Yevamot 110 – Shabbat June 25

מאי לאו דלא בעל לא דבעל אי דבעל מאי טעמא דשמואל קסבר כל הבועל על דעת קדושין הראשונים הוא בועל

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’s 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.

והא פליגי בה חדא זימנא דאיתמר קדשה על תנאי וכנסה סתם רב אמר צריכה הימנו גט ושמואל אמר אינה צריכה הימנו גט

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.

רב אמר צריכה הימנו גט כיון דנסבה אחולי אחליה לתנאיה ושמואל אמר אינה צריכה הימנו גט כל הבועל על דעת קדושין הראשונים הוא בועל

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.

צריכא דאי איתמר ההיא בההיא קאמר רב משום דאיכא תנאה וכיון דבעל אחליה לתנאיה אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לשמואל ואי איתמר בהא בהך קאמר שמואל אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא

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.

ומי אמר רב כי בעל אין אי לא בעל לא הא ההיא עובדא דהוה בנרש ואיקדישה כשהיא קטנה וגדלה ואותביה אבי כורסייא ואתא אחרינא וחטפה מיניה ורב ברונא ורב חננאל תלמידי דרב הוו התם ולא הצריכוה גיטא מבתרא

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’t 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 Ḥananel, 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.

אמר רב פפא בנרש מינסב נסיבי והדר מותבי אבי כורסייא רב אשי אמר הוא עשה שלא כהוגן לפיכך עשו בו שלא כהוגן ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושי מיניה

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’s 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.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תינח דקדיש בכספא קדיש בביאה מאי שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אליעזר וכן אמר רבי אלעזר הלכה כרבי אליעזר

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.

מתני׳ מי שהיה נשוי לשתי יתומות קטנות ומת ביאתה או חליצתה של אחת מהם פוטרת צרתה וכן שתי חרשות קטנה וחרשת אין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה

MISHNA: If a man was married to two orphaned minors and died, consummation of levirate marriage or ḥalitza with one of them exempts her rival wife from either levirate marriage or ḥalitza, rendering her free to remarry. Likewise, if two deaf-mutes were married to one man who died, consummation of levirate marriage or ḥalitza 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 ḥalitza 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.

פקחת וחרשת ביאת הפקחת פוטרת החרשת ואין ביאת החרשת פוטרת את הפקחת גדולה וקטנה ביאת הגדולה פוטרת הקטנה ואין ביאת הקטנה פוטרת הגדולה

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’s 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.

גמ׳ וחרשת בת חליצה היא והתנן חרש שנחלץ וחרשת שחלצה וחולצת מן הקטן חליצתה פסולה

GEMARA: The mishna states that ḥalitza by one deaf-mute exempts the other. The Gemara asks: Can a deaf-mute perform ḥalitza? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (104b): If a male deaf-mute performs ḥalitza, and if a female deaf-mute performs ḥalitza, and if a woman performs ḥalitza on a minor boy, her ḥalitza is disqualified?

אמר רב גידל אמר רב אביאה רבא אמר אפילו תימא אחליצה כאן בחרשת מעיקרא כאן בפקחת ואחר כך נתחרשה

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a deaf-mute’s ḥalitza, but rather to consummation of levirate marriage with one of the deaf-mutes. Rava said: You can even say it is referring to ḥalitza. 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 ḥalitza is referring to someone who was halakhically competent when she was married and afterward became a deaf-mute.

חרשת מעיקרא כי היכי דעל הכי נפק פקחת ואחר כך נתחרשה לא דמעכבא בה קרייה

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 ḥalitza. 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 ḥalitza, since recitation is indispensable for her ḥalitza, and she cannot recite the text that a yevama must recite.

איתיביה אביי וחרשת מעיקרא בת חליצה היא והתנן שני אחין אחד פקח ואחד חרש נשואין לשתי נכריות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת מת חרש בעל חרשת מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת כונס ואם רצה להוציא יוציא

Abaye raised an objection to this: And is one who is a deaf-mute from the outset a candidate for ḥalitza? Didn’t 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 ḥalitza. And if he wants to divorce her later, he may divorce her.

מת פקח בעל פקחת מה יעשה חרש בעל חרשת כונס ואינו מוציא לעולם מאי לאו בחרשת מעיקרא וקתני כונס אין

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,

חולץ לא לא בפקחת ואחר כך נתחרשה

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

תא שמע שני אחין פקחין נשואין שתי נכריות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת מת פקח בעל החרשת מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת כונס ואם רוצה להוציא יוציא מת פקח בעל פקחת מה יעשה פקח בעל חרשת או חולץ או מייבם

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 ḥalitza or consummate the levirate marriage.

מאי לאו מדהוא פקח מעיקרא היא נמי חרשת מעיקרא וקתני כונס אין חולץ לא מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

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 ḥalitza to her, thereby indicating that ḥalitza 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.

איתיביה שני אחין אחד פקח ואחד חרש נשואין שתי אחיות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת מת חרש בעל חרשת מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת תצא משום אחות אשה

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’s wife.

מת פקח בעל פקחת מה יעשה חרש בעל חרשת מוציא את אשתו בגט ואשת אחיו אסורה לעולם

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’s 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, ḥalitza is not an option because he is a deaf-mute, and his ḥalitza cannot dissolve a levirate bond that is established by Torah law.

וכי תימא הכא נמי בפקח ואחר כך נתחרש מי מצי מפיק והתנן נתחרשה יוציא נשתטית לא יוציא נתחרש הוא או נשתטה לא יוציא עולמית

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’t 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.

אלא לאו בחרש מעיקרא ומדהוא חרש מעיקרא היא נמי חרשת מעיקרא ומדאחיות חרשות מעיקרא נכריות נמי חרשות מעיקרא ותנן גבי נכריות כונס אין חולץ לא אישתיק

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 ḥalitza. When this question was presented to Rabba, he was silent and had no response.

כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף אמר ליה מאי טעמא תותביה מהא דיכול לשנויי לך אחיות חרשות מעיקרא נכריות פקחות ואחר כך נתחרשו

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.

אלא איבעי לך לאותביה מהא שני אחין חרשין נשואין שתי אחיות פקחות או שתי אחיות חרשות או שתי אחיות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת וכן שתי אחיות חרשות נשואות לשני אחין פקחין או לשני אחין חרשין או לשני אחין אחד פקח ואחד חרש הרי אלו פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום ואם היו נכריות יכנוסו ואם רצו להוציא יוציאו

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 ḥalitza 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.

היכי דמי אילימא בפקחים ולבסוף נתחרשו מי מצי מפקי והתנן נשתטית לא יוציא נתחרש הוא או נשתטה לא יוציא עולמית

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’t 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?

אלא לאו אחרשין מעיקרא ומדהן חרשין מעיקרא אינהו נמי חרשות מעיקרא וקתני אם היו נכריות יכנוסו יכנוסו אין יחלצו לא תיובתא דרבה תיובתא

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 ḥalitza. From this conclusion is apparent that a female deaf-mute may not perform ḥalitza; the refutation of the opinion of Rabba is a conclusive refutation.

קטנה וחרשת וכו׳ אמר רב נחמן אשכחתיה לרב אדא בר אהבה ולרב חנא חתניה דיתבי וקמקוו אקוותא בשוקא דפומבדיתא ואמרי הא דתנן קטנה וחרשת אין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה הני מילי דנפלה ליה מאחיו פקח דלא ידעינן אי בקטנה ניחא ליה אי בחרשת ניחא ליה

§ It is taught in the mishna: If one wife is a minor and the other is a deaf-mute, consummation of levirate marriage or ḥalitza of the yavam with one of them does not exempt her rival wife. Rav Naḥman said: I found Rav Adda bar Ahava and Rav Ḥana 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.

אי בקטנה ניחא ליה דאתיא לכלל דיעה אי בחרשת ניחא דגדולה היא ובת ביאה היא אבל נפלה מאחיו חרש ודאי בחרשת ניחא ליה דבת ביאה היא ובת מיניה היא

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.

ואמינא להו אנא אפילו נפלה ליה מאחיו חרש נמי מספקא ליה

And I, Rav Naḥman, 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’s preferences. They are different types of relationships.

כיצד תקנתן אמר רב חסדא אמר רב כונס החרשת ומוציאה בגט וקטנה תמתין עד שתגדיל ותחלוץ

The Gemara asks: How can their situation be rectified, so that they can remarry? Rav Ḥisda 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 ḥalitza of the minor will disqualify her as the rival wife of his yevama who has performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza]. The minor must wait until she reaches majority and then perform ḥalitza.

אמר רב חסדא שמע מינה קסבר רב חרשת קנויה ומשויירת קטנה קנויה ואינה קנויה דאי סלקא דעתך חרשת קנויה ואינה קנויה קטנה קנויה ומשויירת חרשת אמאי כונס ומוציאה בגט

Rav Ḥisda 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?