Yevamot 201

היו שניהם כהנים וכו': תנו רבנן הכה זה וחזר והכה זה קלל זה וחזר וקלל זה קלל שניהם בבת אחת הכה שניהם בבת אחת חייב רבי יהודה אומר בבת אחת חייב בזה אחר זה פטור

IF THE TWO [HUSBANDS] WERE PRIESTS etc. Our Rabbis taught: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son concerning whom it is unknown, as in our Mishnah, which of his mother's two husbands was his father. ');">¹</span> struck one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this', one of his mother's two husbands. ');">²</span> and then struck the other, or if he cursed one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this', one of his mother's two husbands. ');">²</span> and then cursed the other, or cursed them both simultaneously or struck them both simultaneously, he is guilty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one of the two is certainly his father. As to the necessary caution v. infra nn. 12 and 13. ');">³</span>

והתניא רבי יהודה אומר פטור בבת אחת תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי יהודה

R. Judah. however, said: If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He struck or cursed. ');">⁴</span> simultaneously, he is guilty;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The specific caution that must precede any forbidden act that is punishable by a court is here effected when the witnesses cautioned the offender by one statement against the striking or the cursing of the two, e.g., 'do not strike them'. ');">⁵</span> if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He struck or cursed. ');">⁴</span> successively he is exonerated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he may have been duly cautioned in each particular case, no penalty can be imposed upon him by any court, since each caution was of a doubtful character, it being unknown in each case whether the particular man he was about to strike or curse was his father or not. A caution of a doubtful character is, in the opinion of R. Judah, of no validity. while in the opinion of the first Tanna it is valid. ');">⁶</span>

מאי טעמא דמאן דפטר אמר רבי חנינא נאמר ברכה למטה ונאמר ברכה למעלה מה למעלה שאין בה שותפות אף למטה שאין בה שותפות ואיתקש הכאה לקללה:

But, surely, it was taught: R. Judah stated that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 8. ');">⁷</span> is exonerated [even if his offences were] simultaneous! — Two Tannaim differ as to what was the opinion of R. Judah. What is the reason of him who exonerated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the offender struck or cursed simultaneously. One of the victims must surely have been his father! ');">⁸</span> R. Hanina replied: 'Blessing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euph. for 'cursing'. ');">⁹</span>

ועולה במשמרו וכו': וכי מאחר דאינו חולק למה עולה למה עולה האמר בעינא דניעביד מצוה אלא עלה לא קתני אלא עולה בעל כרחו

is spoken of in Scripture [in respect of parents] on earth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'below'. V. Ex. XXI. 17. ');">¹⁰</span> and blessing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euph. for 'cursing'. ');">⁹</span> is spoken of [in respect of God] above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXIV, 15. ');">¹¹</span> As there is no association above so must there be no association below;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only when the curse referred to a single individual is the offender subject to punishment. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב אחא בר חנינא אמר אביי אמר רבי אסי אמר ר' יוחנן משום פגם משפחה:

and striking has been compared to cursing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both acts, in the case of parents. appear in Ex. XXI, in close proximity. vv. 15 (striking) and 17 (cursing). Such proximity, according to the opinion here expressed, serves the purpose of an analogy. According to another opinion, the analogy is disturbed by the intervening v. 16. Cf. Sanh. 85a. ');">¹³</span> HE MAY GO UP [TO SERVE] IN THE MISHMAR etc. Since, however, HE DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE why should he go up? — [You ask] 'Why should he go up'; surely. he might say: I wish to perform a commandment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To take part in the Temple service, even though he derives no material benefit from it. ');">¹⁴</span> — But [this is the difficulty]: It does not say. '[If] he went up'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The past tense, implying contingency. ');">¹⁵</span> but HE GOES up, implying even against his will!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should he be compelled? ');">¹⁶</span>

ואם היו שניהם במשמר כו': מאי שנא שני משמרות דלא דאזיל להא משמרה ומדחו ליה ואזיל להא משמרה ומדחו ליה משמר אחד נמי אזיל להאי בית אב ומדחו ליה

— R. Aha b. Hanina in the name of Abaye in the name of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan replied: In order [to avert any possible] reflection on his family.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should he abstain from the Temple service, rumour might attribute his abstention to some serious disqualification which would bring discredit upon all his family. Its members, therefore, may compel him to join in the service. ');">¹⁷</span> IF, HOWEVER, BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR etc. In what respect do two mishmaroth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plur. of mishmar. ');">¹⁸</span> differ [from one] that [in the former case] he should not [receive a share]? [Is it] because when he comes to the one mishmar he is driven away and when he comes to the other mishmar he is again driven away?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each mishmar asserting that he does not belong to them. ');">¹⁹</span> Then, even in the case of one mishmar also, when he comes to one beth ab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. A mishmar consisted of six families each of which was described as beth ab, performing service on a different day in the week. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר אם היו שניהם משמר אחד ובית אב אחד נוטל חלק אחד:

he is driven away and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. MS.M. and BaH. Cur. edd. omit to the end of the sentence. ');">²¹</span> when he comes to the other beth ab he is also driven away! — R. Papa replied: It is this that was meant: IF, HOWEVER, BOTH SERVED IN THE SAME MISHMAR and in the same beth ab, HE RECEIVES A SINGLE PORTION. MISHNAH. THE COMMANDMENT OF <i>HALIZAH</i> MUST BE PERFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE JUDGES, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE THREE ARE LAYMEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not professional judges. ');">²²</span> IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH A SHOE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made of soft leather and covering the upper part of the foot (cf. Rashi and Jast.) opp. to sandal (v. infra n. 3). ');">²³</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך נושאין על האנוסה</strong></big><br><br>

HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the shoe required for halizah purposes should properly be a sandal made of hard leather and consisting of a sole with straps attached for fastening it to the foot. ');">²⁴</span> [BUT IF] WITH A SOCK<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Cf. infilia, [G], shoes or socks made of felt. ');">²⁵</span> IT IS INVALID; IF WITH A SANDAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], [G]. ');">²⁶</span> TO WHICH A HEEL IS ATTACHED IT IS VALID, BUT [IF WITH ONE] THAT HAS NO HEEL IT IS INVALID. [IF THE SHOE WAS WORN]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi. According to others the law refers not to the shoe itself but to the sandal straps. ');">²⁷</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>מצות חליצה</strong></big> בשלשה דיינין ואפילו שלשתן הדיוטות חלצה במנעל חליצתה כשרה באנפיליא חליצתה פסולה בסנדל שיש לו עקב כשר ושאין לו עקב פסול

BELOW THE KNEE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, for instance, the levir (according to Rashi) had his foot amputated. According to the other interpretation 'below', and 'above' the knee refers to the position of the straps on the leg. ');">²⁸</span> THE <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID, BUT IF ABOVE THE KNEE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, for instance, the levir (according to Rashi) had his foot amputated. According to the other interpretation 'below', and 'above' the knee refers to the position of the straps on the leg. ');">²⁸</span> IT IS INVALID. IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH A SANDAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], [G]. ');">²⁶</span> THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">²⁹</span>

מן הארכובה ולמטה חליצה כשרה מן הארכובה ולמעלה חליצה פסולה חלצה בסנדל שאין שלו או בסנדל של עץ או בשל שמאל בימין חליצה כשרה חלצה בגדול שהוא יכול להלוך בו או בקטן שהוא חופה את רוב רגלו חליצתה כשרה:

OR WITH A WOODEN SANDAL, OR WITH THE ONE OF THE LEFT FOOT [WHICH HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">²⁹</span> WAS WEARING] ON HIS RIGHT FOOT, THE <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID. IF SHE PERFORMED THE <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH A SANDAL TOO LARGE [FOR HIM],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">²⁹</span> IN WHICH, HOWEVER, HE IS ABLE TO WALK, OR WITH ONE TOO SMALL WHICH, HOWEVER, COVERS THE GREATER PART OF HIS FOOT, HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ומאחר דאפילו שלשה הדיוטות דיינין למה לי הא קמ"ל דבעינן בשלשה שיודעים להקרות כעין דיינים תנינא להא דתנו רבנן מצות חליצה בשלשה שיודעין להקרות כעין דיינים רבי יהודה אומר בחמשה

GEMARA. Since even THREE LAYMEN [are sufficient],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To constitute a tribunal for halizah. ');">³⁰</span> what need is there for JUDGES? — It is this that we were taught: That three men are required, who are capable of dictating [the prescribed texts]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7-9. ');">³¹</span> like judges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The appropriate texts in the original Hebrew are dictated by members of the court to the levir and his sister-in-law, respectively, who must repeat them precisely as they hear them. Cf. Sot. 32a. ');">³²</span> Thus we have learned here what the Rabbis taught: The commandment of <i>halizah</i> is performed in the presence of three men who are able to dictate [the prescribed texts]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7-9. ');">³¹</span>

מ"ט דת"ק דתניא זקנים שנים ואין בית דין שקול מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד הרי כאן שלשה ור' יהודה זקני שנים זקנים שנים ואין בית דין שקול מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד הרי כאן ה'

like judges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The appropriate texts in the original Hebrew are dictated by members of the court to the levir and his sister-in-law, respectively, who must repeat them precisely as they hear them. Cf. Sot. 32a. ');">³²</span> R. Judah said: In the presence of five.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. XII. Our Mishnah is in agreement with the first Tanna of this Baraitha. ');">³³</span> What is the first Tanna's reason? — Because it was taught: Elders<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7. ');">³⁴</span> [implies] two; but as no court may be evenly balanced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An even number of judges might, when a difference of opinion arose, be equally divided and this would make a decision by majority impossible. ');">³⁵</span>

ות"ק האי זקני מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבויי אפילו שלשה הדיוטות

one man more is added to them; behold here three. And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he require five? ');">³⁶</span> — The elders of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 8. ');">³⁷</span> [implies] two; and elders<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">³⁸</span> [implies another] two; but since no court may be evenly balanced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An even number of judges might, when a difference of opinion arose, be equally divided and this would make a decision by majority impossible. ');">³⁵</span>

ורבי יהודה הדיוטות מנא ליה נפקא ליה מלעיני דאמר מר לעיני פרט לסומים

one man more is added to them; behold here five. As to the first Tanna, what deduction does he make [from the expression] the elders of?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 8. ');">³⁷</span> — He requires it for the purpose of including<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As eligible members of the tribunal. ');">³⁹</span> even three laymen. Whence, then, does R. Judah deduce the eligibility of laymen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As eligible members of the tribunal. ');">³⁹</span>

ומדאיצטריך לעיני למעוטי סומים ש"מ דאפילו הדיוטות דאי סלקא דעתך סנהדרין בעינן למה לי למעוטי סומין מדתני רב יוסף נפקא דתני רב יוסף כשם שב"ד מנוקים בצדק כך ב"ד מנוקים מכל מום

— He deduces it from Before the eyes of;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9 (E.V., In the presence of). ');">⁴⁰</span> a Master having said: 'Before the eyes of', excludes blind men. Now, since the expression 'Before the eyes of' is required to exclude blind men it follows that even laymen [are eligible]. For should it be suggested [that only members of] the Sanhedrin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., professional judges. ');">⁴¹</span> are required. what need was there to exclude blind men, [an exclusion which could have been] deduced from that which R. Joseph learnt! For R. Joseph learnt: As the <i>Beth din</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'house of law' 'court', applied also to the members of the Sanhedrin or of any court engaged in legal decisions or in the administration of the law. ');">⁴²</span> must be clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their character, free from all possible suspicion. ');">⁴³</span> in respect of righteousness so must they be clear from all physical defects,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb, mum, 'blemish'. ');">⁴⁴</span>