Yevamot 205

בין עומד בין יושב בין מוטה והחולצת מן הסומא חליצתה כשרה אבל במנעל הנפרם שאין חופה את רוב הרגל בסנדל הנפחת שאינו מקבל את רוב הרגל ובסמיכת הידים ובאנפיליא של בגד וחולצת מן הקטן חליצתה פסולה

whether he was standing, sitting or reclining, and also if her <i>halizah</i> was performed with a blind man, her <i>halizah</i> is valid. [If her <i>halizah</i>] however, [was performed] with a torn shoe that did not cover the greater part of the [levir's] foot, with a broken sandal which does not hold the greater part of his foot, with a support of the hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 6, one of the cushions tied to a cripple's hands. ');">¹</span> or with a cloth sock, and also where her <i>halizah</i> was performed with a minor, her <i>halizah</i> is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it has been shown that in respect of halizah a legal distinction is made between the two kinds of sock. Cf. supra n. 3. ');">²</span> Whose [view is represented in the first statement mentioning] the artificial foot?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding it as a proper shoe. Cf. supra n. 5. ');">³</span>

קב הקיטע מני רבי מאיר היא דתנן הקיטע יוצא בקב שלו דברי רבי מאיר ר' יוסי אוסר

— [Obviously that of] R. Meir, for we learned: A cripple may go out [on the Sabbath]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When carrying from one domain into another is forbidden. ');">⁴</span> with his artificial foot;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is regarded as a shoe which one may wear on the Sabbath. ');">⁵</span> so R. Meir, and R. Jose forbids it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 65b, Yoma 78b. ');">⁶</span>

באנפיליא של בגד אתאן לרבנן

[but the latter statement]: 'With a cloth-sock'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That halizah with it is invalid. ');">⁷</span> can only represent the view of the Rabbis!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who differ from R. Meir in regarding neither the artificial foot nor the cloth sock as a shoe. According to R. Meir a cloth sock, like an artificial foot, is regarded as a shoe. Does then the Baraitha represent the contradictory views of R. Meir and the Rabbis! ');">⁸</span> — Abaye replied: Since the latter statement [represents the opinion of] the Rabbis, the first also [must represent the opinion of] the Rabbis, the first [dealing with an artificial foot that was] covered with leather.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence its admissibility as a shoe for halizah. ');">⁹</span>

אמר אביי מדסיפא רבנן רישא נמי רבנן ורישא במחופה עור

Said Raba to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');">¹⁰</span> What, however, [is the law if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The artificial foot. ');">¹¹</span> was] not covered with leather? Is it then unfit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For halizah. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה רבא אבל אין מחופה עור מאי פסול אי הכי אדתני סיפא באנפיליא של בגד ליפלוג בדידה בד"א במחופה עור אבל אין מחופה עור פסול

If so, instead of teaching in the latter statement, 'With a cloth sock',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That halizah with it is invalid. ');">¹³</span> a distinction should have been drawn in [respect of the artificial foot] itself: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The admissibility of the artificial foot for halizah. ');">¹⁴</span> applies only where it was covered with leather, but if it was not covered with leather it is unfit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For halizah. ');">¹²</span>

אלא אמר רבא מדרישא רבי מאיר סיפא נמי רבי מאיר האי מגין והאי לא מגין

Rather, said Raba, since the first statement represents the view of R. Meir, the latter also represents the view of R. Meir, the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The artificial foot. ');">¹¹</span> affording protection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Ieg. Hence it is regarded as a shoe that is admissible for halizah. ');">¹⁵</span> while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A cloth sock. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר אמימר האי מאן דחליץ צריך למדחסיה לכרעיה

affords no protection.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence its unfitness for halizah. It is not the material of which it is made but its unsuitability as a covering of the foot that causes its unfitness. ');">¹⁷</span> Amemar stated: When a levir submits to <i>halizah</i> he must press down his foot [to the ground]. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Was it not taught [that the <i>halizah</i> was valid] 'whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹⁸</span> was standing, sitting or reclining'? — Read: And in all these cases, only if he pressed his foot [to the ground].

אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והתניא בין עומד בין יושב בין מוטה אימא ולעולם דדחיס לכרעיה

Amemar further stated: A man who walks on the upper side of his foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to a deformity in his foot (cf. Rashi). [H], the 'fibula', 'splint-bone's 'his feet being turned outward so as to form an obtuse angle' (Jast.). ');">¹⁹</span> must not submit to <i>halizah</i>. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But, surely, it was taught: 'Supports of the feet';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are among the objects that may be used as shoes for the purpose of halizah. ');">²⁰</span> does not [this signify] that such [a cripple]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the conditions just described. ');">²¹</span>

ואמר אמימר האי מאן דמסגי על ליחתא דכרעיה לא חליץ אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והתניא סמוכות הרגלים לאו דחליץ בה איהו לא דיהיב ליה לאחר וחליץ

may submit to <i>halizah</i> with a support! No; [the meaning is] that he may give it to another person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose foot is not deformed. ');">²²</span> who is allowed to submit to <i>halizah</i> [with it]. Said R. Ashi: According to Amemar's ruling neither Bar Oba nor Bar Kipof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were men with deformed feet. Cf. M.K. 25b. ');">²³</span>

אמר רב אשי למאי דקאמר אמימר לאו בר אובא חליץ ולאו בר קיפוף חליץ:

could submit to <i>halizah</i>. [IF THE SHOE WAS WORN] BELOW THE KNEE etc. A contradiction was pointed out: Regalim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Ex. XXIII, 14 (E.V., times) referring to the Festival pilgrimages to Jerusalem. ');">²⁴</span> excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since [H] may also be taken as the plural of [H] foot. ');">²⁵</span>

מן הארכובה ולמטה כו': ורמינהי רגלים פרט לבעלי קבין

stump-legged cripples!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. 3a. [H] v. Glos. s.v. kab. As these cripples are deprived of their feet they (v. supra n. 2) are exempt from the duty of the pilgrimages (v. supra n. 1). Thus it follows that the leg is not regarded as a 'foot', which is contrary to our Mishnah! ');">²⁶</span> — Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of halizah. ');">²⁷</span> it is different since it was written in Scripture, From off his foot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9, [H], lit., 'from above his foot', i.e., any part of the leg. ');">²⁸</span>

שאני הכא דכתיב (דברים כה, ט) מעל רגלו אי הכי למעלה מן הארכובה נמי מעל ולא מעל דמעל

If so, [<i>halizah</i> should be permissible] above the knee also! — From off but not 'from off the from off'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 5. The part of the leg between the knee and the foot is 'above the foot'; and the part above the knee is 'above the above'. ');">²⁹</span> Said R. Papa: From this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah which permits halizah on any part of the leg below the knee. ');">³⁰</span> it may be inferred that the istewira<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The ankle-bone (talus) v. Katzenelsohn, Talmud und Medizin, p. 384.] ');">³¹</span>

אמר רב פפא שמע מינה האי איסתוירא עד ארעא נחית דאי סלקא דעתך מיפסק פסיק הוה ליה איהו מעל ושוקא מעל דמעל אמר רב אשי אפילו תימא מיפסק פסיק כל דבהדי כרעא ככרעא דמי:

reaches down to the ground;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is legally no division between the foot and this bone. ');">³²</span> for were it to be imagined that it is disconnected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the foot. ');">³³</span> it [would be situated] above [the foot], while the leg [would be] above that which is above [the foot].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And halizah on that part would be invalid. ');">³⁴</span>

מן הארכובה ולמעלה: מתיב רב כהנא (דברים כח, נז) ובשליתה היוצאת מבין רגליה אמר אביי בשעה שכורעת לילד נועצת עקביה בירכותיה ויולדת

R. Ashi, however, said: It may even be said that it is disconnected, but any part adjacent to the foot is legally regarded as the foot itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence any part between it and the knee may be legally regarded as directly above the foot. ');">³⁵</span> ABOVE THE KNEE. R. Kahana raised an objection: And against her afterbirth that cometh out from between her feet!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVIII, 57; which shews that the region of the thighs is also included in the term of feet. ');">³⁶</span> — Abaye replied: When a woman kneels down to give birth she presses her heels against her thighs and thus gives birth. Come and hear: He had neither dressed his feet nor trimmed his beard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Sam. XIX, 25. Cf. supra n. 13. ');">³⁷</span>

ת"ש (שמואל ב יט, כה) לא עשה רגליו ולא עשה שפמו לישנא מעליא תא שמע (שמואל א כד, ד) ויבא שאול להסך את רגליו לישנא מעליא

— This is a euphemistic expression. Come and hear: And Saul went in to cover his feet!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XXIV, 4, expression for urination. ');">³⁸</span> — This is a euphemistic expression. Come and hear: Surely he is covering his feet in the cabinet of the cool chamber!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges III, 24. Cf. supra n. 15. ');">³⁹</span> — This is a euphemistic expression. Between her feet etc.!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. V, 27. Cf. supra nn. 13 and 15. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ש (שופטים ג, כד) אך מסיך הוא רגליו בחדר המקירה לישנא מעליא בין רגליה כו' לישנא מעליא

— This is a euphemistic expression. &nbsp; &nbsp; R. Johanan Said: That <font>profligate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sisera. ');">⁴¹</span></font> had seven sexual connections on that day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he fled from Barak and Deborah. ');">⁴²</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן שבע בעילות בעל אותו רשע באותו היום שנאמר (שופטים ה, כז) בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב בין רגליה כרע נפל באשר כרע שם נפל שדוד והא קא מתהניא מעבירה אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחי כל טובתן של רשעים

for it is said, <font><i>Between her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay; at her feet he sunk, he fell; where he sunk there he fell down dead</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges V, 27. Each of the expression he sunk [H] and he fell [H] occurs three times, and he lay [H] occurs once. ');">⁴³</span></font> But, surely she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jael. ');">⁴⁴</span> derived gratification from the transgression! R. Johanan replied in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: <i>All the favours of the wicked<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which they do for the righteous. ');">⁴⁵</span></i> </i>