Resources for Yevamos daf 112
1. The משנה and גמרא discuss the concept of a חרש וחרשת and why the חכמים instituted marriage for them. A חרש is defined by the משנה in תרומות פּרק א משנה ב׳ as aאינו שומע ואינו מדבר. The assumption is that the person has no דעת and is similar to a שוטה. The modern application of this הלכה is quite unclear. Today, we have hearing aids and cochlear implants that allow people to hear as well as sign language which allows people to communicate. Assuming the deaf person of today can do this, do they still have a דין of a חרש? The מהרש"ם in חלק ב׳ סימן ק"מ says that if the person was born deaf but learned to talk in a special school (albeit imperfectly) such that people can understand them and they can understand others, they are considered a full פּקח and can have חליצה done to them assuming they appear to understand what is going on around them. Rav Moshe זצ"ל in אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ג׳ סימן ל"ג says that if the person uses a hearing aid and through that they can communicate with people, they are considered a פּקח. His למדות is interesting: he says the hearing aid makes the person a מדבר but not a שומע (which is still good enough). The reason is that the person cannot hear sound with their ear and is just hearing through a microphone (the hearing aid) which is not considered a real קול. However, if the deaf person cannot speak even with the use of a hearing aid but can only communicate via sign language, then Rav Moshe זצ"ל says they have a status of a regular חרש. The reason is that the גמרא in גיטין דף ע"א ע"ב says that if a deaf person can’t speak but can write, they are still considered a חרש. The לבושי שרד in נאות דשא אבן העזר סימן קל"ב says that if the deaf person has a very unclear voice such that it sounds like a "קול הברה", that is not called being able to speak. The other פוסקים seem to disagree with that.
2. The משנה seems to indicate that any marriage between a חרש וחרשת is only דרבנן. However, the רשב"א brings a ירושלמי that says our משנה is only talking about where the חרש did a קידושי כסף but if there was a קידושי ביאה then his קידושין is considered a “מעשה” so his גירושין needs a “מעשה”. This sounds like קידושי ביאה done by a חרש is considered to be a קידושין דאורייתא in which case his גירושין would not work since he is not capable of doing a גירושין דאורייתא. The קרן אורה brings the משנה למלך in הלכות גירושין פּרק ב who asks that our משנה says that if a חרשת falls to יבום who is not related to the wife of the חרש then he can do יבום to her and then divorce her. In that case the חרש is מיבם the חרשת so there is a ביאה being done yet it says he can divorce her! This seems to contradict the ירושלמי. The קרן אורה himself asks that our גמרא does not sound like the ירושלמי either since the גמרא asked why חז"ל instituted קידושין דרבנן by a חרש and not a קטן. If קידושי ביאה by a חרש was דאורייתא then the answer would be obvious—because there is a concept of קידושין by a חרש anyway! The קרן אורה answers that the ירושלמי must also agree that קידושי ביאה is just דרבנן. The ירושלמי just means that a חרש who did קידושי ביאה can’t be מגרש his wife ברמיזה. Rather, she needs an actual גירושין. Nonetheless a חרש would be able to do the גירושין since his whole קידושין was only דרבנן.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview