|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 104a or [with one] that belonged to a condemned city1 or [with one] that was made2 in honour of a [dead] elder,3 no halizah may be performed; and even a halizah that has been performed with it is invalid. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: In what respect is [the sandal] that was made in honour of a [dead] elder different [from an ordinary sandal]? Is it because it was not made for walking? That of the Beth din also4 was not made for walking! — The other replied: Should the attendant of the Beth din use it for walking, would the Beth din object!5 MISHNAH. IF [A SISTER-IN-LAW] PERFORMED THE HALIZAH AT NIGHT, HER HALIZAH IS VALID. R. ELEAZAR, HOWEVER, REGARDS IT AS INVALID. [IF SHE PERFORMED IT] WITH [THE LEVIR'S] LEFT SHOE, HER HALIZAH IS INVALID, BUT R. ELEAZAR DECLARES IT TO BE VALID. GEMARA. May it be suggested that they6 differ on the following principle: The one Master7 holds the opinion that lawsuits are to be compared to plagues,8 while the other Master9 holds the opinion that lawsuits cannot be compared to plagues?10 — No; all agree that lawsuits cannot be compared to plagues; for should they be compared, even the close of a legal process could not have been allowed at night.11 Here, however, they12 differ on the following principle: Ones Master9 holds that halizah is like the commencement of legal proceedings13 and the other Master14 holds that halizah is like the close of the proceedings.15 Rabbah16 b. Hiyya of Ktesifon17 carried out a halizah with a felt sock, with no other men present, at night. Said Samuel: How great is his authority18 in acting on the view of one individual!19 What [however, could be his] objection?20 If [against the use of the] felt sock, an anonymous Baraitha21 [permits it]!22 If [against his acting at] night, our anonymous Mishnah23 [permits this]!24 — His objection, however, is [that Rabbah acted] alone. How [he objected] could he act alone when it was only one individual who expressed approval of such a procedure!25 For we learned: If [a sister-in-law] performed halizah in the presence of two or three men, and one of them. was discovered to be a relative or in any other way unfit [to act as judge], her halizah is invalid; but R. Simeon and R. Johanan ha-Sandelar declare it valid. Furthermore, it once happened that a man submitted to halizah with none present but himself and herself in a prison, and when the case came before R. Akiba he declared the halizah valid.26 And27 if you prefer I might say: All these [rulings] also are the views of28 an individual. For it was taught: R. Ishmael son of R. Jose stated, 'I saw R. Ishmael b. Elisha carry out a halizah with a felt sock, with no other men present, and [this occurred] at night'. WITH [THE LEVIR'S] LEFT SHOE HER HALIZAH etc. What is the Rabbis' reason? 'Ulla replied: [The meaning of] 'foot' [here]29 is deduced from that of foot30 in the context of the leper. As there31 it is the right32 so here33 also it must be the right. Does not R. Eleazar, then, deduce [the meaning of] foot [here]33 from that of foot34 in the context of the leper? Surely, it was taught: R. Eleazar stated, Whence is it deduced that the boring [of the ear of a Hebrew slave]35 must be performed on his right ear? — For the term ear was used here36 and the term 'ear' was also used elsewhere;37 as there37 it is the right ear38 so here also it is the right ear!39 — R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: The statement is to be reversed.40 Raba said: There is, in fact, no need to reverse [the statement,36 the reply to the objection41 being that] the terms 'ear'42 [are both] free [for the deduction];43 the terms of 'foot,'44 however, are not free for deduction.45 But even if [one of the texts] is not free for deduction, what objection can be raised [against the deduction]?46 — It may be objected: The case of the leper is different,47 since he is also required [to bring] cedar-wood and hyssop and scarlet.48 MISHNAH. [IF A SISTER-IN-LAW] DREW OFF [THE LEVIR'S SHOE] AND SPAT,49 BUT DID NOT RECITE [THE FORMULAE],50 HER HALIZAH IS VALID.51 IF SHE RECITED [THE FORMULAE] AND SPAT, BUT DID NOT DRAW OFF THE SHOE, HER HALIZAH IS INVALID.52 IF SHE DREW OFF THE SHOE AND RECITED [THE FORMULAE] BUT DID NOT SPIT, HER HALIZAH, R. ELIEZER53 STATED, IS INVALID; AND R. AKIBA STATED: HER HALIZAH IS VALID. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files All the spoil of which was to be burned. Cf. Deut. XIII, 13ff. As a part of his shroud. Not being used for walking it cannot be regarded as a shoe. The approved sandal kept by a Beth din for the special purpose of halizah ceremonials. Presumably not. Hence it may well be regarded as a shoe made for the purpose of walking. The first Tanna and R. Eleazar in our Mishnah. The first Tanna. Both having been mentioned in the same Scriptural verse (Deut. XXI, 5). As plagues may be examined by the priest in the daytime only (based on Lev. XIII, 24: 'On the day when raw flesh is seen in him') so may lawsuits also be dealt with by the court in the daytime only. Halizah involving as it does the question of the widow's kethubah is regarded as coming under the category of lawsuits. R. Eleazar. Cf. Sanh. 34b, Nid. 500 But, as a matter of fact, this was explicitly allowed. Cf. Sanh. 32a. The first Tanna and R. Eleazar in our Mishnah. Which must take place in the daytime only. Cf. Sanh. 34b. The first Tanna. Which is allowed even in the night-time. Cf. p. 715, n. 8. Others, 'Raba'. Cf. Alfasi and [H]. On the eastern bank of the Tigris in the south of Assyria. Ironical exclamation. The ruling of the majority being against this opinion. Against Rabbah's action. Lit., 'it was taught'. Supra 102b. And the halachah, as a rule, is in agreement with the anonymous ruling. Cf. Rashi, s.v. [H] a.l. Cur. edd., it was taught'. Cf. supra n. 9. Lit., 'taught it'. Thus it is proved that it is an individual opinion, that of R. Akiba, that permits halizah in the absence of witnesses. Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. insert: 'And R. Joseph b. Manyumi stated in the name of R. Nahman that the halachah is not in agreement with that pair.' This occurs infra 105b, but is irrelevant here. Lit., 'taught them'. Deut. XXV, 9, dealing with halizah. Lev. XIV, 14. In the case of the leper. Since the text explicitly mentions it. In halizah. Lev. XIV, 14. Who refuses to go out free. V. Ex. XXI, 5f. V. previous note. With the leper. Lev. XIV, 14. Since the text explicitly mentions it. Kid. 15a, which shews that R. Eleazar does make deduction from the terms used in the context of the leper. In our Mishnah. It is R. Eleazar, and not the first Tanna, who ruled that halizah with the left shoe is invalid. As to why R. Eleazar draws an analogy between the terms of ear and not between those of foot. Lit., 'ear, ear'. Both in the case of leper (Lev. XIV, 14 and 17) and in that of the slave (Ex. XXI, 6 and Deut. XV, 17) one of the terms is superfluous and, therefore, free for the deduction that the boring must be performed on the right ear. Lit., 'foot, foot'. Though in the context of the leper the term foot occurs twice (Lev. XIV. 14 and 17), in that of halizah it appears only once (Deut. XXV, 9). As in the latter text it is required for the context itself no deduction can be made from such an analogy unless it is one that is free from all possible objection. Cf. supra n. 14 final clause. Since no refutation can be advanced, the deduction, though based on texts of which one only is free for the purpose, should hold! From that of halizah. On the day of his cleansing. (Cf. Lev. XIV, 4). The laws of the leper, being in this respect more rigid than those of halizah, may also be more rigid in respect of the requirement of the right shoe. Hence R. Eleazar's opinion that no deduction is to be made from the analogous words, and that halizah with the left shoe is, therefore, valid. Cf. Deut. XXV, 9. Prior to the halizah she declares (a) 'My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me' (ibid. 7). After the halizah she exclaims, (b) 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house' (ibid. 9). The omission of an act, but not that of a formula, renders a halizah invalid. V. infra. Cf. supra n. 3. Cf. marg. note. Cur. edd., 'Eleazar'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 104b SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: [SCRIPTURE STATED], SO SHALL BE DONE,1 ANYTHING WHICH IS A DEED2 IS A SINE QUA NON.3 R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM, FROM THIS VERY TEXT4 PROOF [MAY BE ADDUCED FOR MY VIEW]: SO SHALL BE DONE UNTO THE MAN,5 ONLY THAT WHICH IS TO BE DONE UNTO THE MAN.6 IF A DEAF7 LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH, OR IF A DEAF7 SISTER-IN-LAW PERFORMED HALIZAH, OR IF A HALIZAH WAS PERFORMED ON A MINOR, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID. [A SISTER-IN-LAW] WHO PERFORMED HALIZAH WHILE SHE WAS A MINOR MUST AGAIN PERFORM HALIZAH WHEN SHE BECOMES OF AGE; AND IF SHE DOES NOT AGAIN PERFORM IT, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID. IF [A SISTER-IN-LAW] PERFORMED HALIZAH IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO OR THREE MEN AND ONE OF THEM WAS DISCOVERED TO BE A RELATIVE OR ONE IN ANY OTHER WAY UNFIT [TO ACT AS JUDGE], HER HALIZAH IS INVALID; BUT R. SIMEON AND R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR DECLARE IT VALID. FURTHERMORE,8 IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A MAN SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH PRIVATELY BETWEEN HIMSELF AND HERSELF IN A PRISON, AND WHEN THE CASE CAME BEFORE R. AKIBA HE DECLARED THE HALIZAH VALID. GEMARA. Raba said: Now that you have stated9 that the recital [of the formulae]10 is not a sine qua non, the halizah of a dumb man and a dumb woman is valid. We learned: IF A DEAF LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH, OR IF A DEAF SISTER-IN-LAW PERFORMED HALIZAH, OR IF A HALIZAH WAS PERFORMED ON A MINOR, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID. Now, what is the reason?11 is it not because these are unable to recite [the formulae]!12 — No; because they are not in complete possession of their mental faculties.13 If so, [the same applies] also to a dumb man and to a dumb woman!14 — Raba replied: A dumb man and a dumb woman are in full possession of their mental faculties, and it is only their mouth that troubles15 them. But, surely, at the school of R. Jannai it was explained [that the reason why a deaf-mute is unfit for halizah is] because [the Scriptural instruction], He shall say16 or She shall say17 is inapplicable to such a case!18 — [Say] rather, if Raba's statement was ever made it was made in connection with the final clause: IF A DEAF LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH, OR IF A DEAF SISTER-IN-LAW PERFORMED HALIZAH, OR IF A HALIZAH WAS PERFORMED ON A MINOR, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID. [It is in connection with this that] Raba said: Now that you have stated that the recital of [the formulae]19 is a sine qua non, the halizah of a dumb man or a dumb woman is invalid. And our Mishnah20 [is based on the same principle] as [that propounded by] R. Zera; for R. Zera stated: Wherever proper mingling21 is possible actual mingling is not essential,22 but where proper mingling is not possible23 the actual mingling is a sine qua non.24 [The following ruling] was sent to Samuel's father: A sister-inlaw who spat25 must perform the halizah.26 This implies that she is rendered unfit for the brothers;27 but whose view is this?28 If it be suggested [that it is that of] R. Akiba, it may be objected:29 If R. Akiba said that it30 was not indispensable31 even where the actual commandment [of halizah is being performed, in which case] it could be argued that it could be given the same force as [the burning] of the altar portions of the sacrifices, which is not an essential [rite] when [the portions] are not available,32 and yet is a sine qua non when they are available,33 [would he regard it30 as a reason for the woman] to become thereby unfit for the brothers! [Should it be suggested], however, [that the view34 is that] of R. Eliezer,35 surely [it may be retorted] are two acts36 which jointly effect permissibility,37 and any two acts that jointly effect permissibility are ineffective one without the other!38 — Rather, the view39 is in agreement with that of Rabbi. For it was taught: The Pentecostal lambs40 cause the consecration of the bread41 only by their slaughter.42 In what manner?43 If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices44 and their blood also was sprinkled with such intention,44 the bread becomes consecrated. If they were not slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices,45 though their blood was sprinkled for the proper purpose,44 the bread does not become consecrated. If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices44 and their blood was sprinkled for another purpose,46 [the bread] is partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated;47 so Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, however, stated: [The bread] is never consecrated unless the slaughtering [of the lambs] and the sprinkling of their blood were both intended for the proper purpose of the festival.48 Did R. Akiba, however, hold that the act of spitting does not render the woman unfit?49 Surely it was taught: If she drew off [the levir's shoe] but did not - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Deut. XXV, 9, emphasis on done. [H] (rt. [H]). V. infra n. 7. [H] (rt. [H]). Cf. supra n. 6. The omission of any act, therefore, renders the halizah invalid. Lit., 'from there'. Deut. ibid., emphasis on man. As, e.g., drawing off the shoe which is an act on the body of the levir. Spitting, therefore, is excluded. The 'deaf' spoken of in the Talmud literature is always to be understood as a deaf-mute. Cf. Ter. I, 2. I.e., not only in a case where there were at least two judges but even where no one beside the levir and the sister-in-law 'vas present. In the first clause of our Mishnah. V. supra p. 718, n. 2. For the invalidity. Cf. supra p. 718, n. 12. How then could it be said that recital of the formulae is not an indispensable condition? The minor because of his immature age, and the deaf and dumb because of his physical defects which adversely affect his mental powers. Why then is their halizah valid? Lit., 'pains Cf. Deut. XXV, 8. Cf. ibid. 7 and 9. How then can halizah of a dumb person be regarded as valid! V. supra p. 718, n. 2. Which stated that if she did not recite the formulae the halizah is valid Of the flour and the oil of a meal-offering. With one log of oil for sixty 'esronim (v. Glos.) of flour, and a maximum of sixty 'esronim in one pan, perfect mingling is possible. Even if no mingling has taken place the meal-offering is acceptable. Where, e.g., the proportions of the mixture were less than a log for sixty 'esronim or where more than sixty 'esronim were placed in one pan. Men. 18b, 103b. With halizah also, though in the case of persons who are able to recite the prescribed formulae, the omission does not invalidate the halizah, in the case of dumb persons for whom it is physically impossible ever to recite the formulae, the omission of it does render the halizah invalid. In the presence of the Beth din. Though her act was not a part of a formal halizah ceremony, she forfeits thereby her right ever to contract levirate marriage with any of the levirs. V. supra n. 7. That an informal act of spitting renders the woman unfit for marriage with the brothers. Lit., 'now'. The act of spitting. Which shews what little significance R. Akiba attaches to this part of the ceremony. If, for instance, they were lost or became unfit for the altar owing to uncleanness. Cf. Pes. 59b. So in the case of halizah, R. Akiba might have been expected to regard the spitting, which is an act that can be performed, as an essential. V. supra note 9. Cur. edd., 'Eleazar' (cf. supra p 718, n. 5); who stated in our Mishnah that the act of spitting was indispensable. Drawing off the shoe and spitting. Of the sister-in-law to marry a stranger. Cf. Men. 89a. V. supra p. 720, n. 9. V. Num. XXVIII, 26-31. The two loaves that were also brought to the Temple on Pentecost. V. Lev. XXIII, 17. The waving of the loaves and the lambs together, which precedes the slaughter of the latter, does not effect the proper consecration of the bread. Is consecration effected even after slaughtering of the lambs. Lit., 'for their name'. Lit., not for their name'; i.e., if they were intended to be merely sacrifices, not specifically those prescribed for the Pentecost festival. Cf. supra n. 9. I.e., it is subject to some, but not to all, of the restrictions of properly consecrated bread. Cf. supra note 8. Pes. 13b, Men. 47a. Thus it has been shewn that according to Rabbi, where two acts such as proper slaughtering and proper sprinkling are required, consecration is partially effected even though the former act alone was properly performed. Similarly, in respect of halizah, one of the prescribed acts is sufficient to render the woman unfit for the levirate marriage. For the levirate marriage. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |