Kiddushin

Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.1 Then perhaps she is like a wife in all respects?2 — You may not think so. For it was taught: I might think that money or deed can complete her acquisition, just as intercourse does; therefore it is written, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her:3 teaching, intercourse alone completes the acquisition of her, but money or deed does not complete the acquisition of her. Yet perhaps what is the purpose of ‘and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her’? It is that he can take her by force?4 — If so, Scripture should have stated: ‘and perform the duty of a husband's brother’,5 why [add] ‘unto her’? Hence both are learnt from it.6 [AND ACQUIRES HER FREEDOM] BY HALIZAH. Whence do we know it?7 — From the verse: And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed:8 once there has been the loosening of the shoe in her case, she is permitted to all Israel. Does then this [word] ‘Israel’ come to teach this? But it is necessary for what R. Samuel b. Judah learnt: [Halizah must be performed] at a Beth din of [naturally born] Israelites, but not at a Beth din of proselytes. — ‘In Israel’ is written twice.9 Yet it is still required for what was taught: R. Judah said: We were once sitting before R. Tarfon, when a woman came to perform halizah. Thereupon he instructed us, Do all of you respond and say: ‘He that hath his shoe loosed, he that hath his shoe loosed’?10 — That is derived from, and his name shall be called.11 OR THE YABAM'S DEATH. How do we know it? — A fortiori: if a married woman, who is [forbidden to others] on pain of strangulation, is freed12 by her husband's death; then a yebamah, who is [forbidden only] by a negative precept,13 is surely [freed by the yabam's death]. As for a married woman, [it may be asked] that is because she is freed14 by divorce! Will you say [the same] of this one a yebamah], who is not freed [from the Levirate tie] by divorce? — She too is freed by halizah.15 But [refute it thus]: as for a married woman, that is because he who binds her frees her!16 — Said R. Ashi: In her case too, he who binds her frees her: the yabam binds her, the yabam frees her.17 Now, let a married woman be freed by halizah, a minori: if a yebamah, who is not freed by divorce, is freed by halizah; then this one [a married woman], who is freed by divorce, is certainly freed by halizah! — Scripture saith, [then he shall write her] a deed of divorcement,18 thus, a deed may divorce her, but nothing else can divorce her. Now, let a yebamah be freed by divorce, a minori: if a married woman, who is not freed by halizah, is freed by divorce: then this one [a yebamah], who is freed by halizah, is surely freed by divorce! — Scripture states: Thus [shall it be done, etc.]19 and ‘thus’ intimates indispensableness.20 Now, wherever there is an intimation of indispensableness, do we not infer a minori? But what of the Day of Atonement, where ‘lot’ and ‘statute’ are written,21 yet it was taught: [And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and offer him for a sin-offering:22 the lot renders it a sin-offering, but designation does not render it a sin-offering.23 For I might have thought, Does not [the reverse] follow a minori: if designation sanctifies where lot does not,24 how much the more would designation satisfy where lot does! Therefore it is said: ‘and offer him for a sin-offering,’ teaching, the lot renders it a sin-offering, but designation does not render it a sin-offering. Thus, it is only because Scripture excluded it [designation]; but otherwise we would infer a minori, notwithstanding that statute is written!25 — Scripture saith, ‘[then he shall write] her [a deed of divorcement]’: for ‘her’, but not for a yebamah. Yet perhaps ‘her’ teaches that it must be for her sake?26 — ‘Her’ is written twice.27 Yet even so they are needed: one ‘her’ [intimating that it must be] for her sake; and the other ‘her’ teaching, but not for her and her companion?28 — But Scripture saith, ‘[the house of him that hath a] shoe [loosed]:’ only a shoe [can set her free], but nothing else can.29 Does ‘shoe’ come to teach this? But it is necessary for what was taught: ‘And she shall loose his shoe:30 I know only [that she must loosen] his shoe; whence do I know [that it may be] any man's shoe?31 From the verse: ‘[the house of him that hath] the shoe [loosed]:’ ‘shoe’ is an extension.32 ‘If so, who state, ‘his shoe’? — ‘His shoe’ [intimates that it must fit him, [thus] excluding one [too] large, in which he cannot walk, and one [too] small, which does not cover the greater part of his foot, excluding intercourse. death frees her. responsible. same result. enumerated in Lev. V, 1-4. If he designates each for a particular sacrifice, the designation stands and cannot be revoked. But if he casts lots, it is of no avail, and he can then sacrifice each as he wishes. expressly written for them, v. Git.87a.