MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah is to be executed before three judges; all three may be lay people¹25:7); this implies that it must be in a judicial setting. Usually, the word “elders” in the Pentateuch is interpreted as “professional judges”; the admissibility of lay judges has to be justified in the Halakhah.. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a shoe², the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a felt slipper³, (plur.), “felt shoes”. it is invalid. With a sandal⁴ having a heel it is valid, without a heel it is invalid. Below the knee the ḥalîṣah is valid⁵, above the knee it is invalid.

footnotes: ¹ The procedure has to be executed in front of the town elders (Deut. ² Defined as leather shoe or boot enclosing the entire foot, sown together from several pieces of leather, some of it soft, and kept in place by leather shoelaces. ³ Latin impilia, ium ⁴ Made of a single piece of hard leather covering the sole and some of the sides of the foot, held together with shoe laces fastened tightly over the foot.Greek σάνδαλον, τό. The word might have been imported with the article from farther East. ⁵ In the Halakhah the reference is to the way the shoelaces are wound around the leg. The straps may be wound around the lower leg but not around the thigh. The Babli (103a) refers this part of the Mishnah to amputees.

HALAKHAH: “The commandment of ḥalîṣah is to be executed before three judges,” etc. It is written “elders”, and you say laymen? The commandment is on the elders. From where that even laymen [are acceptable]? The verse says, “stripped of shoe”⁶ 25:10. It seems that the argument refers to the entire verse, “His house shall be known in Israel as the house of the stripped of shoe.” Any three in Israel may make the fact known. (Sifry Deut. 291 may be interpreted as prohibiting a lay person to preside.) The quote from Deut. is an introduction to the next paragraph. The language “the commandment is on the elders” should imply that levirate not before judges is improper but valid; cf. Midrash Tannaïm 25:8., in any case.

footnotes: ⁶ Deut.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid. And there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid⁷ 291 and the Babli, 101b (an Amoraic baraita), the reference is to a court composed only of converts. There is no proof that this is also the position of the Yerushalmi.. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid follows him who says “in Israel⁸ in the parallel texts. In the Babli, those who admit a court composed of converts simply note that Deut. 25:10 may be given another meaning. It is somewhat difficult to accept the validity of a court of converts who themselves are not under the rules of levirate (Mishnah 11:2).” to include converts. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid follows him who says “in Israel” to exclude converts.

footnotes: ⁷ In Sifry Deut. ⁸ There is no record of such a baraita

Here, you say, to exclude converts. But there⁹ 23:42. “Every citizen in Israel has to dwell in huts.”, you say, to include converts. There, “the citizen” to exclude converts, “in Israel” to exclude converts; an exclusion after an exclusion¹⁰ Chapter 6, Note 154. For this particular example, cf. Babli Sukkah 28b; a more complicated argument, taking note of the inclusive “every”, in Sifra Emor Pereq 17(9). to include converts. But here, “in Israel”, not converts.

footnotes: ⁹ Lev. ¹⁰ That an exclusion after an exclusion implies an inclusion is a fundamental principle of R. Akiba’s hermeneutics accepted in both Talmudim; cf. Peah

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the presence of two men it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid from two [judges]¹¹ 1:1. The Babli (Sanhedrin 3a) follows Samuel in accepting judgments from a court of two; but such a court is called “insolent”..

footnotes: ¹¹ This is the position of the Yerushalmi, cf. Sanhedrin

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the night is valid¹² as sole judge, in the night.; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the night it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid in the night¹³ 4:6 states that civil proceedings have to start during daytime but may be concluded in the night. The Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin Halakhah 4:6) holds that this is only a desideratum but that civil suits may be adjudicated any time since it says (Ex. 18:26) “they have to judge for the people at all times.”.

footnotes: ¹² Mishnah 12:2. The Tosephta (12:9) reports that R. Ismael presided over an emergency ḥalîṣah ¹³ Mishnah Sanhedrin

Some Tannaim state, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say¹⁴. Some Tannaim stated, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say. He who said, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say, before they found a hint in Scripture, but he who said, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say, after they found a hint in Scripture¹⁵, Chapter 3, Note 83.: “You shall answer and say;” one answers only to a single person. Rebbi Yose said, and only from the mouth of the judge, but one does not follow this.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Tosephta 12:9. In the Babli, 101a: Only if they know how to instruct as a judge would do. לקרות is short for להקראת. ¹⁵ The hint that only one of the people present has to instruct the participants what to say since their recitation is called “answering”. Cf. Bikkurim

“If she performed ḥalîṣah with a shoe, the ḥalîṣah is valid.” For whom is this statement needed? For Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Meїr said, one does not perform ḥalîṣah with a shoe. It was stated¹⁶.: Rebbi Yose said, it happened that I went to Nsebin¹⁷ and saw there an old man to whom I said, did you ever know Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra in your lifetime? He told me, Rabbi, I was a banker in my city and he was a constant customer of my bank. I told him, did you ever see him supervising a ḥalîṣah in your lifetime and what he did use for ḥalîṣah, a shoe or a sandal? He said to me, Rabbi, is there a sandal in our place¹⁸? I wondered, how could Rebbi Meïr say that one does not perform ḥalîṣah with a shoe¹⁹ is not possible.?

footnotes: ¹⁶ In the Babli, 102a, and the Tosephta, 12:11, the story is told to exclude shoes from ḥalîṣah ¹⁷ In Greek sources, Nisibis; the important border town between the Roman and Persian Empires, seat of the rabbinic family Bene Bathyra for many generations. ¹⁸ From antique statuary and pictures, it seems that the sandal was the usual Roman footwear and the shoe the Persian. The high boot was the Roman military footwear. ¹⁹ His position would create places where ḥalîṣah

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav²⁰: If Elijah²¹ came and said that one performs ḥaliṣah with a shoe, one would listen to him; that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a sandal, one would not listen to him since most people use a sandal for ḥalîṣah and usage supersedes practice. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav²² Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: If Elijah came and said that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a shoe, one would listen to him; that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a sandal, one would not listen to him since most people use a sandal for ḥalîṣah and usage supersedes practice.

footnotes: ²⁰ In the Babli, 102a, the opinion of R. Abba is quoted in the name of Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani), that of R. Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Yosef. The Babli explains that in the opinion of Rabba, one uses a shoe only if one does not have a sandal whereas in the opinion of Rav Yosef one may use a shoe anytime. ²¹ He was taken in a fiery chariot to be a member of the Heavenly Court and knows all rules how they should be by Heavenly standards. ²² The title “Rebbi” given in the ms. cannot be correct since R. Jeremiah was the foremost student of R. Ze‘ira. The reference is to Rav Jeremiah (bar Abba), the colleague of Rav.

Rebbi Ze‘ira showed the bending²³ is not a flat piece of leather but must be bent upwards to enclose heel, toes, and part of the sides of the foot [since the sandal must be “slipped off the foot” (Deut. 25:9) which cannot be done if the sandal is just a flat piece of leather] or whether he bent to show how ḥalîṣah is executed. to Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Isaac²⁴. He said to him: Does one do this? He said to him, one does. He said to him, did not our teacher²⁵ bend?

footnotes: ²³ The meaning of this paragraph is in doubt. It may either mean that the sandal used for ḥalîṣah ²⁴ Most commentators emend to “Rebbi Abba bar Isaac” on base of the next paragraph. ²⁵ Probably R. Joḥanan.

Rebbi Ze‘ira showed Rebbi Abba bar Isaac how it is done. He binds [the shoelaces] that he can walk unaided. How is it done? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, he laces it so that she will be able to untie it with one hand. How is it done? She unties with her right hand, grabs [the shoe] with her left hand, slips it off the heel and drags it away with her right hand, so that the slipping off and the unbinding should be done by the right hand²⁶, it quotes R. Eleazar to the effect that ḥalîṣah not done by the right hand (or in the night) forbids the widow to the levir but must be repeated to free the widow for outside marriage..

footnotes: ²⁶ The Babli has no parallel to this paragraph. In Giṭṭin 24b

Rav said, the essence of ḥalîṣah²⁷ designated the entire ceremony by which the widow is freed to marry outside the family. But here, the word designates the action by which the sister-in-law slips the levir’s shoe off his foot, which must be followed by her spitting in front of the levir (Deut. 25:9). Rav insists that the widow’s action is invalid if it does not start with untying the shoelaces. In the Babli, 102a, Rav insists that the deciding act is slipping the shoe off the levir’s heel. is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, nothing was done unless she slips off and spits²⁸. Even though Rav said “unless she slips off and spits” he agrees that the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.

footnotes: ²⁷ As the paragraph shows, this needs a semantic clarification since up to now, the word ḥalîṣah ²⁸ Cf. Mishnah 3.

Rav said, the main point in acquiring squatters’ rights is the bringing in of the yield. Did not Rav say, only if one saw him hoeing and weeding? Even though Rav said, only if one saw him hoeing and weeding, Rav agrees that the main point in acquiring squatters’ rights is the bringing in of the yield.

Rebbi Yannai said, if he took off [his shoe] and she put it on again, or she took it off but he had untied, the ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back, he may not go back on it³⁰ and wants to marry the widow that he is barred from doing so; or it may mean that the entire ceremony has to be cancelled and everything started anew. The next paragraphs seem to indicate that the first interpretation is the correct one. In the Babli, 102 a, the statement of R. Yannai is quoted without the last clause and the extent of the damage by invalid ḥalîṣah is not discussed.. Why? Is it since the two actions are not there together or because they are not in the right order? What is the difference? If she afterwards untied [the shoestrings]. If you say, because the two actions are not there together? They are there together! The reason therefore must be that they are not in the right order.

footnotes: ³⁰ It is not clear what “going back” means. It may mean that if the levir changes his mind after the invalid ḥalîṣah

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases³¹ 24b, states that in the cases discussed here, the valid ḥalîṣah implies the prohibition of the widow to the levir and the invalid ḥalîṣah is a nonexisting ḥalîṣah which does not preclude the possibility of levirate marriage. they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper³². A shoe in a slipper³³, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather³⁴. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement³⁵ 8:1 (fol. 44d), Ta‘aniot 1:6 (fol. 64c). It is held that wearing a textile slipper outside the house does not protect the foot from feeling the stones on the road and therefore does not violate the sanctity of the Day of Atonement as a day of deprivation. and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

footnotes: ³¹ The Babli, Giṭṭin ³² Babli 102b, a statement of Rava (cf. Chapter 1, Note 21). ³³ This case does not appear in the Babli. ³⁴ The leather shoe with which the levir stands on the ground is removed from his heel. ³⁵ Babli 102b, Yerushalmi Yoma

“With a sandal having a heel it is valid.” There, they say, for example those קנסרוס³⁶, “hunting boot laced up in front; high Grecian boot, high shoe worn by actors” for which the first meaning is appropriate here. (Löw credits an author A. Löwinger; I have been unable to find a first reference.) D. Sperber (Sinai 82, 1977/78, p. 168) refers to Latin cursorius “belonging to running”.. But the rabbis here say, like ours³⁷. Rav said, if I had not seen my uncle, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, performing³⁸ a ḥalîṣah with a sandal with plaited straps³⁹, I would not feel competent to do so. The maternal uncle of Rav Cahana performed³⁸ ḥalîṣah in the night, as single judge, on Friday night, with a cork sandal, and standing; (Rabbi Zeriqa said) and she did not spit. Rav heard that and said, who would ever do that⁴⁰ except the maternal uncle of Rav Cahana?

footnotes: ³⁶ A kind of sandal. There is no convincing identification of this word either in Persian or in a Western language. The best so far is I. Löw’s Greek κόθορνος, Latin cothurnus ³⁷ The common Roman sandals. ³⁸ I. e., supervising. ³⁹ In the Babli, 102a, סנדל דאית ליה שינצין. The word שורציפא is Semitic, from Syriac רצפא “sandal (to walk on a stone floor)”. ³⁸ I. e., supervising. ⁴⁰ Every single step being questionable. Since Rav Cahana I was a contemporary of Rav, his uncle belonged to the pre-Amoraic Babylonian scholars. In the Babli, 104a, he is called Rabba bar Ḥiyya from Qaṭosap.

So is the Mishnah: “If he ties⁴¹ lower than the knee, it is valid, above the knee it is invalid.” It is written: “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it⁴² 30:19..” It was stated about this: The hand up to the wrist, the foot up to the calf; and here you say so⁴³? There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”. In that case, even higher than the knee should be valid! There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”, and not from higher than above his foot⁴⁴. Cahana objected: Is it not written, “and the afterbirth which comes out from between her feet⁴⁵ 28:57. Usually, one translates “between her legs”; then one also should translate that the widow has to remove the levir’s shoe “from his leg” and shoelaces bound above the knee should be permissible. The same question is quoted in the Babli, 103a.;” does it come out from between her feet? It looks as if it was between her feet; as we have stated there: “The water pit was between the Temple hall and the alter drawn towards the South.⁴⁶ 3:6. It was between the Southern edge of the hall and the altar.” Was it put between the hall and the altar? Only it looked as if between hall and altar.

footnotes: ⁴¹ The shoelaces. ⁴² Ex. ⁴³ The “foot” of the priests refers only to the calf (in another interpretation to the shinbone) but not to the knee, but for the widow it extends up to the knee! ⁴⁴ The Babli agrees, 103a. ⁴⁵ Deut. ⁴⁶ Mishnah Middot

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah with a sandal that was not his⁴⁷, with a wooden sandal⁴⁸, or with a left [foot sandal] on the right [foot], the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she performed ḥalîṣah with [a sandal that was] too large but he could walk in it, or one too small which covers most of his foot⁴⁹, the ḥalîṣah is valid. If she performed ḥalîṣah in the night, the ḥalîṣah is valid; Rebbi Eliezer declares it invalid. [If she performed ḥalîṣah] with her left hand, the ḥalîṣah is invalid but Rebbi Eliezer declares it valid.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ The levir’s. ⁴⁸ For the Babli, a wooden (or cork) core covered by leather. The Yerushalmi notes that these restrictions are Babylonian. ⁴⁹ The foot sole.

HALAKHAH: “If she performed ḥalîṣah with a sandal that was not his,” etc. ⁵⁰ 3:1. R. Lazar mentioned here is a Tanna. Rebbi Eleazar says, a ram’s horn⁵¹ belonging to idolatry⁵² 28a, agrees. or to a “seduced city”⁵³. 13:13–19) with all its belongings, of which any usufruct is forbidden; a case that never happened and never will happen (Tosephta Sanhedrin 14:1). The Babli, Roš Haššanah 28a, disagrees in this case since a ram’s horn in a “seduced city” must be burned and therefore is considered to be ashes even if not burned. Arguments of this kind are absent in the Yerushalmi. is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is valid. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is invalid⁵⁴. Everybody agrees that such a palmbranch is invalid⁵⁵ 3:1. The palmbranch stands for the three kinds of branches and the fruit that are taken together on the Festival of Booths (Lev. 23:40).. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a palmbranch? Rebbi Yose said, for a palmbranch it is written: “You shall take for yourselves⁵⁶. 23:40.,” from your own money. But here, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you⁵⁷. 29:1.,” from any source. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation with the article itself, but here with its sound. Is any sound forbidden usufruct⁵⁸? Everybody agrees that a sandal from a “seduced city” is valid⁵⁹. For it is written “stripped of shoe,” from any source. Rebbi Mana said, as you say there, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you,” from any source, so you say here, “stripped of shoe,” from any source.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ A partial copy of this paragraph is in Sukkah ⁵¹ The ram’s horn used on New Year’s Day. ⁵² The usufruct of any implements of idolatrous worship is forbidden. The horn is only permitted since Divine Commandments are not for enjoyment or use. The Babli, Roš Haššanah ⁵³ A city in the Land of Israel that was seduced to embrace idolatry and defected by a communal vote. This city must be burned to the ground (Deut ⁵⁴ In the Babli, property of an idolatrous temple is undesirable, a dedicated gift to an idolatrous temple is prohibited, as is the shoe from a “seduced city”; 103b/104a. ⁵⁵ Mishnah Sukkah ⁵⁶ Lev ⁵⁷ Num ⁵⁸ R. Eleazar the Amora argues that without reference to Scripture it is obvious that palmbranches from idolatrous property are unusable since the essence of the commandment is the acquisition of the branches. ⁵⁹ In the Babli, the uncontested rule is promulgated that a shoe from a “seduced city” is invalid; 104a. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, a shoe may be worn as long as it exists; for the Babli the shoe is legally nonexistent as soon as it has been condemned to be burned, cf. Note 53.

“A wooden sandal.” The colleagues in the name of Rav: If only the edges⁶⁰, Mishnah Miqwa’ot 10:3, ed. Epstein: Arabic عرى “border, rim, brim”. are wooden⁶¹. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If only the bottom of the sole is wooden. There, they say in the name of Rav: If only the loops⁶²; Arabic שראך “loop, net”. are wooden. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if it is entirely of wood it is valid. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “⁶³ 4:5. There, the addition “about impurity by stepping on it” is missing. In the Babli, Sabbat 66a, “a sandal of whitewashers” (who cannot wear leather sandals which would be destroyed by the whitewash). A straw sandal becomes impure by being stepped on⁶⁴. 15:5,6,26) and even if same material impervious to impurity separates the person from the object. This is called “impurity by being stepped on.” Wooden implements that do not enclose any volume (“flat wooden vessels”) cannot accept impurity. R. Aqiba does not agree that flat straw sandals are flat wooden vessels. and a woman may use it for ḥalîṣah, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages do not agree about impurity by being stepped on⁶⁵. The Tosephta, which omits the last clause, follows the Babylonian tradition that a purely wooden sandal is inadmissible..”

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Explanation of the Gaonic commentary to Tahorot ⁶¹ But the remainder of the sandal must be leather. ⁶² Explanation of Arukh ⁶³ Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra ⁶⁴ The impurity of the person with gonorrhea is transferred on anything he puts his weight on even if he does not touch it (Lev ⁶⁵ This version implies that the Sages agree that a flat straw sandal may be used for ḥalîṣah

⁶⁶ 4:2. The paragraph is quoted here because it starts with a quote of the continuation of the baraita quoted in the preceding paragraph.“⁶⁷ 4:5; Babli Sabbath 112a. A sandal whose holes, edges, or loops are torn or one of whose soles fell off is pure. If one of its holes, edges, or loops is torn or most of it soles fell of it is impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, on the inside it is impure, on the outside it is pure.⁶⁸” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Tevele, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehuda as far as the Sabbath is concerned⁶⁹ 112b.. A case came before Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. He sent Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He⁷⁰ 112b). The Babli holds that this tradition of R. Joḥanan is not trustworthy. It is possible that the Yerushalmi agrees since R. Joḥanan is not mentioned here, but only his students and later Amoraim. said to him, just as they disagree about impurity so they disagree about the Sabbath, and instructed him following the rabbis. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked himself: One heard saying, practice follows Rebbi Jehuda, and he instructed him following the rabbis? A case came before Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac. He sent to ask Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi. The latter said to him: Following the words of him who declares impure, it is permitted to go out on it on the Sabbath. Following the words of him who declares pure, it is forbidden to go out on it on the Sabbath. He did not get anything out of him⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ This paragraph and the next are from Sabbath ⁶⁷ Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra ⁶⁸ Ritual impurity is restricted to Jewish persons, food, vessels and tools, and a leprous house. If a vessel or tool was damaged beyond repair, it becomes ritually pure. In this connection, “impure” means “a possible candidate for impurity” and “pure” “unable to become impure.” Rebbi Jehudah holds that people will repair even serious damage to their shoes if it can be done so as not to be noticed in public. The rabbis hold that even in such cases, people will not repair severely damaged shoes.R. Jehudah holds that a person will repair sandals when the repair is not immediately visible from the outside. Therefore, if a strap or hole for the shoelaces is torn at the instep, towards the other foot, the shoe remains usable. The majority holds that one torn strap or a partially torn sole can always be repaired. ⁶⁹ The same statement in Babli, Sabbath ⁷⁰ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, following his teacher R. Joḥanan (in a first version in Babli, Sabbath ⁷¹ He refused to decide between Rav and the Galilean rabbis. Note that all persons mentioned here are Babylonians; those with the title “Rebbi” are immigrants to Galilee.

It was stated: But he may walk on it until he reaches the entrance of his courtyard⁷². Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Ze‘ira were walking on the highway. The sandal of Rebbi Aḥa was torn. When they came to the city gate, Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, that is the entrance of your courtyard⁷³. Rebbi Aḥa wound a fiber around. Rebbi Abbahu wound a bundle of Jew’s mallow⁷⁴ 112a, R. Abbahu told R. Jeremiah to use textile fiber to lightly bind around a torn sandal.. Rebbi Abbahu was of the opinion that a bundle of Jew’s mallow is ready to be used⁷⁵. Rebbi Jonah threw them away before the fried food store⁷⁶ the word לחנותא “in the store” is missing.Since the store is supposed to be closed on the Sabbath, it just indicates that R. Jonah took off his sandals far from his home when a shoelace broke on the Sabbath. For the translation of חליטר cf. Shevi‘it Chapter 7, Note 84. It is not necessary to translate טלק “to throw away” (documented from the Targumim), most of the meanings of Arabic طلق will be acceptable, such as “to take off, let go, loosen”.. That is little honor. The honor of Rebbi Eleazar obliged him to take it off⁷⁷. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: May one switch⁷⁸? He said to him, it is permitted. Nevertheless, he told him: go and look for an Elder and rely on him. He went out and found Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, asked him, and he permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said that this is clothing, since we have stated⁷⁹: “Or with a left [foot sandal] on the right [foot], the ḥalîṣah is valid.” That means, in width. But in length it must cover most of the foot⁸⁰, implying that sandals with partially torn soles may also be worn on the Sabbath..

footnotes: ⁷² This paragraph deals only with the rules of the Sabbath. Even if a sandal is torn and no longer is a piece of clothing that may be moved on the Sabbath, one may walk on it until one reaches one’s courtyard where it can be left and picked up after the Sabbath. ⁷³ As a rabbi, you must be more strict than people in general. ⁷⁴ Reading with I. Löw מלכניקי, Arabic ملو خيا “corchorus olitorius”, a kitchen vegetable, relative of jute. He derives the name from Greek μολόχη “mallow”. In the Babli, Sabbath ⁷⁵ As raw textile fiber, its use on the Sabbath would be forbidden. But as kitchen herb it is food and permitted to be used on the Sabbath. ⁷⁶ The passage is difficult to understand; in the parallel in Sabbath ⁷⁷ Immediately when a shoelace broke. ⁷⁸ May one switch left and right sandal on the Sabbath if an outside ear was broken to hide the defect from sight? ⁷⁹ The Mishnah proves that sandal switching is practiced also on weekdays; therefore, it is permitted on the Sabbath since the switched sandals are legitimate pieces of clothing. ⁸⁰ This has nothing to do with the prior discussion; it shows what is meant in the Mishnah which states that sandals with torn soles are acceptable. The sentence also is copied in Sabbath

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes⁸¹. 25:9: “The sister-in-law shall approach him before the elder’s eyes”. R. Eliezer holds that one sees clearly only during daytime. This argument is not found in any of the parallel sources..” How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems to be inverted⁸². There⁸³. 14:14,17. In Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9, R. Eliezer and R. Simeon disagree about the purification of a person missing his right hand thumb or right big toe; R. Eliezer insists that the right hand must be used in all cases., he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rebbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand”⁸⁴. 14:14,17. In the Babli, 104a, this is the argument of the rabbis. In the Babli, R. Eliezer is defended by the argument that the leper has so many additional ceremonies that it is difficult to transfer any of his ceremonies to other cases., the right hand is obl;igatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is notobligatory. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: “His ear”, “his ear”. Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear⁸⁵. 21:6, Deut. 15:17. In the latter verses it is not spelled out which ear has to be pierced. The argument that the ear must be the right one is quoted anonymously also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin Chapter 1, fol. 59d, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 2, Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai Mišpaṭim p.163, Sifry Deut. 122; in the name of R. Eliezer here and in the Babli 104a and Qiddušin 15a.. It also says “his foot”, “his foot”. He who infers from “his ear”, “his ear” infers from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear”, “his ear” does not infer from “his foot”, “his foot”. But it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “his foot”, “his foot”. That means, there are two statements about the words of Rebbi Eliezer⁸⁶ he declares use of the left foot as invalid.. He who argues from “his ear”, “his ear” argues from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear”, “his ear” does not argue from “his foot”. And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear”, “his ear” nor “his foot”, “his foot”⁸⁷.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Deut ⁸² The same argument in the Babli, 104a. ⁸³ The purification of a leper requires that blood and oil be put on the right hand thumb and the right big toe of the healed person, Lev ⁸⁴ Lev ⁸⁵ This compares the ceremony of the leper with that of piercing the ear of the Hebrew slave who refuses to regain his freedom, Ex ⁸⁶ In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer accepts the use of the left foot after the fact; in the baraita ⁸⁷ That is, for R. Eliezer; but in the opinion of the Babli, the majority base their opinion on the comparison “foot, foot”.

MISHNAH: If she stripped off and spat but did not recite, the ḥalîṣah is valid⁸⁸. 25:9.. If she recited and spat but did not strip off, the ḥalîṣah is invalid. If she stripped off and recited but did not spit, Rebbi Eliezer says, the ḥalîṣah is invalid, but Rebbi Aqiba says, the ḥalîṣah is valid. ⁹⁶ Rebbi Eliezer said, “so it shall be done⁹⁷. 25:9: “So should be done to the man who would not build his brother’s house”. This is the required recitation by the widow. It is taken out of context for emphasis, so and not otherwise. This is meant to imply that no ḥalîṣah is valid if it is not executed exactly as written.”, anything which is an action is preventing⁹⁸. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, is that a proof? “So it shall be done to the man”, any activity of the male [is preventing.]

footnotes: ⁸⁸ All three actions by the widow, first stripping the shoe from the levir’s foot, second to spit out in front of him, third to recite: “So should be done to the man who would not build his brother’s house” are required in Deut ⁹⁶ This Mishnah explains the positions of Rebbis Eliezer and Aqiba in Mishnah 3. ⁹⁷ Deut ⁹⁸ Preventing the validity of the procedure.

HALAKHAH: “If she stripped off and spat,” etc. Samuel said, if she stripped but did not spit, she shall spit⁸⁹. This follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If she stripped but did not recite nor spit, her ḥalîṣah is invalid. Still that is Rebbi Eliezer’s. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Zeriqan turned to it in the name of Rav: If she stripped but did not spit, or spat but did not strip, she did not do anything⁹⁰ until she strips and spits. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: If she spat before she stripped? He said, it is as if in the correct order⁹¹.. If he made a betrothal with a cluster of end-of- harvest [figs]? He said to him, with the figs hanging there he made the betrothal⁹². If somebody gave a woman a branch full of figs as betrothal gift (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), how is the value computed? The betrothal is only valid if the value is at least a peruṭah, ¹/64 of a silver denar. R. Immi specifies that only the figs are counted for the value, not the wood.. May one open an Egyptian window⁹³ 3:8 as a hole smaller than a man’s head. into a common backyard higher than four cubits⁹⁴ 2:4, Babli Baba Batra 2b. But a window higher than 4 cubits (about 2.2 m) is for air, not for looking.? He said to him, so we are saying: He comes simply for the air. Rebbi Nasa said, that is what he said: If somebody wants to build his house in the form of a dovecot⁹⁵, does one not listen to him?

footnotes: ⁸⁹ The missing action can be performed belatedly; the original ceremony was not legally nonexistent. ⁹⁰ It is legally nonexistent and cannot be fixed belatedly. ⁹¹ Anything written in the verse has to be performed but the order in which it is written is not necessarily the order in which the ceremonies have to be performed. In the Babli, 105a, this is a baraita ⁹² R. Abba continued to address unrelated questions to R. Immi. The question here is not clear, the translation follows the interpretation of Qorban Ha‘edah ⁹³ Defined in Mishnah Baba Batra ⁹⁴ In general, people can object if a neighbor makes a new window that lets him see their activities that earlier he could not observe. This is called “damage by looking”, היזק ראייה; cf. Baba Batra ⁹⁵ Where all openings are very high.

MISHNAH: ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a deaf-mute man¹⁰¹, or by a deaf-mute woman, or for an underage male¹⁰². The underage woman who performed ḥalîṣah should repeat ḥalîṣah once she becomes of age but if she did not repeat it, the ḥalîṣah is valid¹⁰³.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Since the deaf-mute (who does not understand sign language) cannot perform any legal act, the passive voice is required here. ¹⁰² In v. 9 the male is called “man”, which means “adult”. ¹⁰³ In the Mishnah in the Babli: “invalid”. That version is explained in the Halakhah as representing the opinion of R. Meїr.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said, “so shall be done to the man,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they cannot fulfill “he shall say, and she shall say”⁹⁹ is attributed to R. Yannai, R. Joḥanan’s teacher, in the Babli (104b).. Does the recitation prevent [validity]? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, for anybody able to recite, the recitation does not prevent [validity] but for anybody unable to recite, the requirement of recitation does prevent¹⁰⁰ 93a, Qiddušin 25a, Baba Batra 81b, Makkot 18b, Ḥulin 83b, Menaḥot 18b, 103b, Niddah 66b) the rule is attributed to R. Ze‘ira: In general, the omission of a required action does not prevent the validity of the ceremony if it would have been possible to perform it as required; cf. Bikkurim 1:6, Note 114. This is the source of the next Mishnah..

footnotes: ⁹⁹ This does not refer to the discussion of the Mishnah but to the text quoted as required recitation by the widow. (The levir has to say “I do not like to take her”, v. 8). The statement that the verse excludes a person unable to speak from ḥalîṣah ¹⁰⁰ In the Babli (104b, Nedarim

¹⁰⁴ 1:2, Notes 94–102. There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak isḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ This is from Terumot

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose¹⁰⁵ asked before Rebbi: What is the difference between underage males and females? He said to him, “a man¹⁰⁶. 25:9. This argument is attributed to “the Rabbis” in the Babli, 105b.” is written in the paragraph. But about her, “his sister-in-law shall come before him,¹⁰⁵” in any case.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ In the Babli, 105b, he is reported to say that the Yerushalmi version of the Mishnah is his father’s. ¹⁰⁶ Deut ¹⁰⁵ In the Babli, 105b, he is reported to say that the Yerushalmi version of the Mishnah is his father’s.

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya came to it in the name of Rebbi Jonah: It is¹⁰⁷ Rebbi Meїr’s who said that one does not perform ḥalîṣah or levirate with an underage girl because she might turn out to be a she-ram¹⁰⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ The Mishnah which requires that the underage girl repeat the procedure once she grows up. ¹⁰⁸ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 65. R. Meїr is reputed to take note of cases which occur only very infrequently. In the Tosephta, 12:12, this is quoted as the opinion of R. Eliezer.

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two [judges]¹⁰⁹ or of three when it turned out that one was a relative or unfit¹¹⁰, the ḥalîṣah is invalid; Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian declare it valid. If happened that she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him in jail; the case came before Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it valid¹¹¹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Which is invalid in the opinion of some authorities, cf. Halakhah 1. ¹¹⁰ According to everybody, a court of law is incompetent if it turns out that one of the judges is a relative of one of the parties or of another judge, or if he had been declared unfit to be a judge. ¹¹¹ Since this is a report of an actual case, it represents practice (at least in cases of emergency).

HALAKHAH: “If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two,” etc. The case happened in a jail and was resolved in a jail¹¹². Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian dressed up as a pedlar. One day, he passed in front of the place of confinement of Rebbi Aqiba¹¹³, he cried aloud and said, “who needs needles, who needs hooks, what is if she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him?” Rebbi Aqiba pushed himself tightly to the hole and said: “Do you have spindles? You have valid!”

footnotes: ¹¹² Reported by Amoraim in the Babli, 105b. ¹¹³ In the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba, when the teaching of Jewish law in Palestine was a capital crime. Therefore, the questions had to be couched in such terms that an Aramaic speaking Gentile would not understand question or answer.

MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah: He and his sister-in-law come to the court of law and they give him appropriate counsel, as it is said: “The Elders of his city shall call him and speak to him¹¹⁴ 25:8.”. She says: “My levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;¹¹⁵ 25:7.” and he says: “I do not desire to take her¹¹⁴ 25:8..” They have to speak in the holy language¹¹⁶. “His sister-in-law comes to him before the Elders’ eyes, strips his shoe from his foot, and spits out before him¹¹⁷ 25:9.,” spittle that is visible to the judges. She has to declare and say: “So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.¹¹⁷ 25:9.” Up to this sentence they were reading to them but when it was read for Rebbi Hyrkanos¹¹⁸ In other places, the name appears as כפר עיכוס. The place is unidentified. under the oak tree in Kefar Abus he finished the paragraph; they established to finish the entire paragraph, “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe¹¹⁹ 25:10..” The obligation is on the judges, not on the students¹²⁰. Rebbi Jehudah said, everyone present has the obligation to say,” the one stripped of shoe, the one stripped of shoe¹²¹”.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Deut. ¹¹⁵ Deut. ¹¹⁴ Deut. ¹¹⁶ The entire ceremony must be conducted in Hebrew. Since it is to be assumed that the parties do not know Hebrew, the text has to be read to them by the judges, for them to repeat. ¹¹⁷ Deut. ¹¹⁷ Deut. ¹¹⁸ In the Babli: When R. Hyrkanos was reading it under the oak tree at Kefar ‘Etam. ¹¹⁹ Deut. ¹²⁰ The law students who regularly attended court sessions. The judges themselves have to recite “house of the stripped of shoe”. ¹²¹ In the Babli, the clause is repeated three times.

HALAKHAH: “The commandment of ḥalîṣah: He and his sister-in-law come,” etc. “They give him appropriate counsel”. What means, “they give him appropriate counsel”? If he is old, they tell her, what do you do with an old man like him? If she is old, they tell him, what do you do with that old woman? If she is a girl and he is an old man, they say to him, she is a girl and will bring you shame. If he is a boy and she an old woman, they say to her, he is a boy and will bring you shame. If he wants but she does not, one listens to her. If she wants but he does not, one listens to him. The principle: One listens to the one who wants to prevent. If both of them want, such a case came before Rebbi Yose and he said, throw her out¹²² 290..

footnotes: ¹²² The practice of his court was never to accept levirate. The Babli, 101a, supports levirate for partners that are of similar age. The formulation of the Babli is also that of Sifry Deut.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, in the case of a sister in law, who runs after whom¹²³? Rebbi Eleazar answered: “His sister-in-law shall come to the gate¹²⁴ 31b, this ia a statement of R. Joḥanan; it is a tannaïtic statement in Midrash Tannaïm on Deut. 25:8..” When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, Rebbi Eleazar taught us correctly.

footnotes: ¹²³ If levir and widow live at different places, which court is empowered to deal with the matter? ¹²⁴ Since the verse requires the widow to take the initiative, the appropriate court is the one at the levir’s residence. In the Babli, Sanhedrin

Does the recitation prevent [validity]? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, for anybody able to recite, the recitation does not prevent [validity] but for anybody unable to recite, the recitation does prevent¹²⁵. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the recitation does not prevent [validity], he agrees that if one recites, he recites in due order; in particular that it should not be said: “My levir refuses to erect, my levir does not want;” “I do not desire to take her”, but “my levir refuses to erect a name in Israel for his brother, my levir does not want;” “I do not desire to take her.”

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Cf. Halakhah 4, Note 100.

There¹²⁶ document given to the widow is ascribed to Rav Jehudah. In the Tosephta, 12:15, it is quoted as “old text”., they say: “She came before us, stripped his shoe from his right foot, spat before us spittle that was visible on the ground, and said: ‘So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.’ ” Rebbi Abbahu said, since the spittle was visible when it left her mouth it is valid, even if the wind dissipated it¹²⁷. If she spat blood? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turned to it, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Abba bar Abba¹²⁸, Rebbi Ze‘ira turned to it in the name of Samuel: If it contains some liquid spittle, it is valid¹²⁹. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? With her teeth¹³⁰.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ In Babylonia. In the Babli, 39b, the text of the ḥalîṣah ¹²⁷ He disapproves of the formulation that the spittle has to be seen on the ground. ¹²⁸ He probably is Samuel’s father. ¹²⁹ In the Babli, 105a, no spittle is required since the verse simply says “she shall spit”, not “she shall spit spittle”. ¹³⁰ Agreed to in the Babli, 105a, since the verse requires only that the shoe be stripped off but does not prescribe the way it should be done.

¹³¹ 81(2). The people of Simonia came to Rebbi and told him, please give us a man who preaches, judges, runs the synagogue, teaches reading, teaches Mishnah, and looks after all our needs. He gave them Levi bar Sisi. They made him a big platform¹³² and sat him on it. They came and asked him, how does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He did not respond. If she spat blood” He did not respond. They said, maybe he is not competent in studies, let us ask him in homiletics. They came and asked him, what is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.¹³³ 10:21.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He did not respond. They came to Rebbi and told him, that required one we asked you for? He told them, by your lives, I gave you one who is my equal! He sent to bring him and examined him. He asked him, what if she spat blood. He said, if it contains some fluid of spittle it is valid. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? He said, with her teeth. What is that which is written: “Truly, I shall tell you what is traced in writing, it is true.” If it is true, why is it traced, and if traced, why is it true? He said, until the decision of the court is sealed, it is traced. After it has been sealed, it is true. He asked him, and why did you not give any answers? He said to him, they made me a big platform and sat me on it; by that my spirit became bloated¹³⁴. He quoted about him: “If you became subject to contempt when you rose, if you planned, hand to mouth¹³⁵ 30:32.”; why did you become contemptible in the words of the Torah? That you used them to aggrandize yourself.

footnotes: ¹³¹ A short version of this is in Babli, 105a. There, Levi actually did not know how to respond. The Yerushalmi version is also in Gen. rabba ¹³² Greek βῆμα “speaker’s platform”. ¹³³ Dan. ¹³⁴ He forgot all he knew. ¹³⁵ Prov.

It was stated: A mistaken ḥalîṣah is valid¹³⁶. What is a mistaken ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a case where one told him, perform ḥalîṣah and she will be permitted to you after some time. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and learning that “if he has the intention but not she, or she has the intention but not he, ḥalîṣah is always invalid unless both of them have the intention!¹³⁷” What is a mistaken ḥalîṣah for Rebbi Joḥanan? A case where one told him, perform ḥalîṣah and she will pay you a hundred talents. Rebbi Mana said, if this was stipulated as a condition, she has to pay¹³⁸ if levirate is inappropriate in the eyes of the rabbinate and holding up the woman to extort her money is immoral.. A case came before Rebbi Huna and he followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When he heard that Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed, he changed his opinion and forced a second ḥalîṣah. A case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He told him, my son, this woman does not want to be married in levirate; therefore perform ḥalîṣah and remove your candidacy from her, then she will marry you in a regular marriage. After the ḥalîṣah, he said to him: Even if Moses and Samuel came, they could not permit her. He referred to himself as “they are wise to do evil; they do not know how to do good¹³⁹ 4:22..”

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Tosephta 12:13; quoted in Babli 106a together with the disagreement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan. ¹³⁷ Tosephta 12:13; it is required that both parties act with the intention of freeing the woman for marriage outside the family. ¹³⁸ If it was a formal stipulation, not a vague promise. The Babli, 106a, disagrees since the levir has the obligation to perform ḥalîṣah ¹³⁹ Jer.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah¹⁴⁰ 1:7: “The obligation of levirate has precedence over ḥalîṣah. That was in earlier times, when people had the intent to fulfill the commandment, but now, when people do not have the intent to fulfill the commandment (but to enjoy the marriage) they said, the obligation of ḥalîṣah has precedence over levirate.”. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.¹¹⁷ 25:9.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them¹⁴¹ 48:16. This verse is a blessing.”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Mishnah Bekhorot ¹¹⁷ Deut. ¹⁴¹ Gen.