Yevamot

it should have been [stated that he is only] to be requested!  — What we are dealing with here is the case of a woman who has children, so that such a remote possibility  does not occur to her. What, however, [would be the law if] she had no children? [Would the levir in that case have] to be requested! Instead, then, of stating, IF THIS, HOWEVER, WAS IN HER MIND [EVEN IF HER VOW WAS MADE] DURING THE LIFETIME OF HER HUSBAND, THE LEVIR MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT TO HER HALIZAH,  a distinction should have been made in the very same case:  This  is applicable only where she has children, but where she has no children he may only be requested!' Consequently  it must be inferred that whether  she has children or not, the levir is compelled [to submit to halizah], in accordance with the opinion of Rab. Thus our contention is proved. MISHNAH. A DEAF  MAN WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES OR A MAN OF SOUND SENSES WHO MARRIED A DEAF WOMAN MAY, IF HE WISHES TO RELEASE HER, DO SO;  AND IF HE WISHES TO RETAIN HER HE MAY ALSO DO SO. AS HE MARRIES [THE WOMAN] BY GESTURES  SO HE DIVORCES HER BY GESTURES. IF A MAN OF SOUND SENSES MARRIED A WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES AND SHE BECAME DEAF, HE MAY,  IF HE WISHES, RELEASE HER;  AND IF HE WISHES HE MAY RETAIN HER. IF SHE BECAME AN IMBECILE HE MAY NOT DIVORCE HER.  IF HE, HOWEVER, BECAME DEAF OR INSANE, HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER. R. JOHANAN B. NURI ASKED: WHY MAY A WOMAN WHO BECAME DEAF BE DIVORCED WHILE A MAN WHO BECAME DEAF MAY NOT DIVORCE [HIS WIFE]? THEY  ANSWERED HIM: A MAN WHO GIVES DIVORCE IS NOT LIKE A WOMAN WHO IS DIVORCED. FOR WHILE A WOMAN MAY BE DIVORCED WITH HER CONSENT AS WELL AS WITHOUT IT, A MAN CAN GIVE DIVORCE ONLY WITH HIS FULL CONSENT. R. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA TESTIFIED CONCERNING A DEAF [MINOR] WHO WAS GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER FATHER  THAT SHE MAY BE RELEASED BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE.  THEY  SAID TO HIM:  THE OTHER  ALSO IS IN A SIMILAR POSITION. IF TWO DEAF BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO DEAF SISTERS, OR TO TWO SISTERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, OR TO TWO SISTERS ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER WAS OF SOUND SENSES; 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 DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, BEHOLD THESE [WOMEN] ARE EXEMPT FROM HALIZAH AND FROM LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  IF [THE WOMEN, HOWEVER], WERE STRANGERS  [THE RESPECTIVE LEVIRS] MUST MARRY THEM,  AND IF THEY WISH TO DIVORCE THEM,  THEY MAY DO SO. IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE SISTER OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT,  AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MUST RELEASE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE  WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FORBIDDEN FOREVER [TO MARRY AGAIN]. IF TWO BROTHERS OF SOUND SENSES WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DO? [NOTHING; SINCE HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] IS EXEMPT  AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE SISTER WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF SISTER, DO? HE MUST DIVORCE HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE  AND [HE RELEASES] HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY HALIZAH. IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, 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 HIS WIFE'S SISTER. IF THE BROTHER 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 A LETTER OF DIVORCE. WHILE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE IS FOREVER FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN]. IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO STRANGERS WHO WERE OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF [THE WOMAN WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DO? — HE EITHER SUBMITS TO HALIZAH OR CONTRACTS LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF [THE WOMAN WHO WAS] OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN WHO WAS OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MUST MARRY HER AND HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER. 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 OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DO? HE MARRIES [THE WIDOW] AND IF HE WISHES TO DIVORCE HER HE MAY DO SO. IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DO? HE MAY EITHER SUBMIT TO HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF TWO BROTHERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, WERE MARRIED TO TWO STRANGERS,  ONE OF WHOM WAS DEAF AND THE OTHER OF SOUND SENSES, AND THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES. DO? HE MUST MARRY [THE WIDOW], BUT IF HE WISHES TO DIVORCE HER HE MAY DO SO.  IF THE BROTHER OF SOUND SENSES, THE HUSBAND OF THE WOMAN OF SOUND SENSES, DIED, WHAT SHOULD THE DEAF BROTHER, THE HUSBAND OF THE DEAF WOMAN, DO? HE MUST MARRY [THE WIDOW] AND HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER. GEMARA. Rami b. Hama stated: Wherein lies the difference between a deaf man or a deaf woman [and an imbecile] that the marriage of the former should have been legalized by the Rabbis  while that of the male imbecile or female imbecile was not legalized by the Rabbis? For it was taught: If an imbecile or a minor married, and then died, their wives are exempt from halizah and from the levirate marriage!  — [In the case of] a deaf man or a deaf woman, where the Rabbinical ordinance could be carried into practice,  the marriage was legalized by the Rabbis; [in that of] a male, or female imbecile, where the Rabbinical ordinance cannot be carried into practice, since no one could live with a serpent in the same basket,  the marriage was not legalized by the Rabbis. And wherein lies the difference between a minor [and a deaf person] that the marriage of the former should not have been legalized  by the Rabbis while that of the deaf person was legalized by the Rabbis? — The Rabbis have legalized the marriage of a deaf person since [Pentateuchally] he would never be able to contract a marriage;  they did not legalize the marriage of a minor since in due course he would be able to contract [a Pentateuchally valid] marriage. But, surely, [in the case of] a girl minor, who would in due course be able to contract [a Pentateuchally valid] marriage, the Rabbis did legalize her marriage.  — There  [it was legalized] in order that people might not treat her as ownerless property. And why is there a difference  between a minor [and a deaf woman] that the former should be permitted to exercise the right of mi'un while the deaf woman should not be permitted to exercise the right of mi'un? — Because, if [the latter also were allowed to do] so,