## Yevamot Daf 113a

###### Yevamot 113a:1
[Yevamot 113a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:1)

מִימַּנְעִי וְלָא נָסְבִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
others **would refrain from marrying her** at all, as she can issue a declaration of refusal indefinitely, whereas in the case of a minor there is a time limit with regard to her option of a refusal.


###### Yevamot 113a:2
[Yevamot 113a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:2)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא קְטַנָּה דְּאָכְלָה בִּתְרוּמָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא חֵרֶשֶׁת דְּלָא אָכְלָה בִּתְרוּמָה? דִּתְנַן: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט, וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן שֶׁאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאִילּוּ חֵרֶשֶׁת לָא אָכְלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara further asks: **What is the difference** between **a minor girl, that she may partake of *teruma*** when she is married to a priest, **and a deaf-mute woman, that she may not partake of *teruma*** when she is married to a priest, despite the fact that both of their marriages apply by rabbinic law? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 55b): **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada testified with regard to a female deaf-mute whose father married her off, that she can be divorced with a bill of divorce. And** he testified **with regard to a minor girl, daughter of an non-priest who was married to a priest, that she may partake of *teruma*, whereas a deaf-mute woman,** it may be inferred, **may not partake** of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 113a:3
[Yevamot 113a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:3)

גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִיל חֵרֵשׁ בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת. וְלֵיכוֹל, קָטָן אוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The reason that a deaf-mute woman may not partake of *teruma*, even if she is married to a halakhically competent priest, is due to a rabbinic **decree lest a deaf-mute** priest likewise **feed** *teruma* **to** his **deaf-mute** wife. The Gemara asks: **And** which prohibition would that violate? **Let him feed** her, as **he is** equivalent to **a minor** who **eats** meat from **unslaughtered animals.** This is referring to the *halakha* that there is no obligation to prevent minors from committing transgressions. Since a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent, has the status of a minor, the same reasoning should apply in this case. Consequently, the court should be under no obligation to prevent this deaf-mute woman from eating *teruma* unlawfully.


###### Yevamot 113a:4
[Yevamot 113a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:4)

גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִיל חֵרֵשׁ בְּפִקַּחַת. וְחֵרֵשׁ בְּפִקַּחַת נָמֵי לֵיכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן! גְּזֵירָה דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאוֹכֹלַהּ בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, it is a rabbinic **decree lest a deaf-mute** priest **feed** *teruma* to a halakhically **competent** wife. Since by Torah law her marriage to a deaf-mute man is not valid, she may not eat *teruma*. The Gemara asks: **As well,** in the case of **a deaf-mute** priest who wishes **to** feed a halakhically **competent** wife, **let her partake of *teruma*** that applies **by rabbinic** law. There are types of produce from which there is no obligation to separate *teruma* by Torah law, and one separates *teruma* from them due to rabbinic decree. Just as the marriage of this woman is by rabbinic law, she should be permitted to eat *teruma* that applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic **decree,** as **perhaps he will come to feed her *teruma*** that applies **by Torah** law.


###### Yevamot 113a:5
[Yevamot 113a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:5)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא קְטַנָּה דְּאִית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא חֵרֶשֶׁת דְּלֵית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה? דְּאִם כֵּן — מִימַּנְעִי וְלָא נָסְבִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **And what is the difference** between **a minor girl, that she has a marriage contract, and a deaf-mute woman, that she does not have a marriage contract?** The Gemara answers: The reason is **that if so,** if the husband of a deaf-mute would be obligated to give her a marriage contract, men **would refrain from marrying her** at all.


###### Yevamot 113a:6
[Yevamot 113a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:6)

וּקְטַנָּה מְנָלַן דְּאִית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה? דִּתְנַן: הַמְמָאֶנֶת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּיה, וְאַיְילוֹנִית — אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. אֲבָל יוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט וּקְטַנָּה — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And a minor girl, from where do we** derive that **she has a marriage contract? As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 67a): With regard to a minor **who refuses** her husband and leaves him, **and** likewise a woman who is a **secondary** forbidden **relative** prohibited by rabbinic law, **and a sexually underdeveloped woman** who is incapable of bearing children, these women **have no marriage contract.** The Gemara infers: **However,** any other woman who can be **divorced by** means of **a bill of divorce, and** this includes **a minor girl, is entitled to a marriage contract.**


###### Yevamot 113a:7
[Yevamot 113a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:7)

וְחֵרֶשֶׁת מְנָלַן דְּלֵית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה? דְּתַנְיָא: חֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ פִּקְּחוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְפַּקֵּחַ הַחֵרֵשׁ, וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה הַשּׁוֹטֶה — אֵין לָהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם כְּלוּם. רָצוּ לְקַיְּימָן — יֵשׁ לָהֶם כְּתוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And a deaf-mute woman, from where do we** derive that **she has no marriage contract? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **A deaf-mute and an imbecile who married** halakhically **competent women, even if the deaf-mute** subsequently **regained his senses, and the imbecile regained his competence,** their wives **have no** claim of **anything against them,** even if their wives received marriage contracts from them. However, **if** the men **wish to maintain** these women as their wives after they became fully competent, they **have a marriage contract** from that point onward.


###### Yevamot 113a:8
[Yevamot 113a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:8)

וּפִקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ שׁוֹטָה, אֲפִילּוּ כָּתַב לָהּ מֵאָה מָנֶה — כְּתוּבָּתָהּ קַיֶּימֶת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרָצָה לִזּוֹק בִּנְכָסָיו. טַעְמָא דְּרָצָה, הָא לֹא רָצָה — אֵין לָהּ, דְּאִם כֵּן מִימַּנְעִי וְלָא נָסְבִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in the case of **a** halakhically **competent man who married a deaf-mute or an imbecile,** and he decided to write a marriage contract for her, **even if he wrote for her one hundred dinars her marriage contract is valid, because he wanted to harm his** own **property.** In other words, as he acted willingly, despite the lack of obligation to do so, this is comparable to one who chooses to harm himself and give away property in any other manner; it is his prerogative. The Gemara infers: **The reason** for this *halakha* is **that he wanted** to write her a marriage contract, from which it may be inferred that if **he does not want** to write one, **she** will **not have** a marriage contract. The logic is as stated above, **that if so,** men **would refrain from marrying her.**


###### Yevamot 113a:9
[Yevamot 113a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:9)

אִי הָכִי, פִּקַּחַת לְחֵרֵשׁ לִיתַקֵּן לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה, דְּאִם כֵּן מִימַּנְעִי וְלָא מִינַּסְבִי! יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁהָאִישׁ רוֹצֶה לִישָּׂא, אִשָּׁה רוֹצָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** in a case of **a** halakhically **competent woman** who was married **to a deaf-mute, let the Sages enact a marriage contract for her, for if so,** i.e., if women would not receive marriage contracts in this situation, they **would refrain from marrying** deaf-mute men entirely. The Gemara answers: **More than the man wants to get married, a woman wants to be married.** Consequently, women will not be too discriminating with regard to marriage with a deaf-mute, even if they are not entitled to a marriage contract.


###### Yevamot 113a:10
[Yevamot 113a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:10)

הָהוּא חֵרֵשׁ דַּהֲוָה בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, אַנְסְבֵיהּ אִיתְּתָא וּכְתַב לַהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי מִנִּכְסֵיהּ. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים כְּרַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא. קָסָבַר: אִילּוּ רָצָה שִׁפְחָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ מִי לָא זָבְנִינַן לֵיהּ? כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא, דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain deaf-mute** man **who was in the neighborhood of Rav Malkiyyu.** Rav Malkiyyu **married him to a woman, and he wrote four-hundred dinars for her from the property** of the deaf-mute as her marriage contract. **Rava said: Who is as wise as Rav Malkiyyu, as he is a great man** who found a way to achieve a desirable result by giving her a marriage contract, despite the fact that the deaf-mute was not obligated to do so. Rav Malkiyyu **reasoned** as follows: **If** that deaf-mute man **wanted a maidservant to attend to him, would we not acquire one for him? All the more so here, as there are two** advantages, for she will attend to his needs both as a maidservant and as a wife.


###### Yevamot 113a:11
[Yevamot 113a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:11)

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said** that **Shmuel said:** If a man had unwitting relations with **the wife of a deaf-mute,** i.e., not knowing that she was married, **he is not obligated to** bring **a guilt-offering for uncertainty on her account.** He is not liable to bring an offering that is brought in cases where one is unsure whether he committed a sin that requires a sin-offering. A man who unwittingly has relations with a married woman must bring a sin-offering, whereas if the woman was doubtfully married, he brings a guilt-offering for uncertainty. However, the marriage of a deaf-mute is not even categorized as a doubtful marriage.


###### Yevamot 113a:12
[Yevamot 113a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:12)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרוֹמוּ, וְאִם תָּרְמוּ — אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, וְהַתּוֹרֵם אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְגוֹי שֶׁתָּרַם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִילּוּ בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Let us say that** the mishna (*Terumot* 1:1) **supports** Shmuel’s opinion: There are **five** categories of people who **may not separate *teruma*** *ab initio*, **and if they separated *teruma*, their *teruma* is not** considered ***teruma*. They are: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, and one who separates *teruma*** from produce **that is not his, and a gentile who separated *teruma*** from the produce **of a Jew even with the Jew’s permission.** In this last case, **his *teruma* is not considered *teruma*,** because a gentile cannot be appointed as an agent to separate *teruma*, and all the more so he cannot separate *teruma* on his own. This shows that the actions of a deaf-mute have no effect, and are not even considered of doubtful validity.


###### Yevamot 113a:13
[Yevamot 113a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:13)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תְּרוּמַת חֵרֵשׁ לֹא תֵּצֵא לְחוּלִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. אִי סְבִירָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָשָׁם תָּלוּי נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This is no proof, as with regard to *teruma*, Shmuel **said** his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The *teruma* of a deaf-mute is not released into a non-sacred** status, **because it is uncertain.** Rabbi Elazar does not maintain that the actions of a deaf-mute have no consequence whatsoever. The Gemara asks: **If** Shmuel **maintains, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** that a deaf-mute is competent, **let him also obligate** a man who has relations with the wife of a deaf-mute **to** bring **a guilt-offering for uncertainty.**


###### Yevamot 113a:14
[Yevamot 113a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:14)

בָּעֵינַן חֲתִיכָה מִשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We require one piece from two pieces.** Shmuel maintains that one is not liable to bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty in every case where there is doubt whether or not there was a transgression, and where one would be liable to bring a sin-offering if it were certain that there was a transgression. Rather, a guilt-offering for uncertainty is brought if, for example, one had two pieces of meat before him, one of which was definitely forbidden while the other was permitted, but he does not know with certainty which one he ate. However, when the doubt involves a single item or action, which may or may not have been prohibited, in that situation one does not bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty. In the case discussed here, the doubt concerning the wife of a deaf-mute does not involve a choice between an action that is prohibited and one that is permitted. Rather, it depends on the status of the woman’s marriage.


###### Yevamot 113a:15
[Yevamot 113a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:15)

וּמִי בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חֲתִיכָה מִשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי — חַיָּיבִין עַל חֶלְבּוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Elazar need** a case involving **one piece from two pieces** to render one liable to bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar says:** With regard to **a *koy*,** a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal, **one is obligated to** bring **a guilt-offering for uncertainty for** eating **its forbidden fat.** Certain fats, which are permitted in the case of a wild animal, are prohibited if they are from a domesticated animal, and one who partakes of them is liable to bring a sin-offering. Since a *koy* is of uncertain status, one must bring a guilt-offering for uncertainty for eating its fat. This shows that Rabbi Elazar maintains that one brings a guilt-offering for uncertainty even for a doubt involving one item or action.


###### Yevamot 113a:16
[Yevamot 113a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:16)

שְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Shmuel holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar in one** matter, the status of a deaf-mute, **and disagrees with him in one** other **matter,** the *halakha* of a guilt-offering for uncertainty.


###### Yevamot 113a:17
[Yevamot 113a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:17)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מֵיתִיבִי: חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרוֹמוּ! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** a different version of the above discussion. **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said** that **Shmuel said:** If a man had unwitting relations with **the wife of a deaf-mute, he is obligated to** bring **a guilt-offering for uncertainty on her account,** due to the doubt. The Gemara **raises an objection: Five** categories of people **may not separate *teruma*,** etc., which indicates that the actions of a deaf-mute have no legal effect. The Gemara answers that Shmuel **maintains** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** that the *teruma* of a deaf-mute is considered *teruma* that is of doubtful legal status.


###### Yevamot 113a:18
[Yevamot 113a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/113a:18)

בְּעָא רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּחֵרֵשׁ דַּעְתָּא קְלִישְׁתָּא הוּא, וּמִיהוּ מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי דַּעְתָּא צִילּוּתָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: What is the reason for** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar?** One possibility is that it **is obvious to him that the mind of a deaf-mute is weak. However, he is uncertain as to whether his mind is clear.** In other words, although a deaf-mute is weaker intellectually than an average person, and he does not understand everything, nevertheless he is aware of what he is doing with regard to certain undertakings.