Yevamot 208

אמר ליה רבי אלעזר (דברים כה, ט) ככה יעשה כל דבר שהוא מעשה מעכב א"ל רבי עקיבא משם ראיה ככה יעשה לאיש כל דבר שהוא מעשה באיש

SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: [SCRIPTURE STATED], SO SHALL BE DONE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9, emphasis on done. [H] (rt. [H]). V. infra n. 7. ');">¹</span> ANYTHING WHICH IS A DEED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H]). Cf. supra n. 6. ');">²</span> IS A SINE QUA NON.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The omission of any act, therefore, renders the halizah invalid. ');">³</span>

החרש שנחלץ והחרשת שחלצה וחולצת לקטן חליצתה פסולה קטנה שחלצה תחלוץ משתגדיל ואם לא חלצה חליצתה פסולה חלצה בשנים או בשלשה ונמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול חליצתה פסולה רבי שמעון ורבי יוחנן הסנדלר מכשירין ומעשה באחד שחלץ בינו לבינה בבית האסורים ובא מעשה לפני רבי עקיבא והכשיר:

R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM, FROM THIS VERY TEXT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from there'. ');">⁴</span> PROOF [MAY BE ADDUCED FOR MY VIEW]: SO SHALL BE DONE UNTO THE MAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. ibid., emphasis on man. ');">⁵</span> ONLY THAT WHICH IS TO BE DONE UNTO THE MAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, e.g., drawing off the shoe which is an act on the body of the levir. Spitting, therefore, is excluded. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא השתא דאמרת קריאה לא מיעכבא לפיכך אלם ואלמת שחלצו חליצתן כשירה

IF A DEAF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'deaf' spoken of in the Talmud literature is always to be understood as a deaf-mute. Cf. Ter. I, 2. ');">⁷</span> LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH, OR IF A DEAF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'deaf' spoken of in the Talmud literature is always to be understood as a deaf-mute. Cf. Ter. I, 2. ');">⁷</span> SISTER-IN-LAW PERFORMED HALIZAH, OR IF A HALIZAH WAS PERFORMED ON A MINOR, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID.

תנן חרש שנחלץ והחרשת שחלצה והחולצת מן הקטן חליצתה פסולה מ"ט לאו משום דלא בני קרייה נינהו לא משום דלאו בני דעה נינהו

[A SISTER-IN-LAW] WHO PERFORMED HALIZAH WHILE SHE WAS A MINOR MUST AGAIN PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> WHEN SHE BECOMES OF AGE; AND IF SHE DOES NOT AGAIN PERFORM IT, THE <i>HALIZAH</i> IS INVALID. IF [A SISTER-IN-LAW] PERFORMED HALIZAH IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO OR THREE MEN AND ONE OF THEM WAS DISCOVERED TO BE A RELATIVE OR ONE IN ANY OTHER WAY UNFIT [TO ACT AS JUDGE], HER HALIZAH IS INVALID; BUT R. SIMEON AND R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR DECLARE IT VALID. FURTHERMORE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not only in a case where there were at least two judges but even where no one beside the levir and the sister-in-law 'vas present. ');">⁸</span> IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A MAN SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH PRIVATELY BETWEEN HIMSELF AND HERSELF IN A PRISON, AND WHEN THE CASE CAME BEFORE R. AKIBA HE DECLARED THE HALIZAH VALID.

אי הכי אלם ואלמת נמי אמר רבא אלם ואלמת בני דעה נינהו ופומייהו הוא דכאיב להו

GEMARA. Raba said: Now that you have stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause of our Mishnah. ');">⁹</span> that the recital [of the formulae]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 718, n. 2. ');">¹⁰</span> is not a sine qua non, the <i>halizah</i> of a dumb man and a dumb woman is valid.

והא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי לפי שאינו באמר ואמרה אלא כי אתמר דרבא אסיפא אתמר חרש שנחלץ והחרשת שחלצה והחולצת מן הקטן חליצתה פסולה

We learned: IF A DEAF LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH, OR IF A DEAF SISTER-IN-LAW PERFORMED HALIZAH, OR IF A HALIZAH WAS PERFORMED ON A MINOR, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID. Now, what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the invalidity. ');">¹¹</span> is it not because these are unable to recite [the formulae]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 718, n. 12. How then could it be said that recital of the formulae is not an indispensable condition? ');">¹²</span> — No; because they are not in complete possession of their mental faculties.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor because of his immature age, and the deaf and dumb because of his physical defects which adversely affect his mental powers. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא השתא דאמרת קרייה מעכבא לפיכך אלם ואלמת שחלצו חליצתן פסולה ומתניתין כר' זירא

If so, [the same applies] also to a dumb man and to a dumb woman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is their halizah valid? ');">¹⁴</span> — Raba replied: A dumb man and a dumb woman are in full possession of their mental faculties, and it is only their mouth that troubles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pains ');">¹⁵</span> them. But, surely, at the school of R. Jannai it was explained [that the reason why a deaf-mute is unfit for <i>halizah</i> is] because [the Scriptural instruction], He shall say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXV, 8. ');">¹⁶</span>

דאמר ר' זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאין ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת

or She shall say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 7 and 9. ');">¹⁷</span> is inapplicable to such a case!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can halizah of a dumb person be regarded as valid! ');">¹⁸</span> — [Say] rather, if Raba's statement was ever made it was made in connection with the final clause: IF A DEAF LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH, OR IF A DEAF SISTER-IN-LAW PERFORMED HALIZAH, OR IF A HALIZAH WAS PERFORMED ON A MINOR, THE HALIZAH IS INVALID. [It is in connection with this that] Raba said: Now that you have stated that the recital of [the formulae]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 718, n. 2. ');">¹⁹</span>

שלחו ליה לאבוה דשמואל יבמה שרקקה תחלוץ מכלל דאיפסלא לה מאחין

is a sine qua non, the <i>halizah</i> of a dumb man or a dumb woman is invalid. And our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which stated that if she did not recite the formulae the halizah is valid ');">²⁰</span> [is based on the same principle] as [that propounded by] R. Zera; for R. Zera stated: Wherever proper mingling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the flour and the oil of a meal-offering. With one log of oil for sixty 'esronim (v. Glos.) of flour, and a maximum of sixty 'esronim in one pan, perfect mingling is possible. ');">²¹</span> is possible actual mingling is not essential,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if no mingling has taken place the meal-offering is acceptable. ');">²²</span>

מני אילימא ר' עקיבא השתא ומה במקום מצוה דאיכא למימר מידי דהוה אאימורים דכי ליתנהו לא מעכבי

but where proper mingling is not possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, e.g., the proportions of the mixture were less than a log for sixty 'esronim or where more than sixty 'esronim were placed in one pan. ');">²³</span> the actual mingling is a sine qua non.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 18b, 103b. With halizah also, though in the case of persons who are able to recite the prescribed formulae, the omission does not invalidate the halizah, in the case of dumb persons for whom it is physically impossible ever to recite the formulae, the omission of it does render the halizah invalid. ');">²⁴</span> [The following ruling] was sent to Samuel's father: A sister-inlaw who spat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the presence of the Beth din. ');">²⁵</span>

וכי איתנהו מעכבי

must perform the <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her act was not a part of a formal halizah ceremony, she forfeits thereby her right ever to contract levirate marriage with any of the levirs. ');">²⁶</span> This implies that she is rendered unfit for the brothers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 7. ');">²⁷</span> but whose view is this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an informal act of spitting renders the woman unfit for marriage with the brothers. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר ר"ע לא מעכבא מאחין איפסלא

If it be suggested [that it is that of] R. Akiba, it may be objected:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'now'. ');">²⁹</span> If R. Akiba said that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of spitting. ');">³⁰</span> was not indispensable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews what little significance R. Akiba attaches to this part of the ceremony. ');">³¹</span>

ואלא לר' אלעזר

even where the actual commandment [of <i>halizah</i> is being performed, in which case] it could be argued that it could be given the same force as [the burning] of the altar portions of the sacrifices, which is not an essential [rite] when [the portions] are not available,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, they were lost or became unfit for the altar owing to uncleanness. Cf. Pes. 59b. ');">³²</span> and yet is a <i>sine qua non</i> when they are available,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in the case of halizah, R. Akiba might have been expected to regard the spitting, which is an act that can be performed, as an essential. ');">³³</span> [would he regard it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of spitting. ');">³⁰</span>

והא שני דברים המתירין נינהו ושני דברים המתירין אין מעלין זה בלא זה

as a reason for the woman] to become thereby unfit for the brothers! [Should it be suggested], however, [that the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 9. ');">³⁴</span> is that] of R. Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Eleazar' (cf. supra p 718, n. 5); who stated in our Mishnah that the act of spitting was indispensable. ');">³⁵</span> surely [it may be retorted] are two acts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Drawing off the shoe and spitting. ');">³⁶</span>

אלא כרבי דתניא כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין הלחם אלא בשחיטה

which jointly effect permissibility,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the sister-in-law to marry a stranger. ');">³⁷</span> and any two acts that jointly effect permissibility are ineffective one without the other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Men. 89a. ');">³⁸</span> — Rather, the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 720, n. 9. ');">³⁹</span>

כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קדש הלחם שחט שלא לשמן וזרק לשמן לא קדש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי

is in agreement with that of Rabbi. For it was taught: The Pentecostal lambs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XXVIII, 26-31. ');">⁴⁰</span> cause the consecration of the bread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two loaves that were also brought to the Temple on Pentecost. V. Lev. XXIII, 17. ');">⁴¹</span> only by their slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The waving of the loaves and the lambs together, which precedes the slaughter of the latter, does not effect the proper consecration of the bread. ');">⁴²</span>

ר' אלעזר בר"ש אומר לעולם אינו קדוש עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן

In what manner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is consecration effected even after slaughtering of the lambs. ');">⁴³</span> If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name'. ');">⁴⁴</span> and their blood also was sprinkled with such intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name'. ');">⁴⁴</span>

ומי אמר ר' עקיבא רקיקה לא פסלה והתניא חלצה ולא

the bread becomes consecrated. If they were not slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., not for their name'; i.e., if they were intended to be merely sacrifices, not specifically those prescribed for the Pentecost festival. ');">⁴⁵</span> though their blood was sprinkled for the proper purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name'. ');">⁴⁴</span> the bread does not become consecrated. If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name'. ');">⁴⁴</span> and their blood was sprinkled for another purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 9. ');">⁴⁶</span> [the bread] is partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is subject to some, but not to all, of the restrictions of properly consecrated bread. ');">⁴⁷</span> so Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, however, stated: [The bread] is never consecrated unless the slaughtering [of the lambs] and the sprinkling of their blood were both intended for the proper purpose of the festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 8. Pes. 13b, Men. 47a. Thus it has been shewn that according to Rabbi, where two acts such as proper slaughtering and proper sprinkling are required, consecration is partially effected even though the former act alone was properly performed. Similarly, in respect of halizah, one of the prescribed acts is sufficient to render the woman unfit for the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁸</span> Did R. Akiba, however, hold that the act of spitting does not render the woman unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁹</span> Surely it was taught: If she drew off [the levir's shoe] but did not