## Yevamot Daf 102b

###### Yevamot 102b:1
[Yevamot 102b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:1)

וּמִי אִיכָּא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? אִין, דְּחַזְיוּהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יְהוּדָה דִּנְפַק בְּחַמְשָׁא זוּזֵי מוֹקֵי לְשׁוּקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is there really a case like this** where people wear one shoe on top of another? The Gemara answers: **Yes, for the Sages saw Rav Yehuda, who went out** once **to the market wearing five pairs of** shoes, which were similar to **slippers,** one on top of another.


###### Yevamot 102b:2
[Yevamot 102b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יְבָמָה שֶׁהִגְדִּילָה בֵּין הָאַחִין — מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא לְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא חָלְצָה סַנְדָּל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. טַעְמָא, דְּלָא חָזֵינַן, הָא חָזֵינַן — חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** another *halakha* that **Rav said:** An underage ***yevama* who grew up among** her husband’s **brothers** before any *ḥalitza* was performed **is permitted to marry one of the brothers** through levirate marriage, **and we are not concerned** about the possibility **that** during the time she was in the company of her *yevamin* **she removed a sandal from one of them,** and thereby she would have already performed *ḥalitza*. The Gemara infers from this statement: **The reason** it is permitted to perform levirate marriage now **is** specifically **that we did not see** her remove one of their shoes, **but if** in fact **we did see** her do so, **we are concerned** and treat her as a *yevama* who already performed *ḥalitza* and is thereby forbidden to all the brothers.


###### Yevamot 102b:3
[Yevamot 102b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:3)

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון הוּא וְלֹא נִתְכַּוְּונָה הִיא, בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונָה הִיא וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון הוּא — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה, עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוְּונוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דַּחֲזֵינַן — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא כִּוְּונוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Whether he intended** to perform *ḥalitza* **and she did not intend** to, **or whether she intended** to perform *ḥalitza* **and he did not intend to, the *ḥalitza* is invalid, unless they both intended it as one** to perform a proper act of *ḥalitza*? The Gemara answers: **This is what** Rav **said: Even if we** did **see** that she removed a shoe from one of them, **we are not concerned that perhaps they intended to** perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 102b:4
[Yevamot 102b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:4)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: טַעְמָא, דְּלָא חָזֵינַן, הָא חָזֵינַן — חוֹשְׁשִׁין. וּדְקָא תָנֵא בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְאִישְׁתְּרוֹיֵי לְעָלְמָא, אֲבָל לְאַחִין מִיפַּסְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** the inference from Rav’s statement should be made in the opposite manner: **The reason** it is permitted for her to perform levirate marriage now **is** specifically **that we did not see** her remove a shoe from one of the brothers. **But if we did see, we would be concerned** and would treat her as a *yevama* who already performed *ḥalitza*, despite our knowledge that she did not intend to perform *ḥalitza*. **And** with regard to **that which was taught** in the *baraita*, **that intention is required, this applies** only as far as validating the act of *ḥalitza* in order **to permit her to marry a stranger. But** performing an act of *ḥalitza* even without intention is sufficient to **disqualify her for the brothers,** rendering prohibited an act of levirate marriage afterward.


###### Yevamot 102b:5
[Yevamot 102b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: סַנְדָּל הַתָּפוּר בְּפִשְׁתָּן — אֵין חוֹלְצִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאֶנְעֲלֵךְ תָּחַשׁ״. וְאֵימָא: תַּחַשׁ — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא! ״נַעַל״ ״נַעַל״ רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda** also **said** that **Rav said: One may not perform *ḥalitza* using a sandal** that was **sewn** together **with** threads made of **flax, as it is stated: “And I made you shoes of *taḥash* skin”** (Ezekiel 16:10), which is the skin of an animal, implying that a shoe is something made entirely of leather. The Gemara challenges: If the source is “*taḥash*,” **let us say:** A shoe made of ***taḥash* skin, yes,** it is valid; but if made of **anything else, no.** The Gemara rejects this: Because **“shoe”** and **“shoe”** are written in the Torah multiple times, this **amplifies** and includes all types of shoes crafted from leather skins as valid for performing *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 102b:6
[Yevamot 102b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:6)

אִי ״נַעַל״ ״נַעַל״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי! אִם כֵּן, ״תָּחַשׁ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the inclusion of the words **“shoe”** and **“shoe” amplifies,** then should one include as valid for performing *ḥalitza* shoes crafted from **even any** other **materials as well,** including those not produced from leather at all? The Gemara answers: **If so, what purpose does “*taḥash*” serve,** as nothing is learned from it? Rather, from the word *taḥash* it is derived that the shoe must be crafted entirely of leather, but all types of leather are included because the word “shoe” is repeated in the Torah numerous times.


###### Yevamot 102b:7
[Yevamot 102b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:7)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הוּא שֶׁל עוֹר, וּתְרֵיסִיּוֹתָיו שֶׁל שֵׂעָר, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי לָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וָאֶנְעֲלֵךְ תָּחַשׁ״? אִי הָכִי, כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁל שֵׂעָר נָמֵי! הָהוּא קֻרְקָא מִקְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar asked Rav:** What is the status of the following type of sandal used for performing *ḥalitza*? In a case where **it,** the shoe itself, **is made of leather, and** the sections that hold **its straps [*tereisiyyot*]** are made **of hair,** as they were woven together with goat’s hair, **what is** the *halakha*? **He said to him: Do we not refer to** such a sandal **as: “And I made you shoes of *taḥash*”?** Since it is crafted from material that comes from an animal it is valid. The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** i.e., that anything derived from an animal is valid, then even if it is fashioned **entirely of hair it should also be** valid. The Gemara answers: **That would be called a slipper,** not a shoe.


###### Yevamot 102b:8
[Yevamot 102b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ״ מִישְׁלַף הוּא — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחִלְּצוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים אֲשֶׁר בָּהֵן הַנָּגַע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said to Shmuel: From where is it known that this** phrase: **“And she shall remove [*ḥaltza*] his shoe from on his foot”** (Deuteronomy 25:9), **means to remove? As it is written:** “Then the priest shall command, **and they shall take out [*ḥiltzu*] the stones in which the plague is”** (Leviticus 14:40), indicating that the word *ḥaltza* means that they shall remove the stones from their place.


###### Yevamot 102b:9
[Yevamot 102b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:9)

וְאֵימָא זָרוֹזֵי הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״הֵחָלְצוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם אֲנָשִׁים לַצָּבָא״! הָתָם נָמֵי — שַׁלּוֹפֵי מִבֵּיתָא לִקְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks whether the word *ḥaltza* can be interpreted differently based upon its apparent meaning in other contexts: **But** could you **say it is** a term for **strengthening, as it is written: “Arm [*heḥaletzu*] men from among you for the army”** (Numbers 31:3), meaning that men among you will be strengthened and take up arms to prepare for battle? The Gemara answers: **There too,** the meaning of the word is referring to taking something from its place, as it means **removing** people **from their houses** in order **to go** out **to war.**


###### Yevamot 102b:10
[Yevamot 102b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:10)

וְהָכְתִיב: ״יְחַלֵּץ עָנִי בְעׇנְיוֹ״! בִּשְׂכַר עׇנְיוֹ, יְחַלְּצוֹ מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it written: “He delivers [*yeḥaletz*] the afflicted by His affliction [*be’onyo*]”** (Job 36:15)? This indicates that the afflicted one becomes stronger due to his affliction, as, if the intention was to deliver him from his affliction, it should have said: From His affliction, rather than “by His affliction.” The Gemara answers that the verse should be interpreted as follows: *Be’onyo*, in other words, **as reward for his** suffering from **affliction, He shall deliver him from the judgment of Gehenna,** as is understood from the term *be’onyo*, through the reward due to his affliction.


###### Yevamot 102b:11
[Yevamot 102b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:11)

אֶלָּא הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״חֹנֶה מַלְאַךְ ה׳ סָבִיב לִירֵאָיו וַיְחַלְּצֵם״! בִּשְׂכַר יְרֵאָיו יְחַלְּצֵם מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges further: **But** with regard to **that it is written: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them [*vayeḥaltzem*]”** (Psalms 34:8), doesn’t *vayeḥaltzem* rather mean: He shall strengthen them? The Gemara answers: The verse means: **As a reward for those that fear Him, He shall deliver them from the judgment of Gehenna.** Therefore, the Gemara interprets *vayeḥaltzem* as “delivers them,” not as: Strengthens them.


###### Yevamot 102b:12
[Yevamot 102b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:12)

אֶלָּא הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעַצְמֹתֶיךָ יַחֲלִיץ״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: זוֹ מְעוּלָּה שֶׁבַּבְּרָכוֹת, וְאָמַר רָבָא: זָרוֹזֵי גַּרְמֵי! אִין, מַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי. דְּהָכָא, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ זָרוֹזֵי הוּא, אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ בְּרַגְלוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges further: **But** with regard to **that which is written:** “And the Lord will guide you, and satisfy your soul in drought, **and make your bones strong [*yaḥalitz*]”** (Isaiah 58:11), **and Rabbi Elazar said** regarding that verse: **This is the greatest of blessings, and Rava said** it means: **Strengthening of bones.** This seems to indicate that the root of the word *ḥalitza* is referring to strengthening. The Gemara answers: **Yes, it has this connotation, and it has this connotation,** i.e., the root *ḥ-l-tz* sometimes connotes removal and sometimes connotes strengthening. **But here,** only one meaning is possible, as, **if it enters your mind** that *ḥalitza* here **connotes strengthening, then let the Merciful One write** in the Torah: **She shall strengthen [*ḥaletza*] his shoe on his foot [*beraglo*],** indicating that she should tighten the shoe on his foot, rather than stating: “From on his foot [*me’al raglo*],” which indicates that she is removing something from his foot.


###### Yevamot 102b:13
[Yevamot 102b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:13)

אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּרַגְלוֹ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: ״בְּרַגְלוֹ״ — אִין, בְּשׁוֹקוֹ — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ״ דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּשׁוֹקוֹ. אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּמֵעַל רַגְלוֹ״. מַאי ״מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ״ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִישְׁלַף הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If the Merciful One had written** in the Torah: **On his foot [*beraglo*], I would have said** she must strengthen and tighten the shoe **on his foot, yes, but on his calf, no;** and if his foot were amputated she may no longer perform *ḥalitza*. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** in the Torah: **“From on his foot [*me’al raglo*],”** to teach that she may strengthen the shoe **even on his calf,** which is part of the leg, or *regel*, above the foot. The Gemara answers: **If so,** and *ḥalitza* really means strengthening, **let the Merciful One write** in the Torah: She shall strengthen his shoe **on the upper part of his foot [*beme’al raglo*],** indicating that the shoe can also be tightened on the area of the calf. **What** then **is** the meaning of **“from on his foot [*me’al raglo*],”** which is written in the verse? **Learn from here** that in this context the word *ḥalitza* clearly **indicates removal,** meaning that the mitzva of *ḥalitza* is for the *yevama* to remove the shoe of the *yavam* and not to tighten it on his foot.


###### Yevamot 102b:14
[Yevamot 102b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: עַמָּא דַּחֲלַץ לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּצֹאנָם וּבִבְקָרָם יֵלְכוּ לְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת ה׳ וְלֹא יִמְצָאוּ חָלַץ מֵהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Parenthetical to this discussion, the Gemara relates: **A certain heretic said to Rabban Gamliel:** You, the children of Israel, are **a nation whose Master removed [*ḥalatz*] Himself from them,** for God has left you in much the same way in which a *yavam* would perform *ḥalitza* with his *yevama*, **as it is written: “With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they shall not find Him. He has removed [*ḥalatz*] Himself from them [*meihem*]”** (Hoshea 5:6). The heretic tried to use this verse as scriptural support that God has performed *ḥalitza* with the Jewish people.


###### Yevamot 102b:15
[Yevamot 102b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שׁוֹטֶה, מִי כְּתִיב ״חָלַץ לָהֶם״? ״חָלַץ מֵהֶם״ כְּתִיב, וְאִילּוּ יְבָמָה דְּחָלְצוּ לָהּ אַחִין — מִידֵּי מְשָׁשָׁא אִית בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He,** Rabban Gamliel, **said to him: Imbecile, does it say: He performed *ḥalitza* to them [*lahem*]?** Rather, **it says “*ḥalatz* from them [*meihem*],”** meaning it is as if they, the Jewish people, performed *ḥalitza* on Him. **But if a *yevama* had her shoe removed by her *yevamin*, does this have any significance?** Here too, the meaning of the verse is that the nation of Israel abandoned God by removing themselves from Him, and this abandonment has no significance.


###### Yevamot 102b:16
[Yevamot 102b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:16)

בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּאַנְפִּילְיָא לָאו מִנְעָל הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the phrase used in the mishna that discusses the types of shoes that can be used for *ḥalitza*. It was taught in the mishna that if he was wearing **a soft shoe [*anpileya*]** made of cloth for *ḥalitza*, **her *ḥalitza* is invalid.** The Gemara explains: **That is to say that an *anpileya* is not** considered **a shoe.**


###### Yevamot 102b:17
[Yevamot 102b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:17)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי: אֵין הַתּוֹרֵם נִכְנָס לֹא בְּפַרְגּוֹד חָפוּת וְלֹא בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּמִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִין בְּמִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל לָעֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we also learned** similarly in a mishna (*Shekalim* 3:2): **The one who collects the funds** of shekels donated to the Temple from the chamber and puts them into baskets in order to be used **may not enter** to collect the funds **wearing a garment [*pargod*] that is cuffed [*ḥafut*], nor wearing an *anpileya*, and needless to say** that he may not enter wearing **a shoe or a sandal, because one may not enter** the Temple **courtyard wearing a shoe or a sandal.** It is prohibited for the one collecting funds from the chamber to enter the chamber wearing a garment or footwear in which money could be hidden, lest people come to suspect that he hid in them funds collected from the chamber. In any case, the wording of the mishna indicates that an *anpileya* is not considered a type of shoe, since it is permitted to enter the Temple wearing an *anpileya* when there is no reason for suspicion, unlike a shoe or sandal, which can never be worn in the Temple.


###### Yevamot 102b:18
[Yevamot 102b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:18)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֶחָד מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל וְאַנְפִּילְיָא, לֹא יְטַיֵּיל בָּהֶן, לֹא מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וְלֹא מִמִּטָּה לְמִטָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita* concerning what footwear is permitted on Yom Kippur, which seems to indicate otherwise: The halakha is **the same for a** soft leather **shoe, and a** hard leather **sandal, and an *anpileya*, as one may not walk in them from one house to another, nor from one bed to another** on Yom Kippur, due to the prohibition against wearing shoes, indicating that at least as far as Yom Kippur is concerned, an *anpileya* is considered a shoe.


###### Yevamot 102b:19
[Yevamot 102b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:19)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּאִית בֵּיהּ כְּתִיתֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם תַּעֲנוּג. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וּמִשּׁוּם תַּעֲנוּג בְּלֹא מִנְעָל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מִי אֲסִירִי? וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא כָּרֵיךְ סוּדָרָא אַכַּרְעֵיהּ וְנָפֵיק! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא שֶׁל עוֹר, כָּאן בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא שֶׁל בֶּגֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** There, with regard to Yom Kippur, it is referring to an *anpileya* **that has cushioning, and** this is forbidden **due to the pleasure** that one derives from cushioned footwear on a day when people are commanded to afflict themselves. **Rava said to him: But** is footwear **that is not considered** to be **shoes forbidden on Yom Kippur due to** the **pleasure** one derives from wearing them? **But Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a scarf on his feet and go out** on Yom Kippur so his feet would not be injured, implying that there is no prohibition against wearing something comfortable on one’s foot, as long as it is not defined as a shoe. **Rather, Rava said: This** is **not difficult. Here,** when they said that an *anpileya* has the status of a shoe, it is referring to **an *anpileya*** made **of leather. There,** when they do not consider it a shoe, it is referring to **an *anpileya*** made **of cloth.**


###### Yevamot 102b:20
[Yevamot 102b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:20)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַיּוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְטַיֵּיל אָדָם בְּקוֹרְדָּקֵיסִין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, אֲבָל מְטַיֵּיל הוּא בְּאַנְפִּילִין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא שֶׁל עוֹר, כָּאן בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא שֶׁל בֶּגֶד — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And so too, it is reasonable** to distinguish in this manner, **as, if you do not say so, it** is **difficult** to reconcile the seeming contradiction between one statement about **Yom Kippur and** another statement about **Yom Kippur. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **A person shall not walk** while wearing **slippers [*kordakisin*] within his house** on Yom Kippur, **but he may walk** while wearing **an *anpileya* within his house.** This would imply that wearing an *anpileya* is permitted, but the *baraita* quoted above taught that it is prohibited. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from here** that **here,** where it indicates that an *anpileya* is forbidden, it is referring **to an *anpileya*** made **of leather,** as they are considered like a shoe, and **there,** where an *anpileya* is permitted, it is referring **to an *anpileya*** made **of cloth?** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from here** that it is so.


###### Yevamot 102b:21
[Yevamot 102b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/102b:21)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: חָלְצָה בְּמִנְעָל הַנִּפְרָם שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הָרֶגֶל, בְּסַנְדָּל הַנִּפְחָת שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל אֶת רוֹב הָרֶגֶל, בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁל שַׁעַם וְשֶׁל סִיב, בְּקַב הַקִּיטֵּעַ, בְּמוּק, בִּסְמִיכַת הָרַגְלַיִם, בְּאַנְפִּילְיָא שֶׁל עוֹר, וְהַחוֹלֶצֶת מִן הַגָּדוֹל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:** If **she performed *ḥalitza* using a shoe whose seams were opened up, which** still **covered most of the foot;** or if she performed *ḥalitza* **with a sandal** whose sole **was** partially **opened that** still **held most of the foot;** or if she performed *ḥalitza* **with a sandal** made **of cork [*sha’am*], or of fibers** from a tree; or **with a prosthetic foot of an amputee;** or **with a felt shoe [*muk*];** or **with a leg blanket** that an amputee makes for his feet as a covering in which to put the stumps of his legs, which is not an actual shoe; or **with a leather *anpileya*; and** likewise, a woman **who performs *ḥalitza*** with her *yavam* when he is an **adult man,**