Yevamot 101b (קא:) — the Talmud in English

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

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

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

And the other one,

the first tanna,

that

verse of

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

What does he derive from it?

And we explain: That verse

comes for the teaching of Rava.

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

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

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

And the other one too,

Rabbi Yehuda, this verse

is needed

for the interpretation of “before the eyes”

for the teaching of Rava!

And we say:

Indeed, that is so.

In fact, the verse “before the eyes” comes for Rava’s teaching.

But then, from where does he derive the fitness of laymen

for halitza, according to Rabbi Yehuda? 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.

And the other one,

the first tanna,

this

verse of

“in Israel,” what does he do with it,

what does he derive from it?

And we say:

He requires

that verse

for the teaching of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

“In Israel”—the halitza must be performed specifically in an Israelite court

and

not in a court of converts.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive that halitza must be performed specifically in an Israelite court?

And we say:

“In Israel” is written elsewhere

in the passage concerning halitza, and he derives this law from that verse.

And the other one,

the first tanna, what does he derive from that other verse containing “in Israel”? We say:

He requires it for that which was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: Once we were sitting before Rabbi Tarfon, and a yevama came to perform halitza, and he said to us

Rabbi Yehuda:

All of you respond

and say:

“The removed shoe.”

We derive this law from what is written: “And his name shall be called in Israel,” meaning that everyone must recite “The removed shoe.”

And the other one,

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

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 ask:

But from now,

if we derive 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 Yehuda, then let us likewise derive from what is written in that same verse

“and they shall summon

him, the elders of his city,” in the plural, that an additional

two are required; and from what is written

“and they shall speak

to him,” an additional

two;

and

if so,

likewise let us say that

according to

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda there are nine here,

so that nine judges are required for halitza, while

according to

the view of

the Rabbis

there are seven here,

so that seven judges are required for halitza!? And we answer:

That

verse of “and they shall summon”

is needed for that which was taught: “And they shall summon him

the elders of his city”—specifically they,

and not their agents.

—the elders of his city,” specifically they,

and not their agents .

And from the verse

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

the yavam

proper advice suited to him. If he was young,

that is, youthful,

and she,

the yevama,

was old,

that is, elderly. Or if

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

Perform chalitza for her and do not enter into levirate marriage with her, and

go to one like yourself,

to a woman who is your age,

and do not bring strife into your home!

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is that chalitza is performed before three, since the tanna stated

the

tanna

of our Mishna

in accordance with him [i.e., in accordance with his view]. That is, the tanna stated anonymously in our Mishna: “The mitzva of chalitza is performed before three,” and did not mention that there was a dispute concerning this.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If so, concerning

the

miyun [that is, a minor whom her mother or brothers married off while she was a minor can perform miyun before reaching majority while still married, by declaring that she does not desire him. This law is rabbinic, for by Torah law she does not even require miyun, and her betrothal is of no effect, since only her father can betroth her while she is a minor],

also

shall we say that the halakha is that it is performed before three, because the tanna stated this anonymously,

as we learned

in an anonymous Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin:

“Miyun and chalitza are performed before three”!?

And if you would say that here, too,

this is indeed the halakha,

but it was taught in a beraita: “Regarding miyun, Beit Shammai say:

it must be performed specifically before an

expert court. And Beit Hillel say: Before a court, and

even

not before a court.”

Both these and those,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

agree that three are required

for miyun. Their dispute concerns only 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 that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha follows that pair,

namely, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who deem it valid with two!

This proves that specifically three are not required for miyun, contrary to the anonymous Mishna!

And we explain:

There,

concerning miyun, there is only

one anonymous ruling,

only one Mishna that was stated anonymously in this manner.

But

whereas

here,

concerning chalitza, there are

two anonymous rulings,

namely, our Mishna and that Mishna concerning miyun in tractate Sanhedrin; therefore, the halakha is as stated.

And we challenge this:

There too,

concerning miyun,

there are two anonymous rulings!

As we learned:

If a woman vowed to derive no benefit from her husband, and he did not nullify the vow for her, and she went to a sage to have him dissolve it, but the sage could not find an opening for her, that sage may not marry her, that woman. Perhaps people will suspect that he did not make every effort to find an opening for her so that she would leave her husband and he could marry her.

But if she

performed miyun or chalitza before him,

before the sage,

he may marry her,

he is permitted to marry her.

Because

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

it

is performed

before a court,

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

If so, we have found another anonymous Mishna stating that miyun is performed before three!

Rather, there,

concerning miyun, there are

two anonymous rulings.

But

here,

concerning chalitza, there are

three anonymous rulings.

That is, the two cited above, plus our Mishna, which we have now cited concerning suspicion.

And we wonder:

Since this is an anonymous ruling and that is an anonymous ruling, what difference is there whether there is one anonymous ruling, two anonymous rulings, or three!?

In the end, the tanna stated this anonymously, indicating that this is the halakha!

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What Rav Naḥman ruled, that chalitza is performed before three, is

because it is an anonymous ruling in a place where there is a dispute.

For there the tanna presented Rabbi Yehuda as disputing a different matter, but concerning chalitza the tanna did not state that he disputed; rather, he stated anonymously that chalitza is performed before three. Learn from this that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his position and agreed with the first tanna that chalitza is performed before three.

For this is how

we learned

there:

The laying of the elders’ hands

on the head of the bull for an unwitting communal sin,

and the beheaded heifer,

are performed

before three. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Before five.

And at the end of the Mishna we learned:

“Chalitza and miyun are performed before three.” And

the tanna did not state that

Rabbi Yehuda disputes

this. Yet in the beraita that the Gemara cited above, Rabbi Yehuda disputes the matter and maintains that chalitza is performed before five!

Learn from this that Rabbi Yehuda retracted

[reversed his position],

Rabbi Yehuda,

and agreed with the first tanna that chalitza is performed before three .

This is not so with regard to miyun, since in that same Mishna, which we learned anonymously as stating that it is performed before three, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, did not dispute another matter, such that one could say that from the fact that they did not dispute the matter of miyun, it is evident that they retracted their positions. Therefore, there is no proof from there that the halakha is that it is performed before three.

And we conclude:

Learn from this.

Rava said: The judges must designate a place

for chalitza.

For it is written: “And his yevama shall go up

to the gate, to the elders.”

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

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

of chalitza

before five .

And we wonder:

In accordance with whom—Rabbi Yehuda? But

we said above that

he retracted his position!

And we explain: The reason they performed chalitza before five was not because that is the law, but

to publicize the matter

so that it would be known that she had undergone chalitza and a koen would not marry her. Alternatively, it was so that men would hasten to marry her.

Rav Ashi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana said to him

:

Has the Master come up to us

[come up to us]

to complete the five

[to complete the quorum of five for the chalitza]?

Rav Kahana said: I was standing before Rav Yehuda

[I was standing before Rav Yehuda],

and he said

to me: Come up to the bundle of reeds

[come up onto the bundle of reeds] to sit there

and join the five.

They said to him: Why do I need five?

He said to them: In order to publicize the matter

[so that the matter would become known].

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

He said to him

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda,

we learned

: It is written concerning chalitza:

“In Israel,”

and we interpret this:

“In an Israelite court”

shall the chalitza 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 from serving in chalitza.

Rav Yehuda said: In a case such as Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda,

even though he is a convert,

I would recover money on the basis of his word.

That is, he is so trustworthy in my eyes that I would cause money to be extracted on the basis of his statement.

And we wonder:

“I would recover”

money

—could this enter your mind? But the Merciful One said: “By the testimony of two witnesses”!

And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda is only a single witness!

Rather,

this is what Rav Yehuda said:

I would weaken a document on the basis of his word.

If he were to tell me that this document had been paid, I would not adjudicate on the basis of it to collect the debt .