יבמות 104 — Soncino English Talmud

¹or [with one] that belonged to a condemned city or [with one] that was made in honour of a [dead] elder, 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 also was not made for walking! — The other replied: Should the attendant of the Beth din use it for walking, would the Beth din object! 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 they differ on the following principle: The one Master holds the opinion that lawsuits are to be compared to plagues, while the other Master holds the opinion that lawsuits cannot be compared to plagues? — 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. Here, however, they differ on the following principle: Ones Master holds that halizah is like the commencement of legal proceedings and the other Master holds that halizah is like the close of the proceedings. Rabbah b. Hiyya of Ktesifon carried out a halizah with a felt sock, with no other men present, at night. Said Samuel: How great is his authority in acting on the view of one individual! What [however, could be his] objection? If [against the use of the] felt sock, an anonymous Baraitha [permits it]! If [against his acting at] night, our anonymous Mishnah [permits this]! — 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! 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. And if you prefer I might say: All these [rulings] also are the views of 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] is deduced from that of foot in the context of the leper. As there it is the right so here also it must be the right. Does not R. Eleazar, then, deduce [the meaning of] foot [here] from that of foot 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] must be performed on his right ear? — For the term ear was used here and the term 'ear' was also used elsewhere; as there it is the right ear so here also it is the right ear! — R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: The statement is to be reversed. Raba said: There is, in fact, no need to reverse [the statement, the reply to the objection being that] the terms 'ear' [are both] free [for the deduction]; the terms of 'foot,' however, are not free for deduction. But even if [one of the texts] is not free for deduction, what objection can be raised [against the deduction]? — It may be objected: The case of the leper is different, since he is also required [to bring] cedar-wood and hyssop and scarlet. MISHNAH. [IF A SISTER-IN-LAW] DREW OFF [THE LEVIR'S SHOE] AND SPAT, BUT DID NOT RECITE [THE FORMULAE], HER HALIZAH IS VALID. IF SHE RECITED [THE FORMULAE] AND SPAT, BUT DID NOT DRAW OFF THE SHOE, HER HALIZAH IS INVALID. IF SHE DREW OFF THE SHOE AND RECITED [THE FORMULAE] BUT DID NOT SPIT, HER HALIZAH, R. ELIEZER STATED, IS INVALID; AND R. AKIBA STATED: HER HALIZAH IS VALID.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ

^ᵃnote:All the spoil of which was to be burned. Cf. Deut. XIII, 13ff.
^ᵇnote:As a part of his shroud.
^ᶜnote:Not being used for walking it cannot be regarded as a shoe.
^ᵈnote:The approved sandal kept by a Beth din for the special purpose of halizah ceremonials.
^ᵉnote:Presumably not. Hence it may well be regarded as a shoe made for the purpose of walking.
^ᶠnote:The first Tanna and R. Eleazar in our Mishnah.
^ᵍnote:The first Tanna.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote:R. Eleazar.
^ʲnote:Cf. Sanh. 34b, Nid. 500
^ᵏnote:But, as a matter of fact, this was explicitly allowed. Cf. Sanh. 32a.
^ˡnote:The first Tanna and R. Eleazar in our Mishnah.
^ᵐnote:Which must take place in the daytime only. Cf. Sanh. 34b.
^ⁿnote:The first Tanna.
^ᵒnote:Which is allowed even in the night-time. Cf. p. 715, n. 8.
^ᵖnote:Others, 'Raba'. Cf. Alfasi and [H].
^ᵠnote:On the eastern bank of the Tigris in the south of Assyria.
^ʳnote:Ironical exclamation.
^ˢnote:The ruling of the majority being against this opinion.
^ᵗnote:Against Rabbah's action.
^ᵘnote:Lit., 'it was taught'.
^ᵛnote:Supra 102b. And the halachah, as a rule, is in agreement with the anonymous ruling.
^ʷnote:Cf. Rashi, s.v. [H] a.l. Cur. edd., it was taught'.
^ˣnote:Cf. supra n. 9.
^ʸnote:Lit., 'taught it'.
^ᶻnote:Thus it is proved that it is an individual opinion, that of R. Akiba, that permits halizah in the absence of witnesses.
^ᵃᵃnote: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.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., 'taught them'.
^ᵃᶜnote:Deut. XXV, 9, dealing with halizah.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. XIV, 14.
^ᵃᵉnote:In the case of the leper.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since the text explicitly mentions it.
^ᵃᵍnote:In halizah.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. XIV, 14.
^ᵃⁱnote:Who refuses to go out free. V. Ex. XXI, 5f.
^ᵃʲnote:V. previous note.
^ᵃᵏnote:With the leper. Lev. XIV, 14.
^ᵃˡnote:Since the text explicitly mentions it.
^ᵃᵐnote:Kid. 15a, which shews that R. Eleazar does make deduction from the terms used in the context of the leper.
^ᵃⁿnote:In our Mishnah. It is R. Eleazar, and not the first Tanna, who ruled that halizah with the left shoe is invalid.
^ᵃᵒnote:As to why R. Eleazar draws an analogy between the terms of ear and not between those of foot.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., 'ear, ear'.
^ᵃᵠnote: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.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., 'foot, foot'.
^ᵃˢnote: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.
^ᵃᵗnote: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!
^ᵃᵘnote:From that of halizah.
^ᵃᵛnote: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.
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. Deut. XXV, 9.
^ᵃˣnote: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).
^ᵃʸnote:The omission of an act, but not that of a formula, renders a halizah invalid. V. infra.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. supra n. 3.
^ᵇᵃnote:Cf. marg. note. Cur. edd., 'Eleazar'.

²SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: [SCRIPTURE STATED], SO SHALL BE DONE, ANYTHING WHICH IS A DEED IS A SINE QUA NON. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM, FROM THIS VERY TEXT PROOF [MAY BE ADDUCED FOR MY VIEW]: SO SHALL BE DONE UNTO THE MAN, ONLY THAT WHICH IS TO BE DONE UNTO THE MAN. 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. [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, 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 stated that the recital [of the formulae] 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? is it not because these are unable to recite [the formulae]! — No; because they are not in complete possession of their mental faculties. If so, [the same applies] also to a dumb man and to a dumb woman! — Raba replied: A dumb man and a dumb woman are in full possession of their mental faculties, and it is only their mouth that troubles 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 say or She shall say is inapplicable to such a case! — [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] is a sine qua non, the halizah of a dumb man or a dumb woman is invalid. And our Mishnah [is based on the same principle] as [that propounded by] R. Zera; for R. Zera stated: Wherever proper mingling is possible actual mingling is not essential, but where proper mingling is not possible the actual mingling is a sine qua non. [The following ruling] was sent to Samuel's father: A sister-inlaw who spat must perform the halizah. This implies that she is rendered unfit for the brothers; but whose view is this? If it be suggested [that it is that of] R. Akiba, it may be objected: If R. Akiba said that it was not indispensable 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, and yet is a sine qua non when they are available, [would he regard it as a reason for the woman] to become thereby unfit for the brothers! [Should it be suggested], however, [that the view is that] of R. Eliezer, surely [it may be retorted] are two acts which jointly effect permissibility, and any two acts that jointly effect permissibility are ineffective one without the other! — Rather, the view is in agreement with that of Rabbi. For it was taught: The Pentecostal lambs cause the consecration of the bread only by their slaughter. In what manner? If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices and their blood also was sprinkled with such intention, the bread becomes consecrated. If they were not slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices, though their blood was sprinkled for the proper purpose, the bread does not become consecrated. If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices and their blood was sprinkled for another purpose, [the bread] is partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated; 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. Did R. Akiba, however, hold that the act of spitting does not render the woman unfit? Surely it was taught: If she drew off [the levir's shoe] but did not ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ

^ᵇᵇnote:Deut. XXV, 9, emphasis on done. [H] (rt. [H]). V. infra n. 7.
^ᵇᶜnote:[H] (rt. [H]). Cf. supra n. 6.
^ᵇᵈnote:The omission of any act, therefore, renders the halizah invalid.
^ᵇᵉnote:Lit., 'from there'.
^ᵇᶠnote:Deut. ibid., emphasis on man.
^ᵇᵍnote:As, e.g., drawing off the shoe which is an act on the body of the levir. Spitting, therefore, is excluded.
^ᵇʰnote:The 'deaf' spoken of in the Talmud literature is always to be understood as a deaf-mute. Cf. Ter. I, 2.
^ᵇⁱnote: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.
^ᵇʲnote:In the first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵏnote:V. supra p. 718, n. 2.
^ᵇˡnote:For the invalidity.
^ᵇᵐnote:Cf. supra p. 718, n. 12. How then could it be said that recital of the formulae is not an indispensable condition?
^ᵇⁿnote:The minor because of his immature age, and the deaf and dumb because of his physical defects which adversely affect his mental powers.
^ᵇᵒnote:Why then is their halizah valid?
^ᵇᵖnote:Lit., 'pains
^ᵇᵠnote:Cf. Deut. XXV, 8.
^ᵇʳnote:Cf. ibid. 7 and 9.
^ᵇˢnote:How then can halizah of a dumb person be regarded as valid!
^ᵇᵗnote:V. supra p. 718, n. 2.
^ᵇᵘnote:Which stated that if she did not recite the formulae the halizah is valid
^ᵇᵛnote: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.
^ᵇʷnote:Even if no mingling has taken place the meal-offering is acceptable.
^ᵇˣnote: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.
^ᵇʸnote: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.
^ᵇᶻnote:In the presence of the Beth din.
^ᶜᵃnote: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.
^ᶜᵇnote:V. supra n. 7.
^ᶜᶜnote:That an informal act of spitting renders the woman unfit for marriage with the brothers.
^ᶜᵈnote:Lit., 'now'.
^ᶜᵉnote:The act of spitting.
^ᶜᶠnote:Which shews what little significance R. Akiba attaches to this part of the ceremony.
^ᶜᵍnote:If, for instance, they were lost or became unfit for the altar owing to uncleanness. Cf. Pes. 59b.
^ᶜʰnote: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.
^ᶜⁱnote:V. supra note 9.
^ᶜʲnote:Cur. edd., 'Eleazar' (cf. supra p 718, n. 5); who stated in our Mishnah that the act of spitting was indispensable.
^ᶜᵏnote:Drawing off the shoe and spitting.
^ᶜˡnote:Of the sister-in-law to marry a stranger.
^ᶜᵐnote:Cf. Men. 89a.
^ᶜⁿnote:V. supra p. 720, n. 9.
^ᶜᵒnote:V. Num. XXVIII, 26-31.
^ᶜᵖnote:The two loaves that were also brought to the Temple on Pentecost. V. Lev. XXIII, 17.
^ᶜᵠnote: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.
^ᶜʳnote:Is consecration effected even after slaughtering of the lambs.
^ᶜˢnote:Lit., 'for their name'.
^ᶜᵗnote:Lit., not for their name'; i.e., if they were intended to be merely sacrifices, not specifically those prescribed for the Pentecost festival.
^ᶜᵘnote:Cf. supra n. 9.
^ᶜᵛnote:I.e., it is subject to some, but not to all, of the restrictions of properly consecrated bread.
^ᶜʷnote: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.
^ᶜˣnote:For the levirate marriage.