Yevamot 104a — the Talmud in English

And

likewise, a sandal

of an apostate city, and

likewise, a sandal

of an old man made for his honor,

that is, for the needs of burial shrouds,

she may not perform halitza

with them.

And if she performed halitza,

even after the fact,

her halitza is invalid .

And the reason, in the case of an offering of idolatry, is that it can never be nullified and is destined for burning; therefore it is already considered as though its measure had been crushed away.

And the sandal of an apostate city, too, is destined for burning, for the law is that all the spoils of the city shall be burned.

And a sandal of burial shrouds is invalid for halitza, because it is not made for walking.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different about

the sandal of

an old man made for his honor

that it is invalid for halitza? Is it because

it is not made for walking?

If so, the sandal

of the court,

the sandal of the court, which is designated for halitza, should likewise be invalid, since it

also is not made for walking,

but only for the purpose of halitza in court!

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

If the agent of the

court were to walk in it,

if the court’s agent were to walk in this sandal for any purpose,

would the judge object to him?

It follows that this sandal is also intended for walking, and therefore it is valid for halitza.

Mishna:

If she performed halitza at night, her halitza is valid.

And Rabbi Elazar invalidates it.

The reason for their disagreement will be explained below in the Gemara.

If she performed halitza

with the

leg

left

of the levir,

her halitza is invalid .

And Rabbi Elazar validates it.

Gemara:

Let us say that the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Elazar disagree in this:

the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Elazar:

One master,

the Tanna Kamma,

holds: we compare [

compare ]

laws [

judgments ]

to afflictions,

for it is written: “Every dispute and every affliction,” and afflictions are examined by a kohen specifically by day, as it is written: “And on the day that it appears in him.” And since laws were compared to afflictions, we say that laws, too, are carried out specifically by day. And halitza is a law, for she collects her ketuba through the halitza , and therefore it is performed specifically by day.

And the other master,

Rabbi Elazar,

holds: we do not compare laws to afflictions,

and therefore halitza is performed both by day and by night!

And we reject this:

No. For

necessarily

everyone

holds that

we do not compare laws to afflictions.

Because

if we compare them,

then it would have to be said that

even the conclusion of judgment may likewise not

be carried out at night. Yet we learned in a Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin: “Cases of monetary law are judged by day and concluded [the judgment] at night”!

Rather, certainly they did not disagree about this.

And here they disagree about this: one master,

the Tanna Kamma,

holds: halitza is like the beginning of judgment.

And just as the beginning of judgment is performed specifically by day, as we learned in the Mishna cited above, so halitza is performed specifically by day .

And the other master,

Rabbi Elazar,

holds: halitza is like the conclusion of judgment .

And just as the conclusion of judgment is [permitted] both by day and by night, so too halitza.

Rabba bar Hiyya Katospaha performed an act [

performed an act of halitza ]

with a felt shoe

made of felt, although it was not leather,

and alone,

that is, not in the presence of three,

and at night.

Samuel said: How great is the strength [

how great is the strength of Rabba bar Hiyya ]

that he acted according to an individual opinion,

that he performed the halitza according to an individual view! And he said this in a derogatory expression.

And we inquire about it:

What difficulty did he have

for Samuel concerning Rabba bar Hiyya’s act?

If

it was the fact that he performed halitza with a

felt shoe

that troubled him, then

it was taught anonymously above: “With the wooden leg, with a felt shoe, with supported feet,” and this is not an individual view!

above: “With the wooden leg of a lame person, with a felt shoe, with feet pressed together,” and this is not the view of a minority authority!

And

if

it was the fact that Rabba performed halitza at

night

that troubled Samuel,

this

also

was taught anonymously in our Mishna, that halitza is valid at night!

in our Mishna, which states that halitza performed at night is valid!

Rather,

the fact that Rabba performed halitza

alone was what troubled him

Samuel.

How could he perform it alone, for

this

is taught as an individual view!

For we learned: If she performed halitza before two

qualified men,

or

if she performed halitza

before three

people,

and

afterward

one of them was found

of those three

to be a relative or disqualified,

so that ultimately it was found that she had performed halitza before two,

her halitza is invalid.

And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yohanan the sandal-maker validate it .

And there was an incident involving one who performed halitza between himself and her alone [

there were only he and his yevama there ]

in the prison, and the incident came before Rabbi Akiva, who validated

the halitza.

And Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said [

Rav Nahman said ]:

the halakha is not in accordance with that pair,

that is, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yohanan.

In any event, we see that the one who validates halitza performed alone is Rabbi Akiva, and this is an individual view!

And if you wish, say: all of them too,

all those things that Rabba did,

are taught as an individual view.

For it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said: I saw Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha perform halitza with a felt shoe, alone, and at night.

We learned in our Mishna:

“With the left, her halitza,” and so forth.

What is the reason of the Rabbis,

who hold that halitza with the left is invalid?

Ulla said: We derive

by a gezera shava

“leg,” “leg,” from the leper.

For concerning halitza it is written: “And she shall remove his shoe from upon his foot,” and concerning the leper it is written: “Upon the great toe of his right foot.”

Just as there,

in the case of the leper,

the right

specifically, for it is written: “his right foot,”

so here,

in halitza,

the right

specifically.

And we wonder:

Does Rabbi Elazar not derive

the gezera shava

“leg,” “leg,” from the leper?!

But it was taught: Rabbi Elazar says: From where [do we know] concerning piercing [

that the ear of a Hebrew slave who does not wish to leave after six years is pierced ]

that it

is performed

on the right ear?

It is stated here,

concerning piercing,

“ear,”

as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl,”

and it is stated there,

concerning leprosy,

“ear.” Just as there,

in the case of the leper, with the

right

specifically,

so here,

concerning piercing, the ear

right

specifically!

We see that Rabbi Elazar derives the gezera shava “ear,” “ear,” from the leper concerning piercing; if so, he can derive from that same gezera shava of “leg,” “leg,” from the leper concerning halitza!

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The position is reversed

in our Mishna. For in truth Rabbi Eliezer, whom we saw elsewhere deriving the gezera shava of “ear,” “ear,” from the leper, must necessarily hold here as well that we derive the gezera shava; therefore he holds that halitza must be specifically with the right foot. Whereas the Tanna Kamma holds that we do not derive the gezera shava, and therefore it need not be specifically with the right foot.

Rava said: Actually, do not reverse

the position. For specifically concerning piercing Rabbi Elazar holds that it is possible to derive the gezera shava, because the two words

“ear,” “ear,”

from which the gezera shava is derived

are superfluous,

they are superfluous. For throughout the passage of the leper, the word “ear” written there is superfluous and comes for exposition, as we say in tractate Menahot. And concerning piercing, “ear” is written twice: “And his master shall pierce his ear,” and “You shall place it upon his ear and the door.” Necessarily, one of them is superfluous for exposition.

But the words

“leg,” “leg,”

from which the gezera shava is derived concerning halitza

are not superfluous

on both sides. For indeed, the word “leg” written concerning the leper is superfluous, as we said, since that entire passage was stated for exposition. But the word “leg” written concerning halitza is not superfluous.

And Rabbi Elazar holds that when the words from which a gezera shava is derived are superfluous on both sides—that is, when both words of the gezera shava are superfluous—then it is impossible to refute the exposition. But if they are not superfluous on both sides, although one side is superfluous, it is indeed possible to derive a gezera shava, but it is possible to refute it.

And therefore the Gemara asks:

And if the words “

leg, leg” are not superfluous, why still is it impossible to derive from that gezera shava?

What refutation is there,

what refutation is there of the gezera shava?

And we explain: thus

there is a refutation

of the gezera shava:

What is so about the leper,

that he has an additional stringency,

for he requires cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool

for his purification. Therefore it is impossible to derive from him concerning halitza.

Mishna:

If she removed

his shoe,

and spat

before him,

but did not recite “

Thus shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house,”

her halitza is valid .

And the reason is that concerning halitza it is written: “Thus shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house,” and the expression “thus” is an expression of impediment. And the wording “thus shall be done” implies that specifically something that is an act prevents the halitza. This excludes recitation, which is not an act, but mere speech .

And as follows.

If she recited

the recitation,

and spat

before him,

but did not remove the shoe, her halitza is invalid.

If she removed the shoe and recited, but did not spit, Rabbi Elazar says: Her halitza is invalid.

Rabbi Akiva says: Her halitza is valid.