Shtisel 101: Mental Illness and Halacha

When bar Shatya, a man who suffered from periodic bouts of insanity, sold his property, two witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was insane; and two other witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was sane. Rav Ashi said in that case: Establish two witnesses against the two witnesses who contradict the testimony of the first pair, and establish the money in the possession of bar Shatya. The Gemara notes: We say that the property remains in the possession of bar Shatya only when he has possession of the property based on the possession of his fathers. However, if he does not have possession of the property based on the possession of his fathers, but he acquired the property himself, we say: He purchased his properties when he was insane, and he sold them when he was insane.

Neither a sale nor a purchase involving a mentally incapable or emotionally unstable individual is binding, nor are the presents that one gives effective. Instead, the court must appoint a guardian for such a person, just as it appoints guardians for minors.

Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: With regard to one who developed mental illness, the court enters his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, his sons, and his daughters, and it also gives something else, as will be explained. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife claims sustenance, the court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters and does not give something else. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is there no difference for you between a man who leaves his responsibilities knowingly and one who leaves them unknowingly? A father who lost his sanity did not do so by his own choice, and therefore it can be assumed that he would want to provide for his children from his possessions, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. By contrast, if he went overseas he freely decided to depart, and one would think that he would leave enough for his sons and daughters. If he failed to do so, he has demonstrated that he does not want to provide for them.

Likewise, in the case of a halakhically competent man who married a halakhically competent woman, and she later became a deaf-mute: If he wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. If she developed severe mental illness, he may not divorce her, i.e., a bill of divorce is ineffective in this case. If he became a deaf-mute or developed severe mental illness after they were married, he may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to do so

(2) Mentally incompetent men and women cannot become betrothed, neither at a Torah level nor a rabbinical level, whether with another person like them or a competent person. Rem"a: This only applies to a genuinely incompetent person, but if his thoughts are rational, even if he is extremely unintelligent, or is he has periods of incompetence and periods of rationality, and we cannot determine the periods during which he can think, we must be concerned for his betrothal.

But if she became mentally unstable, and she cannot guard herself he cannot divorce her until she is well, since he cannot abandon her. Therefore he puts her aside and marries another, and feeds her from her own [property]. And he is not obligated in food, clothing, or marital relations, and he is not obligated to heal her. And some say that he is obligated to feed and heal her (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba and the Tur in the name of the Rimah and the Ra'avad). And this was decided earlier (70:4). And this is the main [law].