## Yevamot Daf 113b

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

אִי לָאו דַּעְתָּא צִילּוּתָא, וּלְעוֹלָם חֲדָא דַּעְתָּא הוּא. אוֹ דִלְמָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ קְלִישְׁתָּא וְלָאו דַּעְתָּא צִילּוּתָא הוּא, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּעִתִּים חָלִים וְעִתִּים שׁוֹטֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps **his mind is not clear,** i.e., he cannot achieve full and clear understanding, **and** yet **he is always of one mind.** In other words, a deaf-mute functions at the same level of intellectual capacity every day. Rav Ashi explains the other possibility: **Or perhaps** it **is obvious to** Rabbi Elazar **that the mind** of a deaf-mute **is weak and** his **mind is unclear, but** in this case **here, this is** Rabbi Elazar’s **reasoning: Since he is at times competent and at times imbecilic,** without clarity of mind, i.e., he does not function at the same level of understanding every day, therefore the *teruma* of a deaf-mute is considered *teruma* that is of doubtful legal status.


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

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — לְהוֹצִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט. אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֲדָא דַּעְתָּא הוּא — כְּקִדּוּשִׁין כָּךְ גֵּירוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the practical difference** how one defines the intellectual capacity of a deaf-mute? The Gemara answers: It makes a difference with respect **to divorcing his wife with a bill of divorce. If you say** that a deaf-mute **has one** consistent **mind, his divorce is** equivalent in status **to his betrothal.** Since he had a weak mind at the time of his betrothal, he has the same level of competence at his divorce and therefore he may divorce his wife.


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

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עִתִּים חָלִים וְעִתִּים שׁוֹטֶה — קַדּוֹשֵׁי מָצֵי מְקַדֵּשׁ, גָּרוֹשֵׁי לָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ. מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **he is at times competent and at times imbecilic, he may betroth** a woman, as the Sages are stringent and assume that he was healthy and of clear mind at the time; however **he cannot divorce her,** due to a concern that he was competent when he betrothed her but he is incompetent now. If so, **what** is Rabbi Elazar’s reasoning? No solution is found, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

נִשְׁתַּטֵּית וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה שׁוֹטָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפִּקַּחַת בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ. וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת? שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהּ מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that one whose wife **became imbecilic** may not divorce her. **Rabbi Yitzḥak said: By Torah law, an imbecilic woman may be divorced, just as it is** in the analogous case of **a** halakhically **competent woman** who was divorced **against her will.** Since there is no need for a woman to agree to receive a bill of divorce, an imbecile’s lack of sound mind does not prevent her from being divorced. **And** if so, **what is** the **reason** that the Sages **said** that an imbecilic woman **may not be divorced?** The reason is so **that** people **should not treat her in the manner of ownerless** property. Since she is not of sound mind and has no husband to protect her, there is a concern that people might treat her in a disrespectful fashion.


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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר גִּיטָּהּ וְיוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר עַצְמָהּ — מִי נָהֲגִי בָּהּ מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר? אֶלָּא, דְּאֵין יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר לֹא גִּיטָּהּ וְלֹא עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **What are the** precise **circumstances** of this case? **If we say** that this woman **knows how to guard her bill of divorce,** i.e., she understands the concept of a bill of divorce, **and** she also **knows how to take care of herself, would** people **treat her in the manner of ownerless** property? She is capable of protecting herself. **Rather,** the mishna is evidently referring **to a woman who does not know how to guard her bill of divorce, nor** does she know how to take care of **herself.**


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

דְּבַר תּוֹרָה שׁוֹטָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת? וְהָא אָמַר דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: ״וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ״, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ יָד לְגָרֵשׁ עַצְמָהּ, יָצְתָה זוֹ, שֶׁאֵין לָהּ יָד לְגָרֵשׁ עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is it correct that **by Torah law an imbecilic woman may be divorced? But** didn’t a Sage of **the school of Rabbi Yannai say,** with regard to the verse: “He shall write her a bill of divorce **and give it into her hand”** (Deuteronomy 24:3), that this refers only **to** a woman **who has a hand,** i.e., she has enough intellectual capacity **to** accept a bill of **divorce** for **herself.** This serves **to exclude this** imbecilic woman, **who does not have a hand to** accept her **divorce** for **herself.**


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

וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ״, מִי שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּחָהּ וְאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת, יָצְתָה זוֹ, שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּחָהּ וְחוֹזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** this slightly differently. The verse continues: **“And send her out of his house”** (Deuteronomy 24:3); this indicates that one may divorce only the type of woman **whom he will send away and she will not return.** It serves **to exclude this** imbecilic woman, as **he will send her away and she will return,** as she does not understand the concept of divorce.


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

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּיוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר גִּיטָּהּ וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר עַצְמָהּ. דְּבַר תּוֹרָה שׁוֹטָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, דְּהָא יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר גִּיטָּהּ. וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָא לַיפְּקַהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ בָּהּ מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **No,** Rabbi Yitzḥak’s *halakha* is **necessary** in the case **of** a woman **who knows how to guard her bill of divorce but does not know how to take care of herself. By Torah law** this **imbecilic woman may be divorced, as she knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce, and** yet **the Sages said** that her husband should **not divorce** her, so **that** people **should not treat her in the manner of ownerless** property, because she does not know how to take care of herself.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי דִידַהּ ״נִשְׁתַּטֵּית לֹא יוֹצִיא״, וְגַבֵּי דִידֵיהּ ״לֹא יוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית״. מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״עוֹלָמִית״ וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״עוֹלָמִית״? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הָא — דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הָא — דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The language of the mishna **is also precise** in this case, **as it teaches with regard to this** woman that if **she became an imbecile he may not divorce** her; **and** yet, **with regard to** the husband, the mishna states that if he became an imbecile **he may never divorce** her. **What is different here, that** the mishna **teaches** using the word: **Never, and what is different there, that** it **does not teach: Never? Rather,** one can **learn from here that this** *halakha*, that an imbecilic man may not give a divorce, applies **by Torah** law, and **this** one, that a man may not divorce an imbecilic woman, applies by **rabbinic** law, and therefore the mishna does not add the phrase: Never.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, אִישׁ פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וְאִשָּׁה קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. אוֹ דִלְמָא: אִשָּׁה פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וְאִישׁ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said:** What is the reason that the husband of a woman who became a deaf-mute may divorce her, whereas a man who becomes a deaf-mute may not divorce his wife? **A dilemma was raised before** the scholars with regard to the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri:** Is it **obvious to him** that a deaf-mute **man** may not divorce his wife, **and he raised** his **dilemma** with regard to **a woman,** i.e., why she may be divorced if she is a deaf-mute? **Or perhaps,** it is **obvious to him** why one may divorce a deaf-mute **woman, and he raised** his **dilemma** with regard to a deaf-mute **man,** i.e., why he may not divorce his wife.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, מִדְּקָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ לָאִשָּׁה הַמִּתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹצֵאת לִרְצוֹנָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִרְצוֹנָהּ, וְהָאִישׁ אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶלָּא לִרְצוֹנוֹ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אִישׁ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. אַדְּרַבָּה, מִדְּקָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: אַף זוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אִשָּׁה קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof: **Come** and **hear from what** the Rabbis **said** in response **to** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: **The man who divorces** his wife **is not similar to the woman who is divorced, as the woman is divorced** whether **she is willing or unwilling, and the man divorces** his wife only **willingly. Learn from here** that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri **raised** his **dilemma** with regard to a deaf-mute **man,** not a woman, as the reply of the Rabbis is referring to the man, not the woman. The Gemara rejects this proof: **On the contrary, from** the fact **that the Rabbis said to him: This** woman, **too, has a similar** status, one can **learn from here** that he **raised** his **dilemma** with regard to a deaf-mute **woman.**


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

אֶלָּא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְדִבְרֵיהֶם קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאִישׁ לָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ — אִשָּׁה נָמֵי לָא מִיגָּרְשָׁא, אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ, מַאי שְׁנָא אִשָּׁה וּמַאי שְׁנָא אִישׁ! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ לָאִשָּׁה הַמִּתְגָּרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri spoke to** the Rabbis **in accordance with their statement,** i.e., he formulated his statement so as best to argue with their opinion, as follows: **According to my** opinion, **just as** a deaf-mute **man cannot divorce** his wife, **so too** a deaf-mute **woman cannot be divorced. However, according to your** opinion, **what is the difference** between the case of a deaf-mute **woman and** the case of a deaf-mute **man? They said to him: The man who divorces** his wife **is not similar to the woman who is divorced.**


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

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רָבָא: מֵעֵדוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא, אָמַר לְעֵדִים: ״רְאוּ גֵּט זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן״, וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** ben Gudgada **testified** that in the case of a deaf-mute minor whose father married her off, which is a marriage that is valid by Torah law, she may nevertheless be divorced once she matures. **Rava said: From the testimony of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada** one may learn that if a husband **said to witnesses: See this bill of divorce that I am giving** my wife, **and** yet **he said to her: Take this promissory note, she is divorced,** despite the fact when he gave his wife the bill of divorce she did not know what it was.


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

מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא לָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעְתַּהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעְתַּהּ. פְּשִׁיטָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *halakha* is derived from Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada’s statement in the following manner: **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada say** that **we do not require her consent,** as there is no need for the woman to understand that she is receiving a bill of divorce? **Here, too, we do not require her consent,** and even if she believes that she is receiving a bill of debt, she is divorced. The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** it **obvious** that there is no need for the woman’s consent? What is the novel element in Rava’s statement?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִדַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה״ — בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אִי אִיתָא דְּבַטְּלֵיהּ — לְעֵדִים הֲוָה קָאָמַר לְהוּ, וּמִדְּלָא אֲמַר לְעֵדִים — לָא בַּטְּלֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר הָכִי — מֵחֲמַת כִּיסּוּפָא הוּא דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rava’s statement is necessary, **lest you say: From** the fact **that** the husband **said to her: Take this promissory note, he has** thereby **nullified the bill of divorce.** Rava therefore **teaches us** that this is not the case, for **if it is** so, that he nullified the bill of divorce, **he would have said** so **to the witnesses. And from** the fact **that he did not say** this **to the witnesses, he** evidently **did not nullify** the bill of divorce **at all. And** the reason **that** the husband **said this,** i.e., that she should take this bill of debt, **it was due to shame that he said this to her,** as he meant to divorce her all along, but he did not want her to know at the time what he was doing.


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

רַב יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא אִירְכַסוּ לֵיהּ מַפְתְּחֵי דְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בְּשַׁבְּתָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates a story: **Rav Yitzḥak bar Bisna lost the keys to the study hall,** and therefore they could not come **into** the study hall from **the public domain on Shabbat.** It was impossible to open the synagogue, as they could not bring the key because it is prohibited to carry in the public domain. **He came before Rabbi Pedat** to ask what to do. Rabbi Pedat **said to him: Go**