Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE GET OF A DEAF OR DUMB MAN

(a) (Rav Kahana): A deaf person that can communicate by writing - we write and give a Get to his wife if he requests this.
(b) Question (Rav Yosef): Why must Rav Kahana teach this - we know this from our Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): A man became unable to speak. Others asked him - should we write a Get for your wife? He nodded his head. We test him 3 times - if he answers properly no and yes, we write and give the Get.

(c) Answer (R. Zeira): That is a case of a mute person, he is not as a (totally) deaf person (for the latter lacks understanding).

1. (Beraisa): One who can speak but not hear - he is a Cheresh (deaf person); one who can hear but not speak - he is a mute;

i. Both of these have understanding (regarding all laws).

(d) Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): "If he will not tell (testify)" - this excludes a mute, for he cannot testify.

1. We should say, he can testify by writing!

(e) Answer (Abaye): Regarding testimony, the Torah decreed "Through their mouths", not through their writing.
(f) Question (Beraisa): Just as we test (one who went dumb to see if he is alert enough and able) to give a Get, we also test him regarding sales and gifts, for testimony, and for inheritances.

1. We see, he can give testimony, even though he cannot speak!

(g) Answer (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): The Beraisa refers to testimony that a man died (to permit his wife to remarry) - Chachamim were lenient to allow him to testify in that case.
(h) Question: The Beraisa says, for inheritances (we see, he can testify)!
(i) Answer (R. Avahu): It means, regarding the inheritance of his own firstborn son (which is not a matter of testimony).
(j) Suggestion: The Beraisa says, for sales and gifts - this means, to testify about other people's transactions!
(k) Rejection: No, to sell and give his own property.
(l) Question (Beraisa): By a deaf person, we only rely on his gestures, facial expressions and what he writes regarding Metaltelim, but not for Gitin.
(m) Answer: Tana'im argue whether we rely on what he writes for Gitin.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): This only applies to one deaf from birth - but a hearing man that went deaf, he writes and witnesses sign the Get.
(b) Question: If he was deaf from birth, why can't he divorce his wife - just as he got married through gesturing, he can divorce through gesturing (the whole marriage is only mid'Rabanan)!
(c) Answer: That is true regarding a woman he married himself; the Beraisa says, he cannot divorce a woman he married through Yibum.
(d) Question: From what kind of marriage did she fall to Yibum?

1. Suggestion: If her first husband was also deaf - just as her initial marriage was through gesturing, also she can be divorced through gesturing!

(e) Answer #1: Rather, her first husband was healthy.
(f) Answer #2: We can say, her first husband was also deaf - we decree on account of the case when her first husband was healthy.
(g) Question: If we make such decrees - also, we should not allow him to divorce a woman he married himself, on account of his Yevamah!
(h) Answer: People can confuse Yevamos (that fell from different types of husbands), they will not confuse a woman he married himself with his Yevamah.
(i) Objection: Do we really decree the case of a deaf husband on account of a healthy one?!

1. (Mishnah): Two brothers were married to 2 sisters; both brothers or both sisters (or all of them) were deaf. If 1 brother dies, his wife is exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum.
2. If the wives were unrelated, they may do Yibum; the Yavam can later divorce the Yevamah if he wants to (this shows, there is no decree)!

i. Answer #2 is refuted; we must give the first answer.

(j) (R. Yochanan): The Tana that precedes R. Shimon ben Gamliel in the Beraisa argues (and says that a man that married when he was healthy and later went deaf, he cannot divorce, even if he can write).
(k) (Abaye): We can prove this from (another part of) the above Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): If she went insane - he may not divorce her; if he went deaf or insane - he may never divorce her.
2. Question: Why does it say he may never divorce her?

i. Suggestion: It means, even if he can communicate through writing!

(l) Rejection (Rav Papa): If not for R. Yochanan, one could have said that R. Shimon ben Gamliel explains the first Tana;

1. When the Mishnah says never - it means, even if we see that he is very sharp.
2. Alternatively, it hints at R. Yitzchak's law (that divorce applies to an insane woman - mid'Oraisa).

i. (R. Yitzchak): mid'Oraisa, an insane woman may be divorced, just as a sane woman is divorced unwillingly;
ii. Chachamim enacted that she may not be divorced, so men will not freely have relations with her.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was asked if a Get should be written for his wife - he said, 'Write it'. The ones who asked him appointed a scribe to write it and witnesses to sign it - even though they gave him the Get, and he gave it to his wife, it is invalid, because he must personally tell the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: The Get is only invalid because he said only 'Write' - had he said 'Write and give', it would be valid!

1. This is as R. Meir, who says that Mili may be transferred to another agent.

(c) Contradiction: The end of the Mishnah says, it is invalid, because he must personally tell the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign - this is as R. Yosi, who says that Mili may not be transferred to another agent!
(d) Answer #1: Indeed, the beginning of the Mishnah is as R. Meir, the end is as R. Yosi!
(e) Answer #2 (Abaye): The whole Mishnah is as R. Meir; the case is, he did not say 'Give'.
(f) Objection: If so, it should say, it is invalid because he did not say 'Give'!
(g) Answer #3 (Abaye): Rather, the case is, he did not command 3 people.
(h) Objection: If so, it should say, it is invalid, because he did not command 3 people!
(i) Answer #4 (Abaye): Rather, the whole Mishnah is as R. Yosi; the case is, he did not tell them to appoint a scribe and witnesses.
(j) Question #1: If so, it should say, it is invalid, because he did not tell them to appoint a scribe and witnesses!
(k) Question #2: Does R. Yosi really agree that Mili may be transferred when he says 'Tell'?

1. (Mishnah): A scribe wrote a Get; 1 witness signed it - it is valid.
2. (R. Yirmeyah): The text of the Mishnah says that the scribe (also) signed the Get.
3. (Rav Chisda): The Mishnah is as R. Yosi, who says that Mili may not be transferred to another agent.
4. (Summation of question): If R. Yosi agrees that Mili can be transferred when the agent was told to do this - disaster may result!
5. A man might ask 2 people to ask a certain scribe to write a Get, and to ask 2 particular witnesses to sign it - the witnesses will be concerned for the disgrace of the scribe, and ask him to be 1 of the witnesses, but the husband did not authorize this!
6. Rather, we must say that the beginning of the Mishnah is R. Meir, and the end of the Mishnah is as R. Yosi.

(l) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi): The whole Mishnah is as R. Yosi.

1. The Mishnah teaches: not only when he did not say 'give' - but even when he said 'give', the Get is invalid;
2. And not only when he did not tell 3 people - but when he told 3 people, it is invalid;
3. And not only when he did not say 'tell (a scribe and witnesses)' - but when he said 'tell', it is invalid.

(m) A Beraisa supports Rav Ashi.

1. (Beraisa): A scribe wrote a Get Lishmah, witnesses signed it Lishmah, they gave it to the husband and he gave it to his wife - it is void, unless the scribe and witnesses heard the husband's voice command them.

i. 'They will hear (the husband's voice)' - this shows, it is not enough that he instructs agents to command them;
ii. 'The husband's voice' - this shows, he must be able to speak, unlike Rav Kahana (71A 1:b).