Jewish%20thought for Yevamot 207:16

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חלצה ורקקה אבל לא קראה חליצתה כשרה קראה ורקקה אבל לא חלצה חליצתה פסולה חלצה וקראה אבל לא רקקה רבי אלעזר אומר חליצתה פסולה ר"ע אומר חליצתה כשרה

— R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: The statement is to be reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. It is R. Eleazar, and not the first Tanna, who ruled that halizah with the left shoe is invalid. ');">⁴⁰</span> Raba said: There is, in fact, no need to reverse [the statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">³⁶</span> the reply to the objection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to why R. Eleazar draws an analogy between the terms of ear and not between those of foot. ');">⁴¹</span> being that] the terms 'ear'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ear, ear'. ');">⁴²</span> [are both] free [for the deduction];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁴³</span> the terms of 'foot,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'foot, foot'. ');">⁴⁴</span> however, are not free for deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁴⁵</span> But even if [one of the texts] is not free for deduction, what objection can be raised [against the deduction]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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! ');">⁴⁶</span> — It may be objected: The case of the leper is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that of halizah. ');">⁴⁷</span> since he is also required [to bring] cedar-wood and hyssop and scarlet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁴⁸</span> MISHNAH. [IF A SISTER-IN-LAW] DREW OFF [THE LEVIR'S SHOE] AND SPAT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXV, 9. ');">⁴⁹</span> BUT DID NOT RECITE [THE FORMULAE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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). ');">⁵⁰</span> HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The omission of an act, but not that of a formula, renders a halizah invalid. V. infra. ');">⁵¹</span> IF SHE RECITED [THE FORMULAE] AND SPAT, BUT DID NOT DRAW OFF THE SHOE, HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS INVALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">⁵²</span> IF SHE DREW OFF THE SHOE AND RECITED [THE FORMULAE] BUT DID NOT SPIT, HER <i>HALIZAH</i>, R. ELIEZER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. marg. note. Cur. edd., 'Eleazar'. ');">⁵³</span> STATED, IS INVALID; AND R. AKIBA STATED: HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID.

Explore jewish%20thought for Yevamot 207:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.