Yevamot 102a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

A convert may judge his fellow

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 brothers you shall set a king over yourself.”

And a judge is included under “king,” for it is written: “A king establishes the land through justice.” If the judge resembles a king, who needs nothing, he will establish the land. And we expound:

“over yourself,”

that is, to judge you, the Israelites,

it is that we require

that the judge be

from among your brothers. But a convert may judge his fellow

the

convert.

And if his mother was an Israelite,

and only his father was a gentile,

he may judge even

the

Israelite.

But concerning halitza,

he may not judge

until

also

his father and

also

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

It implies that he must be an Israelite from every side.

Rabba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah comes

the prophet,

and says

that

they perform halitza with a shoe, we listen to him.

But if he says that

they do not perform halitza with a sandal, we do not listen to 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 comes and says

that

they do not perform halitza with a shoe, we listen to him.

But if he says that

they do not perform halitza with a sandal, we do not listen to him,

because

the people have already become accustomed

to performing halitza

with a sandal.

What is the difference between them?

There is a difference between them concerning a shoe,

whether they perform halitza with it

initially

or not. For Rabba holds that initially they do not perform halitza with a shoe. But if Elijah comes and says that they perform halitza with a shoe, we listen to him.

Whereas Rav Yosef holds that initially they perform halitza with a shoe. Only if Elijah comes and says that they do not perform halitza with a shoe do we listen to him.

And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who says

that

even initially

they perform halitza with a shoe,

but we learned

in our Mishna:

If she performed halitza with a shoe, her halitza is valid.

It implies that specifically

after the fact, yes,

her halitza is valid, but

initially, no!

And we answer:

The same law applies: even initially

they perform halitza with a shoe.

And since he needed to teach

in the

conclusion

of the Mishna that

with a soft shoe, her halitza is invalid,

for in this case it is invalid even

after the fact,

he

also taught the beginning

concerning a shoe in the language of

after the fact.

And a shoe,

whether they perform halitza with it

initially

is a dispute of

the tannaim.

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

I said to him: Do you happen to be acquainted with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira

[that is, do you know him]?

He said to me: Yes, and he is regularly at my table.

Rabbi Yose said to him:

Have you ever seen him perform halitza with a yevama?

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

Rabbi Yose said to him: Did he perform

with a shoe

the halitza,

or with a sandal?

He said to me,

that old man:

But do they perform halitza with a shoe?

I said to him: If so, what did Rabbi Meir see that made him say: “If she performed halitza with a shoe, her halitza is valid!”

Rabbi Jacob says in his name

of Rabbi Meir:

They perform halitza with a shoe initially.

It is apparent that the tannaim disputed Rabbi Meir’s view, whether they perform halitza with a shoe initially or not.

And the one who says initially they do not

perform halitza with a shoe,

what is his reason

for this?

If you say that it is because

the

panata,

that is, the upper part of the shoe, is

above

the foot,

and the arqeta,

that is, the shoe-lace, which is folded over the shoe’s ears, is

above the above

the foot—that is, above the upper part of the shoe, the panata, which is on the foot. It follows that when she removes it by opening the lace, she does not remove it from above his foot, but from above the panata. [See the illustration at the end of the book].

And the Torah said

“and she shall remove his shoe

from above

his foot,” specifically,

and not from above the above

his foot.

If so, even

after the fact it should

also not

be effective to perform halitza with a shoe, for she has not fulfilled the mitzva properly!

Rather, necessarily one must say that the principal mitzva of halitza is to uncover his foot; therefore, although she does not remove it from directly above his foot, it is effective. And even if there are two shoes, one atop the other, if she removes both of them together, it is properly done, despite the fact that she did not remove with her hand the shoe that is directly above his foot.

Rather, this is the reason that they do not perform halitza with a shoe:

a decree because of

perhaps she will perform halitza with a

worn-out shoe,

that is, split and torn from above. Since it is a soft shoe, it can remain on his foot despite being torn, and she may perform halitza with it. In truth, it is unfit for halitza, because it does not protect the foot.

But with a sandal, there is no reason to 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 the decree.

Alternatively,

a decree

because

perhaps she will perform halitza with

half a

shoe.

That is, the shoe covers only half the foot. In this too, there is specifically with a shoe a basis for the decree, because since it is soft, one can wear half a shoe, whereas in truth it is unfit for halitza. But with a sandal there is no basis for this decree, because one cannot wear half a sandal, since it is hard and does not stand on the foot.

Rav said: Had I not seen my beloved

[if I had not seen Rabbi Hiyya]

perform halitza with a sandal that has shintzin

[that has laces], which is easy to remove and is not so tightly fastened to the foot,

I would have performed halitza only with the sandal of the Ishmaelites

[I would have removed only with an Ishmaelite sandal], whose straps are large and wide and are folded over the foot,

which is fastened more tightly

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

And this

sandal

of ours

[ours, which we are accustomed to wear],

even though it has a clasp,

which has a knot at its edges, holding it so that it does not come off the foot, nevertheless

we tie in it

another

cord,

we tie another cord in it,

so that

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

her halitza will be superior.

Section: Releasing a yevama with a sandal

Rav Judah said that Rav said: The release of a yevama to the public is through the removal of most of the heel

It is so. Since she has removed most of the heel from above his foot, she has already been released to the public, even though she has not removed the shoe completely from above his foot.

He raised an objection:

If

the straps of a shoe or sandal became untied

by themselves, not through the yevama,

or the yavam removed

the

majority of the foot

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

her halitza is invalid.

It implies:

the reason

that her halitza is invalid is because

he removed

the majority of the foot.

But

if

she removed

the majority of his foot from the sandal,

her halitza is valid.

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

the majority of the foot,

then

yes,

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

the majority of the heel, no!

And we answer:

No. This is

the same thing. In truth,

the majority of the foot means the majority of the heel.

And why did they call it

the majority of the heel

the majority of the foot?

Because

the entire strength of the foot is pressed upon it,

for the entire strength of the foot rests upon it, upon the heel.

And we say: What we learned above, that if the straps became untied not through the yevama her halitza is invalid,

supports Rav Yannai.

For Rav Yannai said: Whether he untied,

the yavam, the knot,

and

afterward

she removed,

the yevama, the sandal from above his foot,

or whether she untied

the knot,

and

afterward

he removed

the sandal,

her halitza is invalid until she unties

the knot

and

also

removes it

from above his foot.

Rav Yannai inquired: If she tore it

the yevama tore the sandal, and through this it was removed from the yavam’s foot,

what is the law?

If she burned it,

the sandal while it was bound around his foot, and through this it was removed from his foot,

what is the law?

Is it that

uncovering the foot

[to uncover the foot]

is required, and it is present,

for ultimately his foot was uncovered,

or perhaps, halitza is required

specifically, that she remove the shoe from above his foot,

and it is absent?

And we conclude:

teyku.

Rabbi Nehemiah asked Rabba:

The yavam was wearing

two shoes, one atop 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

it still

remains, the lower one

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

from above

his foot”

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

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

Rather,

it is necessary

[that she tore the upper shoe],

and

through this she uncovered the lower one,

and

then

she removed the lower one,

she removed the lower shoe that was on the foot,

and

the upper one still

remains

in its place.

And these are the sides of the uncertainty:

What,

is it that

halitza

from above his foot

is required, and it is present

[and has been fulfilled], for she removed his shoe from above his foot!

Or perhaps, uncovering the foot

[to uncover the foot]

is required, and it is absent,

for ultimately his foot remained covered by the upper shoe?