Yevamot 226:1

אי לאו דעתא צילותא ולעולם חדא דעתא הוא או דלמא פשיטא ליה דדעתיה קלישתא ולאו דעתא צילותא הוא והכא היינו טעמא כיון דעתים חלים ועתים שוטה

or not clear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cannot do anything rational. ');">¹</span> though [in either case] it Is always in the same condition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either always clear or always not clear. ');">²</span> or is it possible that he has no doubt that the [deaf man's] mind is feeble and that it is not clear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cannot do anything rational. ');">¹</span>

למאי נפקא מינה להוציא אשתו בגט אי אמרת חדא דעתא הוא כקדושין כך גירושין

but [his doubt] here is due to this reason: Because [the deaf man] may sometimes be in a normal state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sound'. ');">³</span> and sometimes in a state of imbecility? In what respect would this constitute any practical difference? — In respect of releasing his wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom he married when he was already suffering from his infirmity. ');">⁴</span> by a letter of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question applies only to the view of R. Eleazar. (Cf. supra p. 796. n. 7). According to the Rabbis, as has been stated (supra 112b), a deaf man may divorce his wife, as he marries her, by gestures. ');">⁵</span>

ואי אמרת עתים חלים ועתים שוטה קדושי מצי מקדש גרושי לא מצי מגרש מאי תיקו:

If you grant that his mind is always in the same condition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either always clear or always not clear. ');">⁶</span> his divorce [would have the same validity] as his betrothal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his mental powers do not change, he is as capable of giving divorce as contracting a marriage. He was either capable of both transactions or of neither. ');">⁷</span> If, however, you contend that sometimes he is in a normal state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sound'. ');">³</span>

נשתטית וכו': א"ר יצחק דבר תורה שוטה מתגרשת מידי דהוה אפקחת בעל כרחה ומה טעם אמרו אינה מגורשת שלא ינהגו בה מנהג הפקר

and sometimes he is in a state of imbecility, he would indeed be capable of betrothal; in no way, however, would he be capable of giving divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being possible that at the time of the betrothal or marriage he happened to be in a normal state, and his act was consequently valid, while at the time of the divorce he may happen to relapse into imbecility, in consequence of which his act can have no validity. ');">⁸</span> What then is the decision? — This remains undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku, v. Glos. ');">⁹</span> IF SHE BECAME AN IMBECILE etc. R. Isaac stated: According to the word of the Torah, an imbecile may be divorced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is impossible to ascertain whether she realizes the significance of her action. ');">¹⁰</span>

היכי דמי אילימא דיודעת לשמור גיטה ויודעת לשמור עצמה מי נהגי בה מנהג הפקר אלא דאין יודעת לשמור לא גיטה ולא עצמה

since her case is similar to that of a woman of sound senses [who may be divorced] without her consent. What then is the reason why it was stated that she may not be divorced? — In order that people should not treat her as a piece of ownerless property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were she left unprotected by a husband, unscrupulous men might take undue advantage of her. ');">¹¹</span> What kind [of imbecile, however, is here] to be understood? If it be suggested [that it is one] who is capable of taking care of her letter of divorce and who is also capable of taking care of herself, would people [it may be asked] treat her as if she were ownerless property! If, however, [she is one] who is unable to take care either of her letter of divorce or of herself, [how could it be said that] in accordance with the word of the Torah she may be divorced? Surely, it was stated at the school of R. Jannai, And giveth it in her hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1 (hand = [H]. V. infra note 4). ');">¹²</span> [only to her] who is capable of accepting her divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who has a hand' (v. supra note 3). ');">¹³</span>

דבר תורה שוטה מתגרשת והא אמר דבי רבי ינאי (דברים כד, א) ונתן בידה מי שיש לה יד לגרש עצמה יצתה זו שאין לה יד לגרש עצמה

but this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The imbecile. ');">¹⁴</span> is excluded since she is incapable of accepting her divorce; and, furthermore, it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael, And sendeth her out of his house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');">¹⁵</span> only one who, when he sends her out, does not return, but this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The imbecile. ');">¹⁴</span>

ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (דברים כד, א) ושלחה מביתו מי שמשלחה ואינה חוזרת יצתה זו שמשלחה וחוזרת

is excluded since she returns even if he sends her out! — This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of R. Isaac concerning the imbecile. ');">¹⁶</span> was necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not required (but)'. ');">¹⁷</span> in respect of one who is capable of preserving her letter of divorce but is unable to take proper care of herself. Hence, in accordance with the word of the Torah, such an imbecile may well be divorced for, surely, she is capable of preserving her letter of divorce; the Rabbis, however, ruled that she shall not be dismissed in order that people might not treat her as a piece of ownerless property.

לא צריכא דיודעת לשמור גיטה ואינה יודעת לשמור עצמה דבר תורה שוטה מתגרשת דהא יודעת לשמור גיטה ואמור רבנן לא ליפקא שלא ינהגו בה מנהג הפקר

Abaye remarked: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the divorce of an imbecile is only Rabbinically forbidden but Pentateuchally permitted. ');">¹⁸</span> may also be supported by deduction. For in respect of her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The imbecile. ');">¹⁴</span> it was stated, IF SHE BECAME AN IMBECILE HE MAY NOT DIVORCE HER, while in respect of him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who became an imbecile. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר אביי דיקא נמי דקתני גבי דידה נשתטית לא יוציא וגבי דידיה לא יוציא עולמית מאי שנא הכא דקתני עולמית ומאי שנא התם דלא קתני עולמית אלא שמע מינה הא דאורייתא הא דרבנן:

[the statement was]. HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER. In what respect [it may be asked] does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'. ');">²⁰</span> differ [from her] that the statement [concerning him] is NEVER while in respect of her 'NEVER' is not mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what is different there that it was not taught forever'. ');">²¹</span> The inference, then, must be that the one is Pentateuchal, the other Rabbinical.

א"ר יוחנן בן נורי וכו': איבעיא להו רבי יוחנן בן נורי איש פשיטא ליה ואשה קמיבעיא ליה או דלמא אשה פשיטא ליה ואיש קמיבעיא ליה

R. JOHANAN B. NURI ASKED etc. The question was raised: Was R. Johanan b. Nuri certain [of the law concerning] the man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if he was deaf he may not divorce his wife. ');">²²</span> and his question related to that of the woman, or is it possible that he was certain concerning that of the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if she was deaf she may be divorced. ');">²³</span> and his question related to that of the man? — Come and hear: Since they answered him: A MAN WHO GIVES A DIVORCE IS NOT LIKE A WOMAN WHO IS DIVORCED. FOR WHILE A WOMAN MAY BE DIVORCED WITH HER CONSENT AS WELL AS WITHOUT IT, A MAN CAN GIVE A DIVORCE ONLY WITH HIS FULL CONSENT, it may be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression used in the reply was, A MAN&nbsp;… IS NOT LIKE A WOMAN. ');">²⁴</span>

ת"ש מדקאמרו ליה אינו דומה האיש המגרש לאשה המתגרשת שהאשה יוצאת לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו ש"מ איש קמיבעיא ליה אדרבה מדקא"ל אף זו כיוצא בה ש"מ אשה קמיבעיא ליה

that his question related to the man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it referred to the woman, the expression in the reply would have been, 'A woman&nbsp;… is not like a man'. ');">²⁵</span> On the contrary; since they said to him: THE OTHER ALSO IS IN A SIMILAR POSITION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man not having been mentioned at all. ');">²⁶</span> it may be inferred that his question related to the woman! — But [the fact is this]: R. Johanan b. Nuri was addressing [them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">²⁷</span>

אלא ' ר' יוחנן בן נורי לדבריהם קאמר להו לדידי כי היכי דאיש לא מצי מגרש אשה נמי לא מיגרשא אלא לדידכו מאי שנא אשה ומאי שנא איש אמרו ליה אינו דומה האיש המגרש לאשה המתגרשת:

in the light] of their own statement. 'According to my view', [he argued], 'as well as a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is deaf. ');">²⁸</span> is incapable of giving a divorce, so also is a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it referred to the woman, the expression in the reply would have been, 'A woman&nbsp;… is not like a man'. ');">²⁵</span> incapable of receiving a divorce;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was to this statement that the Rabbis replied, THE OTHER ALSO IS IN A SIMILAR POSITION. ');">²⁹</span>

העיד רבי יוחנן וכו': אמר רבא מעדותו של רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא אמר לעדים ראו גט זה שאני נותן ואמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה הרי זו מגורשת

but according to your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which allows a deaf woman to be divorced. ');">³⁰</span> why should there be a difference between a man and a woman?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should not a deaf man also be allowed to divorce his wife? ');">³¹</span> [To this] they replied: A MAN WHO GIVES A DIVORCE IS NOT LIKE A WOMAN WHO IS DIVORCED.

מי לא אמר רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא לא בעינן דעתה הכא נמי לא בעינן דעתה פשיטא

R. JOHANAN&nbsp;… TESTIFIED etc. Raba stated: From the testimony of R. Johanan b. Gudgada<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which a woman may be divorced without her consent even though her betrothal was Pentateuchally valid. ');">³²</span> [it may be inferred that if a husband] said to witnesses, 'See this letter of divorce which I am giving [to my wife]', and to her he said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When handing the letter of divorce to her. ');">³³</span> 'Take this bill of indebtedness', she is nevertheless divorced. For did not R. Johanan b. Gudgada imply that [the woman's] consent was not required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 799, n. 13. ');">³⁴</span>

מהו דתימא מדא"ל כנסי שטר חוב זה בטולי בטליה קמ"ל אי איתא דבטליה לעדים הוה קאמר להו ומדלא אמר לעדים לא בטליה ולא מידי והאי דקאמר הכי מחמת כיסופא הוא דקאמר להו

Here also, then, her consent is not required. Is not this obvious!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Johanan. What need, then, was there for Raba to state the obvious? ');">³⁵</span> — It might have been assumed that since he said to her, 'Take this bill of indebtedness'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus describing the document as one which has no relation whatsoever to divorce. ');">³⁶</span> he has thereby cancelled [the letter of divorce], hence we were taught [that it remains valid, for] had he in fact cancelled it, he would have made his statement to the witnesses. Since, however, he did not make the statement to the witnesses he did not cancel it at all; and the only reason why he made that statement to her was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and that which he said thus, owing to'. ');">³⁷</span>

רב יצחק בר ביסנא אירכסו ליה מפתחי דבי מדרשא ברשות הרבים בשבתא אתא לקמיה דרבי פדת אמר ליה זיל

to conceal [his] shame.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At divorcing her. Or, to save her from the shame of being divorced in public. ');">³⁸</span> R. Isaac b. Bisna once lost the keys of the school house in a public domain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reshuth harabbim [H]. Glos. [Though the question arose on Sabbath they could not have been lost in a public domain on that day. BaH., therefore, rightly omits 'on a Sabbath'; nor did Rashi seem to have it, v. 114a s. v. [H], v.n. 9]. ');">³⁹</span> on a Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in a place where, and on a day when carrying of objects is forbidden. ');">⁴⁰</span> When he came to R. Pedath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Sabbath (Rashi). To consult him on the best way of getting the keys to the school house. ');">⁴¹</span> the latter said to him, 'Go and