1) If a deaf-mute marries another deaf-mute, he may remain married to her, or divorce her. After all, the same way he marries her by sign language, he can divorce her by sign language.

2) The reason the rabbis enacted marriage between deaf-mutes since they can live in peace, but not with the insane since they can't live in peace, and a person can't "live in a basket with a snake." [Tosfos says: however, if one marries a normal woman, and she became insane, they enacted not to divorce her since she has no mental faculty to guard herself, we need him to guard her.]

3) They didn't enact marriage for a minor boy since he'll eventually be able to marry. (However, the deaf-mutes will never come to be able to marry, so they enacted marriage for them. Also, they enacted marriage for a minor girl, although she can marry eventually, since we don't want her to be Hefker to all.)

4) They only enacted Mee'un for a minor girl since there is a limited time for her to do Mee'un, but they didn't enact it for a deaf-mute since they would be allowed to do Mee'un for an indefinite time, and because of that, people will refrain marrying them.

5) We don't allow a deaf-mute married to a Kohein to eat Trumah. (You can't say that it's forbidden since the Torah doesn't recognize their marriage and she's eating something prohibited to her; since we don't need to separate people who don't have their full mental faculty, like minors, from eating Neveila.) It's a decree so that a normal woman who marries a deaf-mute Kohein shouldn't eat Trumah. She's forbidden to even eat rabbinical Trumah since she might end up eating Trumah from the Torah. However, a minor wife eats Trumah [Tosfos: rabbinical Trumah, and we don't decree because of Torah Trumah, since she will grow up (and she will have a real marriage). They didn't decree since you'll come to permit even when a minor boy marries an adult woman. We can't say like Rashi since it's an uncommon case, since, on the contrary, we say that it's good to marry him off right before puberty. Rather, since it's only a small amount of time before he becomes an adult, we don't need to worry that much. The Yerushalmi answers: we allow the minor to eat Trumah to give her grace in her husband's eye. However, grace isn't applicable by a deaf-mute, since her disability mars any grace.]

6) A minor receives a Kesuva, unless she refuses her husband and erases the marriage. A deaf-mute doesn't have a Kesuva unless her husband writes one for her on his own volition. After all, if a Kesuva would be mandatory by deaf-mutes, they'll refrain from marrying them [Tosfos: and, therefore, they weren't concerned that it wasn't difficult to divorce her without a Kesuva.] (However, they didn't have a concern that they will refrain from marrying a minor if they need to write a Kesuva since she will eventually grow up.) They didn't enact a Kesuva when a deaf mute marries a normal woman, and we don't say that she'll refrain from marrying him without a Kesuva, since a woman wants to marry more than a man wants to marry.

7) There was this deaf-mute who married a woman and wrote her a Kesuva of fifty Zuz from his property, and Rava praised it. After all, if he wanted to buy a maid, we would buy it for him, and, of course, in this case where he also has a marriage. [Tosfos says: although a deaf-mute can only sell through sign language moveable objects, but not land, and here he's placing a lien on his land with this Kesuva; we must say that he has a caretaker to his estate. Also, in this case, we say that we could do something totally beneficial for him when he's not there, even without his consent.]

8) Shmuel says: if someone has relations with a deaf-mute's wife, he doesn't even need to bring an Asham Taloy. This is not only like the Rabanan who say that a deaf-mute's action is totally inconsequential, and if he separates Trumah, it's nothing, but even according to R' Eliezer who says it's a Safeik and the Trumah can't be considered Chulin. As Shmuel holds one can only be obligated to bring an Asham Taloy with a Safeik of one prohibited piece mixed in a Heter piece. (Although R' Eliezer personally doesn't need it to be such a Safeik, and he obligates someone to bring an Asham for eating the fats of a Koy (i.e., an animal that we don't know if it's a domestic or wild animal), but Shmuel disagrees with him in that aspect.) However, there's a second version of Shmuel who says that you need to bring an Asham Taloy according to R' Eliezer.

9) R' Ashi inquires: is R' Eliezer's reason is because a deaf-mute has a minimal intellect, and it's a question if it's enough to be considered as if he's thinking clearly, or not. Therefore, if he gives Kiddushin to a woman, he can divorce her, since, if he had enough intelligence to marry her, he has enough intelligence to divorce her. Or is his reason because sometimes he can think clearly, and other times not. Therefore, we need to worry that, perhaps he was thinking clearly at the Kiddushin, but not at the divorce, so he can't divorce her. The inquiry remains unresolved.

10) If normal people marry, and she becomes a deaf-mute, he can still divorce her. However, if she becomes insane, he can't divorce her. If he becomes a deaf-mute or insane, he can never divorce her.

11) You can't divorce a wife from the Torah if she can't guard her Get. R' Yanai learns it from the Pasuk "you put it in her hand," she needs a 'hand' (i.e., to make acquisitions) to be divorced. We learned in the Beis Medrish of Shmuel "you send her from the house," that you can only divorce a wife that's sent away and won't return, which excludes the insane who don't understand that she can't come back. [Tosfos says: R' Tam holds that if she has a father, he could accept the Get on her behalf, since he has a 'hand' to acquire the Get, and the father can guard her from returning to her husband. (After all, it doesn't seem that there's any practical difference between the reason of 'hand' or of returning, but they only argue about the Drasha to make.) The Yerushalmi also implies that, even for the reason that she will return to him, you can divorce her if she has a father. (Also, he may divorce her if she was normal at that moment, and if she's not normal, she's not divorced even if B'dieved he divorced her. This is not true if the reason not to divorce her would only be so that she doesn't run after other men.) This is not like Rashi who says that she can't be divorced through her father.]

12) If she can guard her Get, but not herself, she can be divorced from the Torah since even an adult can be divorced against her will. However, the rabbis enacted not to divorce her so people shouldn't abuse her. If she can guard herself, he could divorce her.

13) R' Yochanan b. Nuri says: just like a deaf-mute husband can't divorce his wife, a deaf-mute wife can't be divorced. [Tosfos says: although she knows through sign language that she can't return, but since she doesn't know it when the Get is given to her, and she only realizes it when they force her out of the house; it's not considered as one who doesn't return to her house after being given the Get.] However, the Chachamim differentiate between a man who must give the Get on his own will, and the wife who receives the Get without her consent.

14) [Tosfos: from the Chachumim's position]; we can say that, if someone tells his wife to take a loan document, but it was really a Get, she's divorced. We also don't say that, by calling it a loan document, you're canceling it from being a Get. The reason it's not considered a canceling is because you didn't tell the witnesses that it's a loan document. So, the only reason he says it that way to his wife since he's embarrassed to tell her directly.

15) If you lost a key in a field on Shabbos, you may bring children to play there, and if they find it, they'll bring it back to you, since Beis DIn is not commanded to prevent them from eating Neveila (or to do other prohibitions). The Gemara wants to bring a proof to this from a Braisa that we don't prevent a minor from uprooting and for throwing. The Gemara rejects it as a proof since it may refer to uprooting from an unperforated flowerpot, and throwing in a Karmales, which are only rabbinic. R' Yochanan had a Safeik if you need to prevent minors or not.

16) You can't bring a proof from the fact that we don't allow a minor to extinguish a fire in a house on Shabbos, since he's doing it for his father. (However, you allow a non-Jew to extinguish it since he's doing it for his own sake {to be paid for it}.)

17) Although we don't worry that, when your son visits your ignorant father-in-law, he'll feed him untithed produce, and if they're Kohanim, we don't worry that he'll be fed Trumah Tamai; since we have leniencys by Damai, and we refer to allowing them to be fed rabbinical Trumah.

18) That, which we learned that you don't need to worry that a child will suckle milk from an unkosher animal even on Shabbos; since the average child is in danger of not having milk. However, an adult can't suckle unless he's assessed by doctors that he's in danger.

19) Abba Shaul says that we're accustomed to suckle from a Kosher animal on Yom Tov, but not on Shabbos, if you're in pain. As we consider it as a backhanded way of 'releasing' (and is only rabbinically forbidden). [Tosfos says: i.e., it's like threshing you only need that reason to R' Yehuda who says that threshing is applicable by items that doesn't grow from the ground. However, the Rabanan hold that it's only applicable to items that grow from the ground. Although we sometimes call animals "growing from the ground" since they get sustenance from the ground, but since we learn that threshing needs to be done as they did in the Mishkan, and those items actually grew from the ground, so animals are not comparable to them. R' Tam says that 'releasing' is a Tolda of smoothing, as we see that you're Chayiv for 'releasing' when you milk a cow, and by that, you smooth out its udders. However, Tosfos disagrees since we see that you're not Chayiv if you milk into food, and that shouldn't help not making the udders smooth. Rather, like Rashi, it's a Tolda of threshing (since you're releasing the milk from the udders). However, since it's considered as food when it's in the udder, and it's also considered food when it's milked into food, so, it's like cutting a food in half.] Therefore, they only forbade it on Shabbos which is a prohibition that has a punishment of stoning, but not on Yom Tov that only has a Lav to it. [Tosfos says: although the Gemara in Kesuvos permits it on Shabbos when he's in pain; R' Tam explains: there it's a true sickness, but here we refer to when he's in pain because he's starving. Ri explains: it's an argument between the two Gemaras. Others explain: here, we refer to the pain of the animal that's becoming engorged, but this is difficult since he should milk it into a pot of food. However, it fits well according to R' Tam since he's starving, it means he doesn't have any other food.]

20) Although we see that the Torah warns adults on prohibitions for minors; that's only not to give it to them directly.

21) If a deaf-mute marries another deaf-mute, and his brother dies without children, and he's married to his wife's sister; he needs to divorce his wife, and his sister-in-law is forbidden always (since a deaf-mute can't do Chalitza). We don't allow the deaf-mutes to stay together just because they anyhow don't have the mental capacities to be obligated in Mitzvos like minors; since we decree to separate them so not to come to permit a Yevama to marry out (since people will assume why they can stay together since it's a real marriage and it exempts the sister-in-law from Yibum since she's the Ervah of a wife's sister).