Yevamot — Daf 110b

חולץ לא לא בפקחת ואחר כך נתחרשה

תא שמע שני אחין פקחין נשואין שתי נכריות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת מת פקח בעל החרשת מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת כונס ואם רוצה להוציא יוציא מת פקח בעל פקחת מה יעשה פקח בעל חרשת או חולץ או מייבם

מאי לאו מדהוא פקח מעיקרא היא נמי חרשת מעיקרא וקתני כונס אין חולץ לא מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

איתיביה שני אחין אחד פקח ואחד חרש נשואין שתי אחיות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת מת חרש בעל חרשת מה יעשה פקח בעל פקחת תצא משום אחות אשה

מת פקח בעל פקחת מה יעשה חרש בעל חרשת מוציא את אשתו בגט ואשת אחיו אסורה לעולם

וכי תימא ה"נ בפקח ואחר כך נתחרש מי מצי מפיק והתנן נתחרשה יוציא נשתטית לא יוציא נתחרש הוא או נשתטה לא יוציא עולמית

אלא לאו בחרש מעיקרא ומדהוא חרש מעיקרא היא נמי חרשת מעיקרא ומדאחיות חרשות מעיקרא נכריות נמי חרשות מעיקרא ותנן גבי נכריות כונס אין חולץ לא אישתיק

כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל מ"ט תותביה מהא דיכול לשנויי לך אחיות חרשות מעיקרא נכריות פקחות ואח"כ נתחרשו

אלא איבעי לך לאותביה מהא שני אחין חרשין נשואין שתי אחיות פקחות או שתי אחיות חרשות או שתי אחיות אחת פקחת ואחת חרשת וכן שתי אחיות חרשות נשואות לשני אחין פקחין או לשני אחין חרשין או לשני אחין אחד פקח ואחד חרש הרי אלו פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום ואם היו נכריות יכנוסו ואם רצו להוציא יוציאו

היכי דמי אילימא בפקחים ולבסוף נתחרשו מי מצי מפקי והתנן נשתטית לא יוציא נתחרש הוא או נשתטה לא יוציא עולמית

אלא לאו אחרשין מעיקרא ומדהן חרשין מעיקרא אינהו נמי חרשות מעיקרא וקתני אם היו נכריות יכנוסו יכנוסו אין יחלצו לא תיובתא דרבה תיובתא:

קטנה וחרשת וכו': אמר רב נחמן אשכחתיה לרב אדא בר אהבה ולרב חנא חתניה דיתבי וקמקוו אקוותא בשוקא דפומבדיתא ואמרי הא דתנן קטנה וחרשת אין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה הני מילי דנפלה ליה מאחיו פקח דלא ידעינן אי בקטנה ניחא ליה אי בחרשת ניחא ליה

אי בקטנה ניחא ליה דאתיא לכלל דיעה אי בחרשת ניחא דגדולה היא ובת ביאה היא אבל נפלה מאחיו חרש ודאי בחרשת ניחא ליה דבת ביאה היא ובת מיניה היא

ואמינא להו אנא אפילו נפלה ליה מאחיו חרש נמי מספקא ליה

כיצד תקנתן אמר רב חסדא אמר רב כונס החרשת ומוציאה בגט וקטנה תמתין עד שתגדיל ותחלוץ

אמר רב חסדא ש"מ קסבר רב חרשת קנויה ומשויירת קטנה קנויה ואינה קנויה דאי ס"ד חרשת קנויה ואינה קנויה קטנה קנויה ומשויירת חרשת אמאי כונס ומוציאה בגט

but not submit to halizah!  — No, this refers to a woman who was capable of hearing  and became deaf afterwards. Come and hear: If two brothers of sound senses were married to two strangers  one of whom was of sound senses and the other deaf, and [the brother who was] of sound senses, the husband of the deaf woman, died, what should the [brother who was] of sound senses, the husband of the woman who was of sound senses, do? He marries [the deaf widow], and if he wishes to divorce her he may do so.  If [the brother who was] of sound senses, the husband of the woman who was of sound senses, died, what should the [brother who was] of sound senses, the husband of the woman who was deaf, do? He may either submit to halizah or contract levirate marriage.  Are we not to assume that  as the man was originally  of sound senses so was she originally  deaf, and nevertheless it was stated that he may only  marry her but may not submit to her halizah!  — Is this an argument? Each one may bear its own meaning. An objection was raised against him:  If two brothers, one of whom was of sound senses and the other deaf, were married to two sisters, one of whom was of sound senses and the other deaf, and the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf sister, died, what should [the brother who was] of sound senses, the husband of [the sister who was] of sound senses, do? — [Nothing, since] the widow is released  by virtue of her being [the levir's] wife's sister. If [the brother who was] of sound senses, the husband of [the sister who was] of sound senses, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf sister, do? He releases his wife by means of a letter of divorce,  while his brother's wife is for ever forbidden [to marry again]!  And should you reply that here also [it is a case of a man] who was of sound senses and who became afterwards deaf, is [such a man, it may be retorted], in a position to divorce [his wife]? Surely, we learned: If she  became deaf, he may divorce her; if she became insane, he may not divorce her.  If he became deaf or insane he may never divorce her.  Consequently it must be a case of a man  who was originally  deaf. And since [the man spoken of] is one who was originally deaf, the woman [spoken of in the same context must] also be one who was originally deaf; and, as the sisters were such as were originally deaf, the strangers also [must be such as were] originally deaf; but in the case of the strangers we learned that [the levir] may only marry  but may not submit to halizah!  The other  remained silent. When he  visited R. Joseph, the latter said to him: Why did you raise your objections against him  from [teachings] which he could parry by replying that the sisters [spoken of are such as were] originally deaf, and that the strangers [are such as were originally] of sound senses who became deaf afterwards? You should rather have raised your objection against him from the following: If two deaf brothers were married to two sisters who were of sound senses, or to two deaf sisters or to two sisters one of whom was of sound senses and the other deaf; and so also if two deaf sisters were married to two brothers who were of sound senses, or to two deaf brothers, or to two brothers one of whom was of sound senses and the other deaf, behold these women  are exempt from levirate marriage and from halizah.  If [however the women] were strangers  [the respective levirs] must marry them,  and if they wish to divorce them, they may do so.  Now, how [is this ruling]  to be understood? If it be suggested [that it refers to brothers who were first]  of sound senses and who became deaf afterwards,  could they [it may be asked] divorce [their wives]? Surely, we learned: If he  became deaf or insane he may never divorce her!  This ruling must consequently refer  to [brothers who were] originally  deaf; and since they [are such as were] originally deaf, the women [referred to must] also be [such as were] originally  deaf; and it was nevertheless taught: 'If [the women, however], Were strangers [the respective levirs] must marry them',  they may thus only  marry them but may not submit to their halizah. This, then, presents a refutation of Rabbah!  — This is indeed a refutation. A MINOR AND A DEAF WOMAN etc. R. Nahman related: I once found R. Adda b. Ahabah and his son-in-law R. Hana sitting in the market place of Pumbeditha and bandying arguments  and [in the course of these they] stated: The ruling,  [IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO] A MINOR AND TO A DEAF WOMAN, COHABITATION WITH ONE OF THEM DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL applies only to a case  where [the widows] became subject to him  through a brother of his who was of sound senses, since it is not known to us whether he  was more pleased with the minor or whether he was more pleased with the deaf woman; 'whether he was more pleased with the minor' because she would [in due course] reach the age of intelligence or 'whether he was more pleased with the deaf woman' because she was fully grown and in a marriageable condition; if [the widows], however, became subject to him  through a deaf brother of his, there is no doubt that he  was more pleased with the deaf woman, because she was of matrimonial age and of his kind. But I told them: Even if [the widows] became subject to him  through a deaf brother of his [the question of his preference still remains] a matter of doubt. How do they  obtain redress?  — R. Hisda replied in the name of Rab: [The levir] marries the deaf widow and then releases her by a letter of divorce,  while the minor waits until she is of age, when she performs halizah. From this, said R. Hisda, it may be inferred that Rab is of the opinion that a deaf wife is partially acquired,  [while concerning] a minor [it is a matter of doubt whether] she is [properly] acquired,  or not acquired [at all];  for were it to be suggested that concerning a deaf wife [it is uncertain whether] she is acquired  or not acquired [at all and that] a minor is partially acquired,  [the question would arise] why [should the levir] marry [the deaf widow] and release her by a letter of divorce?