Yevamot

men would abstain from marrying her. And why is there a difference between a minor [and a deaf woman] that the former should be permitted to eat terumah  while a deaf woman  may not? For we learned, 'R. Johanan b. Gudgada testified concerning a deaf girl whom her father gave in marriage  that she may be dismissed by a letter of divorce,  and concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite, who was married  to a priest, that she may eat [Rabbinical]  terumah',  while the deaf woman may not eat'!  This  is a preventive measure against the possibility that a deaf man might feed a deaf woman [with such terumah]. Well, let him feed her, [since she is only in the same position] as a minor who eats nebelah!  This  is a preventive measure against the possibility that a deaf [husband] might feed a wife of sound senses [with it]. But even a deaf husband might well feed his wife who was of sound senses with Rabbinical terumah!  — A preventive measure was made against the possibility of his feeding her with Pentateuchal terumah. And why is the minor different [from the deaf woman] that the former should be entitled to her kethubah while the deaf woman is not entitled to her kethubah? — Because if [the latter also were] so [entitled] men would abstain from marrying her. Whence, however, is it inferred that a minor is entitled to a kethubah? — From what we learned: A minor who exercised the right of mi'un, a forbidden relative of the second degree,  and a woman who is incapable of procreation, are not entitled to a kethubah;  but [it follows  that one] released by a letter of divorce,  though a minor, is entitled to receive her kethubah. And whence is it inferred that a deaf woman is not entitled to her kethubah? — From what was taught: If a man who was deaf or an imbecile married women of sound senses [the latter], even though the deaf man recovered his faculties or the imbecile regained his intelligence, have no claim whatsoever on [either of] them.  But if [the men] wished to retain them [the latter] are entitled to a kethubah of the value of  a maneh.  If, however, a man of sound senses married a woman who was deaf or an imbecile, her kethubah is valid, even if he undertook in writing to give her a hundred maneh,  since he himself had consented to suffer the loss.  The reason, then,  is because he himself consented; had he not consented, however, she would receive no kethubah,  since otherwise  men would abstain from marrying her. If so,  a kethubah should have been provided for a woman of sound senses who married a deaf man, since otherwise  [women] would abstain from marrying [deaf men]! — More than the man desires to marry does the woman desire to be taken in marriage. A deaf man once lived in the neighbourhood of R. Malkiu [and the latter] allowed him to take a wife to whom he had assigned in writing a sum of four hundred zuz out of his  estate. Raba remarked: Who is so wise as R. Malkiu who is indeed a great man. He  held the view: Had he wished to have a maid to wait upon him, would we not have allowed one to be bought for him?  How much more, [then, should his desire be fulfilled] here where there are two [reasons for complying with his request]! R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated in the name of Samuel: For [unwitting intercourse with] the wife of a deaf man  no asham talui  is incurred. It might be suggested that the following provides support to his  view: There are five who may not set apart terumah, and if they did so their terumah is not valid. These are they: A deaf man, an imbecile, a minor, he who gives terumah  from that which is not his own, and an idolater who gave terumah from that which belonged to an Israelite; and even [if the latter gave it] with the consent of the Israelite his terumah is invalid!  — He  holds  the same view is R. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Isaac stated in the name of R. Eleazar that the terumah of a deaf man must not be treated  as profane, because its validity is a matter of doubt.  If he  is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar,  an asham talui also should be incurred!  — It is necessary  [that the offence should be similar to that of eating] one of two available pieces [of meat].  But does R. Eleazar require [a condition similar to that of eating] one of two pieces? Surely, it was taught: R. Eleazar stated: For [eating] the suet of a koy  one incurs the obligation of an asham talui!  — Samuel is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar in one case  but differs from him in the other. Others read: R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated in the name of Samuel: For [unwitting intercourse with] the wife of a deaf man the obligation of an asham talui is incurred.  An objection was raised: There are five who may not set apart terumah!  — He  holds the same view as R. Eleazar. R. Ashi asked: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Is he positive that the mind of a deaf man is feeble but in doubt whether that mind is clear