Yevamot 225:1

מימנעי ולא נסבי לה

men would abstain from marrying her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because at any time throughout her life she could leave her husband by merely making her declaration of refusal. This does not apply to a minor who loses her right to mi'un as soon as she becomes of age. ');">¹</span> And why is there a difference between a minor [and a deaf woman] that the former should be permitted to eat <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if only her mother or brother gave her in marriage to a priest. ');">²</span> while a deaf woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was not given in marriage by her father. V. infra. ');">³</span>

ומאי שנא קטנה דאכלה בתרומה ומאי שנא חרשת דלא אכלה בתרומה דתנן העיד רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא על החרשת שהשיאה אביה שיוצאה בגט ועל קטנה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן שאוכלת בתרומה ואילו חרשת לא אכלה

may not? For we learned, 'R. Johanan b. Gudgada testified concerning a deaf girl whom her father gave in marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While she was in her minority. ');">⁴</span> that she may be dismissed by a letter of divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after she became of age, when it is she and not her father that receives it. ');">⁵</span> and concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite, who was married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By her mother or brothers after the death of her father. ');">⁶</span>

גזירה שמא יאכיל חרש בחרשת וליכול קטן אוכל נבלות הוא

to a priest, that she may eat [Rabbinical]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 902. ');">⁷</span> terumah',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ed. VII, 9, Git. 53b. Though such marriage is not Pentateuchally valid. ');">⁸</span> while the deaf woman may not eat'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only the minor, and not the deaf woman of whom the first clause speaks, was mentioned in this, the second clause. ');">⁹</span>

גזירה שמא יאכיל חרש בפקחת וחרש בפקחת נמי ליכול בתרומה דרבנן גזירה דלמא אתי לאוכלה בתרומה דאורייתא

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition against the eating of terumah by a deaf woman. ');">¹⁰</span> is a preventive measure against the possibility that a deaf man might feed a deaf woman [with such <i>terumah</i>]. Well, let him feed her, [since she is only in the same position] as a minor who eats <i>nebelah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Neither he nor she is subject to any punishment for the eating of forbidden food, v. infra 114a. ');">¹¹</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition against the eating of terumah by the deaf woman. ');">¹²</span>

ומאי שנא קטנה דאית לה כתובה ומאי שנא חרשת דלית לה כתובה דא"כ מימנעי ולא נסבי לה

is a preventive measure against the possibility that a deaf [husband] might feed a wife of sound senses [with it]. But even a deaf husband might well feed his wife who was of sound senses with Rabbinical <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since their marriage is at least Rabbinically valid. ');">¹³</span> — A preventive measure was made against the possibility of his feeding her with Pentateuchal <i>terumah</i>. And why is the minor different [from the deaf woman] that the former should be entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> while the deaf woman is not entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>? — Because if [the latter also were] so [entitled] men would abstain from marrying her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 793, n. 5, mutatis mutandis. While deafness, as a rule, is an affliction for life, a minor does not forever remain in her minority. ');">¹⁴</span>

וקטנה מנלן דאית לה כתובה דתנן הממאנת והשנייה ואיילונית אין להן כתובה אבל יוצאה בגט וקטנה יש לה כתובה

Whence, however, is it inferred that a minor is entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>? — From what we learned: A minor who exercised the right of <i>mi'un</i>, a forbidden relative of the second degree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden in Rabbinic, though not in Pentateuchal law. Cf. supra 21a. ');">¹⁵</span> and a woman who is incapable of procreation, are not entitled to a <i>kethubah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 100b, B.M. 67a. The first mentioned, because her separation from her husband is effected even against his will; the second was penalized for contracting an unlawful marriage (cf. supra 85b); while in the case of the last the marriage is regarded as a contract under false pretenses. ');">¹⁶</span> but [it follows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Mishnah cited speaks only of a minor who has exercised the right of mi'un, and whose separation was, therefore, effected even without the husband's consent. ');">¹⁷</span>

וחרשת מנלן דלית לה כתובה דתניא חרש ושוטה שנשאו פקחות אע"פ שנתפקח החרש ונשתפה השוטה אין להם עליהם כלום רצו לקיימן יש להם כתובה

that one] released by a letter of divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is valid only if the husband had consented to the separation. ');">¹⁸</span> though a minor, is entitled to receive her <i>kethubah</i>. And whence is it inferred that a deaf woman is not entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>? — From what was taught: If a man who was deaf or an imbecile married women of sound senses [the latter], even though the deaf man recovered his faculties or the imbecile regained his intelligence, have no claim whatsoever on [either of] them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, at the time the marriage had been contracted, the men were not in the possession of all their senses or faculties and were, in consequence, incapable of undertaking any monetary obligations. ');">¹⁹</span>

ופקח שנשא חרשת או שוטה אפי' כתב לה מאה מנה כתובתה קיימת מפני שרצה לזוק בנכסיו טעמא דרצה הא לא רצה אין לה דא"כ מימנעי ולא נסבי לה

But if [the men] wished to retain them [the latter] are entitled to a <i>kethubah</i> of the value of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH. Cur. edd. omit to the end of the clause. ');">²⁰</span> a <i>maneh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. [Their marriage is deemed to have taken place when the husband recovers his faculties, and at that time they were no longer virgins. Beth Joseph, Eben ha-Ezer LXVII]. ');">²¹</span> If, however, a man of sound senses married a woman who was deaf or an imbecile, her <i>kethubah</i> is valid, even if he undertook in writing to give her a hundred <i>maneh</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²²</span>

אי הכי פקחת לחרש ליתקן לה כתובה דא"כ מימנעי ולא מינסבי יותר משהאיש רוצה לישא אשה רוצה להנשא

since he himself had consented to suffer the loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'to be damaged in his estate'. Bomb. ed. and others (cf. BaH) read [H] 'to be maintained'. ');">²³</span> The reason, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the deaf woman is entitled to her kethubah. ');">²⁴</span> is because he himself consented; had he not consented, however, she would receive no <i>kethubah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to Rabbinic law. ');">²⁵</span>

ההוא חרש דהוה בשבבותיה דרב מלכיו אנסביה איתתא וכתב לה ארבע מאה זוזי מנכסיה אמר רבא מאן חכים כרב מלכיו דגברא רבה הוא קסבר אילו רצה שפחה לשמשו מי לא זבנינן ליה כ"ש הכא דאיכא תרתי

since otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for if so', i.e., if the Rabbis had entitled her to receive a kethubah. ');">²⁶</span> men would abstain from marrying her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 793, n. 5 mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁷</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That eligibility to receive a kethubah is determined by the likelihood of the consent to marry the deaf person. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל אשת חרש אין חייבין עליה אשם תלוי

a <i>kethubah</i> should have been provided for a woman of sound senses who married a deaf man, since otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 5, mutatis mutandis. ');">²⁹</span> [women] would abstain from marrying [deaf men]! — More than the man desires to marry does the woman desire to be taken in marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lack of a kethubah would not prevent a woman from marrying a man even if he was deaf. ');">³⁰</span> A deaf man once lived in the neighbourhood of R. Malkiu [and the latter] allowed him to take a wife to whom he had assigned in writing a sum of four hundred <i>zuz</i> out of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deaf man's. ');">³¹</span>

לימא מסייע ליה חמשה לא יתרומו ואם תרמו אין תרומתן תרומה ואלו הן חרש שוטה וקטן והתורם את שאינו שלו ועובד כוכבים שתרם של ישראל אפילו ברשות ישראל אין תרומתו תרומה

estate. Raba remarked: Who is so wise as R. Malkiu who is indeed a great man. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Malkiu, in allowing the deaf man to accept responsibility for the sum mentioned. ');">³²</span> held the view: Had he wished to have a maid to wait upon him, would we not have allowed one to be bought for him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer is, of course, in the affirmative. ');">³³</span> How much more, [then, should his desire be fulfilled] here where there are two [reasons for complying with his request]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Matrimony and service. ');">³⁴</span>

הוא דאמר כרבי אלעזר דתניא ר' יצחק אומר משום רבי אלעזר תרומת חרש לא תצא לחולין מפני שהוא ספק אי סבירא כרבי אלעזר אשם תלוי נמי ליחייב

R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated in the name of Samuel: For [unwitting intercourse with] the wife of a deaf man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it might be argued that, since the degree of her husband's intelligence or mental capacity cannot be accurately gauged — the validity of her marriage should be deemed doubtful. ');">³⁵</span> no <i>asham talui</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²²</span> is incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such an offering is due only when the offence is a matter of doubt (cf. infra p. 796. n. 10). In this case, however, as the marriage is valid in Rabbinic law only but remains definitely invalid in Pentateuchal law, no offering could be incurred. ');">³⁶</span>

בעינן חתיכה משתי חתיכות

It might be suggested that the following provides support to his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel's. ');">³⁷</span> view: There are five who may not set apart <i>terumah</i>, and if they did so their <i>terumah</i> is not valid. These are they: A deaf man, an imbecile, a minor, he who gives <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the authority of its owner. ');">³⁸</span> from that which is not his own, and an idolater who gave <i>terumah</i> from that which belonged to an Israelite; and even [if the latter gave it] with the consent of the Israelite his <i>terumah</i> is invalid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. I, 1 Shab. 153b. From this Mishnah, then, it follows, since the terumah of a deaf man is regarded as definitely invalid, that the incapacity of a deaf man is not a matter of doubt; and this apparently provides support to Samuel's view. ');">³⁹</span>

ומי בעי רבי אלעזר חתיכה משתי חתיכות והתניא רבי אלעזר אומר כוי חייבין על חלבו אשם תלוי

— He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">⁴⁰</span> holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to terumah. ');">⁴¹</span> the same view is R. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Isaac stated in the name of R. Eleazar that the <i>terumah</i> of a deaf man must not be treated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go out'. ');">⁴²</span>

שמואל סבר כר' אלעזר בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

as profane, because its validity is a matter of doubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 153a. The invalidity of the terumah spoken of in the Mishnah cited may consequently be due to a similar reason. Hence no support for Samuel's view concerning a deaf man's wife may be adduced from it. ');">⁴³</span> If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">⁴⁰</span> is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the validity of the deaf man's action, and consequently also his capacity, is a matter of doubt. ');">⁴⁴</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל אשת חרש חייבין עליה אשם תלוי מיתיבי חמשה לא יתרומו סבר לה כרבי אלעזר

an <i>asham talui</i> also should be incurred!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case of intercourse with his wife. Cf. supra p. 795, n. 15, mutatis mutandis. ');">⁴⁵</span> — It is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an asham talui is to be incurred. ');">⁴⁶</span> [that the offence should be similar to that of eating] one of two available pieces [of meat].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of which was definitely forbidden and the other definitely permitted, and it is unknown whether a person ate the one or the other. Only in such a case, where the doubt is due to the existence of two objects, is an asham talui incurred. Similarly in the case of intercourse with one of two women, when it is unknown whether the woman affected was his own wife or a forbidden stranger, an asham talui is incurred. If the doubt, however, relates to one object, it being unknown, for instance, whether a piece of fat one has eaten was of the permitted or forbidden kind, no asham talui is involved. Similarly, in the case of the deaf man's marriage, where the doubt relates to one woman, it being uncertain whether she has the status of a married woman or not, no asham talui is incurred. ');">⁴⁷</span>

בעא רב אשי מ"ט דר' אלעזר מיפשט פשיטא לי' דחרש דעתא קלישתא הוא ומיהו מספקא לי' אי דעתא צילותא

But does R. Eleazar require [a condition similar to that of eating] one of two pieces? Surely, it was taught: R. Eleazar stated: For [eating] the suet of a koy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A kind of antelope, [G], concerning which it was unknown whether it belonged to the genus of cattle whose suet is forbidden or to that of the beast of chase whose suet is permitted. Cf. Hul. 80a. ');">⁴⁸</span> one incurs the obligation of an <i>asham talui</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the doubt relates to one object only. ');">⁴⁹</span> — Samuel is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar in one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to terumah. ');">⁵⁰</span> but differs from him in the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the liability of an asham talui. ');">⁵¹</span> Others read: R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated in the name of Samuel: For [unwitting intercourse with] the wife of a deaf man the obligation of an <i>asham talui</i> is incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 795. n. 14 mutatis mutandis. ');">⁵²</span> An objection was raised: There are five who may not set apart <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 796. n. 2 mutatis mutandis. ');">⁵³</span> — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">⁵⁴</span> holds the same view as R. Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 796. n. 7 (mutatis mutandis) and text. ');">⁵⁵</span> R. Ashi asked: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Is he positive that the mind of a deaf man is feeble but in doubt whether that mind is clear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And whatever little his feebleness enables him to do he can do well at all times. ');">⁵⁶</span>