Yevamot 209

רקקה ולא קראה חליצתה כשירה רקקה ולא חלצה ולא קראה חליצתה פסולה קראה ולא רקקה ולא חלצה אין כאן בית מיחוש

spit nor recite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prescribed formulae. V. supra p. 718. n. 2. ');">¹</span> her <i>halizah</i> is valid. If she spat but did not draw off the shoe nor recite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 721, n. 14. ');">²</span> her <i>halizah</i> is invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the woman is rendered unfit for the levirate marriage. V. infra. ');">³</span>

מני אילימא רבי אליעזר חלצה ולא רקקה ולא קראה חליצתה כשירה והא אמר רבי אליעזר (דברים כה, ט) ככה יעשה דבר שהוא מעשה מעכב אלא פשיטא רבי עקיבא וקתני רקקה ולא חלצה ולא קראה חליצתה פסולה למאן

if she recited<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 721, n. 14. ');">²</span> but did not spit nor draw off the shoe, there is here no reason whatsoever for apprehension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even levirate marriage is permitted. ');">⁴</span> Now, whose [view is here represented]? If it be suggested [it is that of] R. Eliezer, [how could it be stated that] 'if she drew off [the levir's shoe] but did not spit nor recite, her <i>halizah</i> is valid' when, surely, R. Eliezer said: SO SHALL BE DONE, ANYTHING WHICH IS A DEED IS A SINE QUA NON? It is consequently obvious [that it is the view of] R. Akiba; and yet it was stated that 'if she spat but did not draw off the shoe nor recite, her <i>halizah</i> is invalid'. To whom, [however, does the invalidity cause her to be forbidden]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression vjuxp, here rendered 'invalid', bears in the original a double meaning: (a) the halizah itself is invalid and (b) the woman becomes invalid, i.e., unfit to contract a marriage. V. infra note 8. ');">⁵</span>

אילימא לעלמא פשיטא מי הויא חליצה דאישתריא לעלמא אלא לאו לאחין שמע מינה

If it be suggested, 'To strangers';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to the world', i.e., as the halizah is invalid the woman still remains forbidden to all men except the levirs. ');">⁶</span> is not this [it may be retorted] self-evident? Is it a <i>halizah</i> [like this that would enable the sister-inlaw] to become free to marry a stranger!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. Mere spitting could not possibly be regarded as a proper halizah. ');">⁷</span> It must therefore, be admitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not'. ');">⁸</span>

ולר"ע מאי שנא רקיקה ומאי שנא קרייה

[that the validity refers to her state of prohibition] to the brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second meaning of vkuxp (v. supra note 4. (b) being that the woman is forbidden to contract the levirate marriage with any of the brothers. Cf. Git. 24b. ');">⁹</span> Thus you have our contention proved. According to R. Akiba, wherein lies the legal difference between the act of spitting and that of reciting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both acts are not indispensable, why does the former act according to R. Akiba cause the sister-in-law to be forbidden to the brothers (as has just been proved), while the latter does not (R. Akiba having stated supra that there was 'no reason whatsoever for apprehension')? ');">¹⁰</span>

קרייה דאיתא בין בתחלה בין בסוף לא מיחלפא ליה רקיקה דבתחלה ליתא ולבסוף איתא מיחלפא ליה ואתו למישרי חלוצה לאחין

— Recital<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the prescribed formulae. ');">¹¹</span> that must take place both at the commencement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 718, n. 2 (a). ');">¹²</span> [of the <i>halizah</i> ceremony] and at its conclusion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit. n. 2 (b). ');">¹³</span>

ואיכא דאמרי הכי שלחו ליה יבמה שרקקה תחלוץ ואינה צריכה לרוק פעם אחרת כי ההיא דאתיא לקמיה דרבי אמי הוה יתיב רבי אבא בר ממל קמיה רקקה מקמי דתחלוץ אמר ליה רבי אמי חלוץ לה ושרי לה תיגרא

cannot be mistaken;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a proper halizah. Where the sister-in-law is allowed to marry a levir it is obvious to all who know of the recital that it was only the first formula that was recited and that no halizah had followed it. ');">¹⁴</span> spitting, however, which does not take place at the beginning but only at the end, might be mistaken [for a proper <i>halizah</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anyone witnessing the spitting would form the opinion that the other parts of the halizah ceremonial had preceded it. ');">¹⁵</span> and thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were she subsequently permitted to marry a levir. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה ר' אבא והא בעינן מירק הא רקקה לה ותירוק ומה בכך נפיק מיניה חורבא דאי אמרת תיהדר ותירוק אמרי רקיקה קמייתא לית בה מששא ואתי למישרי חלוצה לאחין

a proper <i>halizah</i> also would be permitted to marry the brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence R. Akiba's prohibition. Cf. supra p. 722. n. 9. ');">¹⁷</span> Others say that the following ruling was sent to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Samuel's father. Cf. supra 104b. ');">¹⁸</span> A sister-in-law who spat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before Beth din, though her act did not form a part of the formal halizah ceremony. ');">¹⁹</span>

והא בעינן כסדרן כסדרן לא מעכבא הוא סבר דחויי קא מדחי ליה נפק דק ואשכח דתניא בין שהקדים חליצה לרקיקה בין שהקדים רקיקה לחליצה מה שעשה עשוי

may afterwards perform <i>halizah</i> and need not spit a second time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the proper time when the formal ceremony is carried out. ');">²⁰</span> So, in fact, it once happened that a sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. a.l. wanting in cur. edd. ');">²¹</span> who came before R. Ammi, while R. Abba b. Memel was sitting in his presence, spat prior to her drawing off the shoe. 'Arrange the <i>halizah</i> for her', said R. Ammi to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abba. ');">²²</span>

לוי נפק לקרייתא בעו מינה גידמת מהו שתחלוץ יבמה שרקקה דם מהו (דניאל י, כא) אבל אגיד לך את הרשום בכתב אמת מכלל דאיכא כתב שאינו אמת

'and dismiss her case'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is no need for her to spit again. ');">²³</span> 'But surely'. said R. Abba to him, 'spitting is a requirement!' — 'She has spat indeed!' 'But let her spit [again]; what could be the objection?' — 'The issue might [morally and religiously] be disastrous; for should you rule that she is to spit again, people might assume that her first spitting was ineffective<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the woman would consequently be allowed to marry a levir even after she had spat: ');">²⁴</span> and thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By allowing her to contract levirate marriage. ');">²⁵</span>

לא הוה בידיה אתא שאיל בי מדרשא אמרו ליה מי כתיב וחלצה ביד ומי כתיב וירקה רוק

a proper <i>haluzah</i> also would be permitted to marry the brothers!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 1. ');">²⁶</span> 'But is it not necessary. [that the various parts of the <i>halizah</i>] should follow in the prescribed order?' — 'The order of the performances is not essential'. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abba. ');">²²</span> thought [at the time] that the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ammi. ');">²⁷</span>

אבל אגיד לך הרשום בכתב אמת וכי יש כתב שאינו אמת

was merely shaking him off. When, however, he went out he carefully considered the point and discovered that it was taught: Whether drawing off the shoe preceded the spitting or whether spitting preceded the drawing off, the action performed is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 106b, Sanh. 49b. ');">²⁸</span> Levi once went out [to visit] the country towns,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the course of a lecture tour. According to the Palestinian Talmud and the Midrash Rabbah, Levi was sent by R. Judah the Prince to take up an appointment as teacher and judge in a provincial town. In his excitement and pride he grew so bewildered that he was unable to answer the following three questions. ');">²⁹</span> when he was asked: 'May a woman whose hand was amputated perform <i>halizah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With her teeth. ');">³⁰</span>

לא קשיא כאן בגזר דין שיש עמו שבועה כאן בגזר דין שאין עמו שבועה

What is the legal position where a sister-in-law spat blood? [It is stated in Scripture]: Howbeit I will declare unto thee that which is inscribed in the Writing of Truth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan. X, 21, taken to refer to divine dispensation. ');">³¹</span> does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The adjectival phrase 'of truth'. ');">³²</span> then imply that there exists a [divine] Writing that is not of truth?' He was unable to answer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was not in his hand'. ');">³³</span>

כדרב שמואל בר אמי דאמר רב שמואל בר אמי אמר רבי יונתן מנין לגזר דין שיש עמו שבועה שאינו מתקרע שנא' (שמואל א ג, יד) לכן נשבעתי לבית עלי אם יתכפר עון בית עלי בזבח ובמנחה עד עולם

When he came and asked these questions at the academy. they answered him: Is it written, 'And she shall draw off with her hand'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. ');">³⁴</span> Is it written, 'And spit spittle'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. ');">³⁴</span> [As to the question] 'Howbeit I will declare unto thee that which is inscribed in the Writing of Truth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan. X, 21, taken to refer to divine dispensation. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רבה בזבח ובמנחה אינו מתכפר אבל מתכפר הוא בדברי תורה אביי אמר בזבח ובמנחה אינו מתכפר אבל מתכפר בגמילות חסדים רבה ואביי מדבית עלי קאתו רבה דעסק בתורה חיה ארבעין שנין אביי דעסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים חיה שיתין שנין

does this then imply that there exists a [divine] Writing that is not of truth'? There is really no difficulty. For the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Writing of truth', i.e., 'permanent', 'unalterable'. ');">³⁵</span> refers to a [divine] decree that was accompanied by an oath while the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'writing that is not of truth', i.e., which may be altered or recalled. ');">³⁶</span> refers to one that was not accompanied by an oath. [This is] in accordance with a statement of R. Samuel b. Ammi. For R. Samuel b. Ammi stated in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence is it deduced that a decree which is accompanied by an oath is never annulled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'torn up'. ');">³⁷</span>

ת"ר משפחה אחת היתה בירושלים שהיו מתים כבן שמנה עשרה שנה באו והודיעו את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אמר להם שמא ממשפחת עלי אתם שנא' (שמואל א ב, לג) וכל מרבית ביתך ימותו אנשים לכו ועסקו בתורה ותחיו הלכו ועסקו בתורה וחיו והיו קורין אותן משפחת יוחנן על שמו

— From the Scriptural text, Therefore I have sworn unto the House of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. III, 14, emphasis on 'sworn' and 'for ever'. ');">³⁸</span> Rabbah said: It will not be expiated 'with sacrifice nor offering', but it will be expiated with the words of the Torah. Abaye said: It will not be expiated 'with sacrifice nor offering' but it will be expiated with the practice of lovingkindness.

אמר רב שמואל בר אוניא אמר רב מנין לגזר דין של צבור שאינו נחתם אינו נחתם והא כתיב (ירמיהו ב, כב) כי אם תכבסי בנתר ותרבי לך בורית נכתם עונך לפני

Rabbah and Abaye were both descendants of the house of Eli. Rabbah who engaged in the study of the Torah lived forty years. Abaye, however, who engaged in the study of the Torah and the practice of lovingkindness, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis taught: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members used to die when they were about the age of eighteen. When they came and acquainted R. Johanan b. Zakkai [with the fact,] he said to them: 'perchance you are descendants of the family of Eli concerning whom it is written in Scripture. And all the increase of thy house shall die young men;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. II, 33. ');">³⁹</span> go and engage in the study of the Torah, and you will live'. They went and engaged in the study of the Torah and lived [longer lives]. They were consequently called 'The family of Johanan', after him.

אלא מנין שאפי' נחתם מתקרע שנאמר (דברים ד, ז) מי כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו והכתיב (ישעיהו נה, ו) דרשו ה' בהמצאו לא קשיא הא ביחיד הא בציבור יחיד

R. Samuel b. Unia stated in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that a [divine] dispensation against a congregation is not sealed? — [You say] 'Is not sealed'! Surely it is written, For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. II, 22, emphasis on 'marked' 'sealed'. The Hebrew equivalent of the former is [H] which is similar in sound to that of the letters [H]. ');">⁴⁰</span> — But [this is the question]: Whence is it deduced that even if it has been sealed it is torn up? — From the Scriptural text, What&nbsp;… as the Lord our God is whensoever we call upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. IV, 7. ');">⁴¹</span> But, surely, it is written, Seek ye the Lord while He may be found!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LV, 6, emphasis on while he may be found, implying that there are times when he may not be found! ');">⁴²</span>

אימת אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אלו עשרה ימים שבין ר"ה ליוה"כ

— This is no contradiction. The latter applies to an individual, the former to a congregation. And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. ');">⁴³</span> when may an individual [find him]? R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: In<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'these are'. ');">⁴⁴</span> the ten days between the New Year and the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Known as the 'ten days of penitence', [H]. ');">⁴⁵</span>

שלחו ליה לאבוה דשמואל יבמה שרקקה דם תחלוץ לפי שאי אפשר לדם בלא צחצוח רוק

[The following ruling] was sent to Samuel's father: A sister-inlaw who spat blood shall perform <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of ordinary spitting. she may not subsequently contract levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁶</span> because it is impossible that blood should not contain some diluted particles of spittle. An objection was raised: It might have been assumed that blood that issues from his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man who hath an issue, cf. Lev. XV, 2. ');">⁴⁷</span>

מיתיבי יכול יהא דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמא ת"ל (ויקרא טו, ב) זובו טמא ואין דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמא אלא טהור

mouth or membrum virile is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his spittle or issue respectively is unclean. ');">⁴⁸</span> hence it was explicitly stated, His issue is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., emphasis on issue. ');">⁴⁹</span> but the blood which issues from his mouth or from his membrum virile is not unclean, but clean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 56a. Apparently because the blood contains no particle of spittle (cf. supra n. 10), which is contradictory to the previous statement that all blood contains some particles of spittle. ');">⁵⁰</span>

ל"ק כאן במוצצת כאן בשותת:

— This is no contradiction: The former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling sent to Samuel's father. ');">⁵¹</span> is a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'. ');">⁵²</span> where she sucks in;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is inevitable that some spittle should be mingled with the blood. ');">⁵³</span>

חרש שנחלץ וכו':

the latter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'. ');">⁵⁴</span> where [the blood] flows gently. IF A DEAF LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> etc.