## Gittin Daf 71a

###### Gittin 71a:1
[Gittin 71a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:1)

אֶלָּא בְּפֵירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it means that the court asks him questions **with** regard to **produce** that is not found during that season.


###### Gittin 71a:2
[Gittin 71a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:2)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב, כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ?״ וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים, אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו – ״לָאו״, וְעַל הֵן – ״הֵן״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **a deaf-mute who can express** himself **through writing,** the judges of the court may **write and give a bill of divorce to his wife** based on his written instructions. **Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We** already **learned** in the mishna: In a case where the husband **became mute, and** the members of the court **said to him:** Shall **we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head** indicating his agreement, **they examine him** with various questions **three times. If he responded to** questions that have **a negative** answer: **No, and** responded **to** questions that have **a positive** answer: **Yes,** indicating his competence, **they shall write** the bill of divorce **and give** it to his wife based on the nod of his head.


###### Gittin 71a:3
[Gittin 71a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִלֵּם קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי אִלֵּם – דְּתַנְיָא: מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ – זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר – זֶהוּ אִלֵּם, וְזֶה וָזֶה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפִקְחִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said to him: A mute, you say?** Is your challenge based on the mishna which discusses one who is mute? **A mute is different** because it is clear that his mind is intact. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 1:2): With regard to one **who speaks but cannot hear, this** individual **is** categorized as **a deaf person.** With regard to one **who hears but cannot speak, this** individual **is** categorized as **a mute person, and** both **this** one **and that** one **are** considered to be **like** halakhically **competent** people **with regard to all their matters.** Rav Kahana stated his ruling with regard to one who can neither hear nor speak. This goes beyond the *halakha* of the mishna, as Rav Kahana says that the written statement of a deaf-mute is an indication of his mental competence.


###### Gittin 71a:4
[Gittin 71a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:4)

וּמִמַּאי דִּמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר זֶהוּ אִלֵּם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע וּכְאִלֵּם לֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אִישְׁתְּקִיל מִילּוּלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** do we learn **that** one **who speaks but cannot hear, this** individual **is** categorized as **a deaf person,** and that with regard to one **who hears but cannot speak, this** individual **is** categorized as **a mute person? As it is written: “And I am like a deaf man, I do not hear, and like the mute man who will not open his mouth”** (Psalms 38:14). **And if you wish, say as people say:** The word for a mute [*ilem*] is a contraction of the expression **his speech has been taken [*ishtakil millulei*].**


###### Gittin 71a:5
[Gittin 71a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד״ – פְּרָט לְאִלֵּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיד. אַמַּאי? הָא יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיד מִתּוֹךְ הַכְּתָב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said: If** Rav Kahana’s statement is **difficult for me, this** is **difficult for me, as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the punishment of one who was called to testify and failed to do so: **“If he does not utter** his testimony then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1). The Sages derive from this that the verse serves **to exclude a mute who is unable to utter** his testimony, and he is exempt from bringing the offering of one who refuses to testify. And it is possible to raise the following question: **Why** is he exempt from bringing the offering; **but he is able to utter** his testimony **through writing?** Apparently, written testimony is not valid testimony.


###### Gittin 71a:6
[Gittin 71a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֵדוּת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי עֵדוּת, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״מִפִּיהֶם״ – וְלֹא מִפִּי כְתָבָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: You say testimony? Testimony is different, as the Merciful One states: “From their mouths”** (Deuteronomy 17:6), which emphasizes that testimony must come from the witnesses’ mouths **and not from their writing.**


###### Gittin 71a:7
[Gittin 71a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ לְגִיטִּין, כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ לְמַשָּׂאוֹת, וּלְמַתָּנוֹת, וּלְעֵדִיּוֹת, וְלִירוּשּׁוֹת. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת – ״עֵדִיּוֹת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** to this based on that which is taught in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:1): **Just as** the judges of the court **investigate him,** one who lost his ability to speak, **with regard to bills of divorce, so too,** the judges **investigate him with regard to business** transactions, **testimonies, and inheritances. In any event it teaches: Testimonies,** which proves that even one unable to speak can give testimony.


###### Gittin 71a:8
[Gittin 71a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:8)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה, דַּאֲקִילּוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said** that **Rav Sheshet said:** This is not referring to testimony in general. Rather, it is referring **to testimony** with regard to **a woman** whose husband died, **as the Sages were lenient with her** and allowed testimony that would normally not be accepted, in order to permit her to remarry.


###### Gittin 71a:9
[Gittin 71a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:9)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי: ״יְרוּשּׁוֹת״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: יְרוּשַּׁת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it** also **taught: Inheritances.** This seems to be referring to monetary matters, where proper testimony is required. **Rabbi Abbahu said:** The *baraita* is referring to **the inheritance of his** own **firstborn son,** meaning that he is not testifying about other people’s property but testifying which one of his sons is the firstborn. Since this testimony is merely considered to be a division of the property that belongs to him, the testimony of one who is unable to speak is valid.


###### Gittin 71a:10
[Gittin 71a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:10)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת – ״לְמַשָּׂאוֹת וּלְמַתָּנוֹת״, מַאי, לָאו לְעָלְמָא? לָא, לְדִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to challenge: **In any event it teaches** in the *baraita*: **With regard to business** transactions, **what, does it not** mean that a mute may testify with regard to business transactions **for everyone** else? The Gemara answers: **No,** he may testify **for himself** only. The *baraita* is saying that when a mute conducts business the court must first check if he is mentally capable.


###### Gittin 71a:11
[Gittin 71a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: חֵרֵשׁ, לֹא הָלְכוּ בּוֹ אַחַר רְמִיזוֹתָיו וְאַחַר קְפִיצוֹתָיו וְאַחַר כְּתַב יָדוֹ, אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין; אֲבָל לֹא לְגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** from a *baraita*: With regard to **a deaf-mute,** the judges of the court **follow his signals, and follow the movement** of his lips, **and follow his handwriting only** for matters of buying and selling **movable property but not for bills of divorce.** This appears to contradict Rav Kahana’s statement that it is permitted for a deaf-mute husband to give written instructions to divorce his wife.


###### Gittin 71a:12
[Gittin 71a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:12)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, אֲבָל פִּיקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ – הוּא כּוֹתֵב וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 1:1) that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement** that the court may not rely on the written testimony of a deaf-mute with regard to a bill of divorce **said?** Only **in** the case **of a deaf-mute** who was deaf **from the outset,** i.e., from birth. But if he had been halakhically **competent,** i.e., he could previously hear, **but became a deaf-mute** later, then **he may write** instructions to give his wife a bill of divorce **and they,** the witnesses, should **sign,** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana.


###### Gittin 71a:13
[Gittin 71a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:13)

וְחֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – לֹא?! כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹנְסָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ מוֹצִיאָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** one who is a **deaf-mute from the outset cannot** give written instructions with regard to a bill of divorce? Isn’t it true that **just as he marries her with intimation,** i.e., without speaking, **so too, he divorces her with intimation.**


###### Gittin 71a:14
[Gittin 71a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:14)

אִי בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּיבִמְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** the *baraita* is referring **to his wife, indeed** this would be the case and he could divorce her through intimations, because such a marriage is not a fully valid marriage by Torah law. But **with what are we dealing here? With his *yevama*,** his sister-in-law whose husband, his brother, died childless to whom he performed levirate marriage, and whom he subsequently wishes to divorce. This marriage is a fully valid marriage.


###### Gittin 71a:15
[Gittin 71a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:15)

יְבִמְתּוֹ מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ – כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכְּנִיסָתָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ יְצִיאָתָהּ בִּרְמִיזָה! אֶלָּא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו פִּיקֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **His *yevama* from whom? If we say that she fell to him from his brother** who was also **a deaf-mute,** then **just as her marriage** to the brother was **through intimation, so too, her divorce** from the *yavam* can be **through intimation. Rather,** it must be **that she fell to him from his** halakhically **competent brother.** Consequently, the bond of the levirate marriage is by Torah law, whereas the deaf-mute man’s intimations that he desires to divorce her are valid only by rabbinic law.


###### Gittin 71a:16
[Gittin 71a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:16)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ, וּגְזֵירָה אָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ אָחִיו פִּיקֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** explain **that she fell to him from his deaf-mute brother, and** the Sages instituted a rabbinic **decree** with regard to a woman bound in a levirate marriage **from his deaf-mute brother due to** the death of **his** halakhically **competent brother.**


###### Gittin 71a:17
[Gittin 71a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:17)

אִי הָכִי, אִשְׁתּוֹ נָמֵי! יְבִמְתּוֹ בִּיבִמְתּוֹ מִיחַלְּפָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּיבִמְתּוֹ לָא מִיחַלְּפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** and the Sages made such a decree with regard to a case where a deaf-mute brother died due to the case where a brother who is halakhically competent died, then with regard to **his** own **wife as well,** they should have made a decree that a deaf-mute husband cannot divorce her with a bill of divorce if he married her as a deaf-mute. The Gemara answers: **His *yevama*** who was married to his halakhically competent brother might **be confused with his *yevama*** who was married to his deaf-mute brother. But people **would not confuse his** own **wife with his *yevama*.** Therefore, there was no need to institute such a decree.


###### Gittin 71a:18
[Gittin 71a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/71a:18)

וּמִי גָּזְרִינַן חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ פִּיקֵּחַ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do we,** the Sages, **decree** with regard to his **deaf-mute** brother **due to** confusion between him and his halakhically **competent** brother?