Commentary for Yevamot 224:22

ומ"ש קטנה דממאנה ומ"ש חרשת דלא ממאנה דא"כ

IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DO? HE MUST MARRY [THE WIDOW] AND HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rami b. Hama stated: Wherein lies the difference between a deaf man or a deaf woman [and an imbecile] that the marriage of the former should have been legalized by the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is evident from our Mishnah. Since halizah was required it is obvious that the preceding marriage, without which the question of halizah could never have arisen, is recognized as valid despite the fact that a deaf-mute (cf. supra p. 788. n. 1), owing to his inferior intelligence, is elsewhere ineligible to effect a kinyan. ');">³⁷</span> while that of the male imbecile or female imbecile was not legalized by the Rabbis? For it was taught: If an imbecile or a minor married, and then died, their wives are exempt from <i>halizah</i> and from the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 69b, 96b. ');">³⁸</span> — [In the case of] a deaf man or a deaf woman, where the Rabbinical ordinance could be carried into practice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deaf-mutes might well lead a happy matrimonial life, not only when the husband or wife is deaf, but even where both are afflicted with deafness. ');">³⁹</span> the marriage was legalized by the Rabbis; [in that of] a male, or female imbecile, where the Rabbinical ordinance cannot be carried into practice, since no one could live with a serpent in the same basket,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' proverb. There can be no happy or enduring matrimonial union between an imbecile and a sane person or between two imbeciles. ');">⁴⁰</span> the marriage was not legalized by the Rabbis. And wherein lies the difference between a minor [and a deaf person] that the marriage of the former should not have been legalized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has been stated in the Baraitha just cited. ');">⁴¹</span> by the Rabbis while that of the deaf person was legalized by the Rabbis? — The Rabbis have legalized the marriage of a deaf person since [Pentateuchally] he would never be able to contract a marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And were not his marriage recognized as valid, at least in Rabbinic law, marriage for him would have become an impossibility. ');">⁴²</span> they did not legalize the marriage of a minor since in due course he would be able to contract [a Pentateuchally valid] marriage. But, surely, [in the case of] a girl minor, who would in due course be able to contract [a Pentateuchally valid] marriage, the Rabbis did legalize her marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherein does she differ from the boy minor that she should be subject to a different law? ');">⁴³</span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the girl minor. ');">⁴⁴</span> [it was legalized] in order that people might not treat her as ownerless property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Take liberties with her. ');">⁴⁵</span> And why is there a difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in the case of either, marriage is Pentateuchally invalid. ');">⁴⁶</span> between a minor [and a deaf woman] that the former should be permitted to exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i> while the deaf woman should not be permitted to exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i>? — Because, if [the latter also were allowed to do] so,

Explore commentary for Yevamot 224:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.