Yevamot 207

ושל עיר הנדחת ושל זקן העשוי לכבודו לא תחלוץ ואם חלצה חליצתה פסולה

or [with one] that belonged to a condemned city<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the spoil of which was to be burned. Cf. Deut. XIII, 13ff. ');">¹</span> or [with one] that was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a part of his shroud. ');">²</span> in honour of a [dead] elder,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being used for walking it cannot be regarded as a shoe. ');">³</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי מאי שנא זקן העשוי לכבודו דלאו להילוכא עביד דבי דינא נמי לאו להילוכא עביד

no <i>halizah</i> may be performed; and even a <i>halizah</i> that has been performed with it is invalid. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: In what respect is [the sandal] that was made in honour of a [dead] elder different [from an ordinary sandal]? Is it because it was not made for walking? That of the <i>Beth din</i> also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The approved sandal kept by a Beth din for the special purpose of halizah ceremonials. ');">⁴</span> was not made for walking! — The other replied: Should the attendant of the <i>Beth din</i> use it for walking, would the <i>Beth din</i> object!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably not. Hence it may well be regarded as a shoe made for the purpose of walking. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל אילו מסגי ביה שלוחא דבי דינא מי קפיד עליה דיינא:

MISHNAH. IF [A SISTER-IN-LAW] PERFORMED THE <i>HALIZAH</i> AT NIGHT, HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID. R. ELEAZAR, HOWEVER, REGARDS IT AS INVALID. [IF SHE PERFORMED IT] WITH [THE LEVIR'S] LEFT SHOE, HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS INVALID, BUT R. ELEAZAR DECLARES IT TO BE VALID. GEMARA. May it be suggested that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna and R. Eleazar in our Mishnah. ');">⁶</span> differ on the following principle: The one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חלצה בלילה חליצתה כשרה ורבי אלעזר פוסל בשמאל חליצתה פסולה ור' אלעזר מכשיר:

holds the opinion that lawsuits are to be compared to plagues,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both having been mentioned in the same Scriptural verse (Deut. XXI, 5). As plagues may be examined by the priest in the daytime only (based on Lev. XIII, 24: 'On the day when raw flesh is seen in him') so may lawsuits also be dealt with by the court in the daytime only. Halizah involving as it does the question of the widow's kethubah is regarded as coming under the category of lawsuits. ');">⁸</span> while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar. ');">⁹</span> holds the opinion that lawsuits cannot be compared to plagues?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. 34b, Nid. 500 ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מקשינן ריבים לנגעים ומר סבר לא מקשינן ריבים לנגעים

— No; all agree that lawsuits cannot be compared to plagues; for should they be compared, even the close of a legal process could not have been allowed at night.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But, as a matter of fact, this was explicitly allowed. Cf. Sanh. 32a. ');">¹¹</span> Here, however, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna and R. Eleazar in our Mishnah. ');">¹²</span> differ on the following principle: Ones Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar. ');">⁹</span>

לא דכ"ע לא מקשינן ריבים לנגעים דאי מקשינן אפילו גמר דין בלילה נמי לא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר חליצה כתחלת דין דמיא ומר סבר חליצה כגמר דין דמיא

holds that <i>halizah</i> is like the commencement of legal proceedings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must take place in the daytime only. Cf. Sanh. 34b. ');">¹³</span> and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">¹⁴</span> holds that <i>halizah</i> is like the close of the proceedings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is allowed even in the night-time. Cf. p. 715, n. 8. ');">¹⁵</span>

רבה בר חייא קטוספאה עבד עובדא במוק וביחידי ובלילה אמר שמואל כמה רב גובריה דעביד כיחידאה

Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others, 'Raba'. Cf. Alfasi and [H]. ');">¹⁶</span> b. Hiyya of Ktesifon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the eastern bank of the Tigris in the south of Assyria. ');">¹⁷</span> carried out a <i>halizah</i> with a felt sock, with no other men present, at night. Said Samuel: How great is his authority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ironical exclamation. ');">¹⁸</span>

מאי קשיא אי מוק סתמא תניא אי לילה סתמא תניא

in acting on the view of one individual!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of the majority being against this opinion. ');">¹⁹</span> What [however, could be his] objection?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against Rabbah's action. ');">²⁰</span> If [against the use of the] felt sock, an anonymous Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was taught'. ');">²¹</span>

אלא יחידי קא קשיא ליה היכי עביד ביחידי דיחידאה קתני לה דתנן חלצה בשנים או בשלשה ונמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול חליצתה פסולה ור"ש ורבי יוחנן הסנדלר מכשירים ומעשה באחד שחלץ בינו לבינה בבית האסורים ובא מעשה לפני ר"ע והכשיר

[permits it]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 102b. And the halachah, as a rule, is in agreement with the anonymous ruling. ');">²²</span> If [against his acting at] night, our anonymous Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi, s.v. [H] a.l. Cur. edd., it was taught'. ');">²³</span> [permits this]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 9. ');">²⁴</span>

ואמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אין הלכה כאותו הזוג ואב"א כולהו נמי יחידאה קתני להו דתניא א"ר ישמעאל בר' יוסי אני ראיתי את רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע שחלץ במוק ביחידי ובלילה:

— His objection, however, is [that Rabbah acted] alone. How [he objected] could he act alone when it was only one individual who expressed approval of such a procedure!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taught it'. ');">²⁵</span> For we learned: If [a sister-in-law] performed <i>halizah</i> in the presence of two or three men, and one of them. was discovered to be a relative or in any other way unfit [to act as judge], her <i>halizah</i> is invalid; but R. Simeon and R. Johanan ha-Sandelar declare it valid. Furthermore, it once happened that a man submitted to <i>halizah</i> with none present but himself and herself in a prison, and when the case came before R. Akiba he declared the <i>halizah</i> valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is proved that it is an individual opinion, that of R. Akiba, that permits halizah in the absence of witnesses. ');">²⁶</span> And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. insert: 'And R. Joseph b. Manyumi stated in the name of R. Nahman that the halachah is not in agreement with that pair.' This occurs infra 105b, but is irrelevant here. ');">²⁷</span>

בשמאל חליצתה כו': מ"ט דרבנן אמר עולא ילפינן רגל (ויקרא יד, יד) רגל ממצורע מה להלן דימין אף כאן דימין

if you prefer I might say: All these [rulings] also are the views of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taught them'. ');">²⁸</span> an individual. For it was taught: R. Ishmael son of R. Jose stated, 'I saw R. Ishmael b. Elisha carry out a <i>halizah</i> with a felt sock, with no other men present, and [this occurred] at night'. WITH [THE LEVIR'S] LEFT SHOE HER <i>HALIZAH</i> etc. What is the Rabbis' reason? 'Ulla replied: [The meaning of] 'foot' [here]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9, dealing with halizah. ');">²⁹</span>

ורבי אלעזר לא יליף רגל רגל ממצורע והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לרציעה שהיא באזן הימנית נאמר כאן אזן ונאמר להלן אזן מה להלן ימין אף כאן ימין

is deduced from that of foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 14. ');">³⁰</span> in the context of the leper. As there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the leper. ');">³¹</span> it is the right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text explicitly mentions it. ');">³²</span>

אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר ר' יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה

so here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In halizah. ');">³³</span> also it must be the right. Does not R. Eleazar, then, deduce [the meaning of] foot [here]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In halizah. ');">³³</span> from that of foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 14. ');">³⁴</span>

רבא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך אזן אזן מופני רגל רגל לא מופני

in the context of the leper? Surely, it was taught: R. Eleazar stated, Whence is it deduced that the boring [of the ear of a Hebrew slave]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who refuses to go out free. V. Ex. XXI, 5f. ');">³⁵</span> must be performed on his right ear? — For the term ear was used here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">³⁶</span> and the term 'ear' was also used elsewhere;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the leper. Lev. XIV, 14. ');">³⁷</span>

וכי לא מופני מאי פירכא איכא איכא למיפרך מה למצורע שכן טעון עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת:

as there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the leper. Lev. XIV, 14. ');">³⁷</span> it is the right ear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text explicitly mentions it. ');">³⁸</span> so here also it is the right ear!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 15a, which shews that R. Eleazar does make deduction from the terms used in the context of the leper. ');">³⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חלצה ורקקה אבל לא קראה חליצתה כשרה קראה ורקקה אבל לא חלצה חליצתה פסולה חלצה וקראה אבל לא רקקה רבי אלעזר אומר חליצתה פסולה ר"ע אומר חליצתה כשרה

— R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: The statement is to be reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. It is R. Eleazar, and not the first Tanna, who ruled that halizah with the left shoe is invalid. ');">⁴⁰</span> Raba said: There is, in fact, no need to reverse [the statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">³⁶</span> the reply to the objection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to why R. Eleazar draws an analogy between the terms of ear and not between those of foot. ');">⁴¹</span> being that] the terms 'ear'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ear, ear'. ');">⁴²</span> [are both] free [for the deduction];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both in the case of leper (Lev. XIV, 14 and 17) and in that of the slave (Ex. XXI, 6 and Deut. XV, 17) one of the terms is superfluous and, therefore, free for the deduction that the boring must be performed on the right ear. ');">⁴³</span> the terms of 'foot,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'foot, foot'. ');">⁴⁴</span> however, are not free for deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in the context of the leper the term foot occurs twice (Lev. XIV. 14 and 17), in that of halizah it appears only once (Deut. XXV, 9). As in the latter text it is required for the context itself no deduction can be made from such an analogy unless it is one that is free from all possible objection. ');">⁴⁵</span> But even if [one of the texts] is not free for deduction, what objection can be raised [against the deduction]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 14 final clause. Since no refutation can be advanced, the deduction, though based on texts of which one only is free for the purpose, should hold! ');">⁴⁶</span> — It may be objected: The case of the leper is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that of halizah. ');">⁴⁷</span> since he is also required [to bring] cedar-wood and hyssop and scarlet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the day of his cleansing. (Cf. Lev. XIV, 4). The laws of the leper, being in this respect more rigid than those of halizah, may also be more rigid in respect of the requirement of the right shoe. Hence R. Eleazar's opinion that no deduction is to be made from the analogous words, and that halizah with the left shoe is, therefore, valid. ');">⁴⁸</span> MISHNAH. [IF A SISTER-IN-LAW] DREW OFF [THE LEVIR'S SHOE] AND SPAT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXV, 9. ');">⁴⁹</span> BUT DID NOT RECITE [THE FORMULAE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to the halizah she declares (a) 'My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me' (ibid. 7). After the halizah she exclaims, (b) 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house' (ibid. 9). ');">⁵⁰</span> HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The omission of an act, but not that of a formula, renders a halizah invalid. V. infra. ');">⁵¹</span> IF SHE RECITED [THE FORMULAE] AND SPAT, BUT DID NOT DRAW OFF THE SHOE, HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS INVALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">⁵²</span> IF SHE DREW OFF THE SHOE AND RECITED [THE FORMULAE] BUT DID NOT SPIT, HER <i>HALIZAH</i>, R. ELIEZER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. marg. note. Cur. edd., 'Eleazar'. ');">⁵³</span> STATED, IS INVALID; AND R. AKIBA STATED: HER <i>HALIZAH</i> IS VALID.