Yevamot 102b — the Talmud in English

And we raise a difficulty:

And is there anything like this?

Is such a situation common— that a person should walk with two pairs of shoes on his feet?

And we say:

Yes,

indeed.

For the Sages saw

that they saw

Rav Yehuda, who went out with five pairs of shoes

[with five pairs of shoes]

to the marketplace.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A yevama who grew up

[who was raised]

among the brothers

of her deceased husband, upon whom it rests to perform yibbum with her or to perform ḥalitza for her,

is permitted to marry

that is, to undergo yibbum,

one of the brothers, and we do not suspect that she performed ḥalitza

once

with one of them,

and thereby ḥalitza was effected, and through this she became disqualified for yibbum.

And we raise a difficulty: It follows that

the reason

that she is permitted to the brothers is because

we did not see

that she performed ḥalitza with one of them. And we do not suspect that perhaps she performed ḥalitza once, and we do not know about it.

But

if

we saw

that she performed ḥalitza,

we do suspect,

and she is forbidden to them, even though the yevama and the yavam did not intend the mitzva of ḥalitza!

But it was taught in a beraita: Whether he intended

for ḥalitza

and she did not intend, whether she intended

for ḥalitza

and he did not intend, her ḥalitza is invalid, until both of them intend together

for the mitzva of ḥalitza!?

And we explain:

This is what

Rav

means: Even though we saw

that she performed ḥalitza with one of them,

we do not suspect that they intended

for the mitzva of ḥalitza, and therefore they are permitted for yibbum.

And there are those who say

as follows:

The reason is that we did not see

that she performed ḥalitza.

But if we saw, we do suspect,

and she is forbidden to undergo yibbum.

And when the tanna taught

in the beraita that

intention is required,

which implies that we must know that they intend for ḥalitza ,

this applies to permitting her to the world,

for her to be permitted to marry others, we must know that they intended for ḥalitza.

But with regard to the brothers, she becomes disqualified

even if we do not know that they intended, because we suspect that they intended.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A shoe sewn with

inside it a cloth of

linen

one may not perform ḥalitza with it

as it is stated: “And I shod you with taḥash.”

It follows that it is not called a shoe unless it is made entirely of leather .

And

we object: If so,

let us say:

Leather of

taḥash—yes,

only the leather of taḥash is called a shoe, but

something else—not,

and a shoe made from the leather of another animal would be excluded by this verse!

And we say: Since it is written

“shoe, shoe”

twice,

it includes

also the leather of another animal.

And we object:

If “shoe, shoe” includes,

then let us say that

even every substance

is also valid for ḥalitza, including a shoe sewn with linen!

And we say:

If so,

if every substance is included, what purpose does

taḥash written in the verse serve

[what does it help], since nothing has been excluded?

Rabbi Elazar asked Rav:

If

it,

the shoe,

is of leather, and its straps

[its straps ]

are of hair

[goat hair],

what is it,

is it valid for ḥalitza or not?

He said to him: Do we not read in it, “And I shod you with taḥash”?

After all, this too is called a shoe!

He said to him:

If so,

even

one entirely of hair also

should be valid for ḥalitza!

He said to him:

That

which is made entirely of hair

is called karka,

is called

and is not included in the “shoe” stated in the passage.

Rav Kahana said to Shmuel: From where do you know that this

which is written concerning the yevama,

“And she shall remove his shoe from upon his foot,” means removal,

to remove the shoe from upon his foot, from

that which is written: “And they shall remove the stones in which the plague is,”

that is, that they must remove them from the wall?

But let us say

that ḥalitza is an expression of

strengthening, as it is written: “Arm yourselves from among you men for the army,”

and if so, here too let us say that the meaning is that she should take the shoe from the ground and put it on his foot!

And we explain:

There too,

in the matter of those armed for war, the expression “arm yourselves” is an expression of removal, namely,

they remove themselves from the house for battle

[that they leave their homes for battle].

But it is written: “He will deliver the poor through his poverty,”

that is, he will strengthen him and give him power?

And we answer: There too, “he will deliver” is an expression of removal, and this is its meaning:

In the merit of the poverty

of the poor man, which atoned for him during his life,

they will deliver

and save him

from the judgment of Gehinnom.

But what about that which is written: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them,”

is this not an expression of strengthening, that those who fear the Lord will regain strength!? And we say: No. This is its meaning:

In the merit

of the good deeds of

those who fear Him, He will deliver them

[He will deliver other people]

from the judgment of Gehinnom .

But what about that which is written: “And your bones He will strengthen,” and Rabbi Elazar said: This is the finest of blessings. And Rava said: Strengthening of the bones

[giving strength to the bones]!

And we say:

Yes,

indeed so.

It implies this,

an expression of removal,

and it implies

also

this,

an expression of strengthening.

Nevertheless, the expression ḥalitza written concerning the yevama is certainly an expression of removal,

for here, if it entered your mind

that the expression

is one of strengthening,

that is, that she should put a shoe on him,

then let the Merciful One write: “And she shall put his shoe on his foot”!

And we reject this: There is no proof from here, for

if the Merciful One had written, “on his foot,” we would have said: On his foot, yes,

but

on his lower leg,

that is, if his foot was severed and only his lower leg remained,

no!

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote, “from upon his foot,” for

it implies

even on his lower leg,

which is above his foot, one performs ḥalitza.

And we say that there is still proof from here: If the verse came only to say that ḥalitza on his lower leg is valid,

then let the Merciful One write “And she shall remove his shoe

from his foot

on the part above his foot.”

Why

is this written,

“from upon his foot”? We learn from it

that the ḥalitza of the yevama

means removal.

A certain sectarian said

[that same sectarian]

to Rabban Gamliel: A people whose Master has removed Himself from them!

That is, you are a people from whom your God has removed Himself .

For it is written: “With their flocks and with their cattle they will go to seek the Lord, but they will not find Him; He has removed Himself from them”!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

Fool! Is it written, “He has removed Himself from them”?

Rather,

“They have removed themselves from Him” is written!

That is, they removed themselves from Him.

But as for a yevama for whom the brothers performed ḥalitza, is there any substance in it?

Is there any validity in this?!

We learned in our Mishna:

And if she performed ḥalitza in an anpilya, her ḥalitza is invalid, and so on.

And we say:

This means,

it is evident from our Mishna

that an anpilya

[a cloth shoe]

is not a shoe.

And we also learned

as follows:

The collector

[who came to remove the money collected in the boxes in the chamber]

may not enter

the chamber

wearing a garment with a hem,

that is, a robe with a seam at its edge, so that people would not suspect him, saying that he had hidden money inside the hem.

And

likewise

he may not

enter

wearing an anpilya,

lest they suspect him that he had hidden money in it.

And needless to say

that he may not enter there

wearing a shoe or a sandal,

for this is forbidden even without concern for suspicion,

because one does not enter the Temple courtyard wearing a shoe or sandal,

as it is written: “Who asked this of your hand, to trample My courtyards?”

And from the fact that we learned in that same Mishna, “and needless to say, wearing a shoe,” it follows that the anpilya mentioned earlier in that same Mishna is not included in the category of a shoe!

And we raise a contradiction: Whether a shoe, a sandal, or an anpilya, one may not walk in them

on the Day of Atonement,

neither from house to house nor from bed to bed,

because wearing a sandal is forbidden.

It is evident from here that even an anpilya is considered a sandal!

Abaye said:

In truth, an anpilya is not considered a shoe, and it is permitted to walk in it on the Day of Atonement.

But here, in the beraita, it is speaking

where it contains

in the anpilya

padding,

that he placed in it thin pieces of felt and soft leather,

and

it is forbidden to walk in it

because of pleasure,

and not because of the prohibition against wearing shoes.

Rava said to him: And because of pleasure, without a shoe, are such things forbidden on the Day of Atonement?

Is there a prohibition because of pleasure if it is not considered a shoe?

But Rabba bar Rav Huna wrapped a cloth around his foot

[he wrapped a cloth around his foot]

and went out

[and went out like this] on the Day of Atonement!?

Rather, Rava said: This is not difficult: Here,

what we learned, that an anpilya is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, is speaking

of a leather anpilya,

which is indeed considered a shoe.

Whereas

here,

in our Mishna and in the Mishna concerning the collection of the chamber, it is speaking

of a cloth anpilya.

For with regard to ḥalitza, it is not considered a shoe, since it does not protect the foot.

And also with regard to the collection of the chamber, it is not considered a shoe that is forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard wearing, for there is no disgrace when one enters the courtyard in it, since it is not customary to bring it in when it is soiled with mud, as one does not walk in it through mud. Therefore, it is forbidden there only because of suspicion.

And we say:

This too is reasonable. For if you do not say so, there is a difficulty

from another beraita that speaks about

the Day of Atonement,

the beraita that we brought above concerning

the Day of Atonement!

For it was taught: A person may not walk

on the Day of Atonement

in kordakisin,

that is, thin shoes worn beneath thick shoes to protect against water,

inside his house. But he may walk in an anpilyin,

that is, an anpilya,

inside his house!

But in the beraita above we learned that one may not walk in an anpilya on the Day of Atonement!?

Rather, can one not conclude

as we divided:

Here,

in the beraita in which we learned that it is forbidden to walk in an anpilya on the Day of Atonement, it is speaking

of a leather anpilya.

Whereas

here,

in the beraita in which we learned that it is permitted to walk in an anpilya on the Day of Atonement, it is speaking

of a cloth anpilya.

And we conclude:

Conclude from it.

A beraita in accordance with Rava’s view:

If she performed ḥalitza with a shoe that was torn, which still covers

still

most of the foot,

or if she performed ḥalitza

with an inflated sandal, which still receives

still

most of the foot,

or if she performed ḥalitza

with a sandal of cork or fiber,

which is hard and protects,

and likewise

with the stump

of

an amputee,

that is, when a person’s leg has been amputated, they make for him something like the form of a foot, with a small receptacle, and he inserts the end of his lower leg there. [And he does not rely on this stump, but has a stump tied to his lower legs, on which he leans],

or if she performed ḥalitza

with a mok

[a type of shoe made of hard felt] that protects the foot,

or if she performed ḥalitza

with a

sandal of

support for the feet,

that is, there is a person who cannot walk on his feet and walks on his hands, dragging his feet behind him. He makes for his feet support of wood or leather and inserts them into it, so that they will not become soiled with mud,

and likewise

with a leather anpilya,

and the woman who performs ḥalitza from the adult,