Yevamot

IF THE TWO [HUSBANDS] WERE PRIESTS etc. Our Rabbis taught: If he  struck one  and then struck the other, or if he cursed one  and then cursed the other, or cursed them both simultaneously or struck them both simultaneously, he is guilty.  R. Judah. however, said: If  simultaneously, he is guilty;  if  successively he is exonerated.  But, surely, it was taught: R. Judah stated that he  is exonerated [even if his offences were] simultaneous! — Two Tannaim differ as to what was the opinion of R. Judah. What is the reason of him who exonerated?  R. Hanina replied: 'Blessing'  is spoken of in Scripture [in respect of parents] on earth  and blessing  is spoken of [in respect of God] above.  As there is no association above so must there be no association below;  and striking has been compared to cursing. HE MAY GO UP [TO SERVE] IN THE MISHMAR etc. Since, however, HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE why should he go up? — [You ask] 'Why should he go up'; surely. he might say: I wish to perform a commandment!  — But [this is the difficulty]: It does not say. '[If] he went up'  but HE GOES up, implying even against his will!  — R. Aha b. Hanina in the name of Abaye in the name of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan replied: In order [to avert any possible] reflection on his family. IF, HOWEVER, BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR etc. In what respect do two mishmaroth  differ [from one] that [in the former case] he should not [receive a share]? [Is it] because when he comes to the one mishmar he is driven away and when he comes to the other mishmar he is again driven away?  Then, even in the case of one mishmar also, when he comes to one beth ab  he is driven away and  when he comes to the other beth ab he is also driven away! — R. Papa replied: It is this that was meant: IF, HOWEVER, BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR and in the same beth ab, HE RECEIVES A SINGLE PORTION. MISHNAH. THE COMMANDMENT OF HALIZAH MUST BE PERFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE JUDGES, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE THREE ARE LAYMEN.  IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE HALIZAH WITH A SHOE,  HER HALIZAH IS VALID,  [BUT IF] WITH A SOCK  IT IS INVALID; IF WITH A SANDAL  TO WHICH A HEEL IS ATTACHED IT IS VALID, BUT [IF WITH ONE] THAT HAS NO HEEL IT IS INVALID. [IF THE SHOE WAS WORN]  BELOW THE KNEE  THE HALIZAH IS VALID, BUT IF ABOVE THE KNEE  IT IS INVALID. IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE HALIZAH WITH A SANDAL  THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM,  OR WITH A WOODEN SANDAL, OR WITH THE ONE OF THE LEFT FOOT [WHICH HE  WAS WEARING] ON HIS RIGHT FOOT, THE HALIZAH IS VALID. IF SHE PERFORMED THE HALIZAH WITH A SANDAL TOO LARGE [FOR HIM],  IN WHICH, HOWEVER, HE IS ABLE TO WALK, OR WITH ONE TOO SMALL WHICH, HOWEVER, COVERS THE GREATER PART OF HIS FOOT, HER HALIZAH IS VALID. GEMARA. Since even THREE LAYMEN [are sufficient],  what need is there for JUDGES? — It is this that we were taught: That three men are required, who are capable of dictating [the prescribed texts]  like judges.  Thus we have learned here what the Rabbis taught: The commandment of halizah is performed in the presence of three men who are able to dictate [the prescribed texts]  like judges.  R. Judah said: In the presence of five. What is the first Tanna's reason? — Because it was taught: Elders  [implies] two; but as no court may be evenly balanced,  one man more is added to them; behold here three. And R. Judah?  — The elders of  [implies] two; and elders  [implies another] two; but since no court may be evenly balanced,  one man more is added to them; behold here five. As to the first Tanna, what deduction does he make [from the expression] the elders of?  — He requires it for the purpose of including  even three laymen. Whence, then, does R. Judah deduce the eligibility of laymen?  — He deduces it from Before the eyes of;  a Master having said: 'Before the eyes of', excludes blind men. Now, since the expression 'Before the eyes of' is required to exclude blind men it follows that even laymen [are eligible]. For should it be suggested [that only members of] the Sanhedrin  are required. what need was there to exclude blind men, [an exclusion which could have been] deduced from that which R. Joseph learnt! For R. Joseph learnt: As the Beth din  must be clean  in respect of righteousness so must they be clear from all physical defects,