Yevamot 103a — the Talmud in English

Whether

he is

standing, whether

he is

sitting,

or

whether

he is

reclining,

And one who performs the rite of release with a blind man, The Nimukei Yosef wrote that the reason it is valid is that the yavam can recognize her by her voice. We do not impose a decree concerning a blind man because of a deaf-mute.

Her halitza is valid .

But

if she performed halitza

with a shoe that is torn, which does not now cover

now

most of the foot,

or

with a sandal that is punctured, which does not contain most of the foot,

or

the woman who performs halitza

with support of the hands,

that is, one who cannot walk with his feet walks on his hands, and makes leather coverings for them because he inserts them into mud and relies upon them, and drags his feet ,

and

the woman who performs halitza

with a cloth anpilya,

and the woman who performs halitza from a minor

her halitza is invalid.

It is apparent from here that Rava’s distinction is [the following]: with a leather anpilya her halitza is valid, whereas with a cloth anpilya her halitza is valid.

And we raised the following difficulty concerning it: This statement that we say, that halitza is performed with

the wooden leg of a legless man,

and if so, we hold that the wooden leg of a legless man is a shoe—

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

For we learned: “A legless man goes out”

on Shabbat

with his wooden leg; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose prohibits.

And it is proven that Rabbi Meir holds that the wooden leg of a legless man is a shoe, and therefore he is permitted to go out with it on Shabbat, like any other garment with which one is permitted to go out. But Rabbi Yose, who prohibits, holds that the wooden leg of a legless man is not considered a shoe.

Whereas this which we learned in the beraita, that one does not perform halitza

with a cloth anpilya, applies

only

to

the method of

the Rabbis!

For Rabbi Meir, who holds that one goes out with the wooden leg of a legless man on Shabbat, does not infer from the verse, “and I shod you with tahash,” that specifically something made of leather is considered a shoe. If so, the same law applies: it is permitted to go out on Shabbat with a cloth anpilya, and the same law applies: one performs halitza with a cloth anpilya.

And only according to the method of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that specifically something made of leather is considered a shoe, is an anpilya made of cloth invalid for halitza.

And this matter is astonishing, for the first clause of the Mishna follows the method of one tanna, while the latter clause follows the method of another tanna!

Abaye said: Since the latter clause

of the beraita, that a cloth anpilya is invalid for halitza, must necessarily be according to

the Rabbis,

it is

the first clause

as well, which teaches that one performs halitza with the wooden leg of a legless man, according to

the Rabbis

it is.

And the first clause

speaks

of

a wooden leg that is

covered with leather,

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

Rava said to him: But

a wooden leg that

is not covered with leather—what [is its law]? Is it invalid!?

If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause

that one does not perform halitza

with a cloth anpilya, let him make a distinction within it,

so that the tanna would distinguish within the wooden leg of the legless man itself:

When does this statement apply,

that one performs halitza with it?

When it is covered with leather; but when it is not covered with leather, it is invalid!

And this would be a greater novelty, because a cloth anpilya does not protect the foot, and it is more obvious that it is invalid. But the wooden leg of a legless man protects it, and nevertheless it is invalid because it is not made of leather!

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

is also Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Meir holds that although it is not necessary for the shoe to be specifically made of leather, since he does not infer this from the verse, “and I shod you with tahash,” nevertheless the shoe must protect the foot.

And therefore,

this,

the wooden leg of the legless man, which

protects,

is valid for halitza.

And

if

this,

the cloth anpilya, which

does not protect

the foot, it is invalid .

Ameimar said: One who performs halitza must press his foot .

That is, the brother-in-law must press his foot into the ground at the time of halitza .

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

standing, whether sitting, whether reclining,

and a reclining person does not ordinarily press his foot into the ground!

He said to him:

Say

this instead: What is permitted is to perform halitza while he is reclining,

but in every case he presses his foot,

and only then can he perform halitza while reclining.

And Ameimar said: One whose foot 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 sole of his foot,

does not perform halitza,

he cannot perform halitza . 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: Supports of

the feet

are used for halitza.

Is it not

[the case] that

he performs halitza with them,

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

And we say:

No.

It is

that he gives them

those supports of the feet

to

another

person, and he performs halitza

with them, that other person.

Rav Ashi said: According to what Ameimar says,

that one whose foot is turned over cannot perform halitza,

Bar Avin did not perform halitza, nor did Bar Kipof perform halitza .

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

We learned in our Mishna:

From the knee and below, and so on.

And we juxtapose [this with the following]: “

Three

feet

shall you celebrate, and so on,”

excluding those with wooden legs,

who are not obligated in the pilgrimage ascent. It is apparent from here that the lower leg is not a foot, and therefore those with wooden legs are not obligated in the pilgrimage ascent!

And we answer:

Here is different

with regard to halitza,

for it is written: “from upon his foot,”

and it is not written, “and she shall remove his shoe from his foot.” It follows that she removes it even from something that is above his foot, that is, the lower leg. And although now it is not “upon his foot,” since he no longer has a foot, nevertheless, since before his foot was amputated the lower leg was considered “upon his foot,” now too it is considered “upon his foot.” And the Beit Shmuel [no. 34] wrote that this applies specifically if he was born with a complete foot and it was amputated afterward. But if he was born without a foot, his halitza is invalid. And he cited there that the Raavad disagrees with this and holds that even when he was born this way, his halitza is valid.

And we raise an objection:

If so, above the knee also

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

And we explain: Since it is written

“upon,”

it implies specifically what is directly above his foot, that is, the lower leg,

and not

what is

above the above

his foot, that is, above the knee.

Rav Pappa said: Infer from our Mishna

that

this ankle-joint,

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

descends to the ground,

reaching the ground, and there is no further joint below it in the heel.

For if it enters your mind

that it

is divided

at another joint,

it would be,

that joint,

“upon”

the foot,

and the lower leg

above the above,

and if so, it would not be possible to perform halitza with the lower leg!

Rav Ashi said: There is no proof of this from our Mishna, for

the ankle

even if you say that it is divided

at another joint, nevertheless

everything

that

is alongside the foot,

that is, which stands level with the sole of the foot, is not considered above the foot, but

is like the foot

itself

considered. And therefore, although there is something interrupting between the foot and the lower leg, the lower leg is not considered “above the above,” but only “upon” the foot, and therefore it is possible to perform halitza with the lower leg .

Therefore, although there is something separating the foot from the lower leg, the lower leg is not considered “above what is above” the foot, but only “above” the foot, and therefore the rite of release may be performed with the lower leg. Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in his responsa that according to those who invalidate the rite of release of an amputee because he cannot press his foot into the ground, even when the ankle remains he does not perform the rite.

We learned in our Mishna:

From above the knee.

Rav Kahana objected:

But it is written,

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

and we see that even the thighs are considered a foot!

Abaye said: When

a woman

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

And if so, the child emerges literally from between her legs.

Come and hear:

For it is written:

“He did not do his feet nor his mustache.”

And what is written, “he did not do his feet,” means that he did not remove his lower beard, and it is proven that even his thighs are called a foot!

And we answer: The reason Scripture called the place of the lower beard “his feet” is

a euphemistic expression

.

Come and hear: “And Saul came to cover his feet.”

And the meaning is that he urinated , and it is proven that the thighs are called a foot.

And we answer: There too Scripture used this expression because it wished to speak with

a euphemistic expression.

Come and hear

from what is written:

“But he is covering his feet in the chamber of the latrine,”

And we reject this: There too

a euphemistic expression

it is.

Come and hear

from what is written concerning Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, when Sisera fled to her tent because of Barak, who was pursuing him, and she persuaded him to come to her, intending it for the sake of Heaven , so that he would become exhausted and she could kill him:

“Between her legs

he bowed,

and so on.”

We see that the thighs are considered feet!

And we reject this: There too

a euphemistic expression

it is.

Rabbi Yohanan said: That wicked man performed seven acts of intercourse,

Sisera, with Jael

on that day.

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

From the fact that Scripture used seven expressions—“bowed,” “fell,” and “lay”—it is proven that he performed seven acts of intercourse with Jael.

And we are astonished: Indeed, Jael intended it for the sake of Heaven, but in the end,

she derived pleasure from the transgression

[for she enjoyed the transgression] !