Yevamot 204

ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין דחזיוה רבנן לרב יהודה דנפק בחמשא זוזי מוקי לשוקא

Does this, however, ever happen? — Yes; for the Rabbis once saw Rab Judah going out into the street in five pairs of felt socks. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: A sister-in-law who was brought up together with the brothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of her deceased husband. ');">¹</span> is permitted to marry any one of the brothers and there is no need to consider the possibility that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the course of the years they were together. ');">²</span> might have taken off the sandal [from the foot] of one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a friendly service. It is now assumed that had such an act been performed the removal of the sandal would have been regarded as a valid halizah which would cause the sister-in-law to become forbidden to marry the brothers. ');">³</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יבמה שהגדילה בין האחין מותרת לינשא לאחד מן האחין ואין חוששין שמא חלצה סנדל לאחד מהן טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חיישינן

The reason, then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why halizah is not apprehended. ');">⁴</span> is because we did not actually observe it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she drew off the sandal from the foot of any brother. ');">⁵</span> had we, however, observed it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she drew off the sandal from the foot of any brother. ');">⁵</span> the possibility [that her <i>halizah</i> was valid] would have had to be taken into consideration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sister-in-law would be forbidden to marry any of the brothers. ');">⁶</span>

והא תניא בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד הכי קאמר אע"ג דחזינן אין חוששין שמא כוונו

But, surely, it was taught: Whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">⁷</span> had the intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where halizah was performed. ');">⁸</span> [of performing the commandment of <i>halizah</i>] and she had no such intention, or whether she had such intention and he did not, <i>halizah</i> is invalid, it being necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');">⁹</span> that both shall at the same time have such intention!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Yeb. XII, infra 106a. Why then should the removal of a sandal as a mere friendly act ever be regarded as a valid halizah? ');">¹⁰</span>

ואיכא דאמרי טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חוששין ודקא תנא בעי כוונה הני מילי לאישתרויי לעלמא אבל לאחין מיפסלא

It is this that was meant: Although we observed it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she drew off the sandal from the foot of any brother. ');">⁵</span> there is no need to consider the possibility that they might have intended [to give their action the character of a valid <i>halizah</i>]. Others read: The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why halizah is not apprehended. ');">⁴</span> is because we did not see it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she drew off the sandal from the foot of any brother. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב סנדל התפור בפשתן אין חולצין בו שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, י) ואנעלך תחש ואימא תחש אין מידי אחרינא לא נעל נעל ריבה

had we, however, seen it, the possibility [of a valid <i>halizah</i>] would have had to be considered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sister-in-law would be forbidden to marry any of the brothers. ');">⁶</span> the statement that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what he taught'. ');">¹¹</span> intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To perform the commandment of halizah. ');">¹²</span> is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the levir and the sister-in-law. ');">¹³</span>

אי נעל נעל ריבה אפי' כל מילי נמי אם כן תחש מאי אהני ליה

applying only to the permissibility [of the woman] to strangers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to the world'. Only for this purpose is intention a sine qua non. ');">¹⁴</span> but to the brothers she does become forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where there was no intention but mere action. ');">¹⁵</span> Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: No <i>halizah</i> may be performed with a sandal that was sewn with flax,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., provided with a flax lining or, according to another interpretation, stitched with a flaxen thread (cf. Rashi). ');">¹⁶</span> for it is said in Scripture, And I shod thee with tahash.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XVI, 10, E.V. sealskin. The tahash, the skin of which was used for one of the coverings of the roof of the Tabernacle made by Moses in the wilderness, formed a class of its own, and the Sages could not determine whether it belonged to the class of wild or of domestic animals (cf. Shab. 28b). The mention in the context of shoeing of tahash, the use of the skin of which only was recorded in the Scriptures, is taken to imply that the shoe spoken of in the Scriptures was invariably made of a material similar to that of the skin of tahash, viz., leather. Hence the inadmissibility in halizah of any shoe that was not wholly made of leather. ');">¹⁷</span>

בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב הוא של עור ותריסיותיו של שער מהו אמר ליה מי לא קרינן ביה ואנעלך תחש אי הכי כולו של שער נמי ההוא קרקא מקרי

Might it be suggested that [the skill of] a tahash<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this animal only was mentioned. ');">¹⁸</span> is admissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">¹⁹</span> but not any other material? — The mention of 'shoe' twice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'shoe' (bis). V. Deut. XXV, 9 and 10. ');">²⁰</span> indicates the inclusion [of all kinds of leather]. If the repeated mention of 'shoe' indicates the inclusion [of all kinds of leather] all other materials should also be included! — If that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all materials are admissible. ');">²¹</span>

אמר ליה רב כהנא לשמואל ממאי דהאי וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו מישלף הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מ) וחלצו את האבנים אשר בהן הנגע

for what purpose was the term tahash used? R. Eleazar enquired of Rab: [What is the law where] the sandal was made of leather and its straps of [animal] hair? — The other replied: Could we not apply to it, And I shod thee with tahash!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XVI, 10. ');">²²</span> If so, a shoe all made of hair<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tahash also had hair on its skin. ');">²³</span> should also be admissible! — Such is called a slipper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not included in the term of 'shoe'. ');">²⁴</span>

ואימא זרוזי הוא דכתיב (במדבר לא, ג) החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא התם נמי שלופי מביתא לקרבא

Said R. Kahana to Samuel: Whence is it derived that the verb in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that that'. ');">²⁵</span> we-halezah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H]), E.V. and loose. ');">²⁶</span> his shoe from off his foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">²⁷</span> signifies taking off? — Because it is written, That they shall take out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H]), v. supra n. 9. ');">²⁸</span>

והכתיב (איוב לו, טו) יחלץ עני בעניו בשכר עניו יחלצו מדינה של גיהנם

the stones in which the plague is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 40. ');">²⁹</span> But I might suggest that the meaning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of [H] in Deut. XXV, 9. ');">³⁰</span> is that of arming;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tying on and not the taking off of the shoe. ');">³¹</span> for it is written in Scripture, Arm<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H]) v. supra note 9. ');">³²</span>

אלא הא דכתיב (תהלים לד, ח) חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם בשכר יראיו יחלצם מדינה של גיהנם

ye men from among you for the war!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 3. ');">³³</span> — There also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 3. ');">³³</span> [the underlying meaning is] the slipping out from the house to go to war. But, surely, it is also written in Scripture, He girds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H]). V. supra note 9. ');">³⁴</span> the afflicted in his affliction!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXXVI, 15, which shews that the rt. [H] also signifies 'putting on', 'tying on'. ');">³⁵</span>

אלא הא דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יא) ועצמותיך יחליץ ואמר רבי אלעזר זו מעולה שבברכות ואמר רבא זרוזי גרמי אין משמע הכי ומשמע הכי דהכא אי ס"ד זרוזי הוא א"כ לכתוב רחמנא וחלצה נעלו ברגלו

— [The meaning is that] as a reward for his affliction He will deliver<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] cf. E.V. He delivereth the afflicted by His affliction. ');">³⁶</span> him from the judgment of Gehenna. What, however, is the explanation of the Scriptural text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but that which it is written'. ');">³⁷</span> The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and He girds them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXXIV, 8. [H] (rt [H]), v. supra p. 705, nn. 9 and 18. ');">³⁸</span> — [The meaning is that] as a reward for those who fear him He will deliver them from the judgment of Gehenna.

אי כתב רחמנא ברגלו ה"א ברגלו אין בשוקו לא כתב רחמנא מעל רגלו דאפילו בשוקו א"כ לכתוב רחמנא במעל רגלו מאי מעל רגלו ש"מ מישלף הוא

What explanation is there, however, for the Scriptural text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but that which it is written'. ');">³⁹</span> And He will make strong<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H]). ');">⁴⁰</span> thy bones,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVIII, 11. ');">⁴¹</span> of which R. Eleazar said that this was the best of the blessings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were enumerated in the context. Cf. ibid. 8-14. ');">⁴²</span>

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לר"ג עמא דחלץ ליה מריה מיניה דכתיב (הושע ה, ו) בצאנם ובבקרם ילכו לבקש את ה' ולא ימצאו חלץ מהם

and Raba explained that the meaning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of [H]. ');">⁴³</span> was the strengthening of the bones!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that the rt. [H] signifies also 'strengthening', 'equipping', 'arming', and thus also 'tying on'. ');">⁴⁴</span> — Yes, it may bear the one meaning and it may also bear the other; but were the meaning here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">⁴⁵</span> intended to be that of 'tying on',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'strengthening', 'arming'. ');">⁴⁶</span>

אמר ליה שוטה מי כתיב חלץ להם חלץ מהם כתיב ואילו יבמה דחלצו לה אחין מידי מששא אית ביה:

the All Merciful should have written: 'We-halezah his shoe upon his foot'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'from off'. ');">⁴⁷</span> But [it might be still objected], had the All Merciful written, 'upon his foot' it might have been suggested: Only upon his foot, but not upon his leg;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in case his foot was amputated, no halizah would be possible. ');">⁴⁸</span> hence the All Merciful wrote From off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'from above', i.e., even from that part which is above his foot. ');">⁴⁹</span> his foot, [to indicate] that [<i>halizah</i> may be performed] even on the [levir's] leg! — If so, the All Merciful should have written: 'Upon [what is] above his foot'. Why [then did He use the expression] From off his foot? Consequently it must be inferred that the meaning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of [H] in Deut. XXV, 9. ');">⁵⁰</span>

באנפיליא חליצתה פסולה כו': למימרא דאנפיליא לאו מנעל הוא

is 'to take off'. A certain Min<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁵¹</span> once said to R. Gamaliel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Probably R. Gamaliel of Jabneh, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. V. Herford, Christianity in the Talmud p. 355]. ');">⁵²</span> You are a people with whom its God has performed <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., severed his connection with them. ');">⁵³</span>

ותנן נמי אין התורם נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות ולא באנפיליא ואין צריך לומר במנעל וסנדל לפי שאין נכנסין במנעל וסנדל לעזרה

for it is said in Scripture, with their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they shall not find him; He hath drawn off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">⁵⁴</span> [the shoe] from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'He hath withdrawn Himself from them'. Hos. V, 6. ');">⁵⁵</span> The other replied: Fool, is it written: 'He hath drawn off [the shoe] for them'? It is written, 'He hath drawn off [the shoe] from them'; now in the case of a sister-in-law from whom the brother drew off [the shoe] could there be any validity in the act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. It is the sister-in-law that performs the halizah while the brother-in-law only submits to it. God, in the image of the text quoted, standing towards Israel in the relationship of a Ievir to his sister-in-law, cannot perform the halizah, and his action is, so to speak, invalid, the bond between him and His people remaining in force. ');">⁵⁶</span> BUT IF WITH A SOCK IT IS INVALID etc. This then teaches that a sock is not regarded as a shoe; and so it was also taught: The man who removes [the monies] from the Temple treasury<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. 'we learned'. Cf. marg. note a.l. and Shek. III, 2. ');">⁵⁷</span>

ורמינהו אחד מנעל וסנדל ואנפיליא לא יטייל בהן לא מבית לבית ולא ממטה למטה

must not enter with a bordered tunic or with a sock,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that he may be free from the suspicion that he concealed some money in his socks or in the border of his tunic. ');">⁵⁸</span> and there is no need to state [that he must not enter] with a shoe or with a sandal, since no one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when suspicion is out of the question. ');">⁵⁹</span> may enter the Temple court with a shoe or a sandal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of respect for the place. Now, since a sock is permitted in the Temple court where a shoe is for. bidden it is obvious that a sock is not included in the category of shoe. ');">⁶⁰</span> but elsewhere the contrary was taught: One must not walk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Day of Atonement, when as a part of the affliction (cf. Lev. XVI, 29) the wearing of shoes is forbidden. ');">⁶¹</span>

אמר אביי דאית ביה כתיתי ומשום תענוג אמר ליה רבא ומשום תענוג בלא מנעל ביום הכפורים מי אסירי והא רבה בר רב הונא כריך סודרא אכרעיה ונפיק אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד

with a shoe, a sandal or a sock either from one house to another or even from one bed to another bed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that a sock is also regarded as a shoe. ');">⁶²</span> — Abaye replied: [This refers to a sock] which is furnished with pads, [the prohibition] being due to the pleasure [its wearing affords].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 6. ');">⁶³</span> Said Raba to him: Is [all footwear] forbidden on the Day of Atonement because of the pleasure it affords, even though it cannot be regarded as a shoe? Surely, Rabbah son of R. Huna used to wrap a scarf round his foot and so went out!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Day of Atonement, when as a part of the affliction (cf. Lev. XVI, 29) the wearing of shoes is forbidden. ');">⁶¹</span> — But [in fact], said Raba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the contradiction that was pointed out. ');">⁶⁴</span>

ה"נ מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא יום הכפורים איום הכפורים דתניא לא יטייל אדם בקורדקיסין בתוך ביתו אבל מטייל הוא באנפילין בתוך ביתו אלא לאו ש"מ כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד ש"מ

there is no difficulty: The one Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which forbids the wearing of a sock on the Day of Atonement. ');">⁶⁵</span> refers to a leather sock; the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That dealing with entry into the Temple court. ');">⁶⁶</span> to a felt sock. This explanation is indeed reasonable. For were you not to say so, a contradiction [would arise between one statement dealing with] the Day of Atonement and [another statement which also deals with] the Day of Atonement. For it was taught: No man may walk about in slippers in his house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Day of Atonement, when as a part of the affliction (cf. Lev. XVI, 29) the wearing of shoes is forbidden. ');">⁶¹</span> but he may walk about in his house in socks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is contradictory to the Baraitha previously cited there the wearing of socks was forbidden even where one only walked from one bed to another. ');">⁶⁷</span>

תניא כוותיה דרבא חלצה במנעל הנפרם שחופה את רוב הרגל בסנדל הנפחת שמקבל את רוב הרגל בסנדל של שעם ושל סיב בקב הקיטע במוק בסמיכת הרגלים באנפיליא של עור והחולצת מן הגדול

Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not'? ');">⁶⁸</span> it must be inferred that one statement refers to a leather sock and the other to a felt sock. This proves It. It was taught in agreement with Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a difference is drawn between a sock of felt or cloth and one of leather. While the former is not regarded as a shoe the latter is. ');">⁶⁹</span> [If a sister-in-law] performed <i>halizah</i> with a torn shoe which covered the greater part of the [levir's] foot, with a broken sandal which contained the greater part of his foot, with a sandal of cork<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, according to others, 'bamboo'. ');">⁷⁰</span> or of bast, with an artificial foot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levir. Lit., 'the hollowed stump of the cripple'. ');">⁷¹</span> with a felt sock, with a support of the feet,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the cushions which a cripple ties to his feet. ');">⁷²</span> or with a leather sock, and also where she performed <i>halizah</i> with an adult