Yevamot 101b — the Talmud in English

As it is stated: “You are altogether beautiful, my beloved, and there is no defect in you.”

And if so, the blind have already been excluded from serving on the Sanhedrin, since they have a defect !

Rather, it is necessarily so that even laymen are fit for halitza, and therefore the verse “before the eyes” is needed to exclude the blind.

But the other one,

the first tanna,

that

verse of

“before the eyes,” what does he do with it?

What does he learn from it?

And we explain: That verse

comes for the matter of Rava.

For Rava said: The judges must see the saliva emerging from the mouth of the yevama,

the judges must see with their own eyes the saliva as it emerges from the yevama’s mouth .

For it is written: “Before the eyes of the elders, and she shall spit.”

And the other one as well,

Rabbi Judah, this verse

he needs it

for the verse “before the eyes”

for the matter of Rava!

And we say:

Indeed, so it is.

In truth, the verse “before the eyes” comes for the matter of Rava.

But then, from where does he derive laymen

for Rabbi Judah, that they are fit for halitza? After all, the verse “before the eyes” is needed for another exposition!?

And we say:

He derives it from

what is written

“in Israel,”

which implies

any Israelite whatsoever,

even laymen.

But the other one,

the first tanna,

this

verse of

“in Israel,” what does he do with it,

what does he learn from it?

And we say:

He needs

that verse

for what Rabbi Shmuel bar Judah taught:

“In Israel”—in a court of Israelites

halitza must specifically be performed,

and not in a court of converts.

But the other one,

Rabbi Judah, from where does he learn that halitza is performed specifically in a court of Israelites?

And we say:

Another “in Israel” is written

in the section of halitza. And from that verse he learns this law.

But the other one,

the first tanna, what does he learn from that other verse of “in Israel”? And we say:

He needs it for what was taught: Rabbi Judah said: Once we were sitting before Rabbi Tarfon, and a yevama came to perform halitza, and he said to us

Rabbi Judah:

Answer all of you

and say:

“The removed shoe.”

And we learn this law from what is written: “And his name shall be called in Israel,” that everyone must call out, “The removed shoe.”

But the other one,

Rabbi Judah, from where does he derive that law of Rabbi Judah?

And we say:

From

what is written in that verse,

“And his name shall be called”

he derives

this law: it implies that the yavam’s name must be called “The House of the Removed Shoe” by everyone.

And we are astonished:

But if so,

since we learn from what is written “elders” and “elders of his city” that three judges are required according to the first tanna, and five according to Rabbi Judah, then let us learn from what is written in that same verse

“And they shall summon

him, the elders of his city,” in the plural, that another

two are required; and from what is written

“and they shall speak

to him,” another

two are required; and if so,

Two more,

and if so,

likewise it should be said that

according

to

the view of

Rabbi Judah there are nine here,

so that nine judges would be required for halitza, while

according

to the view of

the Rabbis

it should be said that

there are seven here,

and seven judges would be required for halitza! And we answer:

That

verse of “And they shall summon”

is needed for what was taught: “And they shall summon him,

the elders of his city”—specifically they,

and not their agent .

And from the verse

“And they shall speak to him” teaches that they give him

the yavam

appropriate advice for him. If he was a child,

that is, young,

and she,

the yevama,

old,

that is, older. Or if

he is old and she is a child, they say to him: What have you to do with a child? What have you to do with an old woman?

Perform chalitza for her, and do not marry her, and

go to one like yourself,

to a woman who is your age,

and do not bring quarrels into your home!

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is: chalitza [is performed] with three, since the

the

tan...

of our Mishna

stated [the law] anonymously in accordance with him [like him]. That is, the tan... in our Mishna taught anonymously, “The mitzva of chalitza is with three,” and did not bring that there is a dispute about this.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If so,

with regard to

miy'un [that is, a minor whom her mother and brothers married off while she was a minor can perform miy'un before she comes of age while under her husband, and say that she does not desire him. This law is rabbinic, for by Torah law she does not even require miy'un, and her betrothal has no validity, since only her father can betroth her while she is a minor]

[то есть если девочку выдали замуж ее мать или братья, то до совершеннолетия она может отказаться от брака, заявив, что не хочет оставаться с мужем. Этот закон установлен мудрецами: по закону Торы ей вообще не требуется отказ, и ее обручение недействительно, поскольку в ее малолетстве отец является единственным человеком, который может ее обручить]

also

let us say that the halakha is that it is performed with three, because the tan... stated this anonymously,

as we learned

in an anonymous Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin:

“Miy'un and chalitza are with three”!

And if you would say: Here too,

that in truth this is the halakha,

but it was taught in a beraita: Miy'un, Beit Shammai say:

it must be performed specifically before

an expert court. And Beit Hillel say: In a court, and

even

not in a court.

Both these and those,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

agree that three are required

for miy'un. Rather, they disputed whether they must specifically be expert judges.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei deem [it] valid

even

with two.

And Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is in accordance with that pair,

that is, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei, who deem it valid with two!

And it is proven that specifically three are not required for miy'un, and not in accordance with the anonymous Mishna!

And we explain:

There,

with regard to miy'un, there is only

one anonymous [teaching],

only one Mishna stated anonymously in this manner.

But

if

here,

with regard to chalitza, there are

two anonymous [teachings],

namely, our Mishna and that Mishna concerning miy'un in tractate Sanhedrin; therefore the halakha is thus.

And we challenge:

There too,

with regard to miy'un,

there are two anonymous [teachings]!

As we learned:

A woman who vowed to derive benefit from her husband, and he did not annul the vow for her, and she went to a sage to have him release it for her, but the sage did not find an opening for her, that sage may not marry her, that woman. Perhaps they will suspect that he did not exert himself to find an opening for her so that she would leave her husband and he could marry her.

But if she

performed miy'un or chalitza before him,

before the sage,

he may marry her,

he may marry her.

Because

the miy'un is not performed only before him, in which case there would be room for suspicion that he performed the miy'un or chalitza so that he could marry her; rather,

it

is performed

in a court,

that is, before three, and there is no room for suspicion.

If so, we have found another anonymous Mishna that miy'un is performed before three!

Rather, there,

with regard to miy'un, there are

two anonymous [teachings].

Whereas

here,

with regard to chalitza, there are

three anonymous [teachings].

That is, the two that we brought above, and our Mishna that we have now brought, with regard to suspicion.

And we wonder:

Since this is an anonymous [teaching], and this is an anonymous [teaching], what difference is there between one anonymous [teaching], two anonymous [teachings], or three!?

Ultimately, the tan... stated this anonymously, and it indicates that this is the halakha!

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What Rav Naḥman ruled, that chalitza is with three, is

since it is an anonymous [teaching] in a place of dispute.

For there the tan... brought that Rabbi Yehuda disputed concerning another matter, but concerning chalitza the tan... did not teach that he disputed; rather, he taught anonymously that chalitza is with three. Infer from this that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his view and conceded to the first tan... that chalitza is with three.

For thus

we learned

there:

The laying of the elders’ hands

on the head of the bull for the communal inadvertent sin,

and the calf whose neck is broken,

are performed

with three. The words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With five.

And at the end of the Mishna we learned:

“The chalitza and the miy'un are with three. And he did not

teach that

Rabbi Yehuda disputes

in this. Yet in the beraita that the Gemara brought above, Rabbi Yehuda disputed and holds that chalitza is performed with five!

Infer from this that he retracted [from his position]

[reversed his position],

Rabbi Yehuda,

and conceded to the first tan... that chalitza is with three .

This is not so with regard to miy'un, for in that same Mishna that we learned anonymously, that it is performed with three, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei did not dispute concerning another matter, so that one might say that from the fact that they did not dispute concerning miy'un, it indicates that they retracted their views. Therefore there is no proof from there that the halakha is that it is with three.

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

Rava said: The judges must establish a place

[to establish a place] for chalitza.

For it is written: “And his

yevama shall go up to the gate, to the elders.”

And the expression “to the gate” indicates that a special place is required and designated for this .

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, performed an act

of chalitza

with five .

And we wonder:

In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda? But

we said above that

he retracted his view!

And we explain: What they performed chalitza with five, was not because that is the law, but

they did so to publicize the matter,

in order to publicize that she is a woman who performed chalitza, so that a kohen would not marry her. Or, so that people would hasten to marry her.

Rav Ashi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana; he said to him

Rav Kahana:

Has the Master come up to us

[come up to us]

to complete the five

[to complete the number of five for the purpose of chalitza].

Rav Kahana said: I was standing before Rav Yehuda

[I was standing before Rav Yehuda],

and he said

to me: Come, climb up onto the bundle of reeds

[come, climb onto a bundle of reeds] to sit there

to join the five.

They said to him: Why do I need five?

He said to them: In order that the matter be publicized

[so that the matter be publicized].

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: When I was standing before Rav Yehuda, he said to me: Climb up, come onto the bundle of reeds, to join the five, to publicize the matter.

He said to him

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda,

We learned:

It is written concerning chalitza:

“In Israel,”

and we expound:

In an Israelite court

the chalitza shall be performed

and not in a court of converts. And I

[and I]

am a convert

[for Rav Shmuel converted together with his father, Yehuda], and I am disqualified for chalitza.

Rav Yehuda said: In the case of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda,

even though he is a convert,

I can extract money on the basis of his word.

That is, he is so trustworthy to me that I would extract money on the basis of his word.

And we wonder:

“I can extract

money

—is that conceivable? But the Merciful One said, ‘On the testimony of two witnesses’!”

And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is a single witness!

Rather,

so Rav Yehuda said:

I weaken a document on the basis of his word.

If he says to me that this document has been paid, I will not adjudicate on its basis to collect it .