may divorce her.

诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 讻讜谞住 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讻讜谞住 讗讬谉

If the halakhically competent man, husband of the halakhically competent woman, dies, what should the male deaf-mute, who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, do? He may consummate the levirate marriage, but he may never divorce her, as a deaf-mute is not halakhically competent to divorce a woman to whom he is married by Torah law. What, is it not referring to a deaf-mute from the outset? And it is taught: Yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage,

讞讜诇抓 诇讗 诇讗 讘驻拽讞转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讛

but no, he may not perform 岣litza. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a halakhically competent woman who later became a deaf-mute, and 岣litza performed by a deaf-mute does not have the power to undo a levirate bond that is valid by Torah law.

转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讛讞专砖转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讻讜谞住 讜讗诐 专讜爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讞专砖转 讗讜 讞讜诇抓 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诐

Come and hear proof from a baraita: Two halakhically competent brothers are married to two unrelated women, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute. If the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, dies, what should the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman do? He consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, and if he later wishes to divorce her, he may divorce her. But if the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman dies, what should the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the female deaf-mute do? He may either perform 岣litza or consummate the levirate marriage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讛讜讗 驻拽讞 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讬讗 谞诪讬 讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讻讜谞住 讗讬谉 讞讜诇抓 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

What, is it not the case in this baraita that since he is halakhically competent from the outset, one may presume that she is a deaf-mute from the outset as well? And it is taught yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage with the yevama who is a deaf-mute, but no, he may not perform 岣litza to her, thereby indicating that 岣litza cannot be performed even though as a deaf-mute from the outset, she is a yevama by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, i.e., the husband is competent throughout, and that case is as it is, i.e., the wife was not a deaf-mute at the outset.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讞专砖 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 诪转 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

The Gemara raised an objection to this from a mishna (Yevamot 112b): Two brothers, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute, are married to two sisters, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute. If the male deaf-mute who is the husband of the female deaf-mute dies, what shall the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman do? The female deaf-mute leaves and is exempt from levirate marriage due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of one鈥檚 wife.

诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讗住讜专讛 诇注讜诇诐

If the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman dies, what should the male deaf-mute who is the husband of the female deaf-mute do? He releases his wife, the female deaf-mute, with a bill of divorce, and his brother鈥檚 wife is forbidden forever and may never remarry. He cannot remain married because his wife is the sister of his yevama by Torah law. He cannot consummate the levirate marriage with her because she is the sister of his ex-wife. Apparently, 岣litza is not an option because he is a deaf-mute, and his 岣litza cannot dissolve a levirate bond that is established by Torah law.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘驻拽讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 讜讛转谞谉 谞转讞专砖讛 讬讜爪讬讗 谞砖转讟讬转 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 谞转讞专砖 讛讜讗 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 注讜诇诪讬转

And if you would say: Here, too, it is referring to a man who was halakhically competent and later became a deaf-mute, can such a person divorce his wife? Didn鈥檛 we learn the following in the mishna (112b): If a halakhically competent man married a halakhically competent woman and she became a deaf-mute, he may divorce her; if she became mentally incompetent, he may not divorce her, because of a rabbinic ordinance to protect her from harm. If he himself became a deaf-mute or became mentally incompetent, he may never divorce her. Since he was competent when he married her, he cannot dissolve a marriage that is by Torah law when he is incompetent.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讚讛讜讗 讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讬讗 谞诪讬 讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讚讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讻专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜转谞谉 讙讘讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讻讜谞住 讗讬谉 讞讜诇抓 诇讗 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rather, is it not referring to a male who was deaf-mute from the outset? And since he was a deaf-mute from the outset, she was also a deaf-mute from the outset. And since the sisters in these cases were deaf-mutes from the outset, then the unrelated women were also deaf-mutes from the outset, and we learned in the mishna with regard to the unrelated women that yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage with them, but no, he may not perform 岣litza. When this question was presented to Rabba, he was silent and had no response.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转讜转讘讬讛 诪讛讗 讚讬讻讜诇 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讱 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讻专讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讜

When Abaye came before Rav Yosef and told him of the matter, Rav Yosef said to him: What is the reason that you raised an objection to him based on this? For he could teach, i.e., explain to you, as follows: The sisters the mishna referred to were deaf-mutes at the outset, whereas the unrelated women it referred to were halakhically competent women who later became deaf-mutes.

讗诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗讜转讘讬讛 诪讛讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讞专砖讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 讗讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 讗讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 谞砖讜讗讜转 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 讗讜 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讞专砖讬谉 讗讜 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讞专砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讻专讬讜转 讬讻谞讜住讜 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗讜

Rather, you should have raised an objection to him from this mishna (112b): In the cases of two deaf-mute brothers married to two halakhically competent sisters or to two deaf-mute sisters or to two sisters, one halakhically competent and one a deaf-mute; and likewise, two deaf-mute sisters married to two halakhically competent brothers or to two deaf-mute brothers or to two brothers, one halakhically competent and one a deaf-mute, all these women are exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage in the event of the death of one of the brothers while childless. And if, in these cases, the women were unrelated to one another, the surviving brothers should consummate levirate marriage with them, and if they wish to divorce them subsequently, they may divorce them.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘驻拽讞讬诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转讞专砖讜 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪驻拽讬 讜讛转谞谉 谞砖转讟讬转 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 谞转讞专砖 讛讜讗 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 注讜诇诪讬转

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say the mishna is referring to men who were halakhically competent and later became deaf-mutes, then in that case can they release them? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (112b): If she became mentally incompetent, he may not divorce her; if he became a deaf-mute or mentally incompetent, he may never divorce her?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讞专砖讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讚讛谉 讞专砖讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讻专讬讜转 讬讻谞讜住讜 讬讻谞讜住讜 讗讬谉 讬讞诇爪讜 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 转讬讜讘转讗

Rather, is it not referring to men who were deaf-mutes at the outset? And since they were deaf-mutes at the outset, the women were also deaf-mutes at the outset, and it is taught there: If, in these cases, they were unrelated to one another, the surviving brothers should consummate levirate marriage with them. This implies: Yes, they should consummate levirate marriage with them, but no, they should not perform 岣litza. From this conclusion is apparent that a female deaf-mute may not perform 岣litza; the refutation of the opinion of Rabba is a conclusive refutation.

拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜诇专讘 讞谞讗 讞转谞讬讛 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽诪拽讜讜 讗拽讜讜转讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讗诪专讬 讛讗 讚转谞谉 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讗讞讬讜 驻拽讞 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讘拽讟谞讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讞专砖转 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one wife is a minor and the other is a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza of the yavam with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Rav Na岣an said: I found Rav Adda bar Ahava and Rav 岣na his son-in-law sitting and posing challenges [kamakvu akvata] to one another in the marketplace of Pumbedita, and saying as follows: That which we learned in the mishna, that in the case of a minor and a deaf-mute, the consummation of levirate marriage with one of them does not exempt her rival wife, applies when she happened before him for levirate marriage as the widow of his halakhically competent brother. Under such circumstances, we do not know if the minor was preferable to the brother who married her initially, or if the deaf-mute was preferable to him.

讗讬 讘拽讟谞讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讻诇诇 讚讬注讛 讗讬 讘讞专砖转 谞讬讞讗 讚讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜讘转 讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞驻诇讛 诪讗讞讬讜 讞专砖 讜讚讗讬 讘讞专砖转 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚讘转 讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讘转 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: They wondered if the minor was preferable to him, since she eventually would have come to full intellectual capacity when she reached majority, or if the deaf-mute was preferable, since she is an adult and she is suitable for sexual intercourse. Given the uncertainty, it cannot be determined whose initial marriage was more complete and therefore the levirate marriage of one of them cannot exempt her rival wife. However, if she happened before him for levirate marriage as the widow of his brother who was deaf-mute, certainly the female deaf-mute was preferable to him, as she was suitable for sexual intercourse and was of his kind, and therefore the marriage to her was more complete.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讗讞讬讜 讞专砖 谞诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

And I, Rav Na岣an, said to them: Even if she happened before him as the widow of his brother who was deaf-mute, it is still uncertain, because the difference between the marriage of a minor and a deaf-mute in this case is independent of the original husband鈥檚 preferences. They are different types of relationships.

讻讬爪讚 转拽谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讜谞住 讛讞专砖转 讜诪讜爪讬讗讛 讘讙讟 讜拽讟谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓

The Gemara asks: How can their situation be rectified, so that they can remarry? Rav 岣sda said that Rav said: He consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute and then releases her by means of a bill of divorce. He cannot stay married to her because the subsequent 岣litza of the minor will disqualify her as the rival wife of his yevama who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza]. The minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform 岣litza.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 讞专砖转 讗诪讗讬 讻讜谞住 讜诪讜爪讬讗讛 讘讙讟

Rav 岣sda said: Learn from this statement that Rav holds that a married deaf-mute is partially acquired, and a minor is either acquired or not acquired, i.e., there is uncertainty as to whether she was acquired completely or not acquired at all. For if it enters your mind to say the opposite, that the deaf-mute is either acquired or not acquired, while the minor is partially acquired, then with regard to the deaf-mute woman, why should he consummate the levirate marriage and then release her with a bill of divorce?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yevamot 110: When Kidnapping a Bride Doesn’t Work

How to change a rabbinic kiddushin to a Torah-level kiddushin? Plus, a story of kidnapping, essentially, from the moment of...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 13: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For previous...

Yevamot 110

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 110

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讚讘注诇 讗讬 讚讘注诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽住讘专 讻诇 讛讘讜注诇 注诇 讚注转 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

What, is it not a case where he did not have intercourse with her after she reached majority? If so, Rav thinks that even when he did not have intercourse with her, her marriage is fully realized once she reaches majority. The Gemara rejects this: No, this is referring to a case where he did have intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: If it is referring to a case where he had intercourse with her, what is Shmuel鈥檚 reasoning? If the first one engaged in intercourse with her after she reached majority, then the marriage was fully realized. Under such circumstances, the second betrothal would not take effect. The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds that when anyone has sexual intercourse with a woman he married as a minor, his intention is that the intercourse is within the framework established by the initial betrothal and is not a new act of acquisition.

讜讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讬转诪专 拽讚砖讛 注诇 转谞讗讬 讜讻谞住讛 住转诐 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟

The Gemara asks: But if this is the basis of the dispute, they already disagreed about this once, as it was stated with regard to the following case: A man betrothed a woman on some condition, and married her without mentioning the condition, and the condition was not fulfilled. Rav says: She requires a bill of divorce from him, and Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him.

专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讻讬讜谉 讚谞住讘讛 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讻诇 讛讘讜注诇 注诇 讚注转 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

The Gemara explains: Rav says she requires a bill of divorce from him, for since he married her, he apparently retracted his condition, and is therefore married to her even though the condition was not met. And Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him, because anyone who has sexual intercourse with his wife, his intention is that the intercourse is within the framework established by the initial betrothal and the condition he set at the time of betrothal still stands. Since it was not fulfilled, the marriage is annulled. If so, Rav and Shmuel already disagreed about this same issue.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 转谞讗讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讗讞诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state the dispute in both contexts, for if only that halakha about conditional betrothal was stated, one might think: In this case Rav says she needs a divorce since there is a condition with regard to the betrothal, but when he had intercourse with her, he retracted the condition. But in this case of betrothal to a minor, say that Rav would concede to Shmuel that the intercourse was not performed with the intention of it constituting a full betrothal. And if only this case of betrothal to a minor was stated, one might think: Shmuel said that the marriage is effective in this case of betrothal to a minor, but in that case of a conditional betrothal, say that he would concede to Rav. Therefore, it was necessary to state the dispute explicitly in both instances.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬 讘注诇 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诇讗 讛讗 讛讛讬讗 注讜讘讚讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谞专砖 讜讗讬拽讚讬砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讜讙讚诇讛 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讗讘讬 讻讜专住讬讬讗 讜讗转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讞讟驻讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞谞谞讗诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讛讜讜 讛转诐 讜诇讗 讛爪专讬讻讜讛 讙讬讟讗 诪讘转专讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rav actually say that when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, yes, the original marriage is valid, and if he did not have intercourse with her, no, it is not valid? Wasn鈥檛 there an incident in the city of Neresh where a woman was betrothed when she was a minor, and she reached majority, and the husband seated her in a bridal chair under the marriage canopy and had not yet had intercourse with her, and another man came and seized her from him and married her? And Rav Bruna and Rav 岣nanel, the students of Rav, were there and they did not require her to receive a bill of divorce from the latter husband. Presumably, they regarded her as fully married to the first husband, so the marriage to the second marriage never took effect, despite the fact that the first marriage had not yet been consummated.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘谞专砖 诪讬谞住讘 谞住讬讘讬 讜讛讚专 诪讜转讘讬 讗讘讬 讻讜专住讬讬讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗 注砖讛 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉 诇驻讬讻讱 注砖讜 讘讜 砖诇讗 讻讛讜讙谉 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Pappa said: There is a difference, because in Neresh their practice is to first marry a woman and have intercourse with her, and afterward they seat her in the bridal chair. In this incident, the husband had already had intercourse with her once she was an adult, and that is why Rav鈥檚 students did not require a bill of divorce from the second man. Rav Ashi says: There was a different reason, even if the practice was not as Rav Pappa describes. This bride snatcher acted improperly. Consequently, they treated him improperly by annulling the legal validity of his actions, and the Sages abrogated his betrothal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well if the second man betrothed her with money, as then the Sages could declare that money to be ownerless property and void the betrothal. If he betrothed her by means of intercourse, what is the halakha? How can the Sages dissolve the betrothal when the sexual act took place? The Gemara answers: The Sages rendered his sexual act a licentious sexual act, which does not create a bond of betrothal. With regard to the dispute in the mishna, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and the minor is instructed to make a declaration of refusal. Likewise, Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 诇砖转讬 讬转讜诪讜转 拽讟谞讜转 讜诪转 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛诐 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讞专砖讜转 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

MISHNA: If a man was married to two orphaned minors and died, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza with one of them exempts her rival wife from either levirate marriage or 岣litza, rendering her free to remarry. Likewise, if two deaf-mutes were married to one man who died, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza with one of them exempts her rival wife. In both of these cases, both women are married by rabbinic law and consequently become yevamot by rabbinic law. Since their statuses are equal, one can exempt the other. If one wife is a minor and the other is a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Although both women are married by rabbinic law, their statuses are not the same and one cannot exempt the other.

驻拽讞转 讜讞专砖转 讘讬讗转 讛驻拽讞转 驻讜讟专转 讛讞专砖转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讛讞专砖转 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讛驻拽讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讘讬讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 驻讜讟专转 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 驻讜讟专转 讛讙讚讜诇讛

If one of them was halakhically competent and one was a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage with the halakhically competent wife exempts the deaf-mute, as the halakhically competent women鈥檚 marriage and levirate marriage are by Torah law. But consummation of levirate marriage with the deaf-mute does not exempt the halakhically competent wife. Likewise, if one was an adult woman and one a minor girl, consummation of levirate marriage with the adult exempts the minor but consummation of levirate marriage with the minor does not exempt the adult.

讙诪壮 讜讞专砖转 讘转 讞诇讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讞专砖 砖谞讞诇抓 讜讞专砖转 砖讞诇爪讛 讜讞讜诇爪转 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 讞诇讬爪转讛 驻住讜诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna states that 岣litza by one deaf-mute exempts the other. The Gemara asks: Can a deaf-mute perform 岣litza? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (104b): If a male deaf-mute performs 岣litza, and if a female deaf-mute performs 岣litza, and if a woman performs 岣litza on a minor boy, her 岣litza is disqualified?

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讬讗讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞诇讬爪讛 讻讗谉 讘讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讗谉 讘驻拽讞转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讛

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a deaf-mute鈥檚 岣litza, but rather to consummation of levirate marriage with one of the deaf-mutes. Rava said: You can even say it is referring to 岣litza. Here, the mishna is referring to a woman who was a deaf-mute from the outset, when he married her, and there the mishna that disqualifies the 岣litza is referring to someone who was halakhically competent when she was married and afterward became a deaf-mute.

讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚注诇 讛讻讬 谞驻拽 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讛 诇讗 讚诪注讻讘讗 讘讛 拽专讬讬讛

The difference is that a deaf-mute from the outset, just as she entered into marriage with her first husband so she leaves the levirate bond by means of 岣litza. Both her marriage and her status as a yevama are by rabbinic law. However, one who was halakhically competent, so that she was married by Torah law, and later became a deaf-mute, no, she cannot be released by 岣litza, since recitation is indispensable for her 岣litza, and she cannot recite the text that a yevama must recite.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讘转 讞诇讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讞专砖 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 诪转 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讻讜谞住 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗

Abaye raised an objection to this: And is one who is a deaf-mute from the outset a candidate for 岣litza? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 112b): Two brothers, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute, are married to two unrelated women, one who is halakhically competent and one deaf-mute. If the male deaf-mute, who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, dies, what should the halakhically competent man, who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman, do? He may consummate the levirate marriage, but there is no option of performing 岣litza. And if he wants to divorce her later, he may divorce her.

诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 讻讜谞住 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讻讜谞住 讗讬谉

If the halakhically competent man, husband of the halakhically competent woman, dies, what should the male deaf-mute, who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, do? He may consummate the levirate marriage, but he may never divorce her, as a deaf-mute is not halakhically competent to divorce a woman to whom he is married by Torah law. What, is it not referring to a deaf-mute from the outset? And it is taught: Yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage,

讞讜诇抓 诇讗 诇讗 讘驻拽讞转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讛

but no, he may not perform 岣litza. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a halakhically competent woman who later became a deaf-mute, and 岣litza performed by a deaf-mute does not have the power to undo a levirate bond that is valid by Torah law.

转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讛讞专砖转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讻讜谞住 讜讗诐 专讜爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讞专砖转 讗讜 讞讜诇抓 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诐

Come and hear proof from a baraita: Two halakhically competent brothers are married to two unrelated women, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute. If the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, dies, what should the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman do? He consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, and if he later wishes to divorce her, he may divorce her. But if the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman dies, what should the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the female deaf-mute do? He may either perform 岣litza or consummate the levirate marriage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讛讜讗 驻拽讞 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讬讗 谞诪讬 讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讻讜谞住 讗讬谉 讞讜诇抓 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

What, is it not the case in this baraita that since he is halakhically competent from the outset, one may presume that she is a deaf-mute from the outset as well? And it is taught yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage with the yevama who is a deaf-mute, but no, he may not perform 岣litza to her, thereby indicating that 岣litza cannot be performed even though as a deaf-mute from the outset, she is a yevama by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, i.e., the husband is competent throughout, and that case is as it is, i.e., the wife was not a deaf-mute at the outset.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讞专砖 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 诪转 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

The Gemara raised an objection to this from a mishna (Yevamot 112b): Two brothers, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute, are married to two sisters, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute. If the male deaf-mute who is the husband of the female deaf-mute dies, what shall the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman do? The female deaf-mute leaves and is exempt from levirate marriage due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of one鈥檚 wife.

诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 讞专砖转 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讗住讜专讛 诇注讜诇诐

If the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman dies, what should the male deaf-mute who is the husband of the female deaf-mute do? He releases his wife, the female deaf-mute, with a bill of divorce, and his brother鈥檚 wife is forbidden forever and may never remarry. He cannot remain married because his wife is the sister of his yevama by Torah law. He cannot consummate the levirate marriage with her because she is the sister of his ex-wife. Apparently, 岣litza is not an option because he is a deaf-mute, and his 岣litza cannot dissolve a levirate bond that is established by Torah law.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘驻拽讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 讜讛转谞谉 谞转讞专砖讛 讬讜爪讬讗 谞砖转讟讬转 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 谞转讞专砖 讛讜讗 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 注讜诇诪讬转

And if you would say: Here, too, it is referring to a man who was halakhically competent and later became a deaf-mute, can such a person divorce his wife? Didn鈥檛 we learn the following in the mishna (112b): If a halakhically competent man married a halakhically competent woman and she became a deaf-mute, he may divorce her; if she became mentally incompetent, he may not divorce her, because of a rabbinic ordinance to protect her from harm. If he himself became a deaf-mute or became mentally incompetent, he may never divorce her. Since he was competent when he married her, he cannot dissolve a marriage that is by Torah law when he is incompetent.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讚讛讜讗 讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讬讗 谞诪讬 讞专砖转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讚讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讻专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜转谞谉 讙讘讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讻讜谞住 讗讬谉 讞讜诇抓 诇讗 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rather, is it not referring to a male who was deaf-mute from the outset? And since he was a deaf-mute from the outset, she was also a deaf-mute from the outset. And since the sisters in these cases were deaf-mutes from the outset, then the unrelated women were also deaf-mutes from the outset, and we learned in the mishna with regard to the unrelated women that yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage with them, but no, he may not perform 岣litza. When this question was presented to Rabba, he was silent and had no response.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转讜转讘讬讛 诪讛讗 讚讬讻讜诇 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讱 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讻专讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖讜

When Abaye came before Rav Yosef and told him of the matter, Rav Yosef said to him: What is the reason that you raised an objection to him based on this? For he could teach, i.e., explain to you, as follows: The sisters the mishna referred to were deaf-mutes at the outset, whereas the unrelated women it referred to were halakhically competent women who later became deaf-mutes.

讗诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗讜转讘讬讛 诪讛讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讞专砖讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 讗讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 讗讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讜讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 谞砖讜讗讜转 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 讗讜 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讞专砖讬谉 讗讜 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讞专砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讻专讬讜转 讬讻谞讜住讜 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗讜

Rather, you should have raised an objection to him from this mishna (112b): In the cases of two deaf-mute brothers married to two halakhically competent sisters or to two deaf-mute sisters or to two sisters, one halakhically competent and one a deaf-mute; and likewise, two deaf-mute sisters married to two halakhically competent brothers or to two deaf-mute brothers or to two brothers, one halakhically competent and one a deaf-mute, all these women are exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage in the event of the death of one of the brothers while childless. And if, in these cases, the women were unrelated to one another, the surviving brothers should consummate levirate marriage with them, and if they wish to divorce them subsequently, they may divorce them.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘驻拽讞讬诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转讞专砖讜 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪驻拽讬 讜讛转谞谉 谞砖转讟讬转 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 谞转讞专砖 讛讜讗 讗讜 谞砖转讟讛 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 注讜诇诪讬转

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say the mishna is referring to men who were halakhically competent and later became deaf-mutes, then in that case can they release them? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (112b): If she became mentally incompetent, he may not divorce her; if he became a deaf-mute or mentally incompetent, he may never divorce her?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讞专砖讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讚讛谉 讞专砖讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讞专砖讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讻专讬讜转 讬讻谞讜住讜 讬讻谞讜住讜 讗讬谉 讬讞诇爪讜 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 转讬讜讘转讗

Rather, is it not referring to men who were deaf-mutes at the outset? And since they were deaf-mutes at the outset, the women were also deaf-mutes at the outset, and it is taught there: If, in these cases, they were unrelated to one another, the surviving brothers should consummate levirate marriage with them. This implies: Yes, they should consummate levirate marriage with them, but no, they should not perform 岣litza. From this conclusion is apparent that a female deaf-mute may not perform 岣litza; the refutation of the opinion of Rabba is a conclusive refutation.

拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜诇专讘 讞谞讗 讞转谞讬讛 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽诪拽讜讜 讗拽讜讜转讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讗诪专讬 讛讗 讚转谞谉 拽讟谞讛 讜讞专砖转 讗讬谉 讘讬讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讗讞讬讜 驻拽讞 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讘拽讟谞讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讞专砖转 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If one wife is a minor and the other is a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage or 岣litza of the yavam with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Rav Na岣an said: I found Rav Adda bar Ahava and Rav 岣na his son-in-law sitting and posing challenges [kamakvu akvata] to one another in the marketplace of Pumbedita, and saying as follows: That which we learned in the mishna, that in the case of a minor and a deaf-mute, the consummation of levirate marriage with one of them does not exempt her rival wife, applies when she happened before him for levirate marriage as the widow of his halakhically competent brother. Under such circumstances, we do not know if the minor was preferable to the brother who married her initially, or if the deaf-mute was preferable to him.

讗讬 讘拽讟谞讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讻诇诇 讚讬注讛 讗讬 讘讞专砖转 谞讬讞讗 讚讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜讘转 讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞驻诇讛 诪讗讞讬讜 讞专砖 讜讚讗讬 讘讞专砖转 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚讘转 讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讘转 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: They wondered if the minor was preferable to him, since she eventually would have come to full intellectual capacity when she reached majority, or if the deaf-mute was preferable, since she is an adult and she is suitable for sexual intercourse. Given the uncertainty, it cannot be determined whose initial marriage was more complete and therefore the levirate marriage of one of them cannot exempt her rival wife. However, if she happened before him for levirate marriage as the widow of his brother who was deaf-mute, certainly the female deaf-mute was preferable to him, as she was suitable for sexual intercourse and was of his kind, and therefore the marriage to her was more complete.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 诪讗讞讬讜 讞专砖 谞诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

And I, Rav Na岣an, said to them: Even if she happened before him as the widow of his brother who was deaf-mute, it is still uncertain, because the difference between the marriage of a minor and a deaf-mute in this case is independent of the original husband鈥檚 preferences. They are different types of relationships.

讻讬爪讚 转拽谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讜谞住 讛讞专砖转 讜诪讜爪讬讗讛 讘讙讟 讜拽讟谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转讞诇讜抓

The Gemara asks: How can their situation be rectified, so that they can remarry? Rav 岣sda said that Rav said: He consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute and then releases her by means of a bill of divorce. He cannot stay married to her because the subsequent 岣litza of the minor will disqualify her as the rival wife of his yevama who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza]. The minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform 岣litza.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽住讘专 专讘 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞专砖转 拽谞讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 拽讟谞讛 拽谞讜讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬讬专转 讞专砖转 讗诪讗讬 讻讜谞住 讜诪讜爪讬讗讛 讘讙讟

Rav 岣sda said: Learn from this statement that Rav holds that a married deaf-mute is partially acquired, and a minor is either acquired or not acquired, i.e., there is uncertainty as to whether she was acquired completely or not acquired at all. For if it enters your mind to say the opposite, that the deaf-mute is either acquired or not acquired, while the minor is partially acquired, then with regard to the deaf-mute woman, why should he consummate the levirate marriage and then release her with a bill of divorce?

Scroll To Top