Yevamot

Does not [this refer to a case] where he  did not cohabit [with her]?  — No; where he  did cohabit with her.  If, however, he  cohabited [with her] what is Samuel's reason?  — He holds the view that one Who performs cohabitation does so in reliance on his first betrothal.  But surely they  once disputed this point! For it was stated: If a man betrothed a woman conditionally,  and unconditionally, Rab ruled: She  requires from him a letter of divorce; and Samuel ruled: She requires no letter of divorce from him. 'Rab ruled: She requires from him a letter of divorce', because as soon as he marries her he undoubtedly dispenses with his condition.  'And Samuel ruled: She requires no letter of divorce from him', because one who performs cohabitation does so in reliance on his first betrothal!  — [Both disputes were] necessary. For if the former  only had been stated, it might have been assumed that Rab adheres to his opinion there only because no condition  was attached [to the betrothal]  but in the latter case,  where a condition was attached to it, he agrees with Samuel.  And if the latter case  only had been stated, it might have been assumed that there only  does Samuel maintain his view  but in the former  he agrees with Rab.  [Hence both were] required. Did Rab, however, state that only where [the husband] cohabited with her  does she require a letter of divorce  but that if he did not cohabit with her none is required?  Surely it once happened at Naresh that a man betrothed a girl while she was a minor, and, when she attained her majority and he placed her upon the bridal chair,  another man came and snatched her away from him; and, though Rab's disciples, R. Beruna and R. Hananel, were present on the occasion, they did not require the girl to obtain a letter of divorce from the second man!  — R. Papa replied: At Naresh they married  first and then placed [the bride] upon the bridal chair.  R. Ashi replied: He  acted improperly  they, therefore, treated him also improperly, and deprived him of the right of valid betrothal.  Said Rabina to R. Ashi: [Your explanation is] satisfactory where the man betrothed [her] with money;  what [however, can be said where] he betrothed her by cohabitation? — The Rabbis have declared his cohabitation to be an act of mere fornication. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer;  and so did R. Eleazar state: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO ORPHANS WHO WERE MINORS  AND DIED, COHABITATION  OR HALIZAH  WITH ONE OF THEM EXEMPTS HER RIVAL.  AND THE SAME LAW IS APPLICABLE TO  TWO DEAF  WOMEN. [IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO] A MINOR AND TO A DEAF  WOMAN,  COHABITATION WITH ONE OF THEM DOES NOT EXEMPT HER RIVAL.  [IF ONE WAS] POSSESSED OF HER FACULTIES AND THE OTHER WAS DEAF,  COHABITATION WITH THE FORMER EXEMPTS THE LATTER, BUT COHABITATION WITH THE LATTER DOES NOT EXEMPT THE FORMER. [IF ONE WAS] OF AGE AND THE OTHER A MINOR, COHABITATION WITH THE FORMER EXEMPTS THE LATTER, BUT COHABITATION WITH THE LATTER DOES NOT EXEMPT THE FORMER. GEMARA. Is, however, a deaf  woman permitted to perform halizah? Surely, we learned: If a deaf levir submitted to halizah or a deaf sister-in-law performed halizah, or if halizah was performed on a minor, the halizah is invalid!  — R. Giddal replied in the name of Rab: [This  applies] to COHABITATION.  Raba  replied: It  may be said to apply even to halizah; one  referring to a woman who was originally deaf,  and the other  referring to a woman who was possessed of hearing  and became deaf afterwards. The 'woman who was originally deaf', leaves  as she entered,  but the 'woman who was possessed of hearing and became deaf afterwards' cannot do so, since her inability to recite [the prescribed formulae]  acts as an obstacle. Abaye raised an objection against him: Is, however, one who was originally deaf permitted to perform halizah? Surely, we learned: If two brothers, one of whom was in possession of his faculties and the other deaf,  were [respectively] married to two strangers,  one of whom was in the possession of her faculties and the other deaf,  and the deaf [brother] who was the husband of the deaf woman died, what should [his brother who was] in possession of his faculties, the husband of the woman in possession of her faculties, do? He marries her  and if he wishes to send her away,  he may do so.  If the [brother] who was in possession of his faculties, the husband of the woman who was in possession of her faculties, died, what should the deaf brother, the husband of the deaf woman do? He marries [the widow] and may never divorce her.  Does not this apply to a woman who was originally deaf?  And yet it was stated that he may only marry