Yevamot

for it is said in Scripture, Thou art all fair, my love; and there is no spot in thee. As to the former,  however, what deduction does he make from the expression. 'Before the eyes of'? — That expression serves the purpose of a deduction like that of Raba, Raba having stated: The judges must see the spittle issuing from the mouth of the sister-in-law, because it is written in Scripture, Before the eyes of the elders … and spit.  But does not the other  also require the text  for a deduction like that of Raba! — This is so indeed. Whence, then,  does he deduce [the eligibility of] laymen?  — He deduces it from in Israel  [implying] any Israelite whatsoever. As to the former,  however, what deduction does he make from 'In Israel'?  — He requires it for a deduction like that which R. Samuel b. Judah taught: 'In Israel' [implies that halizah must be performed] at a Beth din of Israelites but not at a Beth din of proselytes.  And the other?  — 'In Israel' is written a second time.  And the former?  — He requires it  for another deduction in accordance with what was taught: R. Judah stated, 'We were once sitting before R. Tarfon when a sister-in-law came to perform halizah, and he said to us, "Exclaim all of you: The man that had his shoe drawn off"'.  And the other? — This is deduced from And [his name] shall be called.  If this is so'  And they shall call  [implies] two;  And they shall speak  [also implies] two,  [so that] here also [one might deduce]: According to R. Judah,  behold there are here nine; and according to the Rabbis,  behold there are here seven! — That text  is required for a deduction in accordance with what was taught: And they  shall call him  but not their representative; And they shall speak unto him  teaches that they give him suitable advice. If he,  for instance, was young and she  old, or if he was old and she was young, he is told, 'What would you with  a young woman?' Or 'What would you  with an old woman? Go to one who [is of the same age] as yourself, and introduce no quarrels into your home'. Raba stated in the name of R. Nahman: The halachah is that halizah is to be performed in the presence of three men, since the Tanna  has taught us so  anonymously.  Said Raba to R. Nahman: If so [the same ruling should apply to] mi'un  also, for we learned:  Mi'un and halizah [must be witnessed] by three men!  And should you reply [that the halachah] is so indeed, surely [It may be retorted] it was taught: Mi'un,  Beth Shammai ruled, [must be declared before] a Beth din of experts;  and Beth Hillel ruled: [It may be performed] either before a Beth din or not before a Beth din. Both, however, agree that a quorum of three is required. R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Jose  ruled: [The mi'un is] valid [even if it was declared] before two.  And R. Joseph b. Manyumi reported in the name of R Nahman  that the halachah is in agreement with this pair!  — There,  only one anonymous [teaching] is available while here  two anonymous [teachings]  are available. There  also two anonymous [teachings] are available! For we learned: If, however, a woman made a declaration of refusal  or performed halizah in his presence, he  may marry her,  since he [was but one of the] Beth din!  — But, [the fact is that while] there,  only two anonymous [teachings] are available; here,  three anonymous [teachings] are available. Consider! The one  is an anonymous [teaching], and the other  is an anonymous [teaching]; what difference does it make to me whether the anonymous [teachings] are one, two or three? — Rather, said R. Nahman b. Isaac, [the reason  is] because the anonymity  occurs in a passage recording a dispute.  For we learned: 'The laying on of hands by the elders,  and the breaking of the heifer's neck  is performed by three elders; so R. Jose,  while R. Judah stated: By five elders. Halizah and declarations of mi'un, [however, are witnessed] by three men';  and since R. Judah does not express disagreement,  it may be inferred that R. Judah changed his opinion.  This proves it. Raba stated: The judges must appoint a place;  for it is written, Then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate  unto the elders. R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua arranged a halizah'  in the presence of five. In accordance with whose view?  Was it in accordance with that of R. Judah? He, surely, had changed his opinion!  [Their object  was] to give the matter due publicity. R. Ashi once happened to be at R. Kahana's, when the latter said to him, 'The Master has come up to us [at an opportune moment] to complete a quorum of five'. R. Kahana stated: I was once standing in the presence of Rab Judah, when he said to me, 'Come, get on to this bundle of reeds  that you may be included in a quorum of five'.  On being asked, 'What need is there for five?' he replied, 'In order that the matter be given due publicity'. R. Samuel b. Judah once stood before Rab Judah when the latter said to him, 'Come, get on to this bundle of reeds  to be included in a quorum of five,  in order that the matter be thereby given due publicity'.  'We learned', the first remarked, 'In Israel [implies that halizah must be performed] at a Beth din of Israelites but not at a Beth din of proselytes  while I am, in fact, a proselyte'. 'On the word  [of a man] like R. Samuel b. Judah', Rab Judah said, 'I would withdraw money [from its possessor]'.  [You say] 'Withdraw'! Could this be imagined? Surely the All Merciful said, At the mouth of two witnesses!  — Rather [it is this that he meant]. 'I would on his word  impair the validity of a note of indebtedness. Raba stated: