## Yevamot Daf 101a

###### Yevamot 101a:1
[Yevamot 101a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:1)

הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִכָּה זֶה וְחָזַר וְהִכָּה זֶה, קִלֵּל זֶה וְחָזַר וְקִלֵּל זֶה, קִלֵּל שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת, הִכָּה שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת — חַיָּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּבַת אַחַת — חַיָּיב, בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that if **both** uncertain fathers **were priests,** the son is exempt from punishment for striking and for cursing them. **The Sages taught:** If **he struck this** uncertain father, **and then struck that one,** or if **he cursed this one and then cursed that one,** or if **he cursed both of them simultaneously** or **struck both of them simultaneously,** in all these cases **he is liable** to receive capital punishment, as one of them is certainly his father. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Although if he struck or cursed both of them **simultaneously he is liable,** if he struck or cursed them **one after the other, he is exempt.**


###### Yevamot 101a:2
[Yevamot 101a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:2)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פָּטוּר בְּבַת אַחַת! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says: He is exempt** even if he struck or cursed them **simultaneously?** The Gemara answers: These are the opinions of **two *tanna’im*,** and they each expressed their opinion **in accordance with** that **of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Yevamot 101a:3
[Yevamot 101a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּפָטַר? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: נֶאֶמְרָה בְּרָכָה לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֶמְרָה בְּרָכָה לְמַעְלָה. מָה לְמַעְלָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת — אַף לְמַטָּה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת. וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ הַכָּאָה לִקְלָלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of the one who exempts** the son from punishment? **Rabbi Ḥanina said: Blessing is stated below** (Leviticus 20:9), with regard to cursing parents, **and blessing is stated above** (Exodus 22:27), with regard to cursing God. The Sages used the word blessing as a euphemism for cursing, as it was their custom to avoid uncouth language. **Just as** the statement **above,** in Exodus, is referring to a curse **that does not involve partnership,** as God is One, **so too** the statement **below,** in Leviticus, is referring exclusively to a curse of a parent **that does not involve partnership,** i.e., when there is no doubt with regard to his identity. **And striking is juxtaposed with cursing.** Just as one is not liable for cursing when it is unclear who his father is, the same applies to striking.


###### Yevamot 101a:4
[Yevamot 101a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:4)

וְעוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָרוֹ וְכוּ׳. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק, לָמָּה עוֹלֶה? לָמָּה עוֹלֶה?! הָאָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּנֶיעְבֵּיד מִצְוָה! אֶלָּא: ״עָלָה״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״עוֹלֶה״ — בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna: **And he ascends** to the Temple service **with the priestly watch** of both uncertain fathers. However, he does not receive a share of the offerings of either watch. The Gemara asks: **Since he does not receive a share, why does he ascend?** The Gemara is puzzled by this question: **Why does he ascend? Doesn’t he** naturally **say: I wish to perform a mitzva** by serving as a priest? The Gemara explains: **However,** note that the mishna **does not state:** If **he ascended, but rather: He ascends,** in the present tense. Apparently he is obligated to ascend, even **against his will.**


###### Yevamot 101a:5
[Yevamot 101a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:5)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Why is he under obligation to serve in the Temple? **Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said** that **Abaye said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** He is obligated **due to** the potential **family flaw,** i.e., harm to the family name. If he does not serve with these watches, people will infer that both families are unfit for the priesthood, which is not the case.


###### Yevamot 101a:6
[Yevamot 101a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:6)

וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמִשְׁמָר כּוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁנֵי מִשְׁמָרוֹת דְּלָא — דְּאָזֵיל לְהָא מִשְׁמָרָה וּמְדַחוּ לֵיהּ, וְאָזֵיל לְהָא מִשְׁמָרָה וּמְדַחוּ לֵיהּ. מִשְׁמָר אֶחָד נָמֵי: אָזֵיל לְהַאי בֵּית אָב וּמְדַחוּ לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is stated in the mishna: **And if both** uncertain fathers **were in one priestly watch,** he receives one share. The Gemara asks: **What is different** about the case in which the uncertain fathers belonged to **two priestly watches,** with regard to which the mishna states **that** the son **does not** receive a share, and the case in which they belonged to the same watch? Just **as** in the case where they belonged to two watches, **he goes to this watch** to receive a share **and they reject him,** claiming that he belongs to the other watch, **and he goes to that watch and they reject him** in the same manner, **so too,** where they belonged to **one watch, he goes to this patrilineal family** to receive a share on their day, **and they reject him,** and the other patrilineal family rejects him too, as his true patrilineal family is unknown.


###### Yevamot 101a:7
[Yevamot 101a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:7)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מִשְׁמָר אֶחָד וּבֵית אָב אֶחָד — נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that **this is what** the mishna **is saying: If they were both in one priestly watch and one patrilineal family, he receives one share,** as he cannot be rejected.


###### Yevamot 101a:8
[Yevamot 101a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:8)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ נוֹשְׂאִין עַל הָאֲנוּסָה**


###### Yevamot 101a:9
[Yevamot 101a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:9)

**מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה** בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דַּיָּינִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. חָלְצָה בְּמִנְעָל — חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָקֵב — כָּשֵׁר, וְשֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָקֵב — פְּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The mitzva of *ḥalitza*,** the ritual through which the *yavam* frees the *yevama* of her levirate bonds, **must be** performed before **three judges, and** the ritual does not require the judges to be experts fit to adjudicate other matters, as **even if all three are laymen,** it is acceptable. **If she performed *ḥalitza*** while he was wearing **a shoe** made of soft leather that covers the whole foot, **her *ḥalitza* is valid,** but if she performed *ḥalitza* while he was wearing **a soft shoe [*anpileya*]** made of cloth, **her *ḥalitza* is invalid,** as it is not considered a real shoe. If *ḥalitza* was performed while he was wearing **a sandal,** i.e., footwear made of hard leather, **that has a heel,** it is **valid; but** if performed with a sandal **without a heel, it is invalid** *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 101a:10
[Yevamot 101a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:10)

מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה — חֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה. מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה — חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה. חָלְצָה בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁאֵין שֶׁלּוֹ, אוֹ בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁל עֵץ, אוֹ בְּשֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בְּיָמִין — חֲלִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה. חָלְצָה בְּגָדוֹל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַהֲלוֹךְ בּוֹ, אוֹ בְּקָטָן שֶׁהוּא חוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב רַגְלוֹ — חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the leg of the *yavam* was amputated anywhere **from the knee down** and she performed *ḥalitza* as he wore a shoe on the stump of his leg, **it is valid *ḥalitza*.** If, however, the leg was amputated anywhere **from the knee and above,** and she performed *ḥalitza* as he wore a shoe on the stump of his leg, **it is invalid *ḥalitza*. If she performed *ḥalitza*** while the man was wearing **a sandal that did not belong to him, or a sandal made of wood, or on the left** shoe, **which was** being worn **on his right** foot, **it is valid *ḥalitza*. If she performed *ḥalitza*** as the man was wearing a shoe that was too **large** for him but **which he can** still **walk in, or** a shoe that was too **small** but **that covered most of his foot, her *ḥalitza* is valid.**


###### Yevamot 101a:11
[Yevamot 101a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** וּמֵאַחַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, דַּיָּינִין לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּבָעֵינַן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים לְהַקְרוֹת כְּעֵין דַּיָּינִים. תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְהַקְרוֹת כְּעֵין דַּיָּינִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּחֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Now that** the mishna says that **even three laymen** are qualified for *ḥalitza*, **why do I** need it to mention **judges?** It would be sufficient to say that the mitzva requires three people. The Gemara answers: **This teaches us that we require three** people **who can** at least **dictate** the verses read during the *ḥalitza* ritual to the participants **like judges,** as they are not complete laymen in that they are literate. The Gemara comments: **We** already **learned this** *halakha* in a *baraita*, **as the Sages taught: The mitzva of *ḥalitza* is** performed **before three** individuals **who know** how **to dictate** the verses **like judges. Rabbi Yehuda says:** *Ḥalitza* must be performed **before five** individuals acting as judges.


###### Yevamot 101a:12
[Yevamot 101a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:12)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״זְקֵנִים״ — שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד — הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״זִקְנֵי״ — שְׁנַיִם, ״זְקֵנִים״ — שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד — הֲרֵי כָּאן חֲמִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the dispute as to how many individuals must conduct the *ḥalitza*: **What is the reason of the first *tanna*,** who requires three? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning *ḥalitza*: “His *yevama* shall ascend to the gate to the **Elders”** (Deuteronomy 25:7). Since the minimum number of the plural term “Elders” is **two, and** since, in order to prevent a paralyzing disagreement between an even number of judges, **a court may not** be composed of an **even** number of judges, **one more is added to them. Therefore, there are three** judges. **And Rabbi Yehuda** interprets the verse otherwise, for one verse states: “And the **Elders of** his city shall call him” (Deuteronomy 25:8), indicating a minimum of **two** judges, and it says in the following verse **“Elders”** another time, indicating an additional **two** people, **and** since **a court may not** be composed of an **even** number of judges, **one more is added to them. Therefore, there are five** judges.


###### Yevamot 101a:13
[Yevamot 101a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:13)

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הַאי ״זִקְנֵי״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי אֲפִילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what does the first *tanna* do with this** second appearance of the word **“Elders”?** The Gemara explains: **He requires it for** allowing the **inclusion** of **even three laymen** as presiding judges for *ḥalitza*. The word “Elders” would seem to limit *ḥalitza* to recognized judges, but since it is mentioned twice, it becomes an instance of the hermeneutic principle that one restrictive expression appearing after another restrictive expression comes to include some additional *halakha*. Therefore, repeating the restrictive term “Elders” twice actually comes to include laymen rather than exclude them.


###### Yevamot 101a:14
[Yevamot 101a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:14)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֶדְיוֹטוֹת מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לְּעֵינֵי״, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״לְעֵינֵי״ — פְּרָט לְסוֹמִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive** the *halakha* that *ḥalitza* can be done in the presence of **laymen?** The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** what is written: **“Before the eyes of** the Elders” (Deuteronomy 25:9), **for the Master said: “Before the eyes of” excludes blind individuals** from being the judges conducting the *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 101a:15
[Yevamot 101a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/101a:15)

וּמִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״לְעֵינֵי״ לְמַעוֹטֵי סוֹמִים, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דַּאֲפִילּוּ הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סַנְהֶדְרִין בָּעֵינַן, לְמָה לִי לְמַעוֹטֵי סוֹמִין? מִדְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף נָפְקָא, דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּים בְּצֶדֶק, כָּךְ בֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּים מִכׇּל מוּם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And since it was necessary** to say **“before the eyes of” to exclude blind individuals** from being judges for *ḥalitza*, **learn from here** that **even laymen** are qualified to be judges for *ḥalitza*. **For if it enters your mind** to say that **we require** expert judges who are fit to sit on the high court of the **Sanhedrin,** then **why do I** need **to exclude blind individuals? For that** matter can be **derived from** a *baraita* that **Rav Yosef taught, as Rav Yosef taught: Just as a court must be clean in righteousness,** as they are careful to judge others justly, and are free of guilt and suspicion, **likewise a court must be clean of any** physical **blemish,** with judges who are physically complete.