## Yevamot Daf 110a

###### Yevamot 110a:1
[Yevamot 110a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:1)

מַאי לָאו, דְּלָא בְּעַל? לָא, דִּבְעַל. אִי דִּבְעַל, מַאי טַעְמָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל? קָסָבַר: כׇּל הַבּוֹעֵל — עַל דַּעַת קִדּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הוּא בּוֹעֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** a case **where he did not have intercourse** with her after she reached majority? If so, Rav thinks that even when he did not have intercourse with her, her marriage is fully realized once she reaches majority. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** this is referring to a case **where he did have intercourse with her.** The Gemara asks: **If** it is referring to a case **where he had intercourse with her, what is Shmuel’s reasoning?** If the first one engaged in intercourse with her after she reached majority, then the marriage was fully realized. Under such circumstances, the second betrothal would not take effect. The Gemara answers: Shmuel **holds that** when **anyone has sexual intercourse** with a woman he married as a minor, his **intention is that the intercourse** is within the framework established by **the initial betrothal** and is not a new act of acquisition.


###### Yevamot 110a:2
[Yevamot 110a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:2)

וְהָא פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דְּאִיתְּמַר: קִדְּשָׁהּ עַל תְּנַאי, וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם — רַב אָמַר: צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if this is the basis of the dispute, **they already disagreed about this once, as it was stated** with regard to the following case: A man **betrothed** a woman **on** some **condition, and married her without mentioning** the condition, and the condition was not fulfilled. **Rav says: She requires a bill of divorce from him, and Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him.**


###### Yevamot 110a:3
[Yevamot 110a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:3)

רַב אָמַר צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט — כֵּיוָן דְּנַסְבַהּ אַחוֹלֵי אַחֲלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, כׇּל הַבּוֹעֵל, עַל דַּעַת קִדּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הוּא בּוֹעֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rav says she requires a bill of divorce from him,** for **since he married her, he** apparently **retracted his condition,** and is therefore married to her even though the condition was not met. **And Shmuel says: She does not require a bill of divorce from him,** because **anyone who has sexual intercourse** with his wife, his **intention is that the intercourse** is within the framework established by **the initial betrothal** and the condition he set at the time of betrothal still stands. Since it was not fulfilled, the marriage is annulled. If so, Rav and Shmuel already disagreed about this same issue.


###### Yevamot 110a:4
[Yevamot 110a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:4)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר הָהִיא, בְּהָהִיא קָאָמַר רַב, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא תְּנָאָה, וְכֵיוָן דִּבְעַל, אַחֲלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ. אֲבָל בְּהָא, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ, לִשְׁמוּאֵל. וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא: בְּהָךְ קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** to state the dispute in both contexts, **for if only that** *halakha* about conditional betrothal **was stated,** one might think: **In this case Rav says** she needs a divorce **since there is a condition** with regard to the betrothal, **but when he had intercourse** with her, **he retracted the condition. But in this** case of betrothal to a minor, **say that** Rav **would concede to Shmuel** that the intercourse was not performed with the intention of it constituting a full betrothal. **And if only this** case of betrothal to a minor **was stated,** one might think: **Shmuel said that** the marriage is effective **in this** case of betrothal to a minor, **but in that** case of a conditional betrothal, **say** that **he would concede to Rav.** Therefore, it was **necessary** to state the dispute explicitly in both instances.


###### Yevamot 110a:5
[Yevamot 110a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:5)

וּמִי אָמַר רַב כִּי בְּעַל — אִין, אִי לָא בְּעַל — לָא? הָא הָהִיא עוֹבָדָא דַּהֲוָה בְּנַרֶשׁ, וְאִיקַּדִּישָׁה כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה, וְגָדְלָה, וְאוֹתְבַיהּ אַבֵּי כוּרְסְיָיא, וַאֲתָא אַחֲרִינָא וְחַטְפַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. וְרַב בְּרוֹנָא וְרַב חֲנַנְאֵל תַּלְמִידֵי דְרַב הֲווֹ הָתָם, וְלָא אַצְרְיכוּהָ גִּיטָּא מִבָּתְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rav** actually **say** that **when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, yes,** the original marriage is valid, **and if he did not have intercourse with her, no,** it is not valid? **Wasn’t there an incident in** the city of **Neresh where** a woman **was betrothed when she was a minor, and she reached majority, and** the husband **seated her in a bridal chair** under the marriage canopy and had not yet had intercourse with her, **and another** man **came and seized her from him** and married her? **And Rav Bruna and Rav Ḥananel, the students of Rav, were there and they did not require her** to receive **a bill of divorce from the latter** husband. Presumably, they regarded her as fully married to the first husband, so the marriage to the second marriage never took effect, despite the fact that the first marriage had not yet been consummated.


###### Yevamot 110a:6
[Yevamot 110a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּנַרֶשׁ מִינְסַב נָסְיבִי, וַהֲדַר מוֹתְבִי אַבֵּי כוּרְסְיָיא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הוּא עָשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן, לְפִיכָךְ עָשׂוּ בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן, וְאַפְקְעִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לְקִידּוּשֵׁי מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** There is a difference, because **in Neresh their** practice is to first **marry** a woman and have intercourse with her, **and afterward they seat her in the bridal chair.** In this incident, the husband had already had intercourse with her once she was an adult, and that is why Rav’s students did not require a bill of divorce from the second man. **Rav Ashi says:** There was a different reason, even if the practice was not as Rav Pappa describes. **This** bride snatcher **acted improperly. Consequently, they treated him improperly** by annulling the legal validity of his actions, **and the Sages abrogated his betrothal.**


###### Yevamot 110a:7
[Yevamot 110a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תִּינַח דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּכַסְפָּא, קַדֵּישׁ בְּבִיאָה מַאי? שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן לִבְעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** This **works out well if** the second man **betrothed her with money,** as then the Sages could declare that money to be ownerless property and void the betrothal. **If he betrothed her by means of intercourse, what** is the *halakha*? How can the Sages dissolve the betrothal when the sexual act took place? The Gemara answers: **The Sages rendered his sexual act a licentious sexual act,** which does not create a bond of betrothal. With regard to the dispute in the mishna, **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** and the minor is instructed to make a declaration of refusal. **Likewise, Rabbi Elazar said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Yevamot 110a:8
[Yevamot 110a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי לִשְׁתֵּי יְתוֹמוֹת קְטַנּוֹת, וּמֵת — בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶם פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי חֵרְשׁוֹת. קְטַנָּה וְחֵרֶשֶׁת — אֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **a man was married to two orphaned minors and died, consummation** of levirate marriage **or *ḥalitza* with one of them exempts her rival wife** from either levirate marriage or *ḥalitza*, rendering her free to remarry. **Likewise,** if **two deaf-mutes** were married to one man who died, consummation of levirate marriage or *ḥalitza* with one of them exempts her rival wife. In both of these cases, both women are married by rabbinic law and consequently become *yevamot* by rabbinic law. Since their statuses are equal, one can exempt the other. If one wife is a **minor and** the other is **a deaf-mute, consummation** of levirate marriage or *ḥalitza* **with one of them does not exempt her rival wife.** Although both women are married by rabbinic law, their statuses are not the same and one cannot exempt the other.


###### Yevamot 110a:9
[Yevamot 110a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:9)

פִּקַּחַת וְחֵרֶשֶׁת — בִּיאַת הַפִּקַּחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת הַחֵרֶשֶׁת, וְאֵין בִּיאַת הַחֵרֶשֶׁת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַפִּקַּחַת. גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה — בִּיאַת הַגְּדוֹלָה פּוֹטֶרֶת הַקְּטַנָּה, וְאֵין בִּיאַת הַקְּטַנָּה פּוֹטֶרֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one of them **was** halakhically **competent and** one was **a deaf-mute, consummation** of levirate marriage **with the** halakhically **competent** wife **exempts the deaf-mute,** as the halakhically competent women’s marriage and levirate marriage are by Torah law. **But consummation** of levirate marriage **with the deaf-mute does not exempt the** halakhically **competent** wife. Likewise, if one was **an adult woman and one a minor girl, consummation** of levirate marriage **with the adult exempts the minor but consummation** of levirate marriage **with the minor does not exempt the adult.**


###### Yevamot 110a:10
[Yevamot 110a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** וְחֵרֶשֶׁת בַּת חֲלִיצָה הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁנֶּחְלַץ, וְחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁחָלְצָה, וְחוֹלֶצֶת מִן הַקָּטָן — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna states that *ḥalitza* by one deaf-mute exempts the other. The Gemara asks: **Can a deaf-mute perform *ḥalitza*? Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (104b): If **a male deaf-mute performs *ḥalitza*, and** if **a female deaf-mute performs *ḥalitza*, and** if a woman **performs *ḥalitza* on a minor boy, her *ḥalitza* is disqualified?**


###### Yevamot 110a:11
[Yevamot 110a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:11)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: אַבִּיאָה. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַחֲלִיצָה — כָּאן בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרָא, כָּאן בְּפִקַּחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said:** The mishna is not referring to a deaf-mute’s *ḥalitza*, but rather **to consummation** of levirate marriage with one of the deaf-mutes. **Rava said: You** can **even say it is referring to *ḥalitza*. Here,** the mishna is referring **to** a woman who was **a deaf-mute from the outset,** when he married her, and **there** the mishna that disqualifies the *ḥalitza* is referring **to** someone who was halakhically **competent** when she was married **and afterward became a deaf-mute.**


###### Yevamot 110a:12
[Yevamot 110a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:12)

חֵרֶשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּעָל — הָכִי נָפֵק, פִּקַּחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרְשָׁה — לָא, דִּמְעַכְּבָא בַּהּ קְרִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The difference is that **a deaf-mute from the outset, just as she entered** into marriage with her first husband **so she leaves** the levirate bond by means of *ḥalitza*. Both her marriage and her status as a *yevama* are by rabbinic law. However, **one who was** halakhically **competent,** so that she was married by Torah law, **and later became a deaf-mute, no,** she cannot be released by *ḥalitza*, **since recitation is indispensable for her** *ḥalitza*, and she cannot recite the text that a *yevama* must recite.


###### Yevamot 110a:13
[Yevamot 110a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְחֵרֶשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרָא בַּת חֲלִיצָה הִיא? וְהָתְנַן: שְׁנֵי אַחִין, אֶחָד פִּקֵּחַ וְאֶחָד חֵרֵשׁ, נְשׂוּאִין לִשְׁתֵּי נׇכְרִיּוֹת, אַחַת פִּקַּחַת וְאַחַת חֵרֶשֶׁת, מֵת חֵרֵשׁ בַּעַל חֵרֶשֶׁת, מָה יַעֲשֶׂה פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל פִּקַּחַת? כּוֹנֵס. וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹצִיא — יוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to this: And is one who is a deaf-mute from the outset a candidate for *ḥalitza*? Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 112b): **Two brothers, one** who is halakhically **competent and one** who is **a deaf-mute,** are **married** to **two unrelated** women, **one** who is halakhically **competent and one deaf-mute.** If **the male deaf-mute,** who is **the husband of the female deaf-mute, dies, what should the** halakhically **competent** man, who is **the husband of the** halakhically **competent woman, do? He may consummate** the levirate marriage, but there is no option of performing *ḥalitza*. **And if he wants to divorce** her later, **he may divorce her.**


###### Yevamot 110a:14
[Yevamot 110a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/110a:14)

מֵת פִּקֵּחַ בַּעַל פִּקַּחַת, מָה יַעֲשֶׂה חֵרֵשׁ בַּעַל חֵרֶשֶׁת? כּוֹנֵס, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לְעוֹלָם. מַאי לָאו, בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְקָתָנֵי: כּוֹנֵס אִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If the** halakhically **competent man, husband of the** halakhically **competent woman, dies, what should the** male **deaf-mute,** who is **the husband of the female deaf-mute, do? He may consummate the** levirate marriage, **but he may never divorce her,** as a deaf-mute is not halakhically competent to divorce a woman to whom he is married by Torah law. **What, is it not** referring to **a deaf-mute from the outset? And it is taught: Yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage,**