Yevamot 103a (קג.) — the Talmud in English

Between

when he is

standing, between

when he is

sitting,

and

between

when he is

reclining,

And a woman who performs halitza with a blind man,

Her halitza is valid .

But

if she performed halitza

with a shoe whose seams have torn, so that it does not cover

now

most of the foot,

or

with a sandal that is cracked and does not hold most of the foot,

and

the woman who performs halitza

with hand-supports,

that is, one who cannot walk on his feet walks on his hands, making leather coverings for them because he places them into mud and supports himself on them, while dragging his feet ,

and

the woman who performs halitza

with a cloth boot,

and a woman who performs halitza with a minor

her halitza is invalid.

It can be seen from here that Rava’s distinction applies: with a leather boot her halitza is valid, whereas with a cloth boot her halitza is invalid.

And we raised the following question: This statement that halitza may be performed with

the wooden leg of a cripple,

and therefore we hold that a cripple’s wooden leg is considered a shoe—

whose opinion is it? It is Rabbi Meir’s!

As we learned: A cripple may go out on Shabbat

with

his wooden leg; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei prohibits it.

It is evident that Rabbi Meir holds that a cripple’s wooden leg is considered a shoe, and therefore he may go out with it on Shabbat, like any other garment with which one may go out. But Rabbi Yosei, who prohibits it, holds that a cripple’s wooden leg is not considered a shoe.

Yet the statement we learned in the beraita, that halitza may not be performed

with a cloth boot, applies

only

according

to the opinion of

the Rabbis!

For Rabbi Meir, who holds that one may go out with a cripple’s wooden leg on Shabbat, does not derive from the verse, “And I shod you with a tachash,” that specifically something made of leather is considered a shoe. Therefore, the same applies here: one may go out on Shabbat with a cloth boot, and likewise halitza may be performed with a cloth boot.

Only according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that specifically something made of leather is considered a shoe, is a cloth boot invalid for halitza.

But this is puzzling, since the first clause of the Mishna follows the opinion of one tanna, while the latter clause follows the opinion of another tanna!

Abaye said: Since the latter clause

of the beraita, which states that a cloth boot is invalid for halitza, must necessarily be according to the opinion of

the Rabbis,

the

first clause

as well, which teaches that halitza may be performed with a cripple’s wooden leg, is according to the opinion of

the Rabbis.

And

the first clause

refers

to

a wooden leg

covered with leather,

and therefore it is considered a shoe even according to the Rabbis.

Rava said to him: But

a wooden leg that is

not covered with leather—what is its status? Is it invalid!?

If so, rather than teach in the latter clause

that halitza may not be performed

with a cloth boot, let it distinguish within that case itself,

with the tanna distinguishing within the case of the cripple’s wooden leg:

When does this apply,

that halitza may be performed with it?

When it is covered with leather. But when it is not covered with leather, it is invalid!

This would be a greater novelty, since a cloth boot does not protect the foot, and it is more obvious that it is invalid. But a cripple’s wooden leg does protect the foot, and nevertheless it would be invalid because it is not made of leather!

Rather, Rava said: Since the first clause follows Rabbi Meir, the latter clause

also follows Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Meir holds that although the shoe need not specifically be made of leather, since he does not derive this from the verse, “And I shod you with a tachash,” nevertheless the shoe must protect the foot.

Therefore,

this,

the cripple’s wooden leg, which

protects

the foot, is valid for halitza.

And

whereas

this,

the cloth boot, which

does not protect

the foot, is invalid .

Ameimar said: One who performs halitza must press his foot firmly onto the ground .

That is, the yavam must press his foot against the ground at the time of the halitza .

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it was taught: Whether

standing, whether sitting, or whether reclining,

and a person who is reclining does not normally press his foot against the ground!

He said to him:

Say

this instead: Although it is permitted to perform halitza while reclining,

he must nevertheless press his foot firmly onto the ground;

only then may one perform halitza while reclining.

And Ameimar said: One who walks on the upper side of his foot,

that is, whose foot is turned over, so that when he walks he steps on the upper side of the foot,

does not perform halitza,

he cannot perform halitza . This is because it is written: “And she shall remove his shoe from upon his foot,” and the upper side of the foot is not considered a foot .

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it was taught: Foot-supports

may be used

for halitza;

is it not [

the case there that

he performs halitza with them,

the very person who wears them? But his feet are deformed, since he drags his feet!

And we say:

No.

It is

that he gives them

those foot-supports

to

another

person, who performs halitza

with them.

Rav Ashi said: According to what Ameimar said,

that one whose foot is turned over cannot perform halitza,

neither Bar Avin performed halitza, nor Bar Kippuf performed halitza .

Both of them were eulogizers, and because they eulogized Ravina improperly, their feet were turned over.

We learned in our Mishna:

From the knee and below, and so on.

And we raise a contradiction: “Three

legs

shall you celebrate, and so on”

—

excluding those with wooden legs,

who are not obligated in pilgrimage to the Temple. It can be seen from here that the lower leg is not considered a leg, and therefore those with wooden legs are not obligated in pilgrimage to the Temple!

And we answer:

Here it is different,

with regard to halitza,

as it is written: “From upon his foot,”

and it is not written, “And she shall remove his shoe from his foot.” This indicates that even something situated upon his foot may be the object of the removal , namely, the lower leg.

And we ask:

If so, above the knee as well

you should be able to perform halitza, since this too is “upon his foot”!

And we explain: Since it is written

“upon,”

this indicates specifically what is directly upon his foot, namely, the lower leg,

and not

what is

upon what is upon

his foot, namely, above the knee.

Rav Pappa said: Learn from this

from our Mishna that

this ankle,

that is, the place where the lower leg and foot join [the ankle],

extends down to the ground,

reaching the ground, with no additional joint below it at the heel.

For if it enters your mind

that it

is divided

by another joint,

that joint would be

the same joint

upon

the foot,

while the lower leg

would be upon what is upon

the foot, and if so, one could not perform halitza with the lower leg!

Rav Ashi said: There is no proof from our Mishna that

the ankle

is even divided

by another joint. Nevertheless,

everything

that is

alongside the foot,

that is, positioned level with the foot, is not considered above the foot, but

is like the foot

itself and

is considered so.

Therefore, although there is something separating the foot from the lower leg, the lower leg is not considered “upon what is upon” the foot, but only “upon” the foot, and it is therefore possible to perform halitza with the lower leg .

We learned in our Mishna:

From above the knee.

Rav Kahana raised an objection:

But it is written:

“And the afterbirth that emerges from between her legs,”

indicating that even the thighs are considered legs!

Abaye said: When

a woman

kneels to give birth, she plants her heels against her thighs and gives birth.

Therefore, the child emerges literally from between her legs.

Come and hear:

It is written:

“He did not attend to his feet, nor did he attend to his mustache.”

The expression “he did not attend to his feet” means that he did not remove his lower beard, demonstrating that even his thighs are called legs!

And we answer: The verse called the place of the lower beard “his feet” because

it is an expression of euphemism

.

Come and hear: “And Saul came to relieve himself.”

The meaning is that he urinated , which demonstrates that the thighs are called legs.

And we answer: There too, the verse uses this expression because it wished to speak in

an expression of euphemism.

Come and hear

from what is written:

“But he relieves himself in the chamber of the throne,”

and we reject this: There too,

it is an expression of euphemism

.

Come and hear

from what is written concerning Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, when Sisera fled to her tent from Barak, who was pursuing him, and she enticed him to engage in intercourse with her, intending it for the sake of Heaven , so that he would become exhausted and she could kill him:

“Between her legs

he crouched,

and so on.”

It is evident that the thighs are considered legs!

And we reject this: There too,

it is an expression of euphemism

.

Rabbi Yohanan said: That wicked man had intercourse with Yael seven times,

Sisera with Yael,

on that same day.

As it is stated: “Between her legs he crouched, he fell, he lay; between her legs he crouched, he fell; where he crouched, there he fell, overcome.”

Since the verse uses the expressions “he crouched,” “he fell,” and “he lay” seven times, it is evident that he had intercourse with Yael seven times.

And we are puzzled: Although Yael intended it for the sake of Heaven, ultimately,

she derived pleasure from the transgression

!