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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 25, 2015 | ื”ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

  • 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 112

Study Guide Yevamot 112

ืžื™ื‘ื–ื– ื‘ื–ื™ื– ืžื™ื ื”

he is embarrassed with her. Therefore, it is possible that more time passed before he engaged in intercourse with her.

ืขื“ ืฉื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื—ืœื•ืฅ ื ื™ื›ืคื ื• ืœื™ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืฉื’ื™ื˜ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื”

ยง The Gemara asks about the halakha that if he has not consummated the marriage, he is forced to perform แธฅalitza: Before he is forced to perform แธฅalitza, let us force him to consummate the levirate marriage. Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case where her bill of divorce is already to be found in her hand. The yavam has already given her a bill of divorce, but she claims that he never consummated the levirate marriage, and that therefore she is not released by the bill of divorce and still requires แธฅalitza.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืœื ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื”

The Gemara raises an objection: If, within thirty days, a yevama said: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, then whether he says: I did engage in intercourse, or whether he says: I did not engage in intercourse, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza. If she made this claim after thirty days have passed, the court asks him to perform แธฅalitza.

ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ื’ื˜ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื•ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื—ื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื”

If she says after thirty days: I engaged in sexual intercourse with him, and he says: I did not engage in sexual intercourse with her, then he releases her with a bill of divorce, because the legal presumption is that he did have sexual relations with her. If he says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and she says: I did not engage in sexual intercourse with him, even if he retracted his statement and said: I did not engage in sexual intercourse with her, this situation requires both a bill of divorce and แธฅalitza. The fact that the baraita requires a bill of divorce indicates that the entire passage is referring to a case when she did not yet have a bill of divorce.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืขื ื’ื™ื˜ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื”ืชื ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื™ืงืชื• ื”ื›ื ื’ื˜ ืœื‘ื™ืืชื•

Rabbi Ami says: When the baraita says that she requires a bill of divorce, it means that she requires แธฅalitza with her bill of divorce that she already received. Rav Ashi says: There, where Rav explained the mishna as referring to a case where she has already received a divorce, it is referring to a bill of divorce that he gave her for his levirate bond, before he consummated the levirate marriage. Upon its reception, it is prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage, but she still requires แธฅalitza. Here, in the baraita, it is referring to a bill of divorce that he gave for his consummation of the levirate marriage. After he engaged in sexual relations with her she becomes his wife and requires a regular divorce in order to remarry.

ื”ื ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื“ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืฆื• ืœื” ื•ืฉืจื• ืœื” ืชื™ื’ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉืจื‘ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืชื ื™ื ืชื ื™ื

It was told: A certain couple, a yavam and yevama, who both admitted that they had not consummated the levirate marriage, came before Rava. Rava said to the Sages who sat before him: Arrange แธฅalitza for her, and resolve her case. Rav Sherevya said to Rava: But it is taught in a baraita that she requires a bill of divorce and แธฅalitza. He said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I retract my ruling on account of it.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฆืจืชื” ืžื”ื•

Hon, son of Rav Naแธฅman, asked Rav Naแธฅman: What is the halakha with regard to her rival wife? If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his brotherโ€™s wife, the rival wife is exempted. In the event that the yevama who entered levirate marriage says that her yavam did not consummate the levirate marriage, is there a need for a procedure to exempt the rival wife from the levirate bond?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื ื• ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืชื™ืืกืจ ืฆืจื”

He said to him: Just because we force or sometimes ask the husband to perform แธฅalitza in order to remove any uncertainty and release the wife, should the rival wife be forbidden to remarry? The presumption is that the yavam did consummate the levirate marriage but since she denies it, she causes herself to be forbidden to marry others without แธฅalitza. However, her statement is not relied upon to the extent that her rival wife would be forbidden.

ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ื”ื ืื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื”ื™ื• ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœื•ืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ื”

ยง It is taught in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husbandโ€™s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nedarim 90b): At first they said: Three categories of women are divorced from their husbands against their will, and even so they receive payment of their marriage contract.

ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื

They are: A woman who says: I am defiled to you. When a priestโ€™s wife tells her husband that she was raped, he is obligated to divorce her as she is forbidden to him. Since she became forbidden due to circumstances beyond her control, she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract. Likewise, a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, that is: There are no witnesses to the matter, but Heaven will testify that you are incapable of having normal sexual relations with me. Since this is not her fault, she receives the settlement in her marriage contract. The same halakha applies if a woman vows: I am withdrawn from the Jews, meaning, she vows not to engage in sexual relations with any Jew, because conjugal relations are difficult for her.

ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืืฉื” ื ื•ืชื ืช ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื•ืžืงืœืงืœืช ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื” ืืœื ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ืชื‘ื™ื ืจืื™ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื™ืขืฉื• ื“ืจืš ื‘ืงืฉื”

The Sages subsequently retracted and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and, in order to be with him, ruin her relationship with her husband and leave with payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified. Rather, a priestโ€™s wife who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, must bring evidence for her statement that she was raped. A woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, the court deals with the matter by way of a request, and the husband is not forced to divorce his wife.

ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ื™ืคืจ ื—ืœืงื• ื•ืžืฉืžืฉืชื• ื•ืชื”ื ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื

As for a woman who says: I am withdrawn from the Jews, her husband must nullify his part in the vow, that is, the part of the vow that concerns him, so that she should be permitted to him, and she may have relations with him. But she is withdrawn from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ืœื™ื‘ื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืžืกืงื” ืื“ืขืชื” ื“ืžื™ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื ืคืœื” ืงืžื™ ื™ื‘ื ืื• ืœื

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If the wife said: I am withdrawn from the Jews and the husband nullifies his part in the vow, what is the halakha with regard to the yavam once the husband has died? Does this vow apply to him? When she takes the vow, does it enter her mind that her husband will die and she will happen before a yavam, or not? If she did entertain the thought, then the vow applies to the yavam, as the husbandโ€™s nullification only affects himself, and she must perform แธฅalitza. If she did not consider the possibility of becoming a yevama, then the vow does not apply to the yavam and she can enter into levirate marriage. Her vow was directed only against any potential suitors she might have if her husband divorced her.

ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื™ื‘ื ืื™ื ื• ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื™ื‘ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื‘ืขืœ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ื”ื ืื” ืžื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืžืกืงื” ืื“ืขืชื”

Rav says: A yavam is not like a husband. She did not intend that her vow be directed against him at all, and he may enter into levirate marriage with her. And Shmuel says: A yavam is like a husband in this respect and the vow applies to him as well, so he must perform แธฅalitza. Abaye said: Ruling according to Ravโ€™s opinion stands to reason, as we learned in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husbandโ€™s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza. And if it is the case that it enters her mind that the husband will die and she will become a candidate for levirate marriage with the yavam,

ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืžืกืงื” ืื“ืขืชื”

the mishna should have said that the court asks the yavam to perform แธฅalitza rather than forces him. The court would not force him to perform แธฅalitza in a case where she deliberately attempted to avoid fulfilling the mitzva of levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a woman who has children with her husband when she vows, so that it did not enter her mind to the extent that her children would die, and later her husband would also die, and she would happen before his brother for levirate marriage.

ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืžืื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืื“ืชื ื™ ืื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœื›ืš ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But if she has no children, what is the halakha? Is it that we ask him to perform แธฅalitza, but do not force him? If so, then instead of teaching the more remote case that if she intended to do so, to avoid levirate marriage in the event of her husbandโ€™s death, even if she vowed during her husbandโ€™s lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her, let the mishna distinguish and teach the distinction within this halakha itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said? When she has children, but if she does not have children, the court merely asks him.

ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, learn from it that there is no difference between when she has children and when she does not have children. Either way the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as there is no assumption that the woman planned to avoid levirate marriage unless she says so explicitly. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the halakha follows Ravโ€™s opinion.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื ืฉื ืคืงื—ืช ื•ืคืงื— ืฉื ืฉื ื—ืจืฉืช ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ืœืงื™ื™ื ื™ืงื™ื™ื ื›ืฉื ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื•ื ืก ื‘ืจืžื™ื–ื” ื›ืš ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ืจืžื™ื–ื”

MISHNA: With regard to a deaf-mute who married a halakhically competent woman, and a halakhically competent man who married a deaf-mute: If either man wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. The reason why a deaf-mute man can divorce his wife is that just as he marries her by intimation, i.e., his marriage is not performed by explicit speech, as deaf-mutes rely on gestures, so too, he divorces her by intimation.

ืคืงื— ืฉื ืฉื ืคืงื—ืช ื•ื ืชื—ืจืฉื” ืื ืจืฆื” ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ื™ืงื™ื™ื ื ืฉืชื˜ื™ืช ืœื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื ืชื—ืจืฉ ื”ื•ื ืื• ื ืฉืชื˜ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ืื” ืขื•ืœืžื™ืช

Likewise, in the case of a halakhically competent man who married a halakhically competent woman, and she later became a deaf-mute: If he wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, as a wife does not have to have intellectual capacity to receive a bill of divorce, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. If she became an imbecile, he may not divorce her, i.e., a bill of divorce is ineffective in this case. If he became a deaf-mute or an imbecile after they were married, he may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to give a bill of divorce.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื ืชื—ืจืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืฉื ืชื—ืจืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ืžื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœืืฉื” ื”ืžืชื’ืจืฉืช ืฉื”ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said: For what reason is the halakha that in the case of the woman who becomes a deaf-mute, her husband may divorce her, but in the case of the man who becomes a deaf-mute, he may not divorce his wife? If the bill of divorce written by someone who formerly possessed all his senses and later became a deaf-mute is invalid, it stands to reason that it should not be valid when she becomes a deaf-mute either. They said to him: The man who divorces his wife is not similar to the woman who is divorced, as the woman is divorced whether she is willing or unwilling. Since the womanโ€™s consent is not required, she may be divorced even if she is a deaf-mute. And, conversely, the man divorces his wife only willingly, and therefore the bill of divorce of a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent, is ineffective.

ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ื“ื’ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืฉื”ืฉื™ืื” ืื‘ื™ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืืฃ ื–ื• ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Gudgada testified with regard to a female deaf-mute whose father married her off when she was a minor, which means her marriage was valid by Torah law, that she can be divorced with a bill of divorce even when she matures and is no longer under her fatherโ€™s authority, despite the fact that she is not legally competent. They said to him: This woman, too, has a similar status. In other words, a woman who possessed all her faculties and later became a deaf-mute is comparable to a minor whose marriage was valid by Torah law and later, when she matured and was no longer under the authority of her father, received a bill of divorce. Both of these women can receive a bill of divorce, in accordance with the principle stated in the previous paragraph.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ื—ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื—ืจืฉื•ืช ืื• ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืคืงื—ื•ืช ืื• ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืื• ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื—ืจืฉื•ืช ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ื™ืŸ ืื• ืœืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ื—ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืื• ืœืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื•ืื ื”ื™ื• ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื›ื ื•ืกื• ื•ืื ืจืฆื• ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ืื•

The mishna continues: In a case where there were two deaf-mute brothers married to two deaf-mute sisters or to two halakhically competent sisters, or to two sisters, one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent; or in a case where there were two deaf-mute sisters married to two halakhically competent brothers or to two deaf-mute brothers or to two brothers, one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, all these women are exempt from แธฅalitza and from levirate marriage. Each of them is forbidden to her yavam because he is married to her sister. And if they were unrelated women, i.e., the women are not sisters, the men may marry them in levirate marriage, and if they want to divorce them later, they may divorce them.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืคืงื—ื•ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืชืฆื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื”

However, if two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and other one halakhically competent, were married to two halakhically competent sisters, and the deaf-mute married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? His brotherโ€™s wife is released without levirate marriage or แธฅalitza, due to the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister.

ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขื•ืœื

If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? He divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, as his wifeโ€™s sister came before him for levirate marriage by Torah law, and the legal status of her marriage and her levirate marriage is higher than his own marriage, which applies only by rabbinic law. And his brotherโ€™s wife is forbidden to him forever, and there is no remedy for her. He cannot marry her, as by rabbinic law she is the sister of his ex-wife, nor can he exempt her by means of แธฅalitza, as he is a deaf-mute.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืชืฆื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืืช ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื”

If two halakhically competent brothers were married to two sisters, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, and the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? The deaf-mute sister is released due to the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute sister do? He divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, as the halakhically competent sister came before him for levirate marriage, and the status of her levirate bond is higher than the status of his marriage to his wife, a deaf-mute. And he releases his brotherโ€™s wife, who is not a deaf-mute, by means of แธฅalitza, as they are both legally competent and can therefore perform แธฅalitza.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืชืฆื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื”

If two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, were married to two sisters, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, and the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? The deaf-mute woman is released due to the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister.

ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขื•ืœื

If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute sister do? He divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, which is as valid as their original marriage. And his brotherโ€™s wife is forbidden to him forever. There is no remedy for her, as he may not consummate levirate marriage with her because she is the sister of his ex-wife by rabbinic law, and he cannot perform แธฅalitza with her either, as he is a deaf-mute.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืคืงื—ื•ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืื• ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื

If two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, were married to two unrelated, halakhically competent women, and the deaf-mute married to the halakhically competent woman died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman do? He either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the other halakhically competent woman do? He cannot perform แธฅalitza with her, as he is a deaf-mute. Rather, he marries her, and he may never divorce her, as sexual intercourse between a yavam and his yevama creates a valid marriage that cannot be broken by the bill of divorce of a deaf-mute.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืื• ืžื™ื™ื‘ื

If two halakhically competent brothers were married to two unrelated women, one of whom is halakhically competent and the other one a deaf-mute, and the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute woman died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman do? The brother cannot perform แธฅalitza with her, as she is a deaf-mute. Rather, he marries the deaf-mute, and if he wishes to divorce her, he may subsequently divorce her with a bill of divorce. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute do? Either he performs แธฅalitza or he enters into levirate marriage.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ื ืœืฉืชื™ ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื

If two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, were married to two unrelated women, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, and the deaf-mute brother who was married to the deaf-mute woman died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman do? He may marry her if he desires the deaf-mute woman, and if he wishes afterward to divorce her, he may divorce her. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute woman do? He marries his yevama and may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal capacity to end a valid marriage.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ืจืฉ ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื“ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ืฉืื• ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืชื• ื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื‘ื•ื

GEMARA: Rami bar แธคama said: What is the difference between the case of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, that the Sages enacted rabbinic marriage for them despite their condition, and the case of an imbecilic man and an imbecilic woman, that the Sages did not enact marriage for them? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecilic man and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from แธฅalitza and from levirate marriage. This indicates that the marriages of an imbecile and a minor are of no significance.

ื—ืจืฉ ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื“ืœื ืงื™ื™ืžื ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ื“ืจ ืขื ื ื—ืฉ ื‘ื›ืคื™ืคื” ืื—ืช ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains: In the case of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, where the ordinance of the Sages can be fulfilled, i.e., these marriages can be maintained, the Sages enacted marriage for them. By contrast, with regard to an imbecilic man and an imbecilic woman, where the ordinance of the Sages cannot be fulfilled, as one cannot live with an imbecilic partner, in accordance with the well-known saying: A person cannot reside in a basket, i.e., in close quarters, with a snake, the Sages did not enact marriage for them.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืงื˜ืŸ ื“ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืจืฉ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ืจืฉ ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœื›ืœืœ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ื“ืืชื™ ืœื›ืœืœ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And what is the difference between a minor, that the Sages did not enact marriage for him, and a deaf-mute, that the Sages did enact marriage for him? The Gemara explains: In the case of a deaf-mute, as he will not reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law, the Sages enacted marriage for him. Conversely, with regard to a minor, as he will eventually reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law when he matures, the Sages did not enact marriage for him.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ืฉืœื ื™ื ื”ื’ื• [ื‘ื”] ืžื ื”ื’ ื”ืคืงืจ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of a minor girl, who will reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law someday, and yet the Sages enacted marriage for her, as her mother and brothers may marry her off by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: There the Sages issued their decree for a different reason, so that people should not treat her in the manner of ownerless property. If she marries, her husband will watch over her; if not, she might be treated disrespectfully.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืžืžืื ื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืœื ืžืžืื ื” ื“ืื ื›ืŸ

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between a minor girl, that she may perform refusal, i.e., she can retroactively nullify her marriage by means of a declaration of refusal of her husband, and a female deaf-mute, that she cannot perform refusal, as the Sages did not establish the option of refusal in her case? Since the marriage of a deaf-mute woman also applies by rabbinic law, why didnโ€™t the Sages establish refusal in her case as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that if so, i.e., had the Sages enacted refusal for a female deaf-mute,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

  • 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 112: Rejecting the Conspiracy Theory Case

Apologies for the late release - technical difficulties that never happened before and are unlikely to happen again. Thank you...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 14: 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 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 112

ืžื™ื‘ื–ื– ื‘ื–ื™ื– ืžื™ื ื”

he is embarrassed with her. Therefore, it is possible that more time passed before he engaged in intercourse with her.

ืขื“ ืฉื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื—ืœื•ืฅ ื ื™ื›ืคื ื• ืœื™ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืฉื’ื™ื˜ื” ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื”

ยง The Gemara asks about the halakha that if he has not consummated the marriage, he is forced to perform แธฅalitza: Before he is forced to perform แธฅalitza, let us force him to consummate the levirate marriage. Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case where her bill of divorce is already to be found in her hand. The yavam has already given her a bill of divorce, but she claims that he never consummated the levirate marriage, and that therefore she is not released by the bill of divorce and still requires แธฅalitza.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืœื ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื”

The Gemara raises an objection: If, within thirty days, a yevama said: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, then whether he says: I did engage in intercourse, or whether he says: I did not engage in intercourse, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza. If she made this claim after thirty days have passed, the court asks him to perform แธฅalitza.

ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ื’ื˜ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ื•ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื ื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื—ื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขืœืชื™ ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื”

If she says after thirty days: I engaged in sexual intercourse with him, and he says: I did not engage in sexual intercourse with her, then he releases her with a bill of divorce, because the legal presumption is that he did have sexual relations with her. If he says: I engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and she says: I did not engage in sexual intercourse with him, even if he retracted his statement and said: I did not engage in sexual intercourse with her, this situation requires both a bill of divorce and แธฅalitza. The fact that the baraita requires a bill of divorce indicates that the entire passage is referring to a case when she did not yet have a bill of divorce.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืขื ื’ื™ื˜ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื”ืชื ื’ื˜ ืœื–ื™ืงืชื• ื”ื›ื ื’ื˜ ืœื‘ื™ืืชื•

Rabbi Ami says: When the baraita says that she requires a bill of divorce, it means that she requires แธฅalitza with her bill of divorce that she already received. Rav Ashi says: There, where Rav explained the mishna as referring to a case where she has already received a divorce, it is referring to a bill of divorce that he gave her for his levirate bond, before he consummated the levirate marriage. Upon its reception, it is prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage, but she still requires แธฅalitza. Here, in the baraita, it is referring to a bill of divorce that he gave for his consummation of the levirate marriage. After he engaged in sexual relations with her she becomes his wife and requires a regular divorce in order to remarry.

ื”ื ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื“ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืฆื• ืœื” ื•ืฉืจื• ืœื” ืชื™ื’ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉืจื‘ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ื•ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืชื ื™ื ืชื ื™ื

It was told: A certain couple, a yavam and yevama, who both admitted that they had not consummated the levirate marriage, came before Rava. Rava said to the Sages who sat before him: Arrange แธฅalitza for her, and resolve her case. Rav Sherevya said to Rava: But it is taught in a baraita that she requires a bill of divorce and แธฅalitza. He said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I retract my ruling on account of it.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืฆืจืชื” ืžื”ื•

Hon, son of Rav Naแธฅman, asked Rav Naแธฅman: What is the halakha with regard to her rival wife? If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his brotherโ€™s wife, the rival wife is exempted. In the event that the yevama who entered levirate marriage says that her yavam did not consummate the levirate marriage, is there a need for a procedure to exempt the rival wife from the levirate bond?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื ื• ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืชื™ืืกืจ ืฆืจื”

He said to him: Just because we force or sometimes ask the husband to perform แธฅalitza in order to remove any uncertainty and release the wife, should the rival wife be forbidden to remarry? The presumption is that the yavam did consummate the levirate marriage but since she denies it, she causes herself to be forbidden to marry others without แธฅalitza. However, her statement is not relied upon to the extent that her rival wife would be forbidden.

ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ื”ื ืื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื”ื™ื• ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœื•ืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ื”

ยง It is taught in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husbandโ€™s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nedarim 90b): At first they said: Three categories of women are divorced from their husbands against their will, and even so they receive payment of their marriage contract.

ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื

They are: A woman who says: I am defiled to you. When a priestโ€™s wife tells her husband that she was raped, he is obligated to divorce her as she is forbidden to him. Since she became forbidden due to circumstances beyond her control, she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract. Likewise, a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, that is: There are no witnesses to the matter, but Heaven will testify that you are incapable of having normal sexual relations with me. Since this is not her fault, she receives the settlement in her marriage contract. The same halakha applies if a woman vows: I am withdrawn from the Jews, meaning, she vows not to engage in sexual relations with any Jew, because conjugal relations are difficult for her.

ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืืฉื” ื ื•ืชื ืช ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื•ืžืงืœืงืœืช ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื” ืืœื ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ืžืื” ืื ื™ ืœืš ืชื‘ื™ื ืจืื™ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื ืš ื™ืขืฉื• ื“ืจืš ื‘ืงืฉื”

The Sages subsequently retracted and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and, in order to be with him, ruin her relationship with her husband and leave with payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified. Rather, a priestโ€™s wife who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, must bring evidence for her statement that she was raped. A woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, the court deals with the matter by way of a request, and the husband is not forced to divorce his wife.

ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ื™ืคืจ ื—ืœืงื• ื•ืžืฉืžืฉืชื• ื•ืชื”ื ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื

As for a woman who says: I am withdrawn from the Jews, her husband must nullify his part in the vow, that is, the part of the vow that concerns him, so that she should be permitted to him, and she may have relations with him. But she is withdrawn from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื ื˜ื•ืœื” ืื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ืœื™ื‘ื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืžืกืงื” ืื“ืขืชื” ื“ืžื™ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื ืคืœื” ืงืžื™ ื™ื‘ื ืื• ืœื

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If the wife said: I am withdrawn from the Jews and the husband nullifies his part in the vow, what is the halakha with regard to the yavam once the husband has died? Does this vow apply to him? When she takes the vow, does it enter her mind that her husband will die and she will happen before a yavam, or not? If she did entertain the thought, then the vow applies to the yavam, as the husbandโ€™s nullification only affects himself, and she must perform แธฅalitza. If she did not consider the possibility of becoming a yevama, then the vow does not apply to the yavam and she can enter into levirate marriage. Her vow was directed only against any potential suitors she might have if her husband divorced her.

ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื™ื‘ื ืื™ื ื• ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื™ื‘ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื‘ืขืœ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ื”ื ืื” ืžื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืžืกืงื” ืื“ืขืชื”

Rav says: A yavam is not like a husband. She did not intend that her vow be directed against him at all, and he may enter into levirate marriage with her. And Shmuel says: A yavam is like a husband in this respect and the vow applies to him as well, so he must perform แธฅalitza. Abaye said: Ruling according to Ravโ€™s opinion stands to reason, as we learned in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husbandโ€™s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza. And if it is the case that it enters her mind that the husband will die and she will become a candidate for levirate marriage with the yavam,

ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืžืกืงื” ืื“ืขืชื”

the mishna should have said that the court asks the yavam to perform แธฅalitza rather than forces him. The court would not force him to perform แธฅalitza in a case where she deliberately attempted to avoid fulfilling the mitzva of levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a woman who has children with her husband when she vows, so that it did not enter her mind to the extent that her children would die, and later her husband would also die, and she would happen before his brother for levirate marriage.

ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืžืื™ ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืื“ืชื ื™ ืื ื ืชื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœื›ืš ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœื•ืฅ ืœื” ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But if she has no children, what is the halakha? Is it that we ask him to perform แธฅalitza, but do not force him? If so, then instead of teaching the more remote case that if she intended to do so, to avoid levirate marriage in the event of her husbandโ€™s death, even if she vowed during her husbandโ€™s lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform แธฅalitza with her, let the mishna distinguish and teach the distinction within this halakha itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said? When she has children, but if she does not have children, the court merely asks him.

ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ื ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืจื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, learn from it that there is no difference between when she has children and when she does not have children. Either way the court forces him to perform แธฅalitza, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as there is no assumption that the woman planned to avoid levirate marriage unless she says so explicitly. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the halakha follows Ravโ€™s opinion.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ืจืฉ ืฉื ืฉื ืคืงื—ืช ื•ืคืงื— ืฉื ืฉื ื—ืจืฉืช ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ืœืงื™ื™ื ื™ืงื™ื™ื ื›ืฉื ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื•ื ืก ื‘ืจืžื™ื–ื” ื›ืš ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ืจืžื™ื–ื”

MISHNA: With regard to a deaf-mute who married a halakhically competent woman, and a halakhically competent man who married a deaf-mute: If either man wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. The reason why a deaf-mute man can divorce his wife is that just as he marries her by intimation, i.e., his marriage is not performed by explicit speech, as deaf-mutes rely on gestures, so too, he divorces her by intimation.

ืคืงื— ืฉื ืฉื ืคืงื—ืช ื•ื ืชื—ืจืฉื” ืื ืจืฆื” ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ื™ืงื™ื™ื ื ืฉืชื˜ื™ืช ืœื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื ืชื—ืจืฉ ื”ื•ื ืื• ื ืฉืชื˜ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ืื” ืขื•ืœืžื™ืช

Likewise, in the case of a halakhically competent man who married a halakhically competent woman, and she later became a deaf-mute: If he wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, as a wife does not have to have intellectual capacity to receive a bill of divorce, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. If she became an imbecile, he may not divorce her, i.e., a bill of divorce is ineffective in this case. If he became a deaf-mute or an imbecile after they were married, he may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to give a bill of divorce.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื ืชื—ืจืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืฉื ืชื—ืจืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ืžื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœืืฉื” ื”ืžืชื’ืจืฉืช ืฉื”ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืื™ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืœื ืœืจืฆื•ื ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said: For what reason is the halakha that in the case of the woman who becomes a deaf-mute, her husband may divorce her, but in the case of the man who becomes a deaf-mute, he may not divorce his wife? If the bill of divorce written by someone who formerly possessed all his senses and later became a deaf-mute is invalid, it stands to reason that it should not be valid when she becomes a deaf-mute either. They said to him: The man who divorces his wife is not similar to the woman who is divorced, as the woman is divorced whether she is willing or unwilling. Since the womanโ€™s consent is not required, she may be divorced even if she is a deaf-mute. And, conversely, the man divorces his wife only willingly, and therefore the bill of divorce of a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent, is ineffective.

ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื•ื“ื’ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืฉื”ืฉื™ืื” ืื‘ื™ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืืฃ ื–ื• ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Gudgada testified with regard to a female deaf-mute whose father married her off when she was a minor, which means her marriage was valid by Torah law, that she can be divorced with a bill of divorce even when she matures and is no longer under her fatherโ€™s authority, despite the fact that she is not legally competent. They said to him: This woman, too, has a similar status. In other words, a woman who possessed all her faculties and later became a deaf-mute is comparable to a minor whose marriage was valid by Torah law and later, when she matured and was no longer under the authority of her father, received a bill of divorce. Both of these women can receive a bill of divorce, in accordance with the principle stated in the previous paragraph.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ื—ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื—ืจืฉื•ืช ืื• ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืคืงื—ื•ืช ืื• ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืื• ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ื—ืจืฉื•ืช ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ื™ืŸ ืื• ืœืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ื—ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืื• ืœืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื•ืื ื”ื™ื• ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื›ื ื•ืกื• ื•ืื ืจืฆื• ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ืื•

The mishna continues: In a case where there were two deaf-mute brothers married to two deaf-mute sisters or to two halakhically competent sisters, or to two sisters, one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent; or in a case where there were two deaf-mute sisters married to two halakhically competent brothers or to two deaf-mute brothers or to two brothers, one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, all these women are exempt from แธฅalitza and from levirate marriage. Each of them is forbidden to her yavam because he is married to her sister. And if they were unrelated women, i.e., the women are not sisters, the men may marry them in levirate marriage, and if they want to divorce them later, they may divorce them.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืคืงื—ื•ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืชืฆื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื”

However, if two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and other one halakhically competent, were married to two halakhically competent sisters, and the deaf-mute married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? His brotherโ€™s wife is released without levirate marriage or แธฅalitza, due to the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister.

ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขื•ืœื

If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? He divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, as his wifeโ€™s sister came before him for levirate marriage by Torah law, and the legal status of her marriage and her levirate marriage is higher than his own marriage, which applies only by rabbinic law. And his brotherโ€™s wife is forbidden to him forever, and there is no remedy for her. He cannot marry her, as by rabbinic law she is the sister of his ex-wife, nor can he exempt her by means of แธฅalitza, as he is a deaf-mute.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืชืฆื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื” ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืืช ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื”

If two halakhically competent brothers were married to two sisters, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, and the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? The deaf-mute sister is released due to the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute sister do? He divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, as the halakhically competent sister came before him for levirate marriage, and the status of her levirate bond is higher than the status of his marriage to his wife, a deaf-mute. And he releases his brotherโ€™s wife, who is not a deaf-mute, by means of แธฅalitza, as they are both legally competent and can therefore perform แธฅalitza.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืชืฆื ืžืฉื•ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืฉื”

If two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, were married to two sisters, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, and the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister do? The deaf-mute woman is released due to the prohibition with regard to a wifeโ€™s sister.

ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืืกื•ืจื” ืœืขื•ืœื

If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute sister do? He divorces his wife with a bill of divorce, which is as valid as their original marriage. And his brotherโ€™s wife is forbidden to him forever. There is no remedy for her, as he may not consummate levirate marriage with her because she is the sister of his ex-wife by rabbinic law, and he cannot perform แธฅalitza with her either, as he is a deaf-mute.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืคืงื—ื•ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืื• ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื

If two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, were married to two unrelated, halakhically competent women, and the deaf-mute married to the halakhically competent woman died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman do? He either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the other halakhically competent woman do? He cannot perform แธฅalitza with her, as he is a deaf-mute. Rather, he marries her, and he may never divorce her, as sexual intercourse between a yavam and his yevama creates a valid marriage that cannot be broken by the bill of divorce of a deaf-mute.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืคืงื—ื™ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœืฉืชื™ ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืื• ืžื™ื™ื‘ื

If two halakhically competent brothers were married to two unrelated women, one of whom is halakhically competent and the other one a deaf-mute, and the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute woman died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman do? The brother cannot perform แธฅalitza with her, as she is a deaf-mute. Rather, he marries the deaf-mute, and if he wishes to divorce her, he may subsequently divorce her with a bill of divorce. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent sister died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the deaf-mute do? Either he performs แธฅalitza or he enters into levirate marriage.

ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ืจืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ืคืงื— ื ืฉื•ืื™ื ืœืฉืชื™ ื ื›ืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ืช ื—ืจืฉืช ื•ืื—ืช ืคืงื—ืช ืžืช ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืžืช ืคืงื— ื‘ืขืœ ืคืงื—ืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื—ืจืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ื—ืจืฉืช ื›ื•ื ืก ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื

If two brothers, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, were married to two unrelated women, one of whom is a deaf-mute and the other one halakhically competent, and the deaf-mute brother who was married to the deaf-mute woman died, what should the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman do? He may marry her if he desires the deaf-mute woman, and if he wishes afterward to divorce her, he may divorce her. If the halakhically competent brother married to the halakhically competent woman died, what should the deaf-mute brother married to the deaf-mute woman do? He marries his yevama and may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal capacity to end a valid marriage.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ืจืฉ ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื“ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื ืฉืื• ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืชื• ื ืฉื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื‘ื•ื

GEMARA: Rami bar แธคama said: What is the difference between the case of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, that the Sages enacted rabbinic marriage for them despite their condition, and the case of an imbecilic man and an imbecilic woman, that the Sages did not enact marriage for them? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecilic man and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from แธฅalitza and from levirate marriage. This indicates that the marriages of an imbecile and a minor are of no significance.

ื—ืจืฉ ื•ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื“ืœื ืงื™ื™ืžื ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ื“ืจ ืขื ื ื—ืฉ ื‘ื›ืคื™ืคื” ืื—ืช ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains: In the case of a deaf-mute man and a deaf-mute woman, where the ordinance of the Sages can be fulfilled, i.e., these marriages can be maintained, the Sages enacted marriage for them. By contrast, with regard to an imbecilic man and an imbecilic woman, where the ordinance of the Sages cannot be fulfilled, as one cannot live with an imbecilic partner, in accordance with the well-known saying: A person cannot reside in a basket, i.e., in close quarters, with a snake, the Sages did not enact marriage for them.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืงื˜ืŸ ื“ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืจืฉ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ืจืฉ ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœื›ืœืœ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ื“ืืชื™ ืœื›ืœืœ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And what is the difference between a minor, that the Sages did not enact marriage for him, and a deaf-mute, that the Sages did enact marriage for him? The Gemara explains: In the case of a deaf-mute, as he will not reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law, the Sages enacted marriage for him. Conversely, with regard to a minor, as he will eventually reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law when he matures, the Sages did not enact marriage for him.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ืชืงื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ืฉืœื ื™ื ื”ื’ื• [ื‘ื”] ืžื ื”ื’ ื”ืคืงืจ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of a minor girl, who will reach the stage of eligibility for marriage by Torah law someday, and yet the Sages enacted marriage for her, as her mother and brothers may marry her off by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: There the Sages issued their decree for a different reason, so that people should not treat her in the manner of ownerless property. If she marries, her husband will watch over her; if not, she might be treated disrespectfully.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืงื˜ื ื” ื“ืžืžืื ื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ืจืฉืช ื“ืœื ืžืžืื ื” ื“ืื ื›ืŸ

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between a minor girl, that she may perform refusal, i.e., she can retroactively nullify her marriage by means of a declaration of refusal of her husband, and a female deaf-mute, that she cannot perform refusal, as the Sages did not establish the option of refusal in her case? Since the marriage of a deaf-mute woman also applies by rabbinic law, why didnโ€™t the Sages establish refusal in her case as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that if so, i.e., had the Sages enacted refusal for a female deaf-mute,

Scroll To Top