Yevamot

SAID 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