## Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release Chapter 4

###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:1
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:1)

כֵּיצַד מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה. הַיְבָמָה הוֹלֶכֶת אַחַר הַיָּבָם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא שָׁם וּבָאָה לַדַּיָּנִין. וְהֵן קוֹרְאִין לוֹ וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ עֵצָה הַהוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ וְלָהּ. אִם עֵצָה טוֹבָה לְיַבֵּם יוֹעֲצִין אוֹתוֹ לְיַבֵּם. וְאִם עֵצָה טוֹבָה לַחֲלֹץ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה הִיא יַלְדָּה וְהוּא זָקֵן אוֹ הִיא זְקֵנָה וְהוּא יֶלֶד יוֹעֲצִין אוֹתוֹ לַחֲלֹץ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What does the mitzvah of *chalitzah* entail? The *yevamah* goes to the *yavam's* place of residence¹ 31b derives this from Deuteronomy 25:8: "And the elders of **his** city shall call him..." - i.e., "his city" and not her city. and approaches the judges. They call the *yavam* and give him advice that is appropriate for him and for her.
If the appropriate advice is for them to perform *yibbum*, they advise him². This version appears appropriate, for the decision to perform *yibbum* or *chalitzah* is that of the remaining brother alone. to perform *yibbum*.³ rather than *chalitzah*. Even so, the judges should take counsel and see whether the couple appear appropriate for each other. If the appropriate advice is for them to perform *chalitzah* - e.g., she is young and he is older, or she is older and he is young⁴ 21:26. - they advise him to perform *chalitzah*.

footnotes:
¹ Sanhedrin
² Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah
³ This follows the Rambam's perspective (Chapter 1, Halachah 2) that, in general, it is preferable to perform yibbum
⁴ See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:2
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:2)

וּצְרִיכִין הַדַּיָּנִין לִקְבֹּעַ מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשְׁבוּ בּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ תַּחֲלֹץ שָׁם בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ז) ״וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים״‎‎ וְגוֹ'. לֹא נוֹעֲדוּ וְלֹא קָבְעוּ מָקוֹם אֶלָּא נִקְרוּ נִקְרָה וְנִקְרֵאת הִיא וְהוּא לִפְנֵיהֶן וְחָלְצוּ חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The judges should first establish the place where they will hold session,⁵ (*Even HaEzer* 169) states that establishing a place for the *chalitzah* beforehand serves to publicize the matter. and then she should perform *chalitzah* there in their presence, as [Deuteronomy 25:7] states: "And his *yevamah* shall ascend to the gate, [where] the elders [hold court]...."
If [the judges] did not speak about the matter, nor did they establish a place, and [the *yevamah*] and [the *yavam*] chanced upon them and performed *chalitzah*, the *chalitzah* is acceptable.

footnotes:
⁵ Darchei Moshe


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:3
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:3)

וּמְלַמְּדִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הַיָּבָם לִקְרוֹת עַד שֶׁהוּא וְהִיא יִהְיוּ רְגִילִין וְתִהְיֶה יְכוֹלָה לִקְרוֹת (דברים כה ז) ״לֹא אָבָה״‎‎ בִּנְשִׁימָה אַחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ תֹּאמַר יַבְּמִי. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מַשְׁמַע דְּבָרֶיהָ אָבָה יַבְּמִי:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Both [the *yevamah*] and the *yavam* should be taught to read until they are familiar [with the words they must recite].⁶ and the *yevamah* must recite certain phrases within the *chalitzah* ceremony.
The *yevamah* should be trained to say *lo avah* in one breath, [pause,] and say *yabmi*, so that her words cannot be interpreted to mean *avah yabmi*.⁷ means "My *yavam* did not desire" [Deuteronomy 25:7]. Improper emphasis could, however, cause the statement to be interpreted as: "No, my *yavam* desired."

footnotes:
⁶ For, as explained in the halachot to follow, both the yavam
⁷ Lo avah yabmi


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:4
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:4)

וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה רְגִילָה לִקְרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָרְאָה בִּנְשִׁימָה אַחַת אֵין מַקְפִּידִין עַל זֶה. אֲבָל אִם אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה מַרְגִּילִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the *yevamah* is familiar [with the phrase] she must recite, we are not fastidious about her reading [the above phrase] in one breath. If, however, she is unable [to read], we should train her until she does so [properly].


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:5
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:5)

וְהַחֲלִיצָה בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא בַּלַּיְלָה. וּבִפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְהַקְרוֹת. וְאִם אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה גֵּר פָּסוּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה אָבִיו גֵּר וְאִמּוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית לֹא תַּחֲלֹץ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וּמִצְוָתָהּ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה כְּדֵי לְפַרְסֵם הַדָּבָר. וְאוֹתָן הַשְּׁנַיִם אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
*Chalitzah* must be performed during the day and not at night.⁸ is considered as a "judgment," and judgments may not be made at night (*Yevamot* 104a). (See also Halachah 16.) [The rite] must be performed in the presence of [at least] three individuals⁹ 12:1), and as the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:1) states, at the outset it is proper for three ordained judges to preside over the ceremony. who know how to read.¹⁰ and the *yevamah*, as will be stated later in the text. See Halachah 15, which states that this requirement is a factor only *a priori*.
If one of the three individuals is a convert, [the *chalitzah*] is unacceptable. Even a man whose father is a convert, and his mother a native-born Jewess,¹¹ 169:2) rules that a judge whose father is a native-born Jew and his mother is a convert may serve in this capacity. should not participate in the *chalitzah* ceremony. [Instead, it is necessary,] that both his father and his mother be native-born Jews.¹²
It is a mitzvah for five men [to observe the rite], so that the matter will be publicized.¹³ 101b). The other two may even be common people.¹⁴

footnotes:
⁸ For chalitzah
⁹ I.e., there is no need for these individuals to be formally ordained as judges. Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yevamot
¹⁰ For they must read the phrases for the yavam
¹¹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer
¹² Deuteronomy 25:10 states: "And his name will be called in Israel...." This phrase implies that only those of Jewish ancestry can serve in this capacity.
¹³ This serves two purposes. It is of benefit to the woman, for men will become aware that she is eligible to remarry. It also will make known the fact that she is forbidden to a priest (Rashi, Yevamot
¹⁴ Who do not know how to read. For their presence is only for the sake of making the matter known.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:6
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:6)

כֵּיצַד חוֹלְצִין. מְבִיאִין לוֹ מִנְעָל שֶׁל עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָקֵב וְאֵינוֹ תָּפוּר בְּפִשְׁתָּן וְלוֹבְשׁוֹ בְּיָמִין וְקוֹשֵׁר רְצוּעוֹתָיו עַל רַגְלוֹ. וְעוֹמֵד הוּא וְהִיא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וּמַקְרִין לַיְבָמָה בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ (דברים כה ז) ״מֵאֵן יְבָמִי״‎‎ וְגוֹ'. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִין לַיָּבָם (דברים כה ח) ״לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ״‎‎. וְנוֹעֵץ רַגְלוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת וּפוֹשֶׁטֶת יָדָהּ בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וּמַתֶּרֶת רְצוּעוֹת הַמִּנְעָל מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ וְחוֹלֶצֶת הַמִּנְעָל וּמַשְׁלֶכֶת אוֹתוֹ לָאָרֶץ וּמִשֶּׁיִּשָּׁמֵט רֹב הֶעָקֵב הֻתְּרָה הַיְבָמָה לְזָר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
How is the rite of *chalitzah* performed? A leather¹⁵ 169:15, even its straps must be made of leather). shoe¹⁶ 102a and the *Shulchan Aruch* (*ibid.*:16), which discuss whether a sandal or a shoe should be used. with a heel, that is not sewn with linen threads,¹⁷ and the Ramah (*ibid.* 169:15) follow the Rambam's view. is brought to [the *yavam*].¹⁸. (See the *Shulchan Aruch* (*ibid.*:14). He places it on his right foot and ties its straps around his foot.¹⁹ should not be wearing socks, and no mud should be stuck to his feet (*Shulchan Aruch*, *ibid.*:26).
Both [the *yavam*] and [the *yevamah*] stand before the court.²⁰ derives this concept from Deuteronomy 25:8, which states: "And he shall stand and say." After the fact, however, if the *chalitzah* was performed while the *yavam* and the *yevamah* were seated, it is acceptable (Ramah, *ibid.* 169:12). The phrase [Deuteronomy 25:7], *Me'ein yevami....* ("My *yavam* refuses....") is read in Hebrew for the *yevamah* to repeat. Afterwards, the phrase [*ibid.*:8], *Lo chafatzti lekachtah* ("I do not desire to take her") is read for the *yavam* to repeat.
He then presses his foot to the ground.²¹ states in the name of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi that if the *yavam* does not press his foot to the ground, the *chalitzah* is not acceptable. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*ibid.*:32) quotes this as a minority opinion. She sits [on the ground],²² (*ibid.*:30) differs and follows the opinion of the *Tur*, who states that the *chalitzah* should be performed while the woman is standing and bends to untie and remove the *yavam's* shoe. extends her hand before the court, loosens the straps of his shoe, removes it,²³ (*ibid.*) states that the *yevamah* should untie and remove the shoe with her right hand alone. The Ramah states, however, that, after the fact, the *chalitzah* is acceptable if she uses her left hand. and throws it to the ground.²⁴ and others question the rationale for this act. Significantly, the commentaries cite the Rambam's source as the *Zohar*, Volume III, page 180a, which states that the removal of the shoe signifies the cutting of the woman's connection with her deceased husband. At the moment she removes the majority of the heel [of the shoe from his foot], she becomes free to marry another man.

footnotes:
¹⁵ The entire shoe (according to the Ramah, Even HaEzer
¹⁶ See Yevamot
¹⁷ There are certain opinions that allow a shoe that is sewn with linen, but both the Shulchan Aruch
¹⁸ At the outset, the shoe should belong to the yavam
¹⁹ The yavam
²⁰ The Sifre
²¹ The Tur
²² The Shulchan Aruch
²³ The Shulchan Aruch
²⁴ The Tur


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:7
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:7)

וְאַחַר כָּךְ עוֹמֶדֶת וְיוֹרֶקֶת בָּאָרֶץ כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו רֹק הַנִּרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין. שֶׁמִּצְוַת חֲלִיצָה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹמְדִין בִּשְׁעַת קְרִיאָה וּבִשְׁעַת רְקִיקָה וּצְרִיכִין הַדַּיָּנִין לִרְאוֹת הָרֹק הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיהָ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִין לָהּ (דברים כה ט) ״כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו״‎‎ (דברים כה י) ״וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״‎‎:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Afterwards, she stands and spits on the earth before his face,²⁵ 106b explains that in a halachic context, the phrase should be interpreted as above. in a manner that the spittle can be seen by the judges. For the mitzvah of *chalitzah* requires that both [the *yevamah* and the *yavam*] should stand when they recite [the phrases they must say] and when she spits. The judges must see the spittle that emerges from her mouth.²⁶, states that she must spit "before the eyes of the elders."
Afterwards, the phrase *Kachah ye'aseh...*, "This is what should be done to a man who does not build his brother's household. And his [family] shall be called within Israel 'the household of the one whose shoe was removed' [Deuteronomy 25:9-10] is read for the *yevamah* to repeat.

footnotes:
²⁵ Although the literal meaning of Deuteronomy 25:9 is "she spits in his face," Yevamot
²⁶ For Deuteronomy, ibid.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:8
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:8)

הַכּל בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ט) ״כָּכָה״‎‎ בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה. וְכָל הַיּוֹשְׁבִין שָׁם עוֹנִים אַחֲרֶיהָ (דברים כה י) ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״‎‎ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּתְכַּוֵּן הַיְבָמָה שֶׁתַּחֲלֹץ לוֹ וְיִתְכַּוֵּן הוּא שֶׁיַּחֲלֹץ לָהּ. וְיַעֲשׂוּ מַעֲשִׂים אֵלּוּ לִשְׁמָן. וְהַסּוּמָא אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ט) ״וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו״‎‎ וְאֵין זֶה רוֹאֶה הָרֹק:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
All [the statements mentioned] above should be made in Hebrew. This is derived from the phrase "This is what" [in the above verse, which is interpreted] to mean "with these words."
All those seated²⁷ 12:6) and the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:42) mention "those standing there." in attendance recite *chalutz hana'al*, "the one whose shoe was removed," three times.²⁸ 7:11.
The *Halachot Gedolot* interprets the threefold repetition as a reprimand. It is as if God told him: "Wicked man! With your body, you could have performed a mitzvah, and you refused.... The judges will proclaim: 'The one whose shoe was removed' like a mourner. 'The one whose shoe was removed' like one placed under a ban of ostracism. 'The one whose shoe was removed' like a person who rebels against [God's] commandments."
The *yevamah* must remove his shoe with willful intent, and [the *yavam*] must have the intent that he performs this rite on her behalf. They must perform these acts with the intent of enabling her to marry other men.²⁹ is based on the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:44).
A blind man³⁰, Ramah, *loc. cit.*:48). should not perform *chalitzah*,³¹ ruling. After the fact, the *chalitzah* is acceptable.
The Ra'avad states that this law applies only when there is another brother who can perform *chalitzah*. If there is not another brother, the blind man should perform this ritual on the woman's behalf. Although the *Maggid Mishneh* contests the Ra'avad's decision, the *Beit Shmuel* 169:48 upholds it. for [Deuteronomy 25:9] states: "[She] shall spit before his face," and he cannot see her spittle.

footnotes:
²⁷ The Mishnah (Yevamot
²⁸ We find a threefold repetition of a phrase employed by the Sages as a means of publicizing the matter. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim
²⁹ Our translation of lishmah
³⁰ I.e., one who is blind in both eyes (Hagahot Maimoniot
³¹ As reflected by Halachah 15, this is just an a priori


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:9
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:9)

נִמְצָא סֵדֶר הַחֲלִיצָה כָּךְ הוּא. קוֹרְאָה הִיא תְּחִלָּה (דברים כה ז) ״מֵאֵן יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי״‎‎. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כה ח) ״לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ״‎‎. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תַּחֲלֹץ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תָּרֹק. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּקְרָא (דברים כה ט) ״כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו״‎‎ (דברים כה י) ״וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״‎‎:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Thus, the order of *chalitzah* should be as follows: First she recites: "My *yavam* refuses to perpetuate his brother's name within Israel. My *yavam* did not desire [to marry me].
Afterwards, [the *yavam*] says: "I do not desire to take her." At which point, she removes his shoe and then spits. Afterwards, she recites: "This is what should be done to a man who does not build his brother's household. And his [family] shall be called within Israel 'the household of the one whose shoe was removed.'


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:10
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:10)

וְאֵין הַסֵּדֶר מְעַכֵּב אֶלָּא אִם לֹא קָרְאָה בַּתְּחִלָּה לֹא הִיא וְלֹא הוּא אוֹ שֶׁרָקְקָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָלְצָה אוֹ שֶׁקָּרְאָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָקְקָה חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
This order is not, however, an absolute requirement. Instead, even though neither [the *yevamah*], nor [the *yavam*] recited [the required phrases], she spit and then removed his shoe, or she recited [the phrases] and then spit, the *chalitzah* is acceptable.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:11
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:11)

וְלָמָּה לֹא תַּחֲזֹר וְתָרֹק עַל הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ רְקִיקָה לְבַדָּהּ אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם וְאֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶלֶת מִן הָאַחִין:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Why, [in the above instance,] should she not spit [again], [so that all the required activities] will be performed in the proper order? Lest people [mistakenly] think that spitting alone is of no consequence, and [they err and think] that it does not prevent [the *yavam's*] other brothers [from performing *yibbum* with the *yevamah*].³²

footnotes:
³² See Halachah 14.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:12
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:12)

חָלְצָה בִּלְבַד וְלֹא קָרְאָה וְלֹא רָקְקָה חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁחָלְצָה וְקָרְאָה וְלֹא רָקְקָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה וְרָקְקָה וְלֹא קָרְאָה שֶׁחֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[Even if] she merely removed his shoe, did not recite [the required phrases], and did not spit, the *chalitzah* is acceptable. Needless to say, if she removed his shoe and recited the required phrases, but did not spit, or if she removed his shoe and spat, but did not recite the required phrases, the *chalitzah* is acceptable.³³, "this is what should be done," implies that all the deeds and the order required by the Torah is imperative for the *chalitzah* to be effected. The final opinion of Rabbi Akiva does not, however, accept this view (*Yevamot* 104b).

footnotes:
³³ Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the phrase (Deuteronomy 25:9 , kachah ye'aseh


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:13
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:13)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יְכוֹלִין לְדַבֵּר שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן רְאוּיִין לִקְרוֹת. אֲבָל אִלֶּמֶת אוֹ אִלֵּם אֵינָן חוֹלְצִין וְאִם חָלְצוּ חֲלִיצָתָן פְּסוּלָה. וְאֵינָן כְּחֵרֵשׁ וְחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁחָלְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ כְּלוּם. לְפִי שֶׁהַחֵרֵשׁ אוֹ הַחֵרֶשֶׁת אֵינָן בְּנֵי דַּעַת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When does the above apply? When [the *yevamah* and the *yavam*] are able to speak, for then they are able to recite [the appropriate phrases].³⁴ 104b). When, however, [the *yevamah*] or [the *yavam*] is dumb, they may not perform *chalitzah*, and if they do perform *chalitzah*, the *chalitzah* is not acceptable.³⁵ that is *pasul*, "not acceptable," and a *chalitzah* that is not significant at all is discussed in Halachah 26.
[Their deeds are, nevertheless, effective to a certain degree.] They are not comparable to a *chalitzah* performed by [a *yevamah*] or [a *yavam*] who was a deaf-mute, in which case their deeds are of no consequence whatsoever,³⁶, the Rambam's view is dependent on the *Tosefta*, while on the surface, the Mishnah (*Yevamot* 104b) appears to accept the position that a *chalitzah* performed by a deaf-mute is unacceptable, but not of no consequence. The *Maggid Mishneh* attempts to justify the Rambam's ruling, but notes that the Ramban and the Rashba follow the latter view. [Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (*Yevamot* 12:4), the Rambam also appears to favor the latter view, and his decision in the *Mishneh Torah* represents a reversal of his thinking.] The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:44) mentions both views without appearing to favor either one. for a deaf-mute is not of sufficient mental capacity to take responsibility for his [or her] actions.

footnotes:
³⁴ This reflects a Talmudic principle frequently applied and stated explicitly with regard to the meal offering brought in the Temple. These offerings consist of flour and oil. The flour and the oil should be mixed together. Nevertheless, as long as the quantity of flour is not too large to be mixed with the oil, the offering is acceptable, even when in actual fact the two were not mixed together (Rashi, Yevamot
³⁵ The difference between a chalitzah
³⁶ As mentioned in the Maggid Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:14
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:14)

רָקְקָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא חָלְצָה וְלֹא קָרְאָה. אוֹ שֶׁרָקְקָה וְקָרְאָה וְלֹא חָלְצָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כַּחֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה. קָרְאָה הִיא וְהוּא וְלֹא חָלְצָה וְלֹא רָקְקָה לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ט) ״כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ״‎‎. שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהוּא הַחֲלִיצָה וְהָרְקִיקָה הוּא שֶׁמּוֹעִיל אֲבָל הַקְּרִיאָה אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת וְאֵינָהּ מוֹעֶלֶת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [the *yevamah*] only spits, without removing [the *yavam's* shoe] or reciting [the appropriate phrases], or spits and recites [the appropriate phrases], without removing [the *yavam's* shoe], it is as if she has performed an unacceptable *chalitzah*.³⁷ does not permit the *yevamah* to remarry, but prevents her from performing *yibbum*.
There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries whether the effectiveness of spitting is a Scriptural law or a Rabbinic institution. The *Maggid Mishneh* states that it appears that the Rambam is deriving the concept from the exegesis of a verse, but this is not accepted by all authorities.
If both [the *yevamah* and the *yavam*] recite [the appropriate phrases], but the *yevamah* does not remove [the *yavam's* shoe] or spit, they have not accomplished anything.³⁸ is permitted, and she is not disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. [This is implied by the verse:] "This is what should be done to a man" - i.e., a deed removing the shoe or spitting has an effect. The recitation of the verses, by contrast, is not an absolute requirement, nor does it have any effect [on its own].³⁹ 105a distinguishes between spitting and the recitation of the verses as follows: Spitting should be carried out after the removal of the *yavam's* shoe. Therefore, if it is performed before the removal of the shoe, it is considered a distinct act. The recitation of the verses, by contrast, should be performed before the removal of the shoe. An observer will thus realize that the fundamental aspect of the ceremony is still to be performed.

footnotes:
³⁷ As mentioned in Halachah 26, the chalitzah
³⁸ Yibbum
³⁹ Yevamot


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:15
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:15)

חָלְצָה וְרָקְקָה וְקָרְאָה וְהֵם יוֹשְׁבִין אוֹ מֻטִּין עַל צִדֵּיהֶן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שְׂרוֹךְ הַנַּעַל קָשׁוּר עַל שׁוֹקוֹ מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה. אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאֵינָן יוֹדְעִין לְהַקְרוֹת. וְכֵן הַסּוּמָא שֶׁחָלַץ. חֲלִיצָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [the *yevamah*] removes [the *yavam's* shoe], spits and recites [the appropriate phrases] while they are sitting, or lying on their sides,⁴⁰ standing, as mentioned in Halachot 6 and 7. if the straps of the [*yavam's*] shoe are tied on his leg below the knee,⁴¹ or if she performed *chalitzah* in the presence of three common people who are not able to read the verses [which the two recite],⁴² the *chalitzah* is acceptable. Similarly, if [a *yavam* who is] blind⁴³ performs *chalitzah*, [the *chalitzah* is acceptable].

footnotes:
⁴⁰ Instead of the two standing when she spits and they recite the verses, and the yavam's
⁴¹ And not on his foot itself, as mentioned in Halachah 6.
⁴² Instead of judges who know how to read, as stated in Halachah 5.
⁴³ Although at the outset, a blind person should not perform this act as stated in Halachah 8.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:16
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:16)

חָלְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַמִּנְעָל קָשׁוּר לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה. אוֹ שֶׁהִתִּיר הוּא וְשָׁמְטָה הִיא אוֹ שֶׁהִתִּירָה הִיא וְשָׁמַט הוּא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנָה הִיא וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן הוּא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן הוּא וְלֹא נִתְכַּוְּנָה הִיא. וְכֵן קְטַנָּה שֶׁחָלְצָה לְגָדוֹל. חֲלִיצָתָן פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן אִם חָלְצָה בִּפְנֵי יָחִיד וַאֲפִלּוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ וּבַלַּיְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁחָלְצוּ וְכָל הַחוֹלֵץ לְמִי שֶׁהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם אֵינָהּ חֲלִיצָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
*Chalitzah* is unacceptable [in the following instances]:
a) a woman performed *chalitzah* at night,⁴⁴
b) she performed *chalitzah* in the presence of two judges or in the presence of three judges, and one of them was a relative or [otherwise] disqualified [from serving in this capacity,⁴⁵ is considered a judgment, three acceptable judges must preside over the ceremony.
c) the shoe was tied above his knee,⁴⁶
d) he untied the shoe and she removed it,⁴⁷ 169:33) quotes Rabbenu Asher, who rules that if the man could walk wearing the shoe while it is untied, the *chalitzah* is acceptable even if the man untied the shoe and the woman removed it. or she untied the shoe and he removed it,
e) she had the intent of performing [these acts to release herself from her obligation to her *yavam*] but he did not, or he had the intent of performing [these acts to release her from her obligation to her *yavam*] but she did not,⁴⁸
f) or a girl below the age of majority removed the shoe of an adult.⁴⁹.
Similarly, if a woman performs *chalitzah* in the presence of one judge, or even if *chalitzah* is performed at night by [the *yevamah* and the *yavam*] while they are alone, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.⁵⁰ is unacceptable, but it at least has the effect of preventing the woman from performing *yibbum* in the future, as opposed to a *chalitzah* that is of no consequence, as explained in Halachah 26. When, however, *chalitzah* is performed by a deaf-mute, a mentally incapable person, or a minor,⁵¹ performed by a deaf-mute is unacceptable, but not of no consequence whatsoever. and similarly, when a man performs *chalitzah* with a woman who is not obligated to perform *chalitzah* or *yibbum*,⁵² who is pregnant. the *chalitzah* is of no consequence.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ See Halachah 5.
⁴⁵ Since chalitzah
⁴⁶ Deuteronomy 25:9 states: "She shall remove his shoe from his foot." If the shoe is tied above the knee, it is not considered to have been removed from his foot.
⁴⁷ The entire act of removing the shoe must be performed by the woman. The Ramah (Even HaEzer
⁴⁸ As stated in Halachah 8, the ceremony must be performed with this intent in mind.
⁴⁹ Since the girl is not past the age of majority, her deed is not totally effective. Nevertheless, since she can be be married at this age, her deed has a minimal effect, and she can no longer perform yibbum
⁵⁰ The Rambam's intent is that the chalitzah
⁵¹ These individuals are all considered mentally incompetent, and their deeds are not considered of consequence with regard to Torah law. As mentioned above, there are opinions that maintain that chalitzah
⁵² E.g., a yevamah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:17
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:17)

יָבָם שֶׁרַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית חֲתוּכָה אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ בִּשְׂמֹאל וְאִם חָלְצָה מֵעַל שְׂמֹאלוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. הָיְתָה רַגְלוֹ עֲקֻמָּה לְאָחוֹר אוֹ הֲפוּכָה עַל צִדָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל רָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹת רַגְלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ שֶׁהַחוֹלֵץ צָרִיךְ לִנְעֹץ עֲקֵבוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. וְאִם חָלְצָה לְמִי שֶׁרַגְלוֹ כָּךְ הֲרֵי חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *yavam's* right leg is cut off, he should not perform *chalitzah* with his left leg.⁵³ at all. Other commentaries maintain that if the stump of the *yavam's* leg can be placed in a shoe and that shoe tied beneath his knee, the *chalitzah* is acceptable. Although the Rambam accepts, after the fact, *chalitzah* performed when the straps of the shoe are tied below the *yavam's* knee, that is only because it is theoretically possible to have tied them on his foot. When it is impossible to tie the shoe on to his foot, as in the instance at hand, the *chalitzah* should not be performed (*Maggid Mishneh*).
The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:35) mentions both opinions, but appears to favor the Rambam's view. The *Beit Yosef* states that according to the Rambam, such a *chalitzah* is of no consequence at all. The *Beit Shmuel* 169:33 states that since there are authorities who maintain that such a *chalitzah* is acceptable, the later authorities agree that a woman may not perform *yibbum* after such a *chalitzah*. If he performs *chalitzah* with his left leg, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.
If [the *yavam*] is bowlegged, his foot turns to his side, or he always walks on the tips of his toes, she should not perform *chalitzah*, for the man performing *chalitzah* must press his heel to the ground, and such a person is incapable of this. If a person with such a disability in his legs performs *chalitzah*, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.⁵⁴ does not press his heel to the ground in an ordinary instance, the *chalitzah* is, nevertheless, acceptable. The distinction between an ordinary *chalitzah* and the case at hand is that ordinarily, it is possible for the *yavam* to press his heel to the ground, and therefore the fact that he does not actually do so is not significant. In this instance, the *yavam* is incapable of doing so. Hence, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.
Although the Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam on this issue, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:34) accepts the Rambam's view.

footnotes:
⁵³ The commentaries explain that the Rambam's opinion is that such a man should not perform chalitzah
⁵⁴ After the fact, if a yavam


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:18
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:18)

וִיבָמָה שֶׁיָּדֶיהָ חֲתוּכוֹת חוֹלֶצֶת לְכַתְּחִלָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּשִׁנֶּיהָ שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר וְחָלְצָה בְּיָדָהּ. חָלְצָה בְּמִנְעָל שֶׁל בֶּגֶד אֵינָהּ חֲלִיצָה. אֲבָל אִם חָלְצָה בְּמִנְעָל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָקֵב. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה תָּפוּר בְּפִשְׁתָּן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִנְעָל שֶׁל שֵׂעָר אוֹ שֶׁל סִיב אוֹ שֶׁל שַׁעַם אוֹ שֶׁל עֵץ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִנְעָל גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב רַגְלוֹ. אוֹ מִנְעָל פָּרוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹפֶה רֹב הָרֶגֶל אוֹ נִפְחַת שֶׁאֵין מְקַבֵּל רֹב הָרֶגֶל. חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A *yevamah* whose hands are cut off may perform *chalitzah*. *A priori*, [it is acceptable,] even if [she must remove the shoe] with her teeth, for the verse does not say that she will remove it with her hands.
If she removes a shoe made from cloth, she has not performed *chalitzah*.⁵⁵ 103a). This ruling is also applied in other contexts - e.g., on Yom Kippur, when we are forbidden to wear shoes, it is permitted to wear a cloth shoe (*Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor* 3:7).
The Rashba and others maintain that there is no difference between a cloth slipper and a shoe made from the other substances mentioned. This is the view quoted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:22). If, however, she removes a shoe that does not have a heel, [a shoe] that was sewn with linen threads, a shoe made from goats' hair, the inner bark of a palm tree, cork or wood, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.⁵⁶ is of some consequence. Nevertheless, when the Torah uses the word נעל, the intent is always a leather shoe.
[This same ruling applies if] the shoe is so large that [the *yavam*] could not walk in it, if it is so small that it does not cover the majority of his foot, it is torn to the extent that it does not cover the majority of his foot, or the sole is opened to the extent that it does not cover the majority of his foot.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ A cloth shoe does not protect the foot at all; therefore, it is not considered a shoe (Yevamot
⁵⁶ These substances offer some protection, and so the chalitzah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:19
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:19)

חָלְצָה בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁל עֵץ וּמְחֻפֶּה עוֹר אוֹ הָיְתָה קַרְקָעִיתוֹ עוֹר וּלְחָיָיו שֶׁל שֵׂעָר. אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה סַנְדָּל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה הַמִּנְעָל שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ (שֶׁלֹּא) הָיָה גָּדוֹל שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ. אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב רַגְלוֹ אוֹ נִפְרַם שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב הָרֶגֶל אוֹ נִפְחַת שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל רֹב הָרֶגֶל. חֲלִיצָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
*Chalitzah* is acceptable,⁵⁷, none of these situations is acceptable. however, in the following instances:
a) a sandal was made of wood⁵⁸). and covered with leather, or its soles were leather, and its sides were made from goats' hair,
b) [the *yevamah*] removed a left shoe from [the *yavam's*] right foot,
c) the shoe did not belong to the [the *yavam*],⁵⁹ shoe, it is customary to give it to the *yavam* as a present before the ceremony.
d) it was oversized, but he could still walk while wearing it,
e) it was small, but it covered the majority of his foot,
f) it was torn, but it covered the majority of his foot, or
g) the sole was opened, but it covered the majority of his foot.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ This applies after the fact. A priori
⁵⁸ The same rules apply with regard to a shoe made from any of the other substances mentioned in the previous halachah and covered with leather (Maggid Mishneh
⁵⁹ In the present age, when the Rabbinic court owns a special chalitzah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:20
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:20)

סַנְדָּל הַמֻּסְגָּר וְהַמֻּחְלָט וְשֶׁל עַכּוּ״‎ם שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ בְּרַגְלֵי הַצּוּרָה לֹא תַּחֲלֹץ בּוֹ. וְאִם חָלְצָה חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אֲבָל סַנְדָּל שֶׁל תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ״‎ם וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. אוֹ שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לְמֵת שֶׁיִּקָבֵר בּוֹ. אִם חָלְצָה בּוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When it is questionable that a sandal is affected by *tzara'at*, or it has definitely been established that this is the case,⁶⁰, Chapter 12, which describes the process in which a garment or shoe affected by *tzara'at* is judged by a priest. There are two stages to this process: one in which the article is "quarantined" for a period of a week to determine whether it has actually been affected, and a second stage during which the priest declares that the article is affected and must be burned. and a sandal belonging to a false deity - i.e., one placed on the feet of an image⁶¹ 103b) interprets this as a leather covering placed on the feet of an idol to prevent damage when it is transported from place to place. Thus, the sandal is placed in the category of "an accessory to a false deity." - should not be used for *chalitzah*.⁶² 103b). If, however, it is used for that purpose, the *chalitzah* is acceptable, despite the fact that deriving benefit from [the sandal] is forbidden.⁶³).
[Different rules apply with regard to a sandal that was made from an animal] offered to a false deity,⁶⁴. The *Maggid Mishneh* continues, stating that if a sandal itself is offered to a false deity, it does not become forbidden. See *Beit Shmuel* 169:23.
The difference between this and the previous instance can be explained as follows: It is possible to nullify the connection between "an accessory to a false deity" and the worship of the false deity. (See *Hilchot Avodat Kochavim* 8:8-9.) As such, there is a possibility that such a sandal will not have to be destroyed. An object offered to a false deity, including the hide from which a sandal was made, can never be separated from its association with the false deity (*ibid.*). As such, it is condemned to be destroyed, forbidden for eternity and considered as if it did not exist. Hence, it is not considered as if the *yevamah* removed a significant entity from the *yavam's* foot. one from an apostate city,⁶⁵, Chapter 4, which describes the laws governing such a city. All the property in the city is condemned to be burned, and thus it cannot be used for *chalitzah*, for the reasons described above. or one that was made to be worn by a corpse when it is buried. If [such a sandal] is used for *chalitzah*, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable. [The rationale is] that such a sandal was not made for a person to wear while walking.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ See Hilchot Tum'at Tzara'at
⁶¹ Rashi (Yevamot
⁶² For it is abhorrent to use an article associated with impurity or false deities for the purpose of a mitzvah (Yevamot
⁶³ The rationale is that the performance of mitzvot is not considered to be a personal benefit (ibid.
⁶⁴ Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh
⁶⁵ See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:21
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:21)

קָרְעָה הַמִּנְעָל מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשְּׂרָפַתּוּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לָבוּשׁ שְׁתֵּי מִנְעָלִין וְחָלְצָה הָעֶלְיוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּרְעָה הַתַּחְתּוֹן עַד שֶׁנִּתְגַּלְּתָה רַגְלוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [the *yevamah*] tears the shoe off [the *yavam's*] foot or burns it, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.⁶⁶ 102a questions whether the Torah's intent is that the *yevamah* must bare the *yavam's* foot, in which instance these examples would be acceptable, or she must remove his shoe in the ordinary manner, in which instance they would not be acceptable. Since the question remains unresolved, the Rambam rules stringently. [The same ruling applies if the *yavam*] is wearing two shoes [on his right foot, one on top of the other,] and the *yevamah* removes [only] the upper one [in the ordinary manner]. Even if she tears off the lower one so that his foot is revealed, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Yevamot


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:22
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:22)

יְבָמָה שֶׁאָכְלָה שׁוּם אוֹ גַּרְגִּיר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁמַּרְבִּין אֶת הָרֹק וְהָיָה הָרֹק זָב מִפִּיהָ אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָרֹק מֵעַצְמוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *yevamah* eats garlic, mustard,⁶⁷. It is possible that it is not precise according to the Rambam's view. The intent, however, is definitely a sharp pungent herb. or other similar condiments that increase a person's spittle, and spittle was dripping from her mouth, [the spitting] is of no consequence.⁶⁸ to be performed as required. Even if she does not spit at all, the *chalitzah* is acceptable after the fact, as stated in Halachah 12 (*Maggid Mishneh*). [Instead,] the spittle must be produced without any external cause.

footnotes:
⁶⁷ Our translation is based on the Aruch
⁶⁸ The intent is that she must spit again in order for the chalitzah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:23
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:23)

רָקְקָה דָּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֵת מִפִּיהָ אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם מָצְצָה וְרָקְקָה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְדָם שֶׁנִּמְצָץ בְּלֹא צִחְצוּחֵי רֹק. רָקְקָה וּקְלָטַתּוּ הָרוּחַ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לִכְנֶגֶד פָּנָיו כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה אֲרֻכָּה וְהוּא קָצָר אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְנֶגֶד פָּנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לָאָרֶץ כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם לֹא רָאוּ הַדַּיָּנִין הָרֹק כְּשֶׁיָּצָא מִפִּיהָ כָּשֵׁר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [a *yevamah*] spits blood,⁶⁹ who spits blood need not spit again, even if she does not suck her wound. His view is accepted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:40). or if blood is dripping from her mouth, [the spitting] is of no consequence. If she sucks [the wound] and then spits, it is acceptable, for it is impossible that there will be blood that was sucked out without some drops of spittle.⁷⁰
If she spits, and the wind blows away the spittle before it passed before his face - e.g., she is tall and he is short - [the spitting] is of no consequence. If [the wind blows] the spittle [away] after it passes before his face, but before it lands on the ground, it is acceptable.⁷¹ face. If the *yevamah* was taller than the *yavam* and the wind moved her spittle away before it passed before his face, the spitting is not acceptable.
If the judges do not see the spittle emerge from [the *yevamah's*] mouth,⁷² the judges must see the spittle, as stated in Halachah 7, after the fact their failure to do so does not render the spitting unacceptable.
In *Yevamot* 106b, a phrase "before the eyes of the elders" (Deuteronomy 25:9 is cited as a support for this requirement. Nevertheless, the Rabbis explain that the requirement is Rabbinic and not Scriptural in origin, and the verse is merely an *asmachta*. See the *Beit Shmuel* 169:39. it is acceptable.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that a yevamah
⁷⁰ The fact that spittle is mixed with blood or another substance does not disqualify it.
⁷¹ The intent is that the spittle must pass in front of or below the yavam's
⁷² Although a priori


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:24
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:24)

חֲלִיצָה מֻטְעֵית פְּסוּלָה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲלֹץ לָהּ וּבְכָךְ אַתָּה כּוֹנְסָהּ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲלֹץ לָהּ שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוָה הִיא וְאֵינָהּ מַפְסֶדֶת עָלֶיךָ כְּלוּם וְאִם תִּרְצֶה אַחַר כָּךְ לְיַבֵּם תְּיַבֵּם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל אִם הִטְעוּהוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲלֹץ לָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז אוֹ עַל תְּנַאי כָּךְ וְכָךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנָה וְלֹא נִתְקַיֵּם הַתְּנַאי חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲלֹץ לָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
*Chalitzah* performed under mistaken premises is unacceptable.
What is implied? For example, [if the *yavam*] was told: "Perform *chalitzah* for her; this is the manner in which you acquire her as a wife," "Perform *chalitzah* for her. It is a mitzvah, and you do not lose any rights. If you later desire to perform *yibbum*, you may,"⁷³, which mentions that there is a dispute among the Rabbis about this issue. The rationale for the position that the *chalitzah* is acceptable is that in this instance, the *yavam* did intend to free the *yevamah* from her obligation to him. (See also *Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 169:52.) or the like, [the *chalitzah*] is unacceptable.⁷⁴ must be performed with the intent of releasing the woman from her obligation.
The *chalitzah* is, however, effective, in that it prevents the man (or his brothers) from ever performing *yibbum* with this woman. Therefore, the man is compelled by the court to perform an acceptable *chalitzah*, for from this point on he has nothing to lose, and through his act he can enable the woman to remarry (Rashba, as quoted by *Maggid Mishneh*; *Shulchan Aruch*, *loc. cit.* 169:51).
If, however, he was deceived and was told: "Perform *chalitzah* for her on the condition the she give you 200 *zuz*" - or "...under any other condition" - the *chalitzah* is acceptable,⁷⁵, *loc. cit.*:50). even though she did not give [him the money] or fulfill the condition.⁷⁶ as unfit to marry her that the court would accept [*Shulchan Aruch* (*ibid.*)]. [The rationale is that] he had the intent [of releasing her from her obligation] when he performed *chalitzah*.

footnotes:
⁷³ Note the Maggid Mishneh
⁷⁴ For as mentioned in Halachah 8, the chalitzah
⁷⁵ This applies even if the condition is stated in a manner that meets the requirements of conditional statements (Shulchan Aruch
⁷⁶ If such a condition is made, the woman is, however, rightfully obligated to pay the amount she agreed to pay, unless she has a reason for which she considers the yavam


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:25
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:25)

הַמּוֹסֵר מוֹדָעָא עַל הַחֲלִיצָה חֲלִיצָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי לַדַּיָּנִין לוֹמַר לוֹ לְבַטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בְּגֵט. לְחָצוּהוּ יִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְהִכּוּהוּ עַד שֶׁחָלַץ אִם כַּדִּין עָשׂוּ חֲלִיצָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין עָשׂוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ הֶדְיוֹטוֹת אוֹ שֶׁטָּעוּ חֲלִיצָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם הָעַכּוּ״‎ם אֲנָסוּהוּ מֵעַצְמָן. אִם הָיָה הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁיַּחֲלֹץ חֲלִיצָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין אֵינָהּ חֲלִיצָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When [a man] issues a protest⁷⁷ 6:19, it would appear that the intent is that he tells two witnesses that he does not want to perform the *chalitzah*, the *chalitzah* should be nullified, because he is being compelled to perform it. with regard to *chalitzah*, the *chalitzah* is not acceptable.⁷⁸ 106a establishes an equivalence between divorce and *chalitzah* with regard to these laws. On this basis, the Rivash (Responsum 482, quoted by the *Kessef Mishneh* in the gloss on Halachah 16) raises a difficulty, noting that when a husband issues a protest regarding a *get*, the *get* is nullified entirely. With regard to *chalitzah*, however, the Rambam rules that it is merely unacceptable.
The Rivash offers a resolution, explaining that when a protest is issued with regard to a *get*, the *get* itself becomes nullified, and therefore the divorce is of no consequence at all. With regard to *chalitzah*, however, the *yavam* did perform all the required acts. His protest is accepted to the extent that it is considered that he performed these acts without intending to release the woman from her obligation. This, however, merely causes a *chalitzah* to be unacceptable, as stated in Halachah 16. It does not nullify it entirely. Therefore, it is proper for the judges to tell [the *yavam*] to nullify all protests [before he performs *chalitzah*], as they do with regard to a *get*.⁷⁹ 6:20.
[The following rules apply when] Jews compel [a *yavam*] and beat him until he performs *chalitzah*:⁸⁰ 106a applies in this context as well. The Rambam discusses the laws governing a *get* given under compulsion in *Hilchot Gerushin* 2:20. If they act according to law,⁸¹.
The Ramah (*Even HaEzer* 169:13) states that even according to the Ashkenazic authorities who maintain that the mitzvah of *chalitzah* takes precedence, a *yavam* may be compelled to perform *chalitzah* only for these reasons. the *chalitzah* is acceptable.⁸², the person's actions are considered to be performed voluntarily, because:
He wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents, he is considered to have [acted] willfully.
 If they do not act according to law - e.g., they were commoners or they erred [in judgment] - the *chalitzah* is not acceptable.
If gentiles force [a *yavam* to perform *chalitzah*] on their own initiative,⁸³ but the law would require that *chalitzah* be performed, the *chalitzah* is unacceptable. If they do not act according to law, the *chalitzah* is of no substance.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ Based on Hilchot Gerushin
⁷⁸ Yevamot
⁷⁹ See Hilchot Gerushin
⁸⁰ The equivalence established by Yevamot
⁸¹ This refers to a situation analogous to those described in Chapter 2, Halachah 14, or Chapter 6, Halachah 4, in which the person should be compelled to perform chalitzah
⁸² For, as stated in Hilchot Gerushin
⁸³ I.e., as opposed to acting as agents for a Jewish court.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:26
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:26)

כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ אֵינָהּ חֲלִיצָה אוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם אוֹ אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִלּוּ לֹא נֶחְלְצָה לוֹ וְלֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ עָלָיו קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַבֵּם. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה נֶאֶסְרוּ עָלָיו קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְנִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה וְנֶאֶסְרָה עַל הָאַחִין וְאֵינָהּ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת וְאֵינָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְזָר עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלֹץ חֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Whenever we have used the terms, "the *chalitzah* is of no substance," "his actions are of no consequence," or "nothing has been accomplished," the intent is that it is as if the *chalitzah* had not been performed at all. He does not become forbidden to her relatives,⁸⁴ nor is she forbidden to the priesthood, and she is permitted to perform *yibbum*.
Whenever we have used the term, "the *chalitzah* is unacceptable,"⁸⁵ are acceptable according to Scriptural law or not. he becomes forbidden to her relatives, and she becomes forbidden to the priesthood. She also becomes forbidden to all the brothers, and she may not perform *yibbum*. She may not marry another man, however, until she performs an acceptable *chalitzah*.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ See Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
⁸⁵ As mentioned above, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the Rambam's intent is that these acts of chalitzah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:27
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:27)

עָבְרָה וְנִשֵּׂאת הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹלֵץ לָהּ חֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה וְהִיא תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If she transgresses and marries [another man], [the *yavam*] should perform an acceptable *chalitzah* with her. She is allowed to remain married to her husband; she is not sent away from him.⁸⁶ states that the woman should, however, be forced to separate from her second husband until she performs an acceptable *chalitzah*. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:55) follows this ruling.

footnotes:
⁸⁶ The Maggid Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:28
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:28)

יְבָמָה שֶׁגָּדְלָה בֵּין הָאַחִין הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַבֵּם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא חָלְצָה לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ וְנִפְסְלָה עֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם רְאִינוּהָ שֶׁחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן נִפְסְלָה שֶׁמָּא נִתְכַּוְּנָה לַחֲלִיצָה וּצְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה לְהַתִּירָהּ לְזָר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *yevamah* grows up together with [her deceased husband's] brothers, she is permitted to perform *yibbum*. We do not suspect that she performed *chalitzah* with one of them alone and thus became forbidden to them.⁸⁷
If, however, we see that she removed the shoe of one [of the brothers], she is disqualified [from *yibbum*], lest she have intended to perform *chalitzah*.⁸⁸ states that the Rambam's ruling alludes to the following law: If neither the *yevamah* nor the *yavam* has the intent to perform *chalitzah*, the fact that she removes his shoe is of no consequence, and she is permitted to perform *yibbum*. Note the discussion of this subject in *Sefer HaKovetz*. An acceptable *chalitzah* must, however, be performed to enable her to marry another man.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ As stated in Halachah 16.
⁸⁸ The Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:29
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:29)

גֵּט חֲלִיצָה שֶׁאָנוּ כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּיָדָהּ רְאָיָה שֶׁנֶּחְלְצָה וְאֵין הַדַּיָּנִין חוֹלְצִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁרָאָה זֹאת שֶׁנֶּחְלְצָה כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ גֵּט חֲלִיצָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן מַכִּירִין שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא בַּת פְּלוֹנִי וְאֵשֶׁת פְּלוֹנִי וְשֶׁזֶּה שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ אָחִיו הוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁחָלְצָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הִכִּירוּ זֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָלְצָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The document recording the *chalitzah* that we compose is merely a legal record,⁸⁹), which is actually necessary to effect the divorce. For that reason (as implied by *Hilchot Gerushin* 11:9), it need not be written for the sake of the man and the woman, nor is it bound by the other details that apply to a *get*.
Note, however, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 169:56), which states that the paper on which the document is written must be ruled with a stylus (i.e., *sirtut* is required), because it contains Biblical verses. so that a woman will have at hand proof that she performed *chalitzah*.
Judges do not preside over *chalitzah* unless they know the identity [of the *yevamah* and the *yavam*]. Therefore, a person who observes *chalitzah* can write a document recording the *chalitzah* although he does not know⁹⁰ without knowing the identity of the parties involved. that the woman is so and so's daughter, that her deceased husband was so and so, and that the person who performed *chalitzah* with her was [her husband's] brother. [He can assume] that the judges who presided over the *chalitzah* clarified these matters and afterwards had the *chalitzah* performed.

footnotes:
⁸⁹ This distinguishes it from a bill of divorce (a get
⁹⁰ The Rambam is emphasizing that we do not suspect that perhaps the court erred and presided over a chalitzah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:30
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:30)

וזהו נוסח גט חליצה שנהגו בו העם: בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ לְיֶרַח פְּלוֹנִי שְׁנַת כָּךְ וְכָךְ לִבְרִיאַת עָלְמָא לְמִנְיָנָא דְּרָגִילְנָא לְמִימְנֵי בָּהּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֲנַחְנָא דַּיָּנֵי דְּמִקְצָתְנָא חֲתִימִין לְתַתָּא בְּמוֹתַב תְּלָתָא כַּחֲדָא הֲוֵינָא יָתְבִין בְּבֵי דִּינָא וּסְלִיקָא לָקֳדָמָנָא פְּלוֹנִית בָּרַת פְּלוֹנִי אַרְמְלָתָא דִּפְלוֹנִי. וְקָרְבַת לָקֳדָמָנָא גְּבַר חַד דִּשְׁמֵיהּ פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי. וְכֵן אָמְרָה לָנָא פְּלוֹנִית דָּא. פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי דְּנָא אֲחוּהָ דִּפְלוֹנִי בַּעְלִי מֵאֲבוּהָּ הֲוָה דַּהֲוֵינָא נְסִיבָא לֵיהּ וְשָׁכִיב וְחַיֵּי לְרַבָּנָן וּלְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁבַק. וּבַר וּבָרַת יָרִית וּמַחְסִין וּמוֹקִים שְׁמָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁבַק. וְהָדֵין פְּלוֹנִי אֲחוֹהִי חָזִי לְיִבּוּמִי יָתִי. כְּעַן רַבָּנָן אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ אִי צָבִי לְיִבּוּמִי יָתִי יְיַבֵּם וְאִי לֹא יִטְלַע לִי רַגְלֵיהּ דִּימִינָא קָדֳמֵיכוֹן וְאַשְׁרֵי סֵינֵיהּ מֵעַל רַגְלֵיהּ וְאֵרֹק בְּאַנְפּוֹהִי. וְאִשְׁתְּמוֹדַעְנוּהוּ לִפְלוֹנִי דְּנָא דַּאֲחוֹהִי דִּפְלוֹנִי מִיתְנָא מֵאֲבוּהִי הוּא וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ אִי צָבִית לְיִבּוּמֵי יָתָהּ יַבֵּם וְאִי לֹא אַטְלַע לָהּ קָדֳמָנָא רַגְלָךְ דִּימִינָא וְתִשְׁרֵי סֵינָךְ מֵעַל רַגְלָךְ וְתָרֹק בְּאַנְפָּךְ. וְעָנִי וְאָמַר לָנָא לֵית אֲנָא צָבִי לְיִבּוּמֵי יָתָהּ. מִיַּד אַקְרִינוּהָ לִפְלוֹנִית דָּא מֵאֵן יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי. וְאַף לְהַאי פְּלוֹנִי אַקְרִינוּהוּ לֵיהּ לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ. וְאַטְלַע לָהּ רַגְלֵיהּ דִּימִינָא וְשָׁרַת סֵינֵיהּ מֵעַל רַגְלֵיהּ וְרָקַת בְּאַנְפּוֹהִי רֹקָא דְּאִיתְחֲזִי לָנָא מִפּוּמָהּ עַל אַרְעָא. וְתוּב אַקְרִינוּהָ לִפְלוֹנִית דָּא כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל. וַאֲנַחְנָא דַּיָּנֵי וְכָל דְּהַוּוּ יָתְבִין קָדֳמָנָא עֲנֵינָן בַּתְרֵיהּ חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל תְּלַת זִמְנִין. וּמִדְּאִיתְעֲבִיד עֻבְדָּא דָּא קָדֳמָנָא שָׁרִינוּהָ לִפְלוֹנִית דָּא לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנַסְבָּא לְכָל מַאן דְּתִצְבֵּי וְאִינַשׁ לֹא יִמְחֶה בְּיֳדָהּ מִן יוֹמָא דְּנָן וּלְעָלַם. וּבָעִית מִנָּנָא פְּלוֹנִית דָּא גִּטָּא דַּחֲלִיצוּתָא דָּא וּכְתַבְנָא וַחֲתַמְנָא וִיהַבְנָא לָהּ לִזְכוּ כְּדַת משֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל. פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי עֵד. פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי עֵד:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
**This is the formal text of the document recording the chalitzah that is employed at present:**
On this day of the week and on this day of the month, in this year from the time of creation, according to the reckoning that is followed in this and this place, we, the judges, of whom several have signed below,⁹¹ sat in a session of three in court. So and so, the widow of so and so, the daughter of so and so, approached us, as did a man named so and so, the son of so and so.
And this woman told us: "So and so, the son of so and so, [is] the paternal brother of so and so, my husband. [My husband,] to whom I was married, died, leaving life to the Sages and to the entire Jewish people. He did not leave a son or a daughter to inherit him and to perpetuate his name within Israel. So and so, his brother is fit to perform *yibbum* with me.
"Rabbis, tell that man: 'If you desire to perform *yibbum*, do so.' If not, let him place his right foot before me, and I will remove his shoe from his foot and spit before him."
We clarified the identity of so and so and that he is the paternal brother of so and so, and we told him: "If you desire to perform *yibbum*, do so. If not, place your right foot before us, so that she can remove your shoe from your foot and spit before you." He answered us: "I do not desire to perform *yibbum*."
Immediately, we had this woman recite after us:⁹² "My *yavam* refuses to raise a name for his brother within Israel. My *yavam* does not desire [to perform *yibbum*]."
And then, we had the man recite after us:⁹³ "I do not desire to take her." He then placed his right foot forward. She removed his shoe from his foot and spit before him, emitting spittle that could be seen by us from her mouth to the ground.
We then had her recite after us:⁹⁴ "This is what should be done to a man who does not build his brother's household. And his [family] shall be called within Israel 'the household of the one whose shoe was removed.' And we the judges, and all those sitting before us, answered after her: "the one whose shoe was removed," "the one whose shoe was removed," "the one whose shoe was removed," three times.
When this act was performed before us, we granted license for so and so to marry whomever she desires; no man has the right to raise a protest from this day onward.
So and so made a request for a legal record of this *chalitzah*. [Hence,] we wrote it up, signed it and gave to her as proof according to the faith of Moses and Israel.
Signed so and so the son of so and so, a witness;
so and so the son of so and so, a witness.⁹⁵, although it is highly likely that they are a printer's addition. They are not found in most early manuscripts and printings. Moreover, it is likely that they are a later printer's addition because the Rambam does not mention witnesses signing this document, but rather only the judges who presided over the *chalitzah*.

footnotes:
⁹¹ For as stated in Halachah 5, at the outset five judges are necessary. Nevertheless, it is the presence of three that is considered significant.
⁹² Using the Hebrew words of the verse.
⁹³ Using the Hebrew words of the verse.
⁹⁴ Using the Hebrew words of the verse.
⁹⁵ We have included these lines based on the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:31
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:31)

וּמְעִידִין עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מִן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁרָאוּ הַחֲלִיצָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן הַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁחָלְצָה בִּפְנֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִשָּׁה אוֹ עֶבֶד אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁהוּא מַכִּיר וְנָבוֹן נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר זֶה פְּלוֹנִי אָחִי פְּלוֹנִי וְזוֹ הִיא יְבִמְתּוֹ וְחוֹלְצִין עַל פִּיהֶן. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר עֵדֻיּוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה בֵּין לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן בֵּין לְעֵדוּת אִסּוּר. שֶׁזֶּה דָּבָר הֶעָשׂוּי לְהִגָּלוֹת הוּא אֶפְשָׁר לֵידַע אֲמִתַּת הַדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא מִפִּיהֶן כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּסוֹף הִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין. וְאִם רָצָה הַיָּבָם לְיַבֵּם מְקַדֵּשׁ וּמְיַבֵּם וְכוֹתֵב לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוֹדַעְנוּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The three judges, two of the three judges, or two other individuals who witnessed the *chalitzah*, but who did not serve as the judges presiding over the *chalitzah*, may testify concerning the matter, as we have explained.⁹⁶
Even [the testimony of] a woman, a servant or a minor who is perceptive and understanding is accepted if they say that "This is so and so, the brother of so and so, and this is his *yevamah*." We may then perform *chalitzah* on this basis. This does not apply with regard to other forms of testimony required by the Torah - neither testimony required in questions of monetary law nor testimony required with regard to prohibitions.
[The rationale for this distinction is that this is a matter that will likely be revealed, and it is possible to know the truth of the matter without relying on their testimony, as we have explained at the conclusion of *Hilchot Gittin*.⁹⁷ by stating:
Do not wonder at the fact that our Sages released the prohibition [against a married woman], which is considered a very severe matter, on the basis of the testimony of a woman, a servant or a maid servant, statements made by a gentile in the course of conversation, a written statement, or [testimony] that was not investigated by the ordinary process of interrogation, as we have explained.
[These leniencies were instituted] because the Torah required the testimony of two witnesses, and all the other details of the laws of witnesses only with regard to matters that cannot be verified definitively except via witnesses and their testimony - e.g., that one person killed another, or that one person lent money to another. When, by contrast, the matter can be verified definitively without the testimony of a witness, and the witness cannot justify [his statements] if they are not true - e.g., when one testifies that a person died, the Torah did not necessitate [that the requirements of formal testimony be met in these instances]. For it is unlikely that a witness will testify falsely.
As interpreted by the *Noda BiY'hudah* (*Even HaEzer*, Volume I, Responsa 27 and 33), the Rambam's statement implies that since the matter will ultimately become public knowledge, no formal testimony is required, and the statements of an individual who witnessed the matter himself are sufficient to be accepted.
If the *yavam* desires to perform *yibbum*, he should consecrate her, perform *yibbum* and write her a *ketubah*, as we have explained.⁹⁸ 22:14.

footnotes:
⁹⁶ See Halachah 29.
⁹⁷ The Rambam concludes Hilchot Gerushin
⁹⁸ See Chapter 2, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ishut


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:32
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:32)

וזהו נוסח כתובת יבמין שנהגו העם: בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ לְיֶרַח פְּלוֹנִי שְׁנַת כָּךְ וְכָךְ לְמִנְיַן פְּלוֹנִי לְמִנְיָנָא דְּרָגִילְנָא לְמִימְנֵי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֵיךְ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי אָתָא לָקֳדָמָנָא וְכֵן אָמַר לָנָא. אָחִי דְּמִן אַבָּא שָׁכִיב וְחַיֵּי לְרַבָּנָן וּלְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁבַק. וּבַר וּבָרַת יָרִית וּמַחְסִין וּמוֹקִים שְׁמָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁבַק. וְשָׁבַק הַהִיא אִתְּתָא דִּשְׁמָהּ פְּלוֹנִית בַּת פְּלוֹנִי וְחָזִי לִי מִן אוֹרַיְתָא לְיִבּוּמֵי יָתָהּ כְּדִכְתִיב בְּסֵפֶר אוֹרַיְתָא דְּמשֶׁה יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. וּצְבִיאַת פְּלוֹנִית דָּא וְאִתְיַבְּמַת לִפְלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי יְבָמָהּ לְאוֹקוּמֵי שְׁמָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדִכְתִיב וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת וְגוֹ'. וְכָתַב לָהּ פְּלוֹנִי יְבָמָהּ לִפְלוֹנִית יְבִמְתֵּיהּ כֶּסֶף זוּזֵי מָאתָן דְּחָזוּ לָהּ דַּהֲווּ כְּתִיבִין בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ דְּכָתַב לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ קַדְמָאָה וְאוֹסִיף לָהּ מִדִּילֵיהּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְדָא נְדוּנְיָא דְּהַנְעָלַת לֵיהּ וְכוּ' כִּשְׁאָר טָפְסֵי כְּתֻבּוֹת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
On this day of the week and on this day of the month, in this year according to the reckoning that is followed in this and this place, [we the undersigned testify] that so and so, the son of so and so, appeared before us and told us: "My paternal brother died, leaving life to the Sages and to all of Israel. He did not leave a son or a daughter to inherit him and to perpetuate his name within Israel. He did, however, leave a woman so and so, the daughter of so and so. According to the Torah, she is fit to perform *yibbum* with me, as it is written in the Torah scroll of Moses: 'A *yavam* will engage in relations with her.' This woman consented and performed *yibbum* with so and so, the son of so and so, her *yavam*, to perpetuate [her deceased husband's] name within Israel, as it is written: "The first-born that she bears will arise in the name of his brother who is deceased."⁹⁹
So and so, the *yavam*, has written [a marriage contract for] two hundred silver *zuzim*, as befits her, as was written in the marriage contract written to her by her first husband,¹⁰⁰. Otherwise, she would be granted only one hundred *zuz*, as is granted to other widows. and he adds to this pledge from his own resources this and this amount. This is the dowry with which she entered the household... [continuing as in] the ordinary text of a *ketubah*.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ It appears in this context that the Rambam is referring to the literal meaning of the verse and not the halachic meaning, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.
¹⁰⁰ This refers to an instance where the woman was a virgin when she married her first husband. Since she did not collect her due from her first husband, she is still entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred zuz


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:33
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:33)

טופס הכתובה: בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי כוּ'. אֵיךְ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִפְלוֹנִית בַּת פְּלוֹנִי בְּתֻלְתָּא כַּלָּתָא הֱוִי לִי לְאִנְתּוּ כְּדַת משֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנָא בְּמֵימַר דִּשְׁמַיָּא אֶפְלַח וְאוֹקִיר וַאֲסוֹבַר וְאֵיזוּן וַאֲפַרְנֵס וְאִכְסֵי יָתִיכִי כְּהִלְכוֹת גֻּבְרִין יְהוּדָאִין דְּמוֹקְרִין וּמְסוֹבְרִין וְזָנִין וּמְפַרְנְסִין וּמְכַסִּין יָת נְשֵׁיהוֹן בְּקֻשְׁטָא. וְיָהִיבְנָא לֵיכִי מֹהַר בְּתֻלֵּיכִי כֶּסֶף זוּזֵי מָאתָן דְּאִינוּן מִזּוּזֵי כַּסְפָּא כ״‎ה דְּחָזוּ לֵיכִי מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא וּמְזוֹנַיְכִי וּכְסוּתַיְכִי וְסִפּוּקַיְכִי. וּמֵעַל עָלַיְכִי כְּאֹרַח כָּל אַרְעָא. וּצְבִיאַת פְּלוֹנִית דָּא וַהֲוַת לֵיהּ לְאִנְתּוּ לִפְלוֹנִי דְּנָא. וְרָצָה וְהוֹסִיף לָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת עַל עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עַד מִשְׁלַם כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְדָא נְדוּנְיָא דְּהַנְעָלַת לֵיהּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ הַכּל נִתְקַבֵּל חָתָן זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ וְנַעֲשֶׂה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְזָקַף הַכּל עַל עַצְמוֹ כְּמִלְוֶה וּרְשׁוּ. וְכֵן אָמַר לָנָא פְּלוֹנִי חֲתָנָא דְּנָא אַחֲרָיוּת כְּתֻבְתָּא כּלָא עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּה וּנְדוּנְיָא וְתוֹסֶפֶת וּשְׁאָר תְּנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה קַבָּלִית עָלַי וְעַל יַרְתַי בַּתְרָאִי וְעַל כָּל שְׁפַר אֲרַג נִכְסִין וְקִנְיָנִין דְּאִית לִי תְּחוֹת [כָּל] שְׁמַיָּא דְּקַנָּאִי וּדְעָתִיד אֲנָא לְמִיקְנָה מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וּמִמִּטַּלְטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרְקְעֵי כֻּלְּהוֹן יֵהוֹן אַחְרָאִין וְעַרְבָאִין לִכְתֻבָּה דָּא כּלָא עִקָּר וּנְדוּנְיָא וְתוֹסֶפֶת לְאִתְפָּרְעָא מִנְּהוֹן בְּחַיַּי וּבָתַר מוֹתִי וַאֲפִלּוּ מִגְּלִימָא דְּעַל כַּתְפָאִי. וְקָנִינָן מִפְּלוֹנִי דָּא מִכָּל מַאי דִּכְתִיב וּמְפָרַשׁ לְעֵילָא קִנְיָן שָׁלֵם דְּלֹא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וּדְלָא כְּטֹפְסָא דִּשְׁטָרֵי אֶלָּא כְּחֹזֶק וּכְחֹמֶר כָּל שִׁטְרֵי כְּתֻבּוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְכַהֹגֶן וּכְתִקּוּן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זַ״‎ל וְחָתַמְנוּ עַל שְׁטַר כְּתֻבָּה זוֹ בַּזְּמַן הַנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל וְהַכּל בָּרִיר וְשָׁרִיר וְקַיָּם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
33
**On this day of the week..., [we the undersigned testify] that so and so, the son of so and so, told so and so, the daughter of so and so, a virgin bride: "Become my wife according to the faith of Moses and the Jewish people. And I, with the help of God, will work to honor you, sustain you, nourish you, provide for you and clothe you according to the custom of Jewish men who faithfully honor, sustain, nurture, provide for and clothe their wives.**
"And as a dowry fit for a virgin, I will give you 200 silver *zuzim*, which are equivalent to 25 *zuzim* of [pure] silver,¹⁰² 10:8). which are fit for you according to the Torah,¹⁰³ (*ibid.*), this phrase appears to be a printer's addition, for the Rambam considers the commitment to this sum to be a Rabbinic ordinance. It is lacking in many authoritative printings and manuscripts of the *Mishneh Torah*. According to Ashkenazic custom, the phrase should be included in the *ketubah*. your sustenance, your clothing and your other needs, and I will give you conjugal rights."¹⁰⁴ (her sustenance), *kesutah* (her clothing) and *onatah* (her conjugal rights). These constitute a man's fundamental obligations in marriage, as stated in Exodus 21:10. (See also *Sefer HaMitzvot*, Negative Commandment 262; *Hilchot Ishut* 12:2.)
So and so agreed and became the wife of so and so. He consented and added to the essential requirement of the marriage contract, reaching a total sum of such and such. This is the sum of the value of the dowry that she brought to the household, such and such. The groom received this entire amount. It entered his domain and came under his jurisdiction, and he accepted responsibility for the entire amount as a loan and a debt.
Similarly, the groom has told us, "I accept responsibility for the entire [sum mentioned in] this marriage contract: the essential requirement of the marriage contract, the dowry, the additional amount, and all the stipulations of the marriage contract.¹⁰⁵
"[This responsibility I accept upon myself,] my heirs and on all the valuable and desirable property and assets that I own beneath the heavens. [This includes] those that I already own and those that I will acquire and includes landed property and movable property that is acquired via the acquisition of landed property. All of them will be liable and accountable for the entire sum of this marriage contract: the essential requirement of the marriage contract, the dowry and the additions that payment be made from them in my lifetime and after my death, including even the cloak I wear on my shoulders."
We have formalized all that is written and explicitly stated above with a comprehensive *kinyan*.¹⁰⁶, the exchange of a handkerchief that serves to formalize the acquisition of property, or the establishment of a binding contractual agreement. It should not be considered as an *asmachta*¹⁰⁷ or as a sample text for legal documents that is not binding. Instead, it is binding with all the power and rigor of marriage contracts that are customarily accepted among the Jewish people, as ordained by our Rabbis of blessed memory. We signed this marriage contract on the date mentioned above. Everything is clear, forceful and viable.

footnotes:
¹⁰² For the coins of the Talmudic era were one part silver and seven parts base metal (Hilchot Ishut
¹⁰³ Based on Hilchot Ishut
¹⁰⁴ This conveys a man's pledge to give his wife sha'arah
¹⁰⁵ I.e., to provide his wife with her provisions and clothing.
¹⁰⁶ I.e., a kinyan sudar
¹⁰⁷ An agreement made facetiously, without the desire to keep it.


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:34
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:34](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:34)

וְאִם הָיְתָה כְּתֻבַּת אַלְמָנָה כּוֹתֵב פְּלוֹנִית אַלְמְנָתָא. וְאִם הָיְתָה כְּתֻבַּת גְּרוּשָׁה כּוֹתֵב פְּלוֹנִית הַגְּרוּשָׁה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה שְׁבוּיָה כּוֹתֵב פְּלוֹנִית הַשְּׁבוּיָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּשֵׁל בָּהּ כֹּהֵן. וְכוֹתֵב וְיָהִיבְנָא לֵיכִי מֹהַרַיְכִי כֶּסֶף זוּזֵי מֵאָה דְּאִינוּן מִזּוּזֵי כַּסְפָּא תְּרֵיסַר וּפַלְגָּא דְּחָזוּ לֵיכִי וְכוּ':

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the marriage contract is written for a widow, it should mention [the woman's name as] "so and so, the widow."¹⁰⁸. In order to explain this reduction, the marriage contract mentions her status. If the marriage contract is written for a divorcee, it should mention [the woman's name as] "so and so, the divorcee."¹⁰⁹ Similarly, if she had been taken captive [by gentiles], one should write "so and so, who was taken captive," so that a priest will not err [and marry] her.¹¹⁰ 18:17.
[In these instances,] it is written: "And as a dowry, I will give you 100 silver *zuzim*, which are equivalent to 12 1/2 *zuzim* of [pure] silver, which are fit for you...."¹¹¹ of this amount according to many authorities. Others maintain that she should be given the amount usually given to a virgin bride, so that she will not be publicly embarrassed. Others differentiate between a woman who had relations only with her prospective husband (in which case, the second ruling is followed) and one who had relations with others (in which case the first ruling is followed).

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ The essential requirement of the marriage contract of a widow is only one hundred zuzim
¹⁰⁹ This is necessary for the reasons mentioned previously and also to identify the woman as being forbidden to the priesthood. Even if this husband leaves her a widow, she may not marry a priest, because of her previous divorce.
¹¹⁰ Such a woman is forbidden to the priesthood, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah
¹¹¹ If a woman had engaged in sexual relations previously outside the context of marriage, she should also be given a ketubah


###### Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:35
[Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 4:35](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Levirate%20Marriage%20and%20Release/r/4:35)

כְּשֶׁכּוֹתְבִין גֵּט יְבָמִין אוֹ כְּתֻבַּת יְבָמִין מְשַׂרְטֵט מְקוֹם הַפְּסוּקִים. שֶׁאָסוּר לִכְתֹּב שָׁלֹשׁ תֵּבוֹת בְּלֹא שִׂרְטוּט. וִיבָמָה שֶׁחָלְצָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא בְּיוֹם חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת עַד שֶׁתַּשְׁלִים תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a legal record of the *chalitzah* or a *ketubah* for a *yevamah* is written, the place where the verses [from the Torah] are written should be ruled with a stylus, for it is forbidden to write three words [from the Torah] without ruling [the surface on which one writes].¹¹² 2:4)], and his ruling in *Hilchot Sefer Torah* 7:16, where he states that one may write three words, but not four, without ruling the writing surface. The *Maggid Mishneh* notes that both of these opinions have their source in *Megillah* 7b. He and other commentaries discuss this issue in *Hilchot Sefer Torah*.
The contradiction was brought to the attention of the Rambam's grandson, Rabbi Yehoshua, who states that the ruling in *Hilchot Sefer Torah* should be followed, since there the subject is given full focus, while in *Hilchot Yibbum* the matter is mentioned tangentially. Significantly, however, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Yoreh De'ah* 284:2) differs and follows the more stringent view.
A *yevamah* who performs *chalitzah* is permitted to marry on the same day on which she performed *chalitzah*, for she should not perform *chalitzah* until 90 days have passed [since her husband's death].¹¹³

footnotes:
¹¹² The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here [which is also reflected in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sotah
¹¹³ See Chapter 1, Halachah 19.