Yevamot 102a (קב.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

A convert may judge his fellow convert:

that is, another convert, in capital cases ,

by Torah law

[by Torah law].

As it is stated: “You shall surely set over yourself a king whom the Lord your God shall choose; from among your brethren you shall set a king over yourself.”

And a judge is included in the category of king, as it is written: “A king establishes the land through justice.” If the judge is comparable to a king, who needs nothing, he will establish the land. And we derive:

“over yourself,”

that is, to judge you, the Jewish people,

is required

that the judge be

“from among your brethren.” But a convert may judge his fellow

the

convert.

And if his mother was Jewish,

and only his father was a gentile,

he may judge even

a

Jew.

But with regard to halitza,

he may not judge

until

both

his father and

his

mother are Jewish. As it is stated: “And his name shall be called in Israel.”

This indicates that he must be Jewish from every side .

Rabba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah should come

the prophet,

and say

that

halitza may be performed with a shoe, we would heed him.

But if he should say that

halitza may not be performed with a sandal, we would not heed him,

because

the people have already become accustomed

to performing halitza

with a sandal.

And Rav Yosef said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah should come and say

that

halitza may not be performed with a shoe, we would heed him.

But if he should say that

halitza may not be performed with a sandal, we would not heed him,

because

the people have already become accustomed

to performing halitza

with a sandal.

What is the practical difference between them?

The difference between them concerns a shoe,

whether halitza may be performed with it

ab initio

or not. Rabba holds that halitza should not be performed with a shoe ab initio. However, if Elijah should come and say that halitza may be performed with a shoe, we would heed him.

Rav Yosef, by contrast, holds that halitza should be performed with a shoe ab initio. Only if Elijah should come and say that halitza may not be performed with a shoe would we heed him.

And we raise an objection:

But according to the one who says

that

even ab initio

halitza may be performed with a shoe,

but did we not learn

in our Mishna:

“If she removed it with a shoe, her halitza is valid”?

This indicates that specifically

after the fact, yes,

her halitza is valid, but

ab initio, no!

And we answer:

The same law applies even ab initio

that halitza may be performed with a shoe.

But since it was necessary to teach

in the

latter clause

of the Mishna

that if she removed it with an anpileya, her halitza is invalid,

as in this case it is invalid even

after the fact,

the tanna

also taught the first clause

regarding a shoe using the language of

after the fact.

And whether

halitza may be performed with a shoe

ab initio

is a dispute among

the tanna’im.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Once I went to Netzivin. I found an old man.

I said to him: Are you at all acquainted with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira

[that is, do you know him]?

He said to me: Yes, and he is a permanent guest at my table .

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

Have you ever seen him perform halitza on a yevama?

He said to me: I have seen him perform halitza many times.

Rabbi Yosei said to him: Did he perform the halitza

with a shoe

or

with a sandal?

He said to me,

the old man:

But is halitza performed with a shoe?

I said to him: If so, why did Rabbi Meir see fit to say: “If she removed it with a shoe, her halitza is valid”!?

Rabbi Yaakov says in his name

of Rabbi Meir:

Halitza may be performed with a shoe ab initio.

We see that the tanna’im disagreed regarding Rabbi Meir’s view, whether halitza may be performed with a shoe ab initio or not.

And according to the one who says that ab initio one may not

perform halitza with a shoe,

what is his reason

for this view?

If you say that it is because

the

outer part,

that is, the upper of the shoe, is

above

the foot,

and the sole,

that is, the shoe lace, which is folded over the shoe’s side flaps, is

above the above

the foot—that is, above the upper of the shoe, the outer part, which lies on the foot. Consequently, when she removes the shoe by opening the lace, she is not removing it from above his foot, but from above the outer part. [See the illustration at the end of the book].

But the Torah said:

“And she shall remove his shoe

from above

his foot”—specifically

not from above the above

his foot.

If so, even

after the

fact it should not be valid

to perform halitza with a shoe, since he has not fulfilled the mitzva properly!

Rather, you are compelled to say that the essential mitzva of halitza is to expose his foot; therefore, even though she does not remove the shoe directly from his foot, it is effective. And even if he is wearing two shoes, one over the other, if she removes both of them at once, it is proper, despite the fact that she did not remove with her hand the shoe that was directly over his foot.

Rather, this is the reason that halitza is not performed with a shoe:

as a preventive decree because

she might remove a

worn-out shoe,

that is, one split and torn on top . Since the shoe is soft, it can remain on his foot despite being torn, and she might perform halitza with it. In fact, it is unfit for halitza because it does not protect the foot .

But with a sandal, there is no reason to enact a decree lest she perform halitza with a worn-out sandal. Since it is hard, if it tears it cannot remain on his foot, and there is no basis for such a decree.

Alternatively,

the decree is

because

she might perform halitza with

half a

shoe.

That is, the shoe covers only half the foot . Here too, the decree applies specifically to a shoe, because, being soft, it is possible to wear half a shoe, and it is in fact unfit for halitza. But with a sandal there is no basis for this decree, because it is impossible to wear half a sandal: since it is hard, it does not remain on the foot.

Rav said: Were it not that I had seen my beloved

[if I had not seen Rabbi Hiyya]

perform halitza with a sandal that has shinzin

[laces] , which make it easy to remove and do not fasten it so tightly to the foot,

I would have performed halitza only with an Ishmaelite sandal

[I would have used only an Ishmaelite sandal], whose straps are large and broad and are folded over the foot ,

as it is fastened more tightly

[as it is more tightly fastened to the foot and more difficult to remove].

And this

sandal

of ours

[the one that we customarily wear],

even though it has a clasp,

which has a fastening on its edge that keeps it from slipping off the foot , nevertheless

we tie onto it

another

cord,

tying another cord to it ,

so that

she will open the cord’s knot and then perform halitza, and thus

her halitza will be superior .

Section: Releasing a yevama with a sandal

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The release of a yevama to marry outside the levirate bond occurs when most of the heel is removed

from above his foot. Since she has removed most of the heel from his foot, she is already permitted to marry outside the levirate bond, even though she has not removed the shoe entirely from above his foot.

Meytivi:

If

the straps of a shoe or sandal became undone

by themselves, not through the agency of the yevama,

or if

the yavam removed

most of the foot

from the shoe, and afterward she removed the shoe from his foot,

her halitza is invalid.

This indicates that

the reason

that her halitza is invalid is

that he removed

most of the foot.

But

if

she removed

most of his foot from the sandal,

her halitza is valid.

And it indicates that specifically if she removed the shoe from above

most of the foot,

then

yes,

indeed, her halitza is valid. But if she removed it only from above

most of the heel, no!

And we answer:

No. This is the same thing.

In fact,

“most of the foot” means most of the heel.

And why did they call

most of the heel

“most of the foot”?

Because

all the strength of the foot presses upon it,

for the entire force of the foot is supported by the heel.

And we say that what we learned above—that if the straps became undone not through the agency of the yevama, her halitza is invalid—

supports Rav Yannai.

For Rav Yannai said: Whether he,

the yavam, undid the knot,

and

afterward

she removed,

the yevama, the sandal from his foot,

or whether she undid

the knot

and

afterward

he removed

the sandal,

her halitza is invalid until she undoes

the knot

and

also

removes it

from his foot.

Rav Yannai raised a question: If she tore it

the yevama tore the sandal, thereby removing it from the yavam’s foot,

what is the law?

If she burned it,

burning the sandal while it was tied around his foot and thereby removing it from his foot,

what is the law?

Is

exposing the foot

[revealing the foot]

required, and that condition is fulfilled,

since in the end his foot was exposed,

or perhaps actual halitza is required,

that she remove the shoe from his foot,

and that condition is not fulfilled?

And we conclude:

Teiku [the question remains unresolved].

Rabbi Nehemiah asked Rabba:

The yavam was wearing

two shoes, one over the other,

and she removed one from him,

what is the law?

Is the halitza valid or not?

What are the circumstances?

If you say that she removed the upper one

[that she removed the upper shoe],

and

the lower one was still

remaining

in its place, then “and she shall remove his shoe

from above

his foot,”

the Merciful One stated, and not from above the above,

for here she removed the shoe from above the shoe that was on the foot, and not from above the foot itself! If so, certainly the halitza is not valid!

Rather,

it is necessary

that she tore the upper one

and

thereby exposed the lower one,

and

then

she removed the lower one,

removing the lower shoe that was on the foot,

and

the upper one was still

remaining

in its place.

And these are the sides of the uncertainty:

What

is the law? Is

removal

from above his foot

required, and that condition is fulfilled

[and it has been achieved], since she removed his shoe from above his foot?

Or perhaps exposing the foot

[revealing the foot]

is required, and that condition is not fulfilled,

since in the end his foot remained covered by the upper shoe?