חוֹלֵץ – לָא! לָא, בְּפִקַּחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרְשָׁה.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי אַחִין פִּקְּחִין נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי נָכְרִיוֹת, אַחַת פִּקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת. מֵת פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל פִּקַּחַת? כּוֹנֵס, וְאִם רוֹצֶה לְהוֹצִיא – יוֹצִיא. מֵת פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל פִּקַּחַת, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל חֵרֶשֶׁת? אוֹ חוֹלֵץ אוֹ מְיַיבֵּם.

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

מַאי לָאו, מִדְּהוּא פִּקֵּחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא הִיא נַמִי חֵרֶשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְקָתָנֵי: כּוֹנֵס – אִין, חוֹלֵץ – לָא! מִידֵי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: שְׁנֵי אַחִין, אֶחָד פִּקֵּחַ וְאֶחָד חֵרֵשׁ, נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, אַחַת פִּקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת. מֵת חֵרֵשׁ בַּעַל חֵרֶשֶׁת, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל פִּקַּחַת – תֵּצֵא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה.

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

מֵת פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל פִּקַּחַת, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה חֵרֵשׁ בַּעַל חֵרֶשֶׁת – מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו אֲסוּרָה לְעוֹלָם!

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

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נַמִי בְּפִקֵּחַ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרֵשׁ – מִי מָצֵי מַפֵּיק? וְהָתְנַן: נִתְחָרְשָׁה – יוֹצִיא, נִשְׁתַּטֵּית – לֹא יוֹצִיא, נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה – לֹא יוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית!

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

אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּמִדְּהוּא חֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא – הִיא נַמִי חֵרֶשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּמִדַּאֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא – נָכְרִיוֹת נַמִי חֵרְשׁוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּתְנַן גַּבֵּי נָכְרִיוֹת: כּוֹנֵס – אִין, חוֹלֵץ – לָא! אִישְׁתִּיק.

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

כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעֲמָא תּוֹתְבֵיהּ מֵהָא, דְּיָכוֹל לְשַׁנּוּיֵי לָךְ: אֲחָיוֹת – חֵרְשׁוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא, נָכְרִיוֹת – פִּקְּחוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרְשׁוּ.

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

אֶלָּא אִיבָּעֵי לָךְ לְאוֹתְבֵיהּ מֵהָא: שְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת פִּקְּחוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אַחַת פִּקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת; וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת חֵרְשׁוֹת נְשׂוּאוֹת לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין פִּקְּחִין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין חֵרְשִׁין, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי אַחִין אֶחָד פִּקֵּחַ וְאֶחָד חֵרֵשׁ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם. וְאִם הָיוּ נָכְרִיוֹת – יִכְנוֹסוּ, וְאִם רָצוּ לְהוֹצִיא – יוֹצִיאוּ.

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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא בְּפִקְּחִים וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְחָרְשׁוּ – מִי מָצֵי מַפְּקֵי? וְהָתְנַן: נִשְׁתַּטֵּית – לֹא יוֹצִיא, נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה – לֹא יוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית!

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

אֶלָּא לָאו – אַחֵרְשִׁין מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּמִדְּהֵן חֵרְשִׁין מֵעִיקָּרָא – אִינְהוּ נַמִי חֵרְשׁוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְקָתָנֵי אִם הָיוּ נָכְרִיוֹת – יִכְנוֹסוּ, יִכְנוֹסוּ – אִין, יַחְלְצוּ – לָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

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

״קְטַנָּה וְחֵרֶשֶׁת״ וכו׳ – אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה וּלְרַב חָנָא חָתָנֵיהּ, דְּיָתְבִי וְקָמָקְווּ אַקְוָותָא בְּשׁוּקָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא וְאָמְרִי: הָא דִּתְנַן קְטַנָּה וְחֵרֶשֶׁת אֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּנָפְלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו פִּקֵּחַ, דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי בִּקְטַנָה נִיחָא לֵיהּ אִי בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת נִיחָא לֵיהּ.

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

אִי בִּקְטַנָה נִיחָא לֵיהּ – דְּאָתְיָא לִכְלַל דֵּיעָה, אִי בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת נִיחָא – דִּגְדוֹלָה הִיא, וּבַת בִּיאָה הִיא. אֲבָל נָפְלָה מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ – וַדַּאי בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת נִיחָא לֵיהּ, דְּבַת בִּיאָה הִיא, וּבַת מִינֵּיהּ הִיא.

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

וְאָמִינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אֲפִילּוּ נָפְלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ – נַמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ.

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

כֵּיצַד תַּקָּנָתָן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: כּוֹנֵס הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וּמוֹצִיאָהּ בְּגֵט, וּקְטַנָּה תַּמְתִּין עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִּיל, וְתַחֲלוֹץ.

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

אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ, קָסָבַר רַב: חֵרֶשֶׁת קְנוּיָה וּמְשוּיֶּירֶת, קְטַנָּה – קְנוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ קְנוּיָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ חֵרֶשֶׁת קְנוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ קְנוּיָה, קְטַנָּה קְנוּיָה וּמְשׁוּיֶּירֶת – חֵרֶשֶׁת אַמַּאי כּוֹנֵס וּמוֹצִיאָהּ בְּגֵט?

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