Yevamot 206

רעה היא אצל צדיקים שנא' (בראשית לא, כד) השמר לך פן תדבר עם יעקב מטוב עד רע בשלמא רע לחיי אלא טוב אמאי לא אלא ש"מ טובתן של רשעים רעה היא אצל צדיקים

are evil for the righteous;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hor. 10b, Naz. 23b. ');">¹</span> For it is said, <i>Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or evil</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXXI, 24. ');">²</span> Now, as regards <i>evil</i>, one can perfectly well understand [the meaning]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] adv. or interr. (lit., 'for life'), 'very well'. ');">³</span> but why not <i>good</i>? From here then it may be inferred that the favour of the wicked is evil for the righteous.

בשלמא התם דלמא מדכר ליה שמא דעבודת כוכבים אלא הכא מאי רעה איכא

There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the warning to Laban. ');">⁴</span> one can well see the reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why even good should not be spoken. ');">⁵</span> since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Laban. ');">⁶</span> might possibly mention to him the name of his idol;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Gen. XXXI, 30. ');">⁷</span>

דקא שדי בה זוהמא דא"ר יוחנן בשעה שבא נחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן עובדי כוכבים שלא עמדו בהר סיני לא פסקה זוהמתן:

what evil, however, could be involved here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the incident with Jael. ');">⁸</span> — That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: <font>When the serpent copulated with Eve,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition. ');">⁹</span></font> he infused her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the human species. ');">¹⁰</span> with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation. ');">¹¹</span>

חלצה במנעל שאינו שלו וכו': תנו רבנן נעלו אין לי אלא נעלו נעל של כל אדם מנין ת"ל נעל נעל מכל מקום

came to an end, the lust of the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.</font> IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH A SANDAL THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM etc. Our Rabbis taught: [From the expression] <i>His shoe</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">¹²</span> I would only know that his own<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's. ');">¹³</span> shoe [is suitable];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his own halizah. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"כ מה ת"ל נעלו נעלו הראוי לו פרט לגדול שאין יכול להלוך בו ופרט לקטן שאינו חופה רוב רגלו ופרט לסנדל המסוליים שאין לו עקב

whence, however, is it deduced that anybody's shoe is suitable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the halizah of any other person. ');">¹⁵</span> Hence was the term <i>'shoe'</i> repeated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was stated shoe (bis)'. ');">¹⁶</span> thus indicating the suitability of anyone's shoe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from any place'. ');">¹⁷</span> If so, why was the expression, '<i>His shoe</i>', at all used? — '<i>His shoe</i>' implies one which he can wear, excluding a large one in which he cannot walk, excluding a small one which does not cover the greater part of his foot, and excluding also a sandal which consists of a sole but has no heel.

אביי הוה קאי קמיה דרב יוסף אתאי יבמה לחלוץ אמר ליה הב ליה סנדלך יהיב ליה סנדלא דשמאלא א"ל אימר דאמור רבנן דיעבד לכתחלה מי אמר

Abaye once stood in the presence of R. Joseph when a sister-in-law came to perform <i>halizah</i>. 'Give him',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹⁸</span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">¹⁹</span> said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');">²⁰</span> your sandal', and [Abaye] gave him' his left sandal. 'It might be suggested', he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">¹⁹</span>

א"ל אי הכי סנדל שאין שלו נמי אימר דאמור רבנן דיעבד לכתחלה מי אמור א"ל הכי קאמינא לך הב ליה ואקני ליה:

said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');">²⁰</span> 'that the Rabbis spoke<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In ruling that halizah with a left-foot sandal is valid. V. our Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> only of a fait accompli; did they, however, speak also of what is permissible ab initio?' The other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');">²⁰</span> replied: If so, in respect of a sandal that is not the levir's own, it might also be suggested that the Rabbis spoke<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 4, mutatis mutandis. ');">²²</span>

סנדל של עץ: מאן תנא אמר שמואל ר"מ היא דתנן הקיטע יוצא בקב שלו דברי ר"מ ר' יוסי אוסר אבוה דשמואל אומר במחופה עור ודברי הכל:

only of a fait accompli; did they, however, speak also of what is permissible ab initio! 'I', the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">¹⁹</span> answered him, 'meant to tell you this: Give it to him and transfer possession to him'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a gift, so that the shoe might become the levir's property. ');">²³</span> A WOODEN SANDAL. Who is the Tanna [whose view is expressed in this ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting halizah with a wooden sandal. ');">²⁴</span> — Samuel replied: The view is 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. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא סנדל המוסגר לא תחלוץ בו ואם חלצה חליצתה כשרה סנדל המוחלט לא תחלוץ בו ואם חלצה חליצתה פסולה

with his wooden stump; so R. Meir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regards the cripple's wooden stump as a proper shoe. ');">²⁶</span> while R. Jose forbids it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 25b. As in respect of the Sabbath R. Meir regards the stump as a shoe, so also in respect of halizah does he regard it as a shoe. ');">²⁷</span> Samuel's father explained:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. Cf. supra n. 7. ');">²⁸</span> With one that is covered with leather, [the ruling representing] the general opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All agree that a wooden stump that is furnished with a leather covering is admissible for halizah. ');">²⁹</span>

רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר אחד סנדל המוסגר ואחד סנדל המוחלט לא תחלוץ בו ואם חלצה חליצתה כשרה

R. Papi stated in the name of Raba: No <i>halizah</i> may be performed with a sandal that is under observation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'locked up', a sandal that, in accordance with Lev. XIII, 50, is shut up for a certain period so that it may be ascertained whether the plague-spot that appeared on it is of the clean or unclean type. Cf. ibid. 47ff. ');">³⁰</span> a <i>halizah</i>, however, that has been performed [with it] is valid. No <i>halizah</i> may be performed with a sandal, the leprous condition of which has been confirmed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], rt. [H], 'to tie up' (Jast.). ');">³¹</span> and even a <i>halizah</i> that had already been performed [with it] is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a sandal, being doomed to destruction by burning (Lev. XIII, 55), is legally regarded as non-existent. ');">³²</span> R. Papa, however, stated in the name of Raba: No <i>halizah</i> may be performed either with a sandal under observation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'locked up', a sandal that, in accordance with Lev. XIII, 50, is shut up for a certain period so that it may be ascertained whether the plague-spot that appeared on it is of the clean or unclean type. Cf. ibid. 47ff. ');">³⁰</span>

מיתיבי בית המוסגר מטמא מתוכו מוחלט מתוכו ומאחוריו וזה וזה מטמאין בביאה

or with one the leprous condition of which had been confirmed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], rt. [H], 'to tie up' (Jast.). ');">³¹</span> a <i>halizah</i>, however, that had been performed [with either] is valid. An objection was raised: A house locked up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of observation. Cf. p. 712, n. 13 and Lev. XIV, 34ff. ');">³³</span> imparts uncleanness from within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By contact. ');">³⁴</span>

ואי ס"ד כדמכתת דמי והא בעינן (ויקרא יד, מו) והבא אל הבית וליכא

[and a house] confirmed in its leprous condition [imparts uncleanness]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By contact. ');">³⁴</span> both within and without. The one as well as the other imparts uncleanness to anyone entering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. XIII, 4 though no contact took place. ');">³⁵</span> Now, if it is to be assumed [that an object doomed to destruction is regarded] as already crushed to dust,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, consequently, as legally non-existent. Cf. supra note 15. ');">³⁶</span> surely [it may be objected] the requirement [there]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a leprous house. ');">³⁷</span>

שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא יד, מה) ונתץ את הבית אפילו בשעת נתיצה קרוי בית

is that He goeth into the house;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 46, emphasis on house. Only then is the person unclean. ');">³⁸</span> but [such a house] is not in existence!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is condemned to be broken down. V. supra n. 4. How, then, could uncleanness be imparted by that which does not exist? ');">³⁹</span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a leprous house. ');">³⁷</span> it is different, because Scripture said, And he shall break down the house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 45. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ש מטלית שיש בו שלש על שלש אף על פי שאין בו כזית כיון שנכנס רובה לבית טהור טמאתהו מאי לאו מוחלטת לא מוסגרת

even at the time of breaking down it is still called 'house'. Come and hear: A [leprous] strip of cloth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. XIII, 47. ');">⁴¹</span> measuring three [finger-breadths] by three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are the minimum measurements required for a piece of cloth to be termed garment. ');">⁴²</span> even if [in volume] it does not amount to the size of an olive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in the case of a corpse is the minimum that may impart uncleanness. ');">⁴³</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא היו בה כמה זיתים כיון שנכנס ממנה כזית לבית טהור טמאתהו

causes, as soon as the greater part of it has entered a clean house, the defilement of that house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Neg. VII. A leprous garment, like a leper, imparts uncleanness to all objects in a house as soon as it is brought into that house, though none of the objects have come in actual contact with it. ');">⁴⁴</span> Does not [this refer to a strip of cloth the uncleanness of which] had been confirmed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which it is doomed to destruction by burning. Now, if what is doomed to destruction is legally regarded as non-existent, how could such a strip impart uncleanness? ');">⁴⁵</span> No; [it refers to] one under observation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 712, n. 13. ');">⁴⁶</span> But if so, read the final clause: If in volume<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of a strip of cloth of the size mentioned. ');">⁴⁷</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא מוחלטת היינו דאיתקש למת אלא אי אמרת מוסגרת אמאי איתקש למת

it constituted the size of many olives,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the material, for instance, was very thick. ');">⁴⁸</span> as soon as a portion of it of the size of an olive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though its measurements were less than the greater part of three finger-breadths by three. ');">⁴⁹</span> enters a clean house, it causes the uncleanness of that house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. XIII, 4. ');">⁵⁰</span> Now, if you grant [that the reference is to a strip] of confirmed leprosy one can well understand why it was compared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the fixing of its minimum, in respect of imparting uncleanness, to be that of the size of an olive. ');">⁵¹</span>

שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא יג, נב) ושרף את הבגד אפילו בשעת שריפה קרוי בגד

to a corpse;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also imparts uncleanness if a small part of it of the size of an olive only remained. Confirmed leprosy may well be compared to a corpse. Cf. Num. XII, 22: Let her not&nbsp;… be as one dead. The reference is to Miriam who was at the time leprous (v. ibid. 10) and Aaron requested Moses that she may not be confirmed in her leprosy and thus become like a corpse. ');">⁵²</span> if, however, you maintain [that the reference is to a strip] under observation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 712, n. 13 mutatis mutandis. ');">⁵³</span> why [it may be objected] was it compared to a corpse! — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of uncleanness in respect of the strip of leprous cloth. ');">⁵⁴</span> it is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the law of halizah where an object doomed to destruction is regarded as non-existent. ');">⁵⁵</span>

וליגמר מיניה איסור מטומאה לא גמרינן

for Scripture said, And he shall burn the garment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 52, emphasis on burn and garment. ');">⁵⁶</span> even at the time of burning it is still called 'garment.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it may impart uncleanness even where it is doomed to destruction. ');">⁵⁷</span> Then let [<i>halizah</i>] be deduced from it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a sandal of confirmed leprosy should also be admissible for halizah. ');">⁵⁸</span> — A prohibition cannot be deduced from [the laws of] uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which form a peculiar class of their own. ');">⁵⁹</span>

אמר רבא הלכתא אחד סנדל המוסגר ואחד סנדל שמוחלט ואחד סנדל של עבודת כוכבים לא תחלוץ ואם חלצה חליצתה כשרה של תקרובת עבודת כוכבים

Raba stated: The law is that [a sister-in-law] may not perform <i>halizah</i> either with a sandal under observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 712, n. 13. ');">⁶⁰</span> or with a sandal of confirmed leprosy, or with a sandal belonging to an idol;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is put on the idol when it is moved from place to place (Rashi). ');">⁶¹</span> if, however, she has performed <i>halizah</i> [with either of these], her <i>halizah</i> is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the sandal under observation is not doomed to destruction; the sandal of confirmed leprosy is regarded as a garment despite its doom, (as deduced supra from Lev. XIII, 52); while the sandal of the idol, being only an accessory to it, is not doomed to burning. Though no benefit may be derived therefrom it is admissible for halizah, because the fulfilment of a precept is not regarded as a 'benefit'. ');">⁶²</span> [With a sandal] that was offered to an idol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As part of its worship, and which must consequently be destroyed. ');">⁶³</span>