Yevamot 106a — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: An mistaken halitza is valid.

What is an mistaken halitza?

Reish Lakish said: Any case in which they say to him

the yavam:

Remove

the shoe from your yevama

and by doing so you will marry her. This misleads him by this, for through the halitza she becomes forbidden to him for yibum.

They are misleading him by saying this, since through the rite of refusal she becomes forbidden to him for levirate marriage.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him

to Reish Lakish:

I learn

as follows:

Whether he intended

[the yavam] for halitza,

but she did not intend

for halitza,

whether she intended

for halitza,

but he did not intend it—her halitza is invalid,

until both of them intend together

for the sake of halitza, for only then is her halitza valid.

And you say

that in an mistaken halitza, where he not only does not intend for the sake of halitza, but intends for the sake of yibum,

her halitza will be valid!?

Rather, in truth such a halitza is invalid, for he did not intend for halitza. This is an mistaken halitza:

in truth, such a rite of refusal is invalid, since he did not intend to perform it.

This is the invalidly induced rite of refusal:

Any case in which they say to him: Remove the shoe from her

your yevama,

on the condition that

she

will give you two hundred zuz. Even though she ultimately did not give it to him, her halitza is valid. The reason is explained in Tractate Ketubot [74a]: all the laws of conditions are learned from the condition that Moses our teacher made with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben. One of the principles is that the condition must be something that can be carried out through an agent, as Moses made Joshua his agent to give them the land of Gilead. But a condition that cannot be carried out through an agent, such as halitza, is not effective in it.

Even though she ultimately did not give him the money, her rite of refusal is valid.

The reason is explained in tractate Ketubbot [74a]: all the laws of conditions are derived from the condition that Moses our teacher made with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben. One of the rules is that a condition must be one that can be fulfilled through an agent, as Moses appointed Joshua as his agent to give them the land of Gilead. But a condition that cannot be fulfilled through an agent, such as the rite of refusal, is not effective.

It was also taught so: An mistaken halitza is valid. What is an mistaken halitza? Any case in which they say: Remove the shoe from her on the condition that she will give you two hundred zuz.

And there was an incident involving a certain woman who fell before a yavam who was not fit for her, and

they did not want her to undergo yibum with him, and therefore they misled the yavam and

said to him: Remove the shoe from her on the condition that she will give you two hundred zuz. And the incident came before Rabbi Hiyya,

and he validated it.

A certain man came before Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in order to marry his yevama.

in order to marry his levirate wife.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to her

the yevama:

My daughter, stand

and undergo yibum with him!

She said to him

to Rabbi Hiyya:

Mother

[the mother of the yevama]:

The sitting

of my daughter, preventing her from undergoing yibum with him,

is her standing

and her remedy.

He said to her: Do you know him? Do you know any disgrace concerning this yavam?

Do you know of anything disgraceful about this levir?

She said to him: Yes! It is money that he saw in her, and he seeks to consume it from her. The yavam saw that she had money, and he wants to consume it from her, and therefore he now wants to perform yibum with her and afterward divorce her.

The levir saw that she possessed money, and he wants to consume it from her. Therefore, he now wants to enter into levirate marriage with her and later divorce her.

Rabbi Hiyya said to her

the yevama:

Is it not agreeable to you

to undergo yibum?

She said to him: No!

Rabbi Hiyya said to him

the yavam:

Remove the shoe from her, and by doing so you will marry her.

After he removed the shoe from her, he said to him

the yavam:

Now,

after you removed the shoe from her,

she has become disqualified through you,

and you can no longer perform yibum with her.

Remove the shoe from her

now

with a proper halitza, so that she will become permitted to the world

so that she will be permitted to marry anyone in the world.

The daughter of Rav Pappa’s brother-in-law

[his father-in-law’s daughter]

fell before a yavam who was not fit for her. She came before Abaye. He said to him

Abaye said to the yavam:

Remove the shoe from her, and by doing so you will marry her.

Rav Pappa said to him: Does the Master not hold that which Rabbi Yohanan said,

that it is not halitza until both of them intend for the sake of halitza? Abaye said to him:

Abaye said to him:

But how should I say to him

to the yavam, in order to mislead him so that he will agree to remove the shoe from her?

He said to him: Say this to him:

Tell him this:

Remove the shoe from her on the condition that she will give you two hundred zuz.

After he removed the shoe from her,

the yavam,

Abaye said to her

to the yevama:

Go, give it to him

the two hundred zuz that you promised him. For although the halitza is not invalidated because of the condition, nevertheless, in the end she did undertake to give him two hundred zuz, and she is obligated to fulfill the condition like any ordinary hire.

Although the rite of refusal is not invalidated because of the condition, in the end she did undertake to give him two hundred zuz, and she is obligated to fulfill the condition like any ordinary payment for services.

Rav Pappa said to him

Abaye: Since he was obligated to remove the shoe from her, but did not want to,

she performed “I was fooling you” with him,

and only in order to fool him did she say that she would give it to him, so that he would remove the shoe from her. Therefore she is not obligated in this.

Is it not taught: If one was fleeing from prison, and a ferry was before him

in order to cross the sea, and it was exceedingly necessary for him to cross so that the prison guards would not catch him,

and he said to him

to the ferry owner,

Take a dinar

[which is a sum much greater than the customary sum for passage on a ferry]

and ferry me

across the sea

! He has no

the ferry owner

but his regular wage

alone.

It follows that,

he

can say to him, “I was fooling you,”

and I did not intend to give you so large a sum.

Here too,

with regard to halitza,

“I was fooling you”

she did with him.

Abaye said to Rav Pappa:

to Rav Pappa:

Where is your father?

He said to him: In the city

[in the city].

Where is your mother?

He said to him: In the city. That is to say: Apparently, I think that you have a father and mother near you to provide your needs; therefore your teachings are sharp.

Meaning, I assume that you have a father and mother nearby to provide for your needs; therefore, your learning is exceptionally sharp.

He cast his eyes upon them

[he cast his eyes upon them]

and they died, Rav Pappa’s father and mother.

Rav Pappa's father and mother.

The Sages taught: An mistaken halitza is valid,

but an mistaken bill of divorce is invalid. The reason is that a condition is effective with a bill of divorce, for it can be carried out through an agent, like the condition of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben. For one who says to two people, “Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife,” they shall write and give it. Therefore, if the condition was not fulfilled, the bill of divorce does not take effect.

The reason is that a condition is effective in the case of a divorce document, since it can be fulfilled through an agent, as in the condition of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben. For one who says to two people, “Write and give a divorce document to my wife,” has them write it and give it. Therefore, if the condition was not fulfilled, the divorce document does not take effect.

A coerced halitza,

that is, one performed under coercion,

is invalid. Whereas

But

a coerced bill of divorce is valid.

What are the circumstances?

If he ultimately said

in the end

“I desire,” even a coerced halitza

coerced

also

will be valid!

And if he did not say

in the end

“I desire,” a

coerced

bill of divorce also not

will be valid! And we explain:

This is what it says:

An mistaken halitza is always valid. And an mistaken bill of divorce is always invalid.

A coerced halitza and a coerced bill of divorce are sometimes

[at times]

valid, and sometimes invalid.

That

which is valid is when

he said

in the end

“I desire.”

Whereas

that

which is invalid is when

he did not say, “I desire.”

For it was taught: It is written concerning a voluntary offering:

It is written concerning a voluntary offering:

“He shall offer it,”

and this language implies against his will;

this teaches that they coerce him

to bring his vow.

One might have thought

that he should bring it

against his will,

as the verse implies.

The verse says

as it is written there:

“For his acceptance,”

which implies that he brings it specifically willingly.

How so,

how is it possible for him to bring it both against his will and willingly? Rather,

Rather,

they coerce him,

as is implied by the verse: “He shall offer it,”

until he says: “I desire!”

and what is written, “For his acceptance,” is fulfilled.

And so you find with bills of divorce,

in those whom they coerce to divorce, such as one afflicted with boils and one with a polyp [as it is stated in Tractate Ketubot 77a], that they

coerce him until he says, “I desire.”

Rava said that Rav Sehora said that Rav Huna said: They perform halitza

for a yavam and a yevama who came before a court to perform halitza,

even though

the court

does not know

from their statements alone that they are the yavam and his yevama. And likewise,

And likewise,

they perform refusal,

the court deals with the refusal,

even though it does not know

the man and the woman. Since this is so, that they deal with them even though they do not know them,

Since this is so—that the court attends to them even though it does not recognize them—

therefore the witnesses who see the halitza and the refusal

the witnesses who observe the rite of refusal and the minor girl's refusal

do not write

and give her

a bill of halitza

to keep in her possession as evidence,

unless they know

that they are the yavam and the yevama.

And

likewise,

they do not write a bill of refusal unless they know. Because

Because

we are concerned about mistaken courts,

that do not know that they perform halitza and refusal even though they do not know them, and they will see the document and rely on what is written in it—that so-and-so performed yibum with so-and-so—and will not check whether the yavam written in the document is indeed the yavam, and will permit her to marry on the basis of the document. But in truth it is impossible to rely on what is written in it, since they perform halitza even though they do not know them! But now, since they write only when they know them, even if the one who removed the shoe from her is not her true yavam, nevertheless no harm will result from this, since as long as she has no bill of halitza, they will not permit her to marry.

And Rava himself says: They perform no halitza

unless

the court

knows

that the yavam is the woman’s yavam ,

and

likewise

they perform no refusal unless they know.

Therefore, since the court must necessarily know the yavam and the yevama, the witnesses who saw the halitza

since the court must necessarily recognize the levir and the levirate wife, the witnesses who saw the rite of refusal

write a bill of halitza, even though they do not know

the yavam and the yevama.

And

likewise

they write a bill of refusal even though they do not know.

And we are not concerned about mistaken courts, that they will perform halitza even though they do not know them, and perform halitza for her from one who is not her yavam.

which might perform the rite of refusal even when they do not recognize the parties and thereby perform it for her with someone who is not her levir.