Gittin 141

אלא בפירי:

— The proper way is to ask him about fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether he wants freshly plucked fruit when they are out of season. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב כהנא אמר רב חרש שיכול לדבר מתוך הכתב כותבין ונותנין גט לאשתו אמר רב יוסף מאי קא משמע לן תנינא נשתתק ואמרו לו נכתוב גט לאשתך והרכין בראשו בודקין אותו שלשה פעמים אם אמר על לאו לאו ועל הן הן הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו

R. Kahana said in the name of Rab: If a deaf-mute can signify his meaning by writing, a Get may be written and given to his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he was whole at the time of marriage and so made a proper betrothal. If he was deaf and dumb before marriage, he betroths by gesture and can also divorce by gesture, v. infra. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה רבי זירא אלם קאמרת שאני אלם דתניא מדבר ואינו שומע זהו חרש שומע ואינו מדבר זהו אלם וזה וזה הרי הן כפקחין לכל דבריהם

Said R. Joseph: What does this tell us [that we do not know already]? We have learnt: IF A MAN IS STRUCK DUMB AND WHEN THEY SAY TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE, HE NODS HIS HEAD, HE IS TESTED WITH THREE QUESTIONS. IF HE SIGNIFIES 'NO' AND 'YES' PROPERLY EACH TIME, THEN THE GET SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND GIVEN FOR HIM?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And writing is surely as effective as nodding. ');">³</span>

וממאי דמדבר ואינו שומע זהו חרש שומע ואינו מדבר זהו אלם דכתיב (תהלים לח, יד) ואני כחרש לא אשמע וכאלם לא יפתח פיו ואי בעית אימא כדאמרי אינשי אישתקיל מילוליה

— R. Zera replied to him: You have quoted a statement about an illem [mute]. An illem is different, as it has been taught: One who can speak but not hear is called heresh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Biblical phraseology. Whereas in Rabbinical language heresh generally denotes a deaf-mute, and it is to a deaf-mute that R. Kahana refers. ');">⁴</span>

אמר ר' זירא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי דתניא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד פרט לאלם שאינו יכול להגיד אמאי הא יכול להגיד מתוך הכתב

and one who can hear but not speak is called illem, and both are considered to be in possession of their faculties for all purposes. What is your warrant for saying that one who can speak but not hear is called heresh, and one who can hear but not speak is called illem? — Because it is written, But I am as a deaf man [heresh] I hear not, and I am as a dumb man [illem] that openeth not his mouth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXXVIII, 14. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה אביי עדות קאמרת שאני עדות דרחמנא אמר מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם

Or if you like I can say that we know it from the colloquial description<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as men say'. ');">⁶</span>

מיתיבי כשם שבודקין אותו לגיטין כך בודקין אותו למשאות ולמתנות ולעדיות ולירושות קתני מיהת עדיות

of a dumb man as Ishtekil Miluleh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'his speech has been taken away from him'. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב ששת בעדות אשה דאקילו בה רבנן

R. Zera said: If I do find any difficulty [in R. Kahana's remark] it is this, that it has been taught: 'If he do not utter it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1, of one who is called on to testify and withholds his evidence. ');">⁸</span>

והא קתני ירושות אמר רבי אבהו ירושת בנו הבכור

This excludes a mute who cannot utter'. Now why should this be, seeing that [according to R. Kahana] he can signify by writing? — Abaye replied to him: You are speaking of testimony, and testimony comes under a different rule, because the All-Merciful has said that it must be from their mouths,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15, 'At the mouth of two witnesses&nbsp;… shall a matter be established'. ');">⁹</span>

קתני מיהת למשאות ולמתנות מאי לאו לעלמא לא לדידיה

and not from their writing.

מיתיבי חרש לא הלכו בו אחר רמיזותיו ואחר קפיצותיו ואחר כתב ידו אלא במטלטלין אבל לא לגיטין

[The following] was raised in objection [to Abaye's statement]: In the same way as he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to one who is struck dumb. ');">¹⁰</span>

תנאי היא דתניא אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים בחרש מעיקרו אבל פיקח ונתחרש הוא כותב והן חותמין

is tested in connection with a Get, so he is tested in connection with business transactions, with testimony, and with bequests. Now 'testimony' is mentioned here? — R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Shesheth: This applies only to testimony regarding the status of a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether she may contract a certain marriage or not on his evidence regarding the death of her husband. ');">¹¹</span>

וחרש מעיקרו לא כשם שכונסה ברמיזה כך מוציאה ברמיזה

with which the Rabbis were not so strict. But it also says 'bequests'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which presumably means, giving evidence about other people's bequests. ');">¹²</span>

אי באשתו ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן ביבמתו

— R. Abbahu said: It refers to the inheritance of his eldest son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his signifying that his eldest son should not have a double portion (Rashi), or that one of his sons was the eldest (Tosaf). ');">¹³</span>

יבמתו ממאן אילימא דנפלה ליה מאחיו חרש כשם שכניסתה ברמיזה כך יציאתה ברמיזה אלא דנפלה ליה מאחיו פיקח

But it also says 'in connection with business transactions', and this presumably means anyone's? — No, it refers only to his own.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם דנפלה ליה מאחיו חרש וגזירה אחיו חרש אטו אחיו פיקח

[The following] was then raised in objection: The directions of a deaf-mute given by gestures, by lip-movements, and by writing are to be followed only in regard to the transfer of movables, but not to a Get?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutes R. Kahana. ');">¹⁴</span>

אי הכי אשתו נמי יבמתו ביבמתו מיחלפא אשתו ביבמתו לא מיחלפא

— There is in truth a difference of opinion on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the directions of a deaf-mute are not to be followed in regard to a Get. ');">¹⁵</span>

ומי גזרינן חרש אטו פיקח

is the case only with one who was a deaf-mute from the outset, but one who was originally whole and became a deaf-mute after marriage can write a Get for himself which others can sign.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Kahana. ');">¹⁶</span> But cannot one who was originally a deaf-mute give a Get? As he married her by gesture, cannot he also divorce her by gesture? — If [we were speaking] of his wife, this would indeed be the case, but [in fact] we are dealing with his sister-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A deaf and dumb man cannot give halizah (v. Glos.), because he cannot say 'I do not desire to marry her'. He must therefore contract the levirate marriage, and as the betrothal of the first husband was effected by word of mouth, he cannot undo it by a gesture or by writing. ');">¹⁷</span> His sister-in-law from whom? Are we to say, one who fell to his lot from his [de ceased] brother who was also a deaf-mute? [In that case], just as she was married by gesture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the first husband. ');">¹⁸</span> so she can be put away by gesture! No; it is one who fell to his lot from a brother in possession of his faculties.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the betrothal of the first husband was effected by word of mouth, he cannot undo it by a gesture or by writing. ');">¹⁹</span> Alternatively I may say that she did fall to his lot from a brother who was a deaf-mute, and we forbid the [wife of a] deaf-mute to be divorced by gesture so as not to set a precedent for [the wife of] one who was sound. If that is the case, should we not forbid him to divorce his wife also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest she should set a precedent for the sister-in-law. ');">²⁰</span> — A sister-in-law can be confused with a sister-in-law, but not with a wife. But do we indeed forbid [a deaf-mute] because [of a sound one]?