Yevamot

spit nor recite,  her halizah is valid. If she spat but did not draw off the shoe nor recite,  her halizah is invalid  if she recited  but did not spit nor draw off the shoe, there is here no reason whatsoever for apprehension.  Now, whose [view is here represented]? If it be suggested [it is that of] R. Eliezer, [how could it be stated that] 'if she drew off [the levir's shoe] but did not spit nor recite, her halizah is valid' when, surely, R. Eliezer said: SO SHALL BE DONE, ANYTHING WHICH IS A DEED IS A SINE QUA NON? It is consequently obvious [that it is the view of] R. Akiba; and yet it was stated that 'if she spat but did not draw off the shoe nor recite, her halizah is invalid'. To whom, [however, does the invalidity cause her to be forbidden]?  If it be suggested, 'To strangers';  is not this [it may be retorted] self-evident? Is it a halizah [like this that would enable the sister-inlaw] to become free to marry a stranger!  It must therefore, be admitted  [that the validity refers to her state of prohibition] to the brothers.  Thus you have our contention proved. According to R. Akiba, wherein lies the legal difference between the act of spitting and that of reciting?  — Recital  that must take place both at the commencement  [of the halizah ceremony] and at its conclusion  cannot be mistaken;  spitting, however, which does not take place at the beginning but only at the end, might be mistaken [for a proper halizah],  and thus  a proper halizah also would be permitted to marry the brothers. Others say that the following ruling was sent to him:  A sister-in-law who spat  may afterwards perform halizah and need not spit a second time.  So, in fact, it once happened that a sister-in-law  who came before R. Ammi, while R. Abba b. Memel was sitting in his presence, spat prior to her drawing off the shoe. 'Arrange the halizah for her', said R. Ammi to him,  'and dismiss her case'.  'But surely'. said R. Abba to him, 'spitting is a requirement!' — 'She has spat indeed!' 'But let her spit [again]; what could be the objection?' — 'The issue might [morally and religiously] be disastrous; for should you rule that she is to spit again, people might assume that her first spitting was ineffective  and thus  a proper haluzah also would be permitted to marry the brothers!'  'But is it not necessary. [that the various parts of the halizah] should follow in the prescribed order?' — 'The order of the performances is not essential'. He  thought [at the time] that the other  was merely shaking him off. When, however, he went out he carefully considered the point and discovered that it was taught: Whether drawing off the shoe preceded the spitting or whether spitting preceded the drawing off, the action performed is valid. Levi once went out [to visit] the country towns,  when he was asked: 'May a woman whose hand was amputated perform halizah?  What is the legal position where a sister-in-law spat blood? [It is stated in Scripture]: Howbeit I will declare unto thee that which is inscribed in the Writing of Truth;  does this  then imply that there exists a [divine] Writing that is not of truth?' He was unable to answer.  When he came and asked these questions at the academy. they answered him: Is it written, 'And she shall draw off with her hand'?  Is it written, 'And spit spittle'?  [As to the question] 'Howbeit I will declare unto thee that which is inscribed in the Writing of Truth,  does this then imply that there exists a [divine] Writing that is not of truth'? There is really no difficulty. For the former  refers to a [divine] decree that was accompanied by an oath while the latter  refers to one that was not accompanied by an oath. [This is] in accordance with a statement of R. Samuel b. Ammi. For R. Samuel b. Ammi stated in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence is it deduced that a decree which is accompanied by an oath is never annulled?  — From the Scriptural text, Therefore I have sworn unto the House of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever.  Rabbah said: It will not be expiated 'with sacrifice nor offering', but it will be expiated with the words of the Torah. Abaye said: It will not be expiated 'with sacrifice nor offering' but it will be expiated with the practice of lovingkindness. Rabbah and Abaye were both descendants of the house of Eli. Rabbah who engaged in the study of the Torah lived forty years. Abaye, however, who engaged in the study of the Torah and the practice of lovingkindness, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis taught: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members used to die when they were about the age of eighteen. When they came and acquainted R. Johanan b. Zakkai [with the fact,] he said to them: 'perchance you are descendants of the family of Eli concerning whom it is written in Scripture. And all the increase of thy house shall die young men;  go and engage in the study of the Torah, and you will live'. They went and engaged in the study of the Torah and lived [longer lives]. They were consequently called 'The family of Johanan', after him. R. Samuel b. Unia stated in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that a [divine] dispensation against a congregation is not sealed? — [You say] 'Is not sealed'! Surely it is written, For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me!  — But [this is the question]: Whence is it deduced that even if it has been sealed it is torn up? — From the Scriptural text, What … as the Lord our God is whensoever we call upon him.  But, surely, it is written, Seek ye the Lord while He may be found!  — This is no contradiction. The latter applies to an individual, the former to a congregation. And  when may an individual [find him]? R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: In  the ten days between the New Year and the Day of Atonement. [The following ruling] was sent to Samuel's father: A sister-inlaw who spat blood shall perform halizah,  because it is impossible that blood should not contain some diluted particles of spittle. An objection was raised: It might have been assumed that blood that issues from his  mouth or membrum virile is unclean,  hence it was explicitly stated, His issue is unclean,  but the blood which issues from his mouth or from his membrum virile is not unclean, but clean!  — This is no contradiction: The former  is a case  where she sucks in;  the latter,  where [the blood] flows gently. IF A DEAF LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH etc.