Gittin

— The proper way is to ask him about fruit. R. Kahana said in the name of Rab: If a deaf-mute can signify his meaning by writing, a Get may be written and given to his wife.  Said R. Joseph: What does this tell us [that we do not know already]? We have learnt: IF A MAN IS STRUCK DUMB AND WHEN THEY SAY TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE, HE NODS HIS HEAD, HE IS TESTED WITH THREE QUESTIONS. IF HE SIGNIFIES 'NO' AND 'YES' PROPERLY EACH TIME, THEN THE GET SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND GIVEN FOR HIM?  — R. Zera replied to him: You have quoted a statement about an illem [mute]. An illem is different, as it has been taught: One who can speak but not hear is called heresh,  and one who can hear but not speak is called illem, and both are considered to be in possession of their faculties for all purposes. What is your warrant for saying that one who can speak but not hear is called heresh, and one who can hear but not speak is called illem? — Because it is written, But I am as a deaf man [heresh] I hear not, and I am as a dumb man [illem] that openeth not his mouth.  Or if you like I can say that we know it from the colloquial description  of a dumb man as Ishtekil Miluleh. R. Zera said: If I do find any difficulty [in R. Kahana's remark] it is this, that it has been taught: 'If he do not utter it.  This excludes a mute who cannot utter'. Now why should this be, seeing that [according to R. Kahana] he can signify by writing? — Abaye replied to him: You are speaking of testimony, and testimony comes under a different rule, because the All-Merciful has said that it must be from their mouths,  and not from their writing. [The following] was raised in objection [to Abaye's statement]: In the same way as he  is tested in connection with a Get, so he is tested in connection with business transactions, with testimony, and with bequests. Now 'testimony' is mentioned here? — R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Shesheth: This applies only to testimony regarding the status of a woman,  with which the Rabbis were not so strict. But it also says 'bequests'?  — R. Abbahu said: It refers to the inheritance of his eldest son.  But it also says 'in connection with business transactions', and this presumably means anyone's? — No, it refers only to his own. [The following] was then raised in objection: The directions of a deaf-mute given by gestures, by lip-movements, and by writing are to be followed only in regard to the transfer of movables, but not to a Get?  — There is in truth a difference of opinion on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: This  is the case only with one who was a deaf-mute from the outset, but one who was originally whole and became a deaf-mute after marriage can write a Get for himself which others can sign. But cannot one who was originally a deaf-mute give a Get? As he married her by gesture, cannot he also divorce her by gesture? — If [we were speaking] of his wife, this would indeed be the case, but [in fact] we are dealing with his sister-in-law.  His sister-in-law from whom? Are we to say, one who fell to his lot from his [de ceased] brother who was also a deaf-mute? [In that case], just as she was married by gesture,  so she can be put away by gesture! No; it is one who fell to his lot from a brother in possession of his faculties.  Alternatively I may say that she did fall to his lot from a brother who was a deaf-mute, and we forbid the [wife of a] deaf-mute to be divorced by gesture so as not to set a precedent for [the wife of] one who was sound. If that is the case, should we not forbid him to divorce his wife also?  — A sister-in-law can be confused with a sister-in-law, but not with a wife. But do we indeed forbid [a deaf-mute] because [of a sound one]?