Gittin

Have we not learnt, 'If two brothers, deaf-mutes, were married to two sisters who were not deaf-mutes or to two sisters who were deaf-mutes or to two sisters one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other not, and similarly if two sisters who were deaf-mutes were married to two brothers who were not deaf-mutes or to two brothers who were deaf-mutes or to two brothers one of whom was a deaf-mute and the other not, these sisters  are free from the obligation of halizah or levirate marriage.  If however, the women were not related to one another, they must contract the marriage,  and if [the second husband] desires to put her away  he may do so'?  — The truth is that the first answer is the best. R. Johanan said: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's colleagues  differed from him. Abaye said: We have also learnt to the same effect:  If the wife became insane, he cannot put her away. If he became deaf and dumb or insane, he can never put her away.  What is meant by never'? Surely it means, even if he can signify his intention in writing? — R. Papa said: But for the statement of R. Johanan, I would have said that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel intended only to explain the statement of the previous Tanna, and that 'never' means, 'even though we see that he is intelligent'.  Or, I might have said, the word 'never' indicates the lesson taught by R. Isaac. For R. Isaac said: According to the rule of the [written] Torah, an insane wife can be divorced, being on the same footing as a sound woman who is divorced without her own consent. Why then did the Rabbis lay down that she should not be divorced? In order that she should not be used for immoral purposes. MISHNAH. IF THEY SAID TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE, AND HE SAID TO THEM, WRITE, AND IF THEY THEN TOLD A SCRIBE AND HE WROTE AND WITNESSES AND THEY SIGNED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN AND SIGNED IT AND GIVEN IT TO HIM AND HE IN TURN HAS GIVEN IT TO HER, THE GET IS VOID UNLESS HE HIMSELF HAS SAID TO THE SCRIBE 'WRITE' AND TO THE WITNESSES, 'SIGN'. GEMARA. The reason [why it is invalid] is because he did not say 'give' [instead of 'write'].  We presume, therefore, that if he said 'give' they [may tell others to write and] give.  Whose view is this? R. Meir's, who said that verbal instructions can be entrusted to an agent.  Read now the later clause: UNLESS HE HAS SAID TO THE SCRIBE, 'WRITE' AND TO THE WITNESSES 'SIGN'. This brings us round to the view of R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be entrusted to an agent. Are we to say then that the first clause follows R. Meir and the second R. Jose? — Yes; the first follows R. Meir and the second R. Jose. Abaye, however, said: The whole follows R. Meir, and we are dealing here [in the last clause] with the case where he did not say 'give'.  If that is the case, it should say, 'he must say, Give'?  — In fact the case here is one in which he did not tell three persons.  If that is the case, it should say, 'He must tell three'? — Hence the whole follows R. Jose, and the case here is one in which he did not say, 'Tell'.  If that is the case, it should say, 'He must say, Tell'? And besides, does R. Jose admit that the Get is valid where he says 'tell'? Have We not learnt: 'If a scribe wrote and a witness signed, it is valid', and R. Jeremiah explained that what is meant is that the scribe [also] signed, and R. Hisda said, Whom does this Mishnah follow?