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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 27, 2022 | 讻状讞 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • 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".

  • 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)

Yevamot 112

Presentation in PDF format

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in honor of the 鈥淭zevet Yevamot.鈥 “Their brilliant graphics, along with Rabbanit Michelle鈥檚 teaching, literally saved me as we learned this difficult, but rewarding, masechet. Someone ought to design for them a graphic with a superhero cape!”聽

If the yabam and yevama have moved in together with the purposes of performing the mitzvah of yibum, but she then claims that he did not have relations with her, and he claims he did, who is believed? According to the Mishna it depends if it was within thirty days or beyond as there is an assumption (chazaka) that if they were together for 30 days, one can assume they had intercourse. If we believe her, then we insist that the man do chalitza to enable her to remarry. Rav explains that the case being discussed is one in which he already gave her a get and that is why we insist he perform chalitza and not insist that he do yibum with her. A braita is quoted to raise a difficulty against Rav’s explanation, however, two answers are brought. Women were once believed if they made a claim why they couldn’t stay married – for example, my husband is incapable of having intercourse with me” and her husband would have to divorce her and give her the ketuba money, but once they say that women had set their eyes on another man and would make claims like this to get out of the marriage while receiving their ketuba money, they changed the law and either required proof when possible or requested from the husband to divorce her, but did not force him to. What is done if she makes a vow not to have intercourse with any Jewish man? Would this vow include the yabam as well, as during her marriage he was forbidden to her anyway (as her husband’s brother)? Can we find an answer to this question from our Mishna? The Mishnayot of the fourteenth chapter describes various different situations regarding a deaf-mute, minor, etc. as it relates to marriage, divorce and yibum.聽 What if someone was competent when they got married and then became a deaf-mute or lost his/her mental capacity? What happens to the marriage – can they get divorced?

 

诪讬讘讝讝 讘讝讬讝 诪讬谞讛

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

注讚 砖讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞诇讜抓 谞讬讻驻谞讜 诇讬讬讘诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖讙讬讟讛 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讛

搂 The Gemara asks about the halakha that if he has not consummated the marriage, he is forced to perform 岣litza: Before he is forced to perform 岣litza, 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 岣litza.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讘诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘注诇转讬 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘注诇转讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛

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 岣litza. If she made this claim after thirty days have passed, the court asks him to perform 岣litza.

讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 谞讘注诇转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘注诇转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讘讙讟 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘注诇转讬 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讗 讘注诇转讬 爪专讬讱 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛

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 岣litza. 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 注诐 讙讬讟讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛转诐 讙讟 诇讝讬拽转讜 讛讻讗 讙讟 诇讘讬讗转讜

Rabbi Ami says: When the baraita says that she requires a bill of divorce, it means that she requires 岣litza 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 岣litza. 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.

讛谞讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讞诇讜爪讜 诇讛 讜砖专讜 诇讛 转讬讙专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

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 岣litza 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 岣litza. He said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I retract my ruling on account of it.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专转讛 诪讛讜

Hon, son of Rav Na岣an, asked Rav Na岣an: What is the halakha with regard to her rival wife? If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘拽砖讬谉 转讬讗住专 爪专讛

He said to him: Just because we force or sometimes ask the husband to perform 岣litza 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 岣litza. However, her statement is not relied upon to the extent that her rival wife would be forbidden.

讛谞讜讚专转 讛谞讗讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 讜谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husband鈥檚 lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform 岣litza. 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.

讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

They are: A woman who says: I am defiled to you. When a priest鈥檚 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.

讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗砖讛 谞讜转谞转 注讬谞讬讛 讘讗讞专 讜诪拽诇拽诇转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 讬注砖讜 讚专讱 讘拽砖讛

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 priest鈥檚 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.

谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讬驻专 讞诇拽讜 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讜转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 诇讬讘诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪住拽讛 讗讚注转讛 讚诪讬讬转 讘注诇讛 讜谞驻诇讛 拽诪讬 讬讘诐 讗讜 诇讗

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 husband鈥檚 nullification only affects himself, and she must perform 岣litza. 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.

专讘 讗诪专 讬讘诐 讗讬谞讜 讻讘注诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讘诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘注诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讚专转 讛谞讗讛 诪讬讘诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪住拽讛 讗讚注转讛

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 岣litza. Abaye said: Ruling according to Rav鈥檚 opinion stands to reason, as we learned in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husband鈥檚 lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform 岣litza. 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,

诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪住拽讛 讗讚注转讛

the mishna should have said that the court asks the yavam to perform 岣litza rather than forces him. The court would not force him to perform 岣litza 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.

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讗讚转谞讬 讗诐 谞转讻讜讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: But if she has no children, what is the halakha? Is it that we ask him to perform 岣litza, 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 husband鈥檚 death, even if she vowed during her husband鈥檚 lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform 岣litza 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.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 岣litza, 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 Rav鈥檚 opinion.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

 

诪转谞讬壮 讞专砖 砖谞砖讗 驻拽讞转 讜驻拽讞 砖谞砖讗 讞专砖转 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 讻讜谞住 讘专诪讬讝讛 讻讱 讛讜讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讘专诪讬讝讛

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.

驻拽讞 砖谞砖讗 驻拽讞转 讜谞转讞专砖讛 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讗诐 专爪讛 讬拽讬讬诐 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 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗讛 注讜诇诪讬转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讞专砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讛讗讬砖 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讛讗讬砖 讛诪讙专砖 诇讗砖讛 讛诪转讙专砖转 砖讛讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇专爪讜谞讛 讜砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专爪讜谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 woman鈥檚 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.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 讝讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 father鈥檚 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.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讞专砖讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 讗讜 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 讗讜 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讗讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 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 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 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

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 岣litza 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.

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

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 brother鈥檚 wife is released without levirate marriage or 岣litza, due to the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister.

诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讛驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讜爪讬讗 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 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 wife鈥檚 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 brother鈥檚 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 岣litza, as he is a deaf-mute.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 诪转 驻拽讞 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 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讛讞专砖转 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讘讞诇讬爪讛

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 wife鈥檚 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 brother鈥檚 wife, who is not a deaf-mute, by means of 岣litza, as they are both legally competent and can therefore perform 岣litza.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 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

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 wife鈥檚 sister.

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 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 brother鈥檚 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 岣litza with her either, as he is a deaf-mute.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 诪转 讞专砖 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讗讜 讞讜诇抓 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诐 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讻讜谞住 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讜诇诐

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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 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 驻拽讞 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 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

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 岣litza 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 岣litza or he enters into levirate marriage.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 谞砖讜讗讬诐 诇砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 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 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

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞专砖 讜讞专砖转 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚砖讜讟讛 讜砖讜讟讛 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖谞砖讗讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐

GEMARA: Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣litza and from levirate marriage. This indicates that the marriages of an imbecile and a minor are of no significance.

讞专砖 讜讞专砖转 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖讜讟讛 讜砖讜讟讛 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛 讗讞转 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽讟谉 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜讞专砖 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讞专砖 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 谞砖讜讗讬谉 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽讟谉 讚讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉

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.

讜讛专讬 拽讟谞讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讻诇诇 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讬谞讛讙讜 [讘讛] 诪谞讛讙 讛驻拽专

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讚诪诪讗谞讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞专砖转 讚诇讗 诪诪讗谞讛 讚讗诐 讻谉

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 didn鈥檛 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,

  • 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".

  • 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)

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...
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 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 112

诪讬讘讝讝 讘讝讬讝 诪讬谞讛

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

注讚 砖讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞诇讜抓 谞讬讻驻谞讜 诇讬讬讘诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖讙讬讟讛 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讛

搂 The Gemara asks about the halakha that if he has not consummated the marriage, he is forced to perform 岣litza: Before he is forced to perform 岣litza, 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 岣litza.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讘诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘注诇转讬 讘讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘注诇转讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛

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 岣litza. If she made this claim after thirty days have passed, the court asks him to perform 岣litza.

讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 谞讘注诇转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘注诇转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讘讙讟 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘注诇转讬 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讗 讘注诇转讬 爪专讬讱 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛

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 岣litza. 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 注诐 讙讬讟讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛转诐 讙讟 诇讝讬拽转讜 讛讻讗 讙讟 诇讘讬讗转讜

Rabbi Ami says: When the baraita says that she requires a bill of divorce, it means that she requires 岣litza 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 岣litza. 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.

讛谞讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讞诇讜爪讜 诇讛 讜砖专讜 诇讛 转讬讙专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

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 岣litza 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 岣litza. He said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I retract my ruling on account of it.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专转讛 诪讛讜

Hon, son of Rav Na岣an, asked Rav Na岣an: What is the halakha with regard to her rival wife? If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讜 讻讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘拽砖讬谉 转讬讗住专 爪专讛

He said to him: Just because we force or sometimes ask the husband to perform 岣litza 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 岣litza. However, her statement is not relied upon to the extent that her rival wife would be forbidden.

讛谞讜讚专转 讛谞讗讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 讜谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husband鈥檚 lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform 岣litza. 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.

讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

They are: A woman who says: I am defiled to you. When a priest鈥檚 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.

讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗砖讛 谞讜转谞转 注讬谞讬讛 讘讗讞专 讜诪拽诇拽诇转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讗讜诪专转 讟诪讗讛 讗谞讬 诇讱 转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讘讬谞讬 诇讘讬谞讱 讬注砖讜 讚专讱 讘拽砖讛

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 priest鈥檚 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.

谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讬驻专 讞诇拽讜 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讜转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 诇讬讘诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪住拽讛 讗讚注转讛 讚诪讬讬转 讘注诇讛 讜谞驻诇讛 拽诪讬 讬讘诐 讗讜 诇讗

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 husband鈥檚 nullification only affects himself, and she must perform 岣litza. 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.

专讘 讗诪专 讬讘诐 讗讬谞讜 讻讘注诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讘诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘注诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讚专转 讛谞讗讛 诪讬讘诪讛 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪住拽讛 讗讚注转讛

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 岣litza. Abaye said: Ruling according to Rav鈥檚 opinion stands to reason, as we learned in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husband鈥檚 lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform 岣litza. 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,

诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪住拽讛 讗讚注转讛

the mishna should have said that the court asks the yavam to perform 岣litza rather than forces him. The court would not force him to perform 岣litza 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.

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诪讘拽砖讬谉 讗讚转谞讬 讗诐 谞转讻讜讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇讛 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诪诪谞讜 砖讬讞诇讜抓 诇讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: But if she has no children, what is the halakha? Is it that we ask him to perform 岣litza, 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 husband鈥檚 death, even if she vowed during her husband鈥檚 lifetime, the court merely asks him to perform 岣litza 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.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 岣litza, 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 Rav鈥檚 opinion.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

 

诪转谞讬壮 讞专砖 砖谞砖讗 驻拽讞转 讜驻拽讞 砖谞砖讗 讞专砖转 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 讻讜谞住 讘专诪讬讝讛 讻讱 讛讜讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讘专诪讬讝讛

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.

驻拽讞 砖谞砖讗 驻拽讞转 讜谞转讞专砖讛 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讗诐 专爪讛 讬拽讬讬诐 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 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗讛 注讜诇诪讬转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讞专砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讛讗讬砖 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讛讗讬砖 讛诪讙专砖 诇讗砖讛 讛诪转讙专砖转 砖讛讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇专爪讜谞讛 讜砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专爪讜谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 woman鈥檚 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.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 讝讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 father鈥檚 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.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讞专砖讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 讗讜 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 讗讜 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 讗讜 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讞专砖讜转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 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 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 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

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 岣litza 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.

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

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 brother鈥檚 wife is released without levirate marriage or 岣litza, due to the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister.

诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讛驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讜爪讬讗 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 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 wife鈥檚 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 brother鈥檚 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 岣litza, as he is a deaf-mute.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 诪转 驻拽讞 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 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 讛讞专砖转 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讘讞诇讬爪讛

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 wife鈥檚 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 brother鈥檚 wife, who is not a deaf-mute, by means of 岣litza, as they are both legally competent and can therefore perform 岣litza.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 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

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 wife鈥檚 sister.

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 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 brother鈥檚 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 岣litza with her either, as he is a deaf-mute.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 驻拽讞讜转 诪转 讞专砖 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讗讜 讞讜诇抓 讗讜 诪讬讬讘诐 诪转 驻拽讞 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讞专砖 讘注诇 驻拽讞转 讻讜谞住 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讜诇诐

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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 驻拽讞讬谉 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 驻拽讞 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 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

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 岣litza 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 岣litza or he enters into levirate marriage.

砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 讞专砖 讜讗讞讚 驻拽讞 谞砖讜讗讬诐 诇砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 讗讞转 讞专砖转 讜讗讞转 驻拽讞转 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 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

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞专砖 讜讞专砖转 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚砖讜讟讛 讜砖讜讟讛 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖谞砖讗讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐

GEMARA: Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣litza and from levirate marriage. This indicates that the marriages of an imbecile and a minor are of no significance.

讞专砖 讜讞专砖转 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖讜讟讛 讜砖讜讟讛 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛 讗讞转 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽讟谉 讚诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜讞专砖 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讞专砖 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 谞砖讜讗讬谉 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽讟谉 讚讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉

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.

讜讛专讬 拽讟谞讛 讚讗转讬讗 诇讻诇诇 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讜转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讬谞讛讙讜 [讘讛] 诪谞讛讙 讛驻拽专

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讚诪诪讗谞讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞专砖转 讚诇讗 诪诪讗谞讛 讚讗诐 讻谉

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 didn鈥檛 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