What are the implications of"le'Einei ha'Zekeinim"?
Yevamos, 101a: It implies that if the Zekeinim are blind, the Chalitzah is Pasul. 1
Yevamos, 106b: It implies that the Zekeinim must see the spit as it leaves the mouth of the Yevamah. 2
Targum Yonasan: It implies that the spit must be sufficient for the Zekeinim to see as it leaves the mouth of the Yevamah
What is the definition of ''Na'al'?
Rashi (in Yevamos, 101a): 'Na'al' is something which protects and which is made of leather. 1
Targum Yonasan: It is a shoe with a heel (which protects 2 and which is sewn with straps) and which has straps which the Yevamah must untie when removing it - Targum Yonasan).
Yevamos, 102b: We learn via a Gezeirah Shavah "Vechaltzah Na'alo" "Ve'an'alchah Tachash" 3 - in Yechekel 16:10 - that a Na'al must be made entirely of leather and that even if the Chalitzah shoe is sewn together with linen, it is Pasul..
As in Yechzkel, 16:10 "Ve'an'alcha Tachash."
Refer also to 25:9:1.2:1.
Yevamos, Ibid.: Even though the Pasuk in Yechezkel mentions "Tachash", the following Pasuk here inserts the (otherwise superfluous) word "Beis Chalutz ha'Na'al" to incorporate the leather from any animal. See Torah Temimah, note 145
How is the Chalitzah perfomed?
Targum Yonasan: The Yavam places his foot firmly on the ground and the Yevamah inties the straps and removes the shoe from his foot.
What is the meaning of "Vechaltzah Na'alo me'al Raglo"?
Yevamos, 102a: Since the Torah writes "me'al Raglo", it must mean 'And she shall remove the shoe from off his foot. 1
Yevamos, 102a: "me'al Raglo" implies "me'al", 've'Lo meal de'me'al'. Consequently, if the Yavam is wearing two pairs of shoes and the Yevamah removes the top pair, the Chalitzah is Pasul. 2
Bearing in mind the Lashon "Vecheltzah Na'alo", is the Yavam allowed to wear a borrowed shoe?
Yevamos, 103b: The fact that the Torah repeats the word "ha'Na'al" in Pasuk 10 teaches us that a borrowed shoe is Kasher for Chalitzah, and the Torah writes "Na'alo" to render Pasul a shoe that does not fit the Yavam and a shoe without a heel.
Is a woman who has no hands eligible to perform Chalitzah?
Yevamos, 105a: Seeing as the Torah does not write 'Vechaltzah be'Yado', she is permitted to perform Chalitzah with her teeth. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 148.
Seeing as the definition of "Regel" is 'foot' (See Torah Temimah, citing Yevamos, 103b and note 151), is the Yevamah Yotzei if she removes a long boot by untying the straps from the leg of the Yavam below the knee?
Yevamos, 103a: Yes, since the Torah writes "me'al Raglo" - but not above the knee, because that would be 'me'al de'me'al.
From which foot does the Yevamah remove the Yavam's shoe?
Yevamos, 104a: We learn via a Gezeirah Shavah "Regel" "Regel" from Metzora, in Metzora, 14:14, that she ust remove it from the right foot - and that if she removes it from the left foot, it is Pasul.
What if the Yevamah tears or burns the shoe from the Yavam's foot?
Yevamos, 102b: If the reason is in order to reveal the Yavam's foot, she will be Yotzei, but if the Torah wants her to specifically remove the shoe, then she is not. 1 This She'eilah remains unresolved.
This is difficult however, since it seems to follow the opinion of R. Shimon, who goes after the reasons of the Mitzvos - and whose opinion is not Halachah.
What are the implications of "Ve'chaltzah Na'alo me'al Raglo"?
Yevamos, 102a: It implies "me'al Raglo", 've'Lo meal de'me'al'. Consequently, if the Yavam is wearing two pairs of shoes and the Yevamah removes the top pair, the Chalitzah is Pasul 1 (Similarly, if the Yavam is wearing a tall leather Na'al, if she unties it from below the knee, the Chalitzah is Kasher, 2 from above the knee, it is Pasul because it is 'me'al de'me'al ? Yevamos, 103b). 3
Yevamos, 104a: By virtue of a Gezeirah Shavah, "Regel"'Regel' from "al Kaf Raglo ha'Semalis" - in Metzora, Vayikra, 14:14 -Chalitzah that is performed on the left foot is Pasul.
What is the purpose of the removal of the Yavam's shoe?
Seforno: To demonstrate the Yevamah's contempt of the Yavam, who declined to build the house that his brother began to build via Kidushin. 1
Rashbam #1: In order to acquire from him his deceased brother's inheritance (regarding her Kesubah). 2
Rabeinu Bachye: As long as he intends to do Yibum and establish seed for his brother, it is as if his brother was alive. When he declines to do so, he is conceding that he died, and he must therefore mourn for him. And removing his shoe is a sign of mourning. 3
Chizkuni: To demonstrate that if he will perform Yibum, she will serve him like a Shifchah [Cana'anis] to her master', and he responds that (nevertheless) he does not want to take her. 4
Oznayim la'Torah (citing the Mekubalim): When the Yevamah spits and removes the Yavam's shoe it is a Tikun (a rectification) for the Neshamah of his deceased brother. 5
Oznayim la'Torah: Something which she - who was part of the body of his deceased brother - wanted to share with him (Seifer ha'Chinuch), and also because he snybbed her by intimating that he only tuened down the Mitzvah of Yibum because she did not find favor in his eyes.
Rashbam: Like we find by Bo'az (See Rus, 4:7 & 8). See Oznayim la'Torah, who queries this explanation.
See also Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Vechaltzah Na'alo' #2.
This requires investigation, since she removes his shoe only after he says 'I do not want to take her'!
As, in any event, the entire Yibum process is a Sod (beyond our comprehension). See Oznayim la'Torah DH "Vechaltzah Na'alo #1. who elaborates.
What are the connotations of "ve'Yarkah be'Fanav"?
Rashi: It means 'She shall spit (not in his face, but) in front of him' 1 (on the ground).
Yevamos, 106b: It implies that if the wind blows away the spit before it reaches a point in front of the Yavam's face, it is Pasul. 2
Yevamos, 106b: "Veyarkah" implies that the spit must come from her, and not on account of something that she ate - such as garlic or other spit-producing seeds. 3
Rambam, Hilchos Chalitzah, 4:5 and Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that there must be enough spit for the Yavam to see. 4
What if the Yevamah spits blood?
Yevamos, 105a: The Chalitzah is Kasher, since the Torah did not write 'Veyarkah Rok' - provided she sucked before spitting, it in which case it is impossible for there not to be some spit mixed with the blood. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 153. The conditon seems to contradict the initial answer, since, if the Torah did not mention spit, why is the sucking necessary? The same question applies on the Gemara there in 106b, which renders Pasul where the Yevamah spits after eating garlic or a seed called 'Gargushta', which produces a lot of spit and hesr spitting is therefore not natural. See also Torah Temimah, note 154.
Why does the Torah insert the words "le'Einei ha'Zekenim"?
Sifri: To teach us that "be'Fanav" does not not mean literally 'in his face', but enough for the Yavam to see. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 157.
Why does the Yevamah spit in front of the Yavam?
Seforno: Refer to 25:9:2:1.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "ve'Ansah ve'Amrah"?
Sotah, 32a: To teach us via a Gezeirah Shavah "Ve'ansah Ve'amrah" "Ve'anu ve'Amru" from the Levi'im by Har Gerizim, and Har Eival) - in Devarim 27:14 - that she must announce 'Kachah Ye'aseh la'Ish ? ' in Lashon ha'Kodesh. 1
Yerushalmi Yevamos, 2:1: To teach us that someone must dictate to her what to say. 2
Having written "ve'Ansah", why does the Torah add "ve'Amrah"?
Yevamos, 104b: To teach us that if the Yevamah is dumb, the Chalitzah is Pasul 1 .
See Torah Temimah, note 135.
What are the implications of the word "Kachah Ye'aseh la'Ish"?
Why does the Torah write "asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv" - in the future?
Rashi: To teach us that, once Chalitzah has been carried out, the Yavam (or any of the brothers - Yevamos, 7b) is no longer permitted to perform Yibum with the Yevamah (or with her Tzaros (rival wives) - Yevamos, 7b). 1
See Torah Temimah, note 143.
What are the implications of the words "Asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv"?
Rashi (in Yevamos, 10b): It implies 'Bayis Echad hu Boneh, ve'Eino Boneh Sh'nei Batim'. Consequently, if one of the brothers performs Yibum, if he or any of the brothers is intimate with the Tzarah, he transgresses an Asei. 1
Rambam, Hilchos Yibum, 6:14: It implies that if a man dies and leaves two wives, the Yavam performs Yibum or Chalitzah with one of them only if they are both permitted, to preclude where one of them is an Isur Ervah. 2
Seforno and Targum Yonasan: It is a Lashon of contempt (Refer to 25:9:2:1 - demonstrating that he deserves this embarrassment for refusing to complete building the house which his brother began to build when he betrothed her ? Seforno).
Yevamos, 44a: It implies that if a man dies and leaves two wives, the Yavam need only perform Yibum or Chalitzah with one of them ('Bayis Echad hu Boneh ... '), and the other one is permitted to remarry. 3
"Livnos es Beis Achiv"? Which house is the Yevamah referring to?
