Yevamot II 113: Caregiving

In daf 112, we began Perek XIV.  Today's daf further's yesterday's conversation regarding the rights of minor girls and of women who are deaf and mute.  The rabbis wonder how and why their rights are different.  They clarify the differences - the minor girl has a time limit; an age by which she must refuse, and women who are deaf and mute may heal over time.  This has implications on whether or not these women are offered gets, divorce contracts.  We also learn that women who are deaf and mute are not protected from potential assault: if a man has intercourse with a married woman who is deaf and mute, he is not fined for he did not know that she was married.  This particular teaching makes me wonder whether or not a woman's protestations were meaningful only if she was married.

The rabbis note that women are more eager to be married than men.  This means that they will be less discriminating regarding whom they marry: women are likely to accept a man who is deaf and mute as a husband, for example.  Men who are deaf and mute are introduced to this conversation. The rabbis remind us that separating teruma is not accepted if it is done by minors, those who are deaf and mute, "imbeciles", a Gentile who separates the teruma of a Jew even with permission, and one who separates teruma for someone else without their permission.

We move toward conversations about which offerings are appropriate when transgressions are made  by those of unknown status.  Instead of other offerings, in these cases guilt offerings are brought in cases of uncertainty.  If a woman becomes "imbecilic", her husband cannot divorce her; he must continue to care for her until she heals, we learn in a note.  But he can marry again.  Once they are divorce, however, he is not responsible for his first wife any longer.  The rabbis debate whether or not he may divorce her at all.  They consider whether or not she is able to understand her get and to care for herself.  They want to ensure that she is not treated like "ownerless property".  A very important choice of words.

Our daf ends with a discussion about consent.  We know that a competent woman is not required to consent to her divorce.  But a woman who is deaf and mute is not to be divorced at all.  How does consent work in these cases, comparatively?  The rabbis argue about who might be protected via consent.  They continue to argue this point into tomorrow's daf.

These conversations remind me of those that we participate in today regarding care for the ill or elderly.  Does our society require formalized structures to ensure that people are taken care of when they are unable to care for themselves?  What are our options in this regard, and which institutions should make those decisions?  Our rabbis would argue that Jewish law covers all of these questions, of course, but every society requires a labour force made of of caregivers - so often, these people are women and either unpaid or miserably paid.  How do we ensure that those who cannot fend for themselves are protected?  And how do we ensure that it happens respectfully?