יבמות דף קיב

מיבזז בזיז מינה.

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

עד שכופין אותו לחלוץ — ניכפנו לייבם! אמר רב: בשגיטה יוצא מתחת ידה.

§ The Gemara asks about the halakha that if he has not consummated the marriage, he is forced to perform ḥalitza: Before he is forced to perform ḥalitza, 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 ḥalitza.

מיתיבי: יבמה שאמרה בתוך שלשים יום ״לא נבעלתי״ — בין שהוא אומר ״בעלתי״, בין שהוא אומר ״לא בעלתי״, כופין אותו שיחלוץ לה.

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

לאחר שלשים יום — מבקשין הימנו שיחלוץ לה.

היא אומרת ״נבעלתי״, והוא אומר ״לא בעלתי״ — הרי זה יוציא בגט. הוא אומר ״בעלתי״, והיא אומרת ״לא נבעלתי״ — אף על פי שחזר ואמר ״לא בעלתי״,

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 ḥalitza. 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.

צריך גט וחליצה.

אמר רבי אמי: צריכה חליצה עם גיטה. רב אשי אמר: התם — גט לזיקתו, הכא — גט לביאתו.

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

הנהו שניהם מודים דאתו לקמיה דרבא, אמר להו רבא: חלוצו לה, ושרו לה תיגרא. אמר ליה רב שרביא לרבא: והתניא צריכה גט וחליצה! אמר ליה:

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

אי תניא — תניא.

בעא מיניה הון בריה דרב נחמן מדרב נחמן: צרתה מהו?

Hon, son of Rav Naḥman, asked Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha with regard to her rival wife? If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his brother’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?

אמר ליה: וכי מפני שאנו כופין ומבקשין, תיאסר צרה?

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

הנודרת הנאה וכו׳. תנן התם, בראשונה היו אומרים: שלש נשים יוצאות ונוטלות כתובה.

§ It is taught in the mishna: If a woman vows during her husband’s lifetime to derive no benefit from her yavam, the court forces him to perform ḥalitza. 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.

האומרת ״טמאה אני לך״, ״השמים ביני לבינך״, ״נטולה אני מן היהודים״.

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

חזרו לומר, שלא תהא אשה נותנת עיניה באחר ומקלקלת על בעלה. אלא: ״האומרת טמאה אני לך״ — תביא ראיה לדבריה. ״השמים ביני לבינך״ — יעשו דרך בקשה.

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’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.

״נטולה אני מן היהודים״ — יפר חלקו, ומשמשתו, ותהא נטולה מן היהודים.

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.

איבעיא להו: ״נטולה אני מן היהודים״ ליבם מהו? מי מסקה אדעתה דמיית בעלה ונפלה קמי יבם, או לא.

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’s nullification only affects himself, and she must perform ḥalitza. 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.

רב אמר: יבם אינו כבעל, ושמואל אמר: יבם הרי הוא כבעל. אמר אביי: כוותיה דרב מסתברא, דתנן: הנודרת הנאה מיבמה בחיי בעלה, כופין אותו שיחלוץ.

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

ואם איתא דמסקה אדעתה —

״מבקשין״ מיבעי ליה. הכא במאי עסקינן, באשה שיש לה בנים, דכולי האי לא מסקה אדעתה.

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

אבל אין לה בנים, מאי — מבקשין? אדתני ״אם נתכוונה לכך, אפילו בחיי בעלה מבקשין ממנו שיחלוץ לה״, ליפלוג וליתני בדידה: במה דברים אמורים — בשיש לה בנים,

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

אבל אין לה בנים — מבקשין!

אלא שמע מינה: לא שנא יש לה בנים, ולא שנא אין לה בנים — כופין אותו כרב, שמע מינה.

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 ḥalitza, 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’s opinion.

הדרן עלך בית שמאי

חרש שנשא פקחת ופקח שנשא חרשת, אם רצה להוציא — יוציא, ואם רצה לקיים — יקיים. כשם שהוא כונס ברמיזה — כך הוא מוציא ברמיזה.

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.

פקח שנשא פקחת ונתחרשה, אם רצה — יוציא, ואם רצה — יקיים. נשתטית — לא יוציא. נתחרש הוא או נשתטה — אינו מוציאה עולמית.

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי: מפני מה האשה שנתחרשה יוצאה, והאיש שנתחרש אינו מוציא? אמרו לו: אינו דומה האיש המגרש לאשה המתגרשת, שהאשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה,

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’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.

והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו.

העיד רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא על החרשת שהשיאה אביה שהיא יוצאה בגט. אמרו לו: אף זו כיוצא בה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’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.

שני אחין חרשין נשואין לשתי אחיות חרשות, או לשתי אחיות פקחות, או לשתי אחיות אחת חרשת ואחת פקחת. או שתי אחיות חרשות (נשואין) [נשואות] לשני אחין פקחין,

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 ḥalitza 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.

או לשני אחין חרשין, או לשני אחין אחד חרש ואחד פקח — הרי אלו פטורין מן החליצה ומן הייבום. ואם היו נכריות — יכנוסו,

ואם רצו להוציא — יוציאו.

שני אחין, אחד חרש ואחד פקח, נשואין לשתי אחיות פקחות. מת חרש בעל הפקחת, מה יעשה פקח בעל הפקחת — תצא משום אחות אשה.

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’s wife is released without levirate marriage or ḥalitza, due to the prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister.

מת פקח בעל הפקחת, מה יעשה חרש בעל פקחת — מוציא אשתו בגט, ואשת אחיו אסורה לעולם.

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’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 brother’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 ḥalitza, as he is a deaf-mute.

שני אחין פקחין נשואין לשתי אחיות, אחת חרשת ואחת פקחת. מת פקח בעל חרשת, מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת — תצא משום אחות אשה. מת פקח בעל פקחת,

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’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 brother’s wife, who is not a deaf-mute, by means of ḥalitza, as they are both legally competent and can therefore perform ḥalitza.

מה יעשה פקח בעל החרשת — מוציא את אשתו בגט, ואת אשת אחיו בחליצה.

שני אחין, אחד חרש ואחד פקח, נשואין לשתי אחיות, אחת חרשת ואחת פקחת. מת חרש בעל חרשת, מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת — תצא משום אחות אשה.

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’s sister.

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

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’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 ḥalitza with her either, as he is a deaf-mute.

שני אחין, אחד חרש ואחד פקח, נשואין לשתי נכריות פקחות. מת חרש בעל פקחת, מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת — או חולץ או מייבם. מת פקח בעל פקחת,

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 ḥalitza 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 ḥalitza 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.

מה יעשה חרש בעל פקחת — כונס ואינו מוציא לעולם.

שני אחין פקחין נשואין לשתי נכריות, אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת. מת פקח בעל חרשת, מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת — כונס, ואם רצה להוציא — יוציא.

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 ḥalitza 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 ḥalitza or he enters into levirate marriage.

מת פקח בעל פקחת, מה יעשה פקח בעל חרשת — או חולץ או מייבם.

שני אחין, אחד חרש ואחד פקח, נשואים לשתי נכריות, אחת חרשת ואחת פקחת. מת חרש בעל חרשת, מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת — כונס,

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.

ואם רצה להוציא — יוציא. מת פקח בעל פקחת, מה יעשה חרש בעל חרשת — כונס ואינו מוציא לעולם.

גמ׳ אמר רמי בר חמא: מאי שנא חרש וחרשת דתקינו להו רבנן נשואין, ומאי שנא דשוטה ושוטה דלא תקינו להו רבנן נשואין? דתניא:

GEMARA: Rami bar Ḥama 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 ḥalitza and from levirate marriage. This indicates that the marriages of an imbecile and a minor are of no significance.

שוטה וקטן שנשאו נשים ומתו — נשותיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן היבום!

חרש וחרשת, דקיימא תקנתא דרבנן — תקינו להו רבנן נשואין. שוטה ושוטה, דלא קיימא תקנתא דרבנן, דאין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה אחת — לא תקינו רבנן נשואין.

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.

ומאי שנא קטן דלא תקינו רבנן נשואין, וחרש תקינו ליה רבנן נשואין? חרש, דלא אתי לכלל נשואין — תקינו רבנן נשואין, קטן,

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.

דאתי לכלל נשואין — לא תקינו רבנן נשואין.

והרי קטנה, דאתיא לכלל נשואין, ותקינו רבנן נשואין! התם — שלא ינהגו [בה] מנהג הפקר.

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.

ומאי שנא קטנה דממאנה, ומאי שנא חרשת דלא ממאנה? דאם כן,

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’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,