12th CYCLE DEDICATIONS
 
YEVAMOS 104 (1 Elul) - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer (Yahrzeit: 30 Av, Yom Kevurah: 1 Elul) by her daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel. Esther Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.

1)

SHOES INVALID FOR CHALITZAH

(a)

(Rava): If a shoe was offered to idolatry or is of an Ir ha'Nidachas (a city condemned because its majority served idolatry), or is for a Chacham's honor, it may not be used. If it was used, the Chalitzah is invalid.

(b)

Question (Ravina): Chalitzah with a shoe for a Chacham's honor is invalid because it was not made for walking. The same should apply to the shoe of Beis Din (for Chalitzah)!

(c)

Answer (Rav Ashi): If a messenger of Beis Din would walk in it, the judge would not mind (therefore it is considered made for walking).

2)

CHALITZAH AT NIGHT OR WITH THE LEFT FOOT

(a)

(Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done at night, it is valid;

(b)

R. Elazar says, it is invalid.

(c)

If Chalitzah was done with the left foot, it is invalid;

(d)

R. Elazar says, it is valid.

(e)

(Gemara) Suggestion: R. Elazar equates conflicts (in Beis Din, which includes Chalitzah) to Tzara'as (rulings about it must be done by day), and Chachamim do not equate them.

(f)

Rejection: No. All agree that we do not equate them. If we did, even a final verdict could not be at night!

(g)

Rather, R. Elazar holds that Chalitzah is like the beginning of judgment (which must be during the day), and Chachamim hold that it is like the end of judgment (which may be at night).

(h)

Rabah bar Chiya Ketosfa'ah oversaw a Chalitzah with a felt shoe, without other judges, at night.

(i)

Shmuel (sarcastically): He is so great, to follow an individual's opinion!

(j)

Question: What did Shmuel object to?

1.

We cannot say that he objected to using a felt shoe, for a Stam Beraisa permits this!

2.

We cannot say that he objected to Chalitzah at night, for our Stam Mishnah says that it is valid!

(k)

Answer #1: He objected to Chalitzah without other judges. An individual permits this:

1.

(Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done with two judges, or with three and one was found to be a relative or invalid, the Chalitzah is invalid;

2.

R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar say, it is valid;

3.

It once occurred that a Yavam and Yevamah did Chalitzah by themselves in jail. R. Akiva said, it is valid.

4.

(Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

(l)

Answer #2: All three aspects of the Chalitzah were like an individual's opinion:

1.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): I saw R. Yishmael ben Elisha oversee a Chalitzah with a felt shoe, without other judges, at night.

(m)

(Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done with the left foot ...

(n)

Question: Why do Chachamim invalidate this?

(o)

Answer (Ula): They learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Regel-Regel" from a Metzora.

1.

Just like there, we need (to put blood and oil on) the right foot, also for Chalitzah.

(p)

Question: R. Elazar should also learn this Gezeirah Shavah!

1.

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): We pierce the right ear of an Eved Ivri who wants to remain a slave - it says "Ozen" regarding the slave and regarding a Metzora.

2.

Just like we put blood and oil on the right ear of a Metzora, the right ear of the slave is pierced.

(q)

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): The opinions (in the Mishnah) should be reversed.

(r)

Answer #2 (Rava): We need not switch the opinions. R. Elazar learns from "Ozen-Ozen" because the words are extra (they are only for the Gezeirah Shavah). He does not learn from "Regel-Regel" because these words are not free.

(s)

Question: Even if they are not extra, he should learn unless there is a reason not to!

(t)

Answer: We have a reason not to learn. Taharas Metzora requires cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool (and therefore, the Torah requires the right foot). Chalitzah does not require these, so perhaps the Torah does not require the right foot!

3)

IS RECITING THE VERSES ESSENTIAL?

(a)

(Mishnah): If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite the verses, the Chalitzah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not take off the shoe, it is invalid;

(b)

R. Eliezer says, if she took off his shoe and recited, but did not spit, the Chalitzah is invalid;

(c)

R. Akiva says, it is valid.

104b----------------------------------------104b

1.

R. Eliezer: "So will be done" - every action is Me'akev (essential for Chalitzah).

2.

R. Akiva: "So will be done to the man" - (only) actions to the Yavam are essential.

(d)

If the Yavam or Yevamah was deaf (i.e. a deaf-mute), or he was a minor, the Chalitzah is invalid;

(e)

If she was a minor, she does Chalitzah again when she becomes an adult. If not, the Chalitzah was invalid;

(f)

If Chalitzah was done with two judges, or with three and one was found to be a relative or invalid, the Chalitzah is invalid;

(g)

R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar say, it is valid;

1.

It once occurred that a Yavam and Yevamah did Chalitzah by themselves in jail. R. Akiva said that it is valid.

(h)

(Gemara - Version #1 - Rava): Since reciting the verses is not Me'akev, even if he or she is mute, the Chalitzah is valid.

(i)

Question (Mishnah): If he or she was deaf, or he was a minor, the Chalitzah is invalid.

1.

Suggestion: It is invalid because they cannot recite the verses.

(j)

Answer: No, it is because they lack understanding.

(k)

Question: If so, the same should apply if he or she is mute!

(l)

Answer (Rava): A mute person has knowledge, just his mouth cannot speak.

(m)

Objection: D'Vei R. Yanai taught that (when he or she is deaf) it is invalid because he or she cannot recite the verses!

(n)

Retraction: Rather, we must say that Rava taught about the Seifa.

(o)

Version #2 (Mishnah): If he or she was deaf, or he was a minor, the Chalitzah is invalid.

(p)

(Rava): Since reciting the verses is Me'akev, if he or she is mute, the Chalitzah is invalid;

(q)

The Mishnah says that reciting is not Me'akev (if he and she can speak). This is like R. Zeira:

1.

(R. Zeira): If a Minchah is small enough to be mixed, it is valid even if it was not mixed. If it is too big to be mixed (one Log of oil cannot be mixed with more than 60 Esronim of flour. Alternatively, the Keli is too small) it is invalid because it was not mixed.

4)

A YEVAMAH WHO SPAT

(a)

Version #1 - Rabanan (to Shmuel's father): If a Yevamah spat (at her Yavam), she must do Chalitzah.

(b)

Inference: Spitting disqualifies her from doing Yibum.

(c)

Question: According to which Tana is this?

(d)

Answer #1: It is like R. Akiva.

(e)

Rejection: It is plausible to compare spitting to Eimurim (parts of a Korban burned on the Mizbe'ach). When the Eimurim are not around, offering them is not Me'akev (requisite for) eating the meat, but when they are around, they are Me'akev (one may not eat the meat before offering them);

1.

R. Akiva does not equate them, and says that failure to spit does not invalidate the Chalitzah (even though it is possible). Surely, spitting alone does not forbid doing Yibum!

(f)

Answer #2: Rather, it is like R. Eliezer.

(g)

Objection: He holds that two things permit her (removing the shoe and spitting). In such a case, one does not permit without the other!

(h)

Answer #3: It is like Rebbi:

1.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): The two loaves brought on Shavu'os become Kodesh only through Shechitah of the lambs offered with them;

2.

If Shechitah and Zerikah (throwing the blood on the Mizbe'ach) of the lambs was done Lishman (intending for the Mitzvah), the loaves become Kodesh. If Shechitah was Lo Lishma and Zerikah was Lishman, the loaves are not Kodesh. If Shechitah was Lishmah but Zerikah was not Lishman, the loaves are Kodesh and not Kodesh;

3.

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, they are not Kodesh unless the Shechitah and the Zerikah were li'Shman.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF