Yevamot

MISHNAH. [THIS IS THE PROCEDURE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF] THE COMMANDMENT OF HALIZAH: HE  AND HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE COME UNTO THE BETH DIN, AND [THE LATTER] OFFER HIM SUCH ADVICE AS IS SUITABLE TO HIS CONDITION,  FOR IT IS SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES, THEN THE ELDERS OF HIS CITY SHALL CALL HIM AND SPEAK UNTO HIM.  SHE THEN ANNOUNCES: 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.  THEN HE MAKES THE DECLARATION: I LIKE NOT TO TAKE HER.  [THESE FORMULAE] WERE ALWAYS SPOKEN IN THE HOLY TONGUE.  THEN SHALL HIS BROTHER'S WIFE DRAW NIGH UNTO HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THE ELDERS AND DRAW  HIS SHOE FROM OFF HIS FOOT, AND SPIT BEFORE  HIS FACE,  SUCH SPITTLE AS THE JUDGES CAN SEE, AND SHE RAISES HER VOICE AND SAYS:  SO SHALL IT BE DONE UNTO THE MAN THAT DOTH NOT BUILD UP HIS BROTHER'S HOUSE,  THUS FAR  USED THEY TO RECITE.  WHEN, HOWEVER, R. HYRKANUS, UNDER THE TEREBINTH AT KEFAR ETAM,  ONCE DICTATED THE READING AND COMPLETED THE ENTIRE SECTION,  THE PRACTICE WAS ESTABLISHED TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE SECTION. [THAT] HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED IN ISRAEL, 'THE HOUSE OF HIM THAT HAD HIS SHOE DRAWN  OFF',  IS A COMMANDMENT [TO BE PERFORMED] BY THE JUDGES AND NOT BY THE DISCIPLES.  R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, RULED: IT IS A DUTY INCUMBENT UPON ALL PRESENT TO CRY '[THE MAN]  THAT HAD HIS SHOE DRAWN  OFF'. GEMARA. Rab Judah stated: [This is the procedure in the performance of] the commandment of halizah: She recites;  he recites;  she draws off his shoe, spits and recites.  What does he teach us [by this statement]? This is our very Mishnah! — It is this that he teaches us: The prescribed procedure is such, but if the order was reversed, it does not matter. So it was also taught: Whether the drawing off of the shoe preceded the spitting or whether the spitting preceded the drawing off, the act is valid. Abaye ruled: The man who dictates the halizah formulae  shall not read for the woman [the word] not  separately and [the clause] he will perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me  separately, since this  would convey the meaning, 'He desires to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me'; but [should read without a pause]. He will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me. Nor shall he read for the levir [the word] not  separately and [the clause] I like  separately; for this  would convey the meaning. 'I like to take her'; but [he should read without a pause], I like not to take her.  Raba, however, stated: This  is only the conclusion  of a sentence, and in a concluding clause [a pause] is of no consequence. R. Ashi found R. Kahana making a painful effort to read out for a woman,  He will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me,  [without a pause]. 'Does not the Master,' he asked him, 'accept the ruling of Raba?'  — 'Raba', the other replied, 'admits in [the case of the formula] He will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me  [that no pause is permitted]. Abaye stated: The person who writes a certificate of halizah shall word it as follows: 'We read out for her  from My husband's brother refuseth  to  will perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me;  and we read out for him  from not  to  to take her;  and we read out for her from So  to  him that had his shoe drawn off. Mar Zutra ruled [the paper]  and copied the full text.  Mar b. Idi  demurred: But, surely, [a section only of the Pentateuch] is not permitted to be written!  The law, however, is in agreement with the ruling of Mar Zutra. Abaye stated: If, when she spat. the wind carried the spittle away,  her act is invalid.  What is the reason? — It is necessary that she shall spit before  his face.  If, therefore, he was tall and she was short, and the wind carried the spittle away,  her act is deemed to have been  before his face.  If, however, she was tall and he was short, it is necessary that [the spittle] shall drop to the level of his face before  it disappears. Raba stated: If she ate garlic and then spat  or if she ate a clod of earth and then spat,  her act is invalid.  What is the reason? — Because it is necessary that she shall spit  of her own free will, which is not the case here. Raba further 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. [THAT] HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED IN ISRAEL, 'THE HOUSE OF HIM THAT HAD HIS SHOE DRAWN OFF' IS A COMMANDMENT [TO BE PERFORMED] BY THE JUDGES AND NOT BY THE DISCIPLES. It 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: Haluz ha-na'al,  haluz ha-na'al, haluz ha-na'al!'