## Yevamot Daf 104a

###### Yevamot 104a:1
[Yevamot 104a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:1)

וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, וְשֶׁל זָקֵן הֶעָשׂוּי לִכְבוֹדוֹ — לֹא תַּחְלוֹץ, וְאִם חָלְצָה — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**or** a sandal **belonging to** an inhabitant of **an idolatrous city,** a city the majority of whose inhabitants committed idolatry, which stands to be destroyed with all of the city’s property; **and** likewise, the sandal **of an Elder made in accordance with his dignity** to be worn upon his death as part of his shroud, i.e., it is not meant for walking as a normal shoe, the *yevama* **may not perform *ḥalitza*** using any of these shoes. **And if she did perform *ḥalitza*, her *ḥalitza* is invalid** even after the fact, as these are not halakhically considered shoes.


###### Yevamot 104a:2
[Yevamot 104a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא זָקֵן הֶעָשׂוּי לִכְבוֹדוֹ — דְּלָאו לְהִילּוּכָא עֲבִיד, דְּבֵי דִּינָא נָמֵי — לָאו לְהִילּוּכָא עֲבִיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different** about the sandal of **an Elder that is made in accordance with his dignity** that one should say that even though it is the proper size for his foot, it is not valid **because it was not made for walking,** but merely for him to wear after his death. But **the court’s** sandal **also was not made for walking,** as the court kept a sandal that met all the other necessary qualifications for a sandal for *ḥalitza* and gave it to the *yavam* to be worn during the *ḥalitza* procedure. Since the *yavam* would return the *ḥalitza* sandal after the conclusion of the *ḥalitza*, therefore, the sandal was never used for walking and should be invalidated for *ḥalitza* just as the sandal made for the dignity of an Elder?


###### Yevamot 104a:3
[Yevamot 104a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ מְסַגֵּי בֵּיהּ שְׁלוּחָא דְּבֵי דִּינָא, מִי קָפֵיד עֲלֵיהּ דַּיָּינָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: If a messenger of the court had walked in** the *ḥalitza* shoe used by the court, **would the judge reprimand him?** Although the court’s sandal was designed for the express purpose of *ḥalitza*, it may also be used for walking. A shoe designed for a dead person, on the other hand, is forbidden for any other use and is not made for walking at all, and it is consequently disqualified.


###### Yevamot 104a:4
[Yevamot 104a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** חָלְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה — חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹסֵל. בִּשְׂמֹאל — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a woman **performed *ḥalitza* at night, her *ḥalitza* is valid, but Rabbi Elazar invalidates it.** If she performed *ḥalitza* **on** the **left foot, her *ḥalitza* is invalid, but Rabbi Elazar validates it.**


###### Yevamot 104a:5
[Yevamot 104a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מַקְּשִׁינַן רִיבִים לִנְגָעִים, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מַקְּשִׁינַן רִיבִים לִנְגָעִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Let us say that they disagree about this** issue: One **Sage,** Rabbi Elazar, **holds that we compare** the *halakhot* governing monetary **disputes,** which category includes *ḥalitza*, as *ḥalitza* carries with it monetary ramifications and requires payment of the marriage contract to the *yevama*, **with** the *halakhot* of **leprosy.** Just as leprosy cases are judged only during the day (see Leviticus 13:14), likewise, monetary cases may take place only during the day. **And** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds that we do not compare** monetary **disputes with leprosy.**


###### Yevamot 104a:6
[Yevamot 104a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:6)

לָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא מַקְּשִׁינַן רִיבִים לִנְגָעִים, דְּאִי מַקְּשִׁינַן — אֲפִילּוּ גְּמַר דִּין בַּלַּיְלָה נָמֵי לָא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: חֲלִיצָה כִּתְחִלַּת דִּין דָּמְיָא, וּמָר סָבַר: חֲלִיצָה כִּגְמַר דִּין דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, everyone** holds **that we do not compare** monetary **disputes with leprosy, for if we would compare** them fully, then **even** delivering the **verdict** of the court **case** could **not** be done **at night,** but it is permitted to complete monetary judgments and deliver the verdict at night, provided the proceedings began during the day. **And here,** with respect to performing *ḥalitza* at night **they disagree about this** issue: One **Sage,** Rabbi Elazar, **holds** that ***ḥalitza* is considered like the commencement of judgment** of monetary cases, **and** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that ***ḥalitza* is considered like the verdict** of a monetary judgment, and therefore it may also be conducted at night.


###### Yevamot 104a:7
[Yevamot 104a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:7)

רַבָּה בַּר חִיָּיא קְטוֹסְפָאָה עֲבַד עוֹבָדָא בְּמוּק, וּבִיחִידִי, וּבַלַּיְלָה. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כַּמָּה רַב גּוּבְרֵיהּ דְּעָבֵיד כִּיחִידָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is told: **Rabba bar Ḥiyya Ketosfa’a,** from Ctesiphon, **conducted** *ḥalitza* **using a slipper** that was not made of leather, **and** he did so **in private,** as he was the only judge, **and by night. Shmuel said** disparagingly: **How great is the power** of this master **who follows an individual** opinion, as in his practice he relied on individual opinions that are not accepted as *halakha*.


###### Yevamot 104a:8
[Yevamot 104a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:8)

מַאי קַשְׁיָא? אִי מוּק — סְתָמָא תַּנְיָא. אִי לַיְלָה — סְתָמָא תַּנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is difficult** for Shmuel about Rabba bar Ḥiyya’s actions? **If it was** the fact that he conducted *ḥalitza* using **a slipper, an unattributed opinion is taught** in a *baraita* stating that this is valid. As the opinion is unattributed, this indicates that it is not the view of one individual, but rather the opinion of the majority. **If it was** the fact that he performed *ḥalitza* at **night, an unattributed opinion is taught** in the mishna stating that it is valid as well.


###### Yevamot 104a:9
[Yevamot 104a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:9)

אֶלָּא יְחִידִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי עָבֵיד בִּיחִידִי, דִּיחִידָאָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ. דִּתְנַן: חָלְצָה בִּשְׁנַיִם אוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר מַכְשִׁירִים. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁחָלַץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְהִכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it was difficult for him** that Rabba bar Ḥiyya conducted *ḥalitza* **in private,** as the sole judge: **How could he do so in private, as that is taught only in accordance with an individual** opinion, **as we learned** in a mishna: **If she performed *ḥalitza* before two or three** judges **and one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, her *ḥalitza* is invalid. And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yoḥanan the Cobbler validate** the judge who is not a relative or disqualified. If there are two judges who are not relatives, then they hold that the *ḥalitza* is valid, as they validate a *ḥalitza* performed before two judges. **And an incident** occurred **involving one who performed *ḥalitza* between him and her** alone **in prison,** as there was no judge present at all, **and the incident came before Rabbi Akiva and he validated** it.


###### Yevamot 104a:10
[Yevamot 104a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:10)

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי [אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן]: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי יְחִידָאָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע שֶׁחָלַץ בְּמוּק, בִּיחִידִי, וּבַלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said** that **Rav Naḥman said: The *halakha* does not follow that pair,** i.e., Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yoḥanan the Cobbler. Evidently, Rabba bar Ḥiyya relied on the individual opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who permitted *ḥalitza* in private, and therefore Shmuel commented regarding Rabba bar Ḥiyya’s power to rule based on an individual’s opinion. **And if you wish, say** that not only does this detail follow an individual opinion, but rather **all of these** details **are taught by an individual** opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha** performed **a *ḥalitza* using a slipper, in private, and at night.** This statement implies that these details are all according to his individual opinion, contrary to the opinion of the rest of the Sages.


###### Yevamot 104a:11
[Yevamot 104a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:11)

בִּשְׂמֹאל חֲלִיצָתָהּ כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר עוּלָּא: יָלְפִינַן ״רֶגֶל״ ״רֶגֶל״ מִמְּצוֹרָע. מָה לְהַלָּן דְּיָמִין, אַף כָּאן דְּיָמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna that if *ḥalitza* was performed **using** his **left foot, her *ḥalitza*** is invalid, while Rabbi Elazar validates it. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of the Rabbis’** opinion? **Ulla said: We derive** a verbal analogy from the word **“foot”** stated here, and the word **“foot” stated regarding the leper. Just as there,** with respect to the leper, **it is the right** foot (Leviticus 14:14), **so too here,** with respect to *ḥalitza*, **it is the right** foot that must be used.


###### Yevamot 104a:12
[Yevamot 104a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:12)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא יָלֵיף ״רֶגֶל״ ״רֶגֶל״ מִמְּצוֹרָע? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לִרְצִיעָה שֶׁהִיא בְּאֹזֶן הַיְמָנִית? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אֹזֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אֹזֶן״. מָה לְהַלָּן יָמִין, אַף כָּאן יָמִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** this would seem to indicate that **Rabbi Elazar does not derive “foot”** with regard to *ḥalitza* from the word **“foot” from the leper. But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Elazar says: From where** is it derived **that piercing** a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl when the slave chooses to remain in servitude **is done** specifically **on the right ear? “Ear” is stated here** in the *halakhot* pertaining to a pierced slave, **and “ear” is stated there** in the *halakhot* of the leper. **Just as there,** with regard to leprosy, **it is the right** ear, as it is stated explicitly there, **so too here,** with regard to piercing the ear, **it is the right** ear. This statement of Rabbi Elazar implies that he does learn a verbal analogy about the word “right.”


###### Yevamot 104a:13
[Yevamot 104a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:13)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The** attribution of **the opinions is reversed,** meaning that it is Rabbi Elazar who invalidates *ḥalitza* on the left foot, as he learns an analogy from the *halakha* with regard to piercing the ear that the right must be used.


###### Yevamot 104a:14
[Yevamot 104a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:14)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, ״אֹזֶן״ ״אֹזֶן״ מוּפְנֵי, ״רֶגֶל״ ״רֶגֶל״ לָא מוּפְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually, do not reverse** the opinions. The words **“ear”** and **“ear” are free** terms, i.e., they are superfluous in their context and therefore it is clear that the Torah included those terms for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. Therefore, the superfluous “ear” teaches that piercing is done on the right ear. However, the words **“foot”** and **“foot” are not free,** because the word “foot,” written with regard to the *yavam*, is necessary in its context and is not superfluous. Therefore, the verbal analogy of the word “foot” is incomplete.


###### Yevamot 104a:15
[Yevamot 104a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:15)

וְכִי לָא מוּפְנֵי, מַאי פִּירְכָא אִיכָּא? אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִמְצוֹרָע, שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב וּשְׁנִי תוֹלָעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And even if they are not** both **free** to be used for exposition, **what refutation is there?** A verbal analogy that is free to be used for exposition in only one place is still valid, provided there is no reason to refute the comparison. The Gemara explains: It **can be refuted, as the leper** is unique in that there is a very specific process necessary for his purification: He requires that the blood of the offering be sprinkled upon him, and **he requires cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet thread.** Therefore, it is possible to say that the Torah also specified the use of the right foot in the case of the leper. However, this would not necessarily be required with respect to *ḥalitza*, which lacks such specific *halakhot*. Consequently, *ḥalitza* performed using the left foot could be valid.


###### Yevamot 104a:16
[Yevamot 104a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/104a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** חָלְצָה וְרָקְקָה, אֲבָל לֹא קָרְאָה — חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. קָרְאָה וְרָקְקָה, אֲבָל לֹא חָלְצָה — חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. חָלְצָה וְקָרְאָה, אֲבָל לֹא רָקְקָה — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If she, i.e., the *yevama*, **removed** the shoe **and spat** in accordance with the *halakha* **but did not recite** the necessary text, **her *ḥalitza* is valid.** If **she recited** the text **and spat but did not remove** the shoe, **her *ḥalitza* is disqualified.** If **she removed** the shoe **and recited** the text **but did not spit, Rabbi Elazar says: Her *ḥalitza* is disqualified,** while **Rabbi Akiva says: Her *ḥalitza* is valid.**