Yevamot

are evil for the righteous;  For it is said, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or evil.  Now, as regards evil, one can perfectly well understand [the meaning]  but why not good? From here then it may be inferred that the favour of the wicked is evil for the righteous. There,  one can well see the reason,  since he  might possibly mention to him the name of his idol;  what evil, however, could be involved here?  — That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve,  he infused her  with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai,  came to an end, the lust of the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end. IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE HALIZAH WITH A SANDAL THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM etc. Our Rabbis taught: [From the expression] His shoe  I would only know that his own  shoe [is suitable];  whence, however, is it deduced that anybody's shoe is suitable?  Hence was the term 'shoe' repeated,  thus indicating the suitability of anyone's shoe.  If so, why was the expression, 'His shoe', at all used? — 'His shoe' implies one which he can wear, excluding a large one in which he cannot walk, excluding a small one which does not cover the greater part of his foot, and excluding also a sandal which consists of a sole but has no heel. Abaye once stood in the presence of R. Joseph when a sister-in-law came to perform halizah. 'Give him',  he  said to him,  your sandal', and [Abaye] gave him' his left sandal. 'It might be suggested', he  said to him,  'that the Rabbis spoke  only of a fait accompli; did they, however, speak also of what is permissible ab initio?' The other  replied: If so, in respect of a sandal that is not the levir's own, it might also be suggested that the Rabbis spoke  only of a fait accompli; did they, however, speak also of what is permissible ab initio! 'I', the first  answered him, 'meant to tell you this: Give it to him and transfer possession to him'. A WOODEN SANDAL. Who is the Tanna [whose view is expressed in this ruling]?  — Samuel replied: The view is that of R. Meir. For we learned: A cripple may go out [on the Sabbath]  with his wooden stump; so R. Meir,  while R. Jose forbids it.  Samuel's father explained:  With one that is covered with leather, [the ruling representing] the general opinion. R. Papi stated in the name of Raba: No halizah may be performed with a sandal that is under observation;  a halizah, however, that has been performed [with it] is valid. No halizah may be performed with a sandal, the leprous condition of which has been confirmed;  and even a halizah that had already been performed [with it] is invalid.  R. Papa, however, stated in the name of Raba: No halizah may be performed either with a sandal under observation  or with one the leprous condition of which had been confirmed;  a halizah, however, that had been performed [with either] is valid. An objection was raised: A house locked up  imparts uncleanness from within,  [and a house] confirmed in its leprous condition [imparts uncleanness]  both within and without. The one as well as the other imparts uncleanness to anyone entering.  Now, if it is to be assumed [that an object doomed to destruction is regarded] as already crushed to dust,  surely [it may be objected] the requirement [there]  is that He goeth into the house;  but [such a house] is not in existence!  — There  it is different, because Scripture said, And he shall break down the house,  even at the time of breaking down it is still called 'house'. Come and hear: A [leprous] strip of cloth  measuring three [finger-breadths] by three,  even if [in volume] it does not amount to the size of an olive,  causes, as soon as the greater part of it has entered a clean house, the defilement of that house.  Does not [this refer to a strip of cloth the uncleanness of which] had been confirmed!  No; [it refers to] one under observation.  But if so, read the final clause: If in volume  it constituted the size of many olives,  as soon as a portion of it of the size of an olive  enters a clean house, it causes the uncleanness of that house.  Now, if you grant [that the reference is to a strip] of confirmed leprosy one can well understand why it was compared  to a corpse;  if, however, you maintain [that the reference is to a strip] under observation  why [it may be objected] was it compared to a corpse! — There  it is different,  for Scripture said, And he shall burn the garment,  even at the time of burning it is still called 'garment.'  Then let [halizah] be deduced from it!  — A prohibition cannot be deduced from [the laws of] uncleanness. Raba stated: The law is that [a sister-in-law] may not perform halizah either with a sandal under observation,  or with a sandal of confirmed leprosy, or with a sandal belonging to an idol;  if, however, she has performed halizah [with either of these], her halizah is valid.  [With a sandal] that was offered to an idol