Yevamot 202

שנאמר (שיר השירים ד, ז) כולך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך ואידך ההוא לעיני מאי עביד ליה ההוא לכדרבא הוא דאתא דאמר רבא צריכי דייני למיחזי רוקא דקא נפיק מפומא דיבמה דכתיב לעיני הזקנים וירקה

for it is said in Scripture, Thou art all fair, my love; and there is no spot in thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cant. IV, 7. ');">¹</span> As to the former,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">²</span> however, what deduction does he make from the expression. 'Before the eyes of'? — That expression serves the purpose of a deduction like that of Raba, Raba having 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&nbsp;… and spit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. Cf. infra 106b. ');">³</span> But does not the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah. ');">⁴</span> also require the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9, (E.V., In the presence of). ');">⁵</span>

ואידך נמי מיבעי ליה לכדרבא אין ה"נ ואלא הדיוטו' מנא ליה נפקא מבישראל ישראל כל דהו

for a deduction like that of Raba! — This is so indeed. Whence, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text of Deut. XXV, 9 is required for Rab's deduction. ');">⁶</span> does he deduce [the eligibility of] laymen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As eligible members of the tribunal. ');">⁷</span> — He deduces it from in Israel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7 (Rash). or ibid. 10 (Golds.). ');">⁸</span> [implying] any Israelite whatsoever. As to the former,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁹</span> however, what deduction does he make from 'In Israel'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH and supra n. 7. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואידך האי ישראל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתני רב שמואל בר יהודה בישראל בב"ד של ישראל ולא בב"ד של גרים

— He requires it for a deduction like that which R. Samuel b. Judah taught: 'In Israel' [implies that <i>halizah</i> must be performed] at a <i>Beth din</i> of Israelites but not at a <i>Beth din</i> of proselytes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 14a. ');">¹¹</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah. ');">⁴</span> — 'In Israel' is written a second time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 7. ');">¹²</span> And the former?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁹</span> — He requires it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second expression, In Israel. ');">¹³</span>

ואידך בישראל אחרינא כתיב ואידך מיבעי ליה לכדתניא א"ר יהודה פעם אחת היינו יושבין לפני רבי טרפון ובאה יבמה לחלוץ ואמר לנו ענו כולכם חלוץ הנעל

for another deduction in accordance with what was taught: R. Judah stated, 'We were once sitting before R. Tarfon when a sister-in-law came to perform <i>halizah</i>, and he said to us, "Exclaim all of you: The man that had his shoe drawn off"'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXV, 10. ');">¹⁴</span> And the other? — This is deduced from And [his name] shall be called.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXV, 10. ');">¹⁴</span> If this is so'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since deduction has been made from the expression of elders etc. ');">¹⁵</span> And they shall call<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">¹⁶</span> [implies] two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural representing no less than two. ');">¹⁷</span>

ואידך מונקרא נפקא

And they shall speak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">¹⁶</span> [also implies] two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural representing no less than two. ');">¹⁷</span> [so that] here also [one might deduce]: According to R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who deduced from the other texts the number of five judges. ');">¹⁸</span> behold there are here nine; and according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Limiting the number of judges, as deduced supra, to three. ');">¹⁹</span> behold there are here seven! — That text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא מעתה וקראו שנים ודברו שנים הכי נמי לר' יהודה הרי כאן תשעה לרבנן הרי כאן שבעה

is required for a deduction in accordance with what was taught: And they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on they. ');">²⁰</span> shall call him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">¹⁶</span> but not their representative; And they shall speak unto him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">¹⁶</span> teaches that they give him suitable advice. If he,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">²¹</span> for instance, was young and she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law. ');">²²</span>

ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא וקראו לו ולא שלוחם ודברו אליו מלמד שמשיאין לו עצה ההוגנת לו שאם היה הוא ילד והיא זקנה הוא זקן והיא ילדה אומרים לו מה לך אצל ילדה מה לך אצל זקנה כלך אצל שכמותך ואל תכניס קטטה לתוך ביתך

old, or if he was old and she was young, he is told, 'What would you with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what to thee at'. ');">²³</span> a young woman?' Or 'What would you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what to thee at'. ');">²³</span> with an old woman? Go to one who [is of the same age] as yourself, and introduce no quarrels into your home'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 44a. ');">²⁴</span> Raba stated in the name of R. Nahman: The <i>halachah</i> is that <i>halizah</i> is to be performed in the presence of three men, since the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our Mishnah. ');">²⁵</span> has taught us so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like him', sc. like the first Tanna of the Baraitha cited, supra 101a. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רבא אר"נ הלכה חליצה בשלשה הואיל וסתם לן תנא כוותיה א"ל רבא לר"נ אי הכי מיאון נמי דתנן המיאון והחליצה בשלשה

anonymously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halachah is, as a rule, in agreement with the anonymous statements in a Mishnah. ');">²⁷</span> Said Raba to R. Nahman: If so [the same ruling should apply to] <i>mi'un</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A declaration of refusal to live with her husband made by a minor. V. Glos. ');">²⁸</span> also, for we learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anonymously. ');">²⁹</span> <i>Mi'un</i> and <i>halizah</i> [must be witnessed] by three men!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 2a. Cf. infra 107b. ');">³⁰</span> And should you reply [that the <i>halachah</i>] is so indeed, surely [It may be retorted] it was taught: <i>Mi'un</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 6. ');">³¹</span>

וכ"ת הכי נמי והתניא מיאון בית שמאי אומרים ב"ד מומחין וב"ה אומרים בב"ד ושלא בב"ד אלו ואלו מודים שצריך שלשה ר' יוסי בר' יהודה ור' אלעזר ברבי יוסי מכשירין בשנים ואמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן הלכה כאותו הזוג

Beth Shammai ruled, [must be declared before] a <i>Beth din</i> of experts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mumhin, plur. of mumhe. v. Glos. ');">³²</span> and Beth Hillel ruled: [It may be performed] either before a <i>Beth din</i> or not before a <i>Beth din</i>. Both, however, agree that a quorum of three is required. R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'Simeon' (cf. marg. note in cur. edd. and infra 107b). ');">³³</span> ruled: [The <i>mi'un</i> is] valid [even if it was declared] before two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 2a. Cf. infra 107b. ');">³⁴</span> And R. Joseph b. Manyumi reported in the name of R Nahman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 2a. Cf. infra 107b. ');">³⁴</span> that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with this pair!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who require a quorum of two only, contrary to the anonymous teachings supra which require a quorum of three! ');">³⁵</span>

התם חד סתמא והכא תרי סתמי התם נמי תרי סתמי נינהו דתנן מיאנה או שחלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא בב"ד

— There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning mi'un. ');">³⁶</span> only one anonymous [teaching] is available while here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On halizah. ');">³⁷</span> two anonymous [teachings]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One here (our Mishnah) and the other in Sanh. 2a. ');">³⁸</span> are available. There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning mi'un. ');">³⁶</span>

אלא התם תרי סתמי הכא תלתא סתמי

also two anonymous [teachings] are available! For we learned: If, however, a woman made a declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mi'un, v. Glos. ');">³⁹</span> or performed <i>halizah</i> in his presence, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Sage who, if he had previously pronounced the woman forbidden to her husband owing to a vow she had made, would not have been allowed to marry her in order to avoid any suspicion that his motive in forbidding her to her husband was his intention to marry her himself. ');">⁴⁰</span> may marry her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In these circumstances. ');">⁴¹</span> since he [was but one of the] <i>Beth din</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 31a, supra 25b. Mi'un and halizah, unlike disallowance and confirmation of vows, must be witnessed by a court, or quorum of three, and three persons would not be suspected of ulterior motives even though one of them subsequently married the woman concerned. This Mishnah, then, adds a second anonymous statement to the one previously mentioned, both requiring a quorum of three for mi'un. ');">⁴²</span> — But, [the fact is that while] there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning mi'un. ');">⁴³</span>

מכדי הא סתמא והא סתמא מה לי חד סתם מה לי תרי סתם מה לי תלתא אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הואיל וסתם במקום מחלוקת

only two anonymous [teachings] are available; here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On halizah. ');">⁴⁴</span> three anonymous [teachings] are available.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited last, which adds one anonymous teaching to the single one of mi'un, also adds one to the two anonymous teachings concerning halizah. ');">⁴⁵</span> Consider! The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning mi'un. ');">⁴³</span> is an anonymous [teaching], and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On halizah. ');">⁴⁴</span> is an anonymous [teaching]; what difference does it make to me whether the anonymous [teachings] are one, two or three? — Rather, said R. Nahman b. Isaac, [the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the halachah is in agreement with the anonymous teaching in respect of halizah and not with that in respect of mi'un. ');">⁴⁶</span>

דתנן סמיכת זקנים ועגלה ערופה בשלשה דברי ר' יוסי ר' יהודה אומר בחמשה החליצה והמיאונין בשלשה ולא קפליג ר' יהודה ש"מ הדר ביה ר' יהודה ש"מ:

is] because the anonymity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of halizah. ');">⁴⁷</span> occurs in a passage recording a dispute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which R. Judah participated. ');">⁴⁸</span> For we learned: 'The laying on of hands by the elders,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the head of a sin-offering of the congregation. V. Lev. IV, 15. ');">⁴⁹</span> and the breaking of the heifer's neck<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 4. ');">⁵⁰</span> is performed by three elders; so R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Simeon', according to a marg. note and Sanh. 2a. ');">⁵¹</span>

אמר רבא צריכי דייני למיקבע דוכתא דכתיב (דברים כה, ז) ועלתה יבמתו השערה אל הזקנים רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבדי עובדא בחמשה כמאן כר' יהודה והא הדר ביה לפרסומי מילתא

while R. Judah stated: By five elders. <i>Halizah</i> and declarations of <i>mi'un</i>, [however, are witnessed] by three men';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. loc. cit. ');">⁵²</span> and since R. Judah does not express disagreement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the ruling that a quorum of three only is required for halizah, though in a previous discussion (supra 102a) he maintained that a quorum of five was required. ');">⁵³</span> it may be inferred that R. Judah changed his opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And agreed with the anonymous teaching. Hence R. Nahman's ruling that as regards the quorum for halizah the halachah agrees with the anonymous teaching. In respect of mi'un, however, the anonymous teaching has not been mentioned in connection with a dispute in which R. Jose and R. Eleazar participated. Hence it must be assumed that they adhered to their first opinions contrary to the anonymous teaching, which consequently does not represent the halachah. ');">⁵⁴</span> This proves it. Raba stated: The judges must appoint a place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the performance of the rite of halizah. ');">⁵⁵</span>

רב אשי איקלע לבי רב כהנא אמר ליה סליק מר לגבן למלויי בי חמשה אמר רב כהנא הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב יהודה ואמר לי תא סק לזירזא דקני לאיצטרופי בי חמשה אמרו לו למה לי חמשה אמר להו כי היכי דליפרסם מילתא

for it is written, Then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a specified place. ');">⁵⁶</span> unto the elders.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7. ');">⁵⁷</span> R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua arranged a halizah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., performed an act'. ');">⁵⁸</span> in the presence of five. In accordance with whose view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Did they insist on a quorum of five. ');">⁵⁹</span> Was it in accordance with that of R. Judah? He, surely, had changed his opinion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Agreeing that only three are required for a halizah quorum. ');">⁶⁰</span>

רב שמואל בר יהודה הוה קאי קמיה דרב יהודה אמר ליה סק תא לזירזא דקני לאצטרופי בי חמשה לפרסומי מילתא אמר ליה תנינא בישראל בב"ד ישראל ולא בב"ד של גרים ואנא גר אנא

[Their object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In adding to the prescribed quorum. ');">⁶¹</span> was] to give the matter due publicity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should be widely known that the woman was a haluzah and so no priest would marry her; while prospective husbands, on hearing that she had been freed by halizah from her levirate bond, might begin to woo her (cf. Rashi). The question of R. Judah's first opinion did not at all enter into consideration. ');">⁶²</span> R. Ashi once happened to be at R. Kahana's, when the latter said to him, 'The Master has come up to us [at an opportune moment] to complete a quorum of five'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At a halizah ceremonial. ');">⁶³</span> R. Kahana stated: I was once standing in the presence of Rab Judah, when he said to me, 'Come, get on to this bundle of reeds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The spot appointed for the performance of the halizah (cf. Raba's ruling supra). ');">⁶⁴</span> that you may be included in a quorum of five'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At a halizah ceremonial. ');">⁶³</span>

אמר רב יהודה כגון רב שמואל בר יהודה מפיקנא ממונא אפומיה מפיקנא ס"ד והא ע"פ שנים עדים אמר רחמנא אלא מרענא שטרא אפומיה

On being asked, 'What need is there for five?' he replied, 'In order that the matter be given due publicity'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should be widely known that the woman was a haluzah and so no priest would marry her; while prospective husbands, on hearing that she had been freed by halizah from her levirate bond, might begin to woo her (cf. Rashi). The question of R. Judah's first opinion did not at all enter into consideration. ');">⁶²</span> R. Samuel b. Judah once stood before Rab Judah when the latter said to him, 'Come, get on to this bundle of reeds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The spot appointed for the performance of the halizah (cf. Raba's ruling supra). ');">⁶⁴</span> to be included in a quorum of five,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At a halizah ceremonial. ');">⁶³</span> in order that the matter be thereby given due publicity'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should be widely known that the woman was a haluzah and so no priest would marry her; while prospective husbands, on hearing that she had been freed by halizah from her levirate bond, might begin to woo her (cf. Rashi). The question of R. Judah's first opinion did not at all enter into consideration. ');">⁶²</span> 'We learned', the first remarked, 'In Israel [implies that <i>halizah</i> must be performed] at a <i>Beth din</i> of Israelites but not at a <i>Beth din</i> of proselytes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 696. ');">⁶⁵</span>

אמר רבא

while I am, in fact, a proselyte'. 'On the word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mouth'. ');">⁶⁶</span> [of a man] like R. Samuel b. Judah', Rab Judah said, 'I would withdraw money [from its possessor]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in such lawsuits the evidence of two witnesses is required. ');">⁶⁷</span> [You say] 'Withdraw'! Could this be imagined? Surely the All Merciful said, At the mouth of two witnesses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. The evidence of one witness is not sufficient. Cf. supra note 9. The numeral 'two' which in cur. edd. and some MSS. is given in the absolute form, [H], appears in M.T. in the construct, [H]. Cf. ibid. XVII, 6, which, however, refers to evidence in capital cases. ');">⁶⁸</span> — Rather [it is this that he meant]. 'I would on his word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mouth'. ');">⁶⁶</span> impair the validity of a note of indebtedness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should he declare that the note was already redeemed the debtor would not be ordered to pay the debt, though the creditor also could not be compelled to destroy the note (cf. Rashi, Keth. 85a). According to some of the Tosafists the debt may not be collected unless the creditor takes the prescribed oath, as is the case wherever one witness declares a debt recorded on a note of indebtedness to have been paid, v. Keth. 8a. R. Samuel's superiority over the ordinary witness is limited to the following only: While the latter, if a relative, is not believed, to enforce an oath on the creditor, R. Samuel would always be believed (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]). ');">⁶⁹</span> Raba stated: