Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 102

1) HALACHAH: USING A SHOE FOR CHALITZAH

OPINIONS: The Gemara records a Machlokes Tana'im whether a "Min'al," a shoe, may be used for Chalitzah, or whether only a "Sandal" may be used. The Gemara mentions an incident wherein Rebbi Yosi met a certain elder from the town of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah and asked him what type of footwear Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah used to use for Chalitzah. The elder answered him rhetorically, "Is it permitted to do Chalitzah with a Min'al?!"

It seems that the elder's testimony showed that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah did *not* permit using a shoe. Accordingly, we should use a sandal rather than a shoe for Chalitzah.

Today, however, it is the practice to use a *shoe* for Chalitzah. Why do we use a shoe contrary to the practice of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, which seems to be the Gemara's conclusion?

(a) The ROSH and NIMUKEI YOSEF (in the name of the BA'ALEI HA'TOSFOS) cite the Yerushalmi that records the story of Rebbi Yosi and the elder slightly differently. The elder answered, "Is there a sandal in our village?" implying that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah used a shoe, because sandals were not worn in his village.

These Rishonim explain that the Yerushalmi does not necessarily argue with our version of the story. Rather, in practice, both are true. A shoe should not be used l'Chatchilah, but in a place where everyone walks in a shoe and not in sandals, then it is permitted to use a shoe, because a sandal in that place is not used for walking like a shoe is. Nowadays, since everyone wears shoes, we may perform Chalitzah with a shoe.

(b) The ME'IRI and the TUR (quoting the SEFER HA'MITZVOS) write that our shoes are similar to the sandals of the time of the Gemara. The shoe that we use is made from a single piece of leather, is somewhat hard, and has long straps, and therefore the Gezeirah of the Gemara not to use a shoe because of "Min'al Merupat" (see below) does not apply to our shoes.

However, both this and the previous explanation do not necessarily justify the use of the shoes that we use today for Chalitzah in all places (such as where sandals are still commonly worn, and where the shoe that is used is soft).

(c) The KORBAN NESANEL (12:3:8) writes that the reason the Chachamim said that a shoe should not be used for Chalitzah is because one might use a shoe that is half broken ("Min'al Merupat"), which is not valid for Chalitzah but which is still able to be used for walking.

The Korban Nesanel says that the Gezeirah of "Min'al Merupat" only applied in the time of the Chachamim. In those days, if the Beis Din did not have a special shoe available to use for Chalitzah, they would ask someone present to take off his shoe and give it to them for the Chalitzah (as we find in the incident in 103b). Today, though, we only use a special shoe that is kept in Beis Din and is designated exclusively for Chalitzah. Since such a shoe is not walked in frequently, there is no fear that it will be torn through overuse.

(d) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Yibum 4:6) rules that a shoe may be used l'Chatchilah. It seems that the Rambam understood that the version of the incident in the Yerushalmi is arguing with the version in our Gemara, and he ruled like the version in the Yerushalmi (which is like the Girsa of the Vilna Ga'on here in the Bavli -- see also Kesef Mishnah). If so, a shoe certainly may be used.

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that one reason why a shoe might be invalid for Chalitzah is because the strap that fastens it to the foot is "Me'al d'Me'al" -- it is wrapped over the top of the shoe and does not directly cover the foot (thus, when the strap is loosened to remove the shoe, it is not being loosened from the foot, but from the top of the shoe). The Gemara concludes that this is not a reason to invalidate a shoe for Chalitzah (since the shoe is eventually removed from the foot). Rather, the problem is that one might use a shoe that is partially torn ("Merupat"). A sandal, though, has neither of these problems.

(a) What is the difference in the physical appearance between a sandal and a shoe, and why is it that these two problems exist only with a shoe and not with a sandal?

(b) The Gemara continues to discuss the type of sandal used for Chalitzah. It says that a sandal with "Shintzin" is not as good as a sandal of an Arab merchant ("Taiya") because the merchant's shoe fits more tightly to the foot. The Gemara adds that when using our sandals for Chalitzah, even if they have a "Chumresa" on them (to make them tighter), we should still tie a string around the sandal in order to tighten it to the foot to ensure that the Chalitzah is done properly. What exactly is the difference between these different types of sandals?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI and the other Rishonim offer differing explanations for the difference between a shoe and a sandal.

1. According to Rashi, it seems that both the shoe and the sandal are covered footwear (that is, they have leather uppers, which the Gemara refers to as the "Panta"). The primary difference between a shoe and a sandal is that the leather sole and upper of the shoe is soft, whereas the leather sole and upper of the sandal is hard and inflexible (making it somewhat like a wooden shoe).

In order to tighten the shoe onto the foot, thick straps ("Arkesa") which are affixed to the edges ("Aznayim") of the sole are folded over the top of the shoe from one side to the other (and pulled through loops on the opposite side). The straps thereby cover the entire shoe and secure it to the foot. These straps, when wrapped around the shoe, are what the Gemara refers to as "Me'al d'Me'al," since they cover the leather upper of the shoe. Even if the shoe is half torn, the straps can be used to tighten the shoe onto the foot, and that is why the Gemara says that a "Min'al Merupat" is still usable for walking.

The sandal, on the other hand, is made from a very stiff leather. Affixing straps to the edges of the sole, like the straps of a shoe, would not be effective to secure the sandal to the foot, because the straps would not be able to bend the hard leather edges of the sandal nor the hard top of the sandal to secure them tightly around the foot. Instead, the sandal has laces that are affixed to the back of the sandal (the raised ankle support, as in today's ankle-high shoes), and those laces are tied around the ankle. They would be laced tightly to the shin to prevent the sandal from falling off.

Since the laces are not tied on top of the leather upper, there is no problem of "Me'al d'Me'al." If the sandal is torn, it cannot be tightened to the foot by straps because of its stiffness, and thus a torn sandal is completely unusable (which is why there is no problem of "Merupat").

2. The RITVA and other Rishonim (see ME'IRI, p. 371-372) explain that the difference between a shoe and a sandal is that a shoe is made of two pieces or three pieces -- an upper ("Panta"), together with a sole and an ankle support, whereas the sandal has only a leather bottom and no upper. The Me'iri proves this from the fact that the Gemara always refers to a shoe as something that "covers his foot" ("Chofeh Es Raglo"), and refers to a sandal as something that "receives the foot" ("Mekabel Es Rov ha'Regel" -- see end of 102b), because the edges of the sandal are slightly raised around the foot, so that it looks like it is receiving, or holding, the foot.

The shoe is tied with laces (similar to our shoes today). The part of the shoe in which the laces were inserted is called the "Panta" (or "Oznayim"). Since the laces are tied on top of the shoe, there is a problem of "Me'al d'Me'al."

If the shoe is torn, meaning that the front of the shoe (above the toes) is torn, it can still be worn somewhat comfortably. Since it has a partial covering, it remains usable even if it is torn (ME'IRI). Alternatively, even if it is not usable as a shoe because the top is torn, the bottom is still usable as a sandal (RITVA).

The sandal, on the other hand, has straps which are tied to loops ("Oznayim") at the edges of the leather sole, and which cover the foot and go behind the ankle, and are then tied either on top of the foot or higher up on the shin. Since the straps are wrapped directly around the foot or lower leg, there is no problem of "Me'al d'Me'al." If the sandal (meaning the piece of leather that serves as the sole) is ripped, then it is rendered unusable because the foot then treads unprotected on the rough ground.

(b) The Rishonim also offer differing opinions as to the difference between a sandal with "Shintzin," a sandal of a Taiya, and a sandal with "Chumresa." It seems that according to all opinions, the difference between these sandals is how tightly they are fastened to the foot. The one with "Shintzin" is the least tight, and the Taiya's sandal is the most secure, with the third one ("our sandal") in between. What is the exact difference between these types of sandals?

1. RASHI explains that "Shintzin" refers to a simple strap, like a drawstring, used to tie the neck of the sandal around the leg. It is not knotted, and thus it is easy to loosen and to extract the foot.

A sandal of a Taiya, on the other hand, has long straps that wrap around the leg, tightening the sandal securely to the foot.

The "Chumresa" is a knotted shoelace, which tightens the neck of the sandal to the leg. It is looser than the sandal of the Taiya, but it is not as loose as the "Shintzin." That is why the Gemara says that to make it more secure, we first wrap and tie a string around the neck of the sandal and the leg (in place of the long strap that it does not have); that string is removed as part of the Chalitzah process.

2. The RITVA explains (according to some) that the "Shintzin" are interlocking loops that keep the shoe on the foot (instead of shoelaces). The sandal of the Taiya is the same as Rashi explained, with straps wrapping it around the leg.

The "Chumresa" on "our sandals" refers to a tight ring through which the straps that serve as shoelaces were inserted. The ring holds the straps in place so that they not loosen. By moving the ring higher or lower on the shoelaces, the shoe can be made tighter or looser. When using such a sandal, we tie a string around the foot to make it similar to a sandal of a Taiya so that the Chalitzah should be more obviously removing the sandal from a state of being fastened on the foot.

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses different ways of removing the shoe from the foot. The Gemara questions whether it is considered a proper Chalitzah when the Yevamah rips or burns the shoe off of the foot, instead of untying it and removing it in the normal manner. The Gemara also questions whether it is considered a proper Chalitzah when she pulls off the innermost of two shoes that the Yavam is wearing on one foot, while leaving the outer shoe in place.

The Gemara says that it depends whether the Torah requires that she specifically *remove* the shoe ("Chalitzah"), or that she merely *expose* the foot.

What is the Gemara's question? The Torah says "v'Chaltzah" (Devarim 25:9), clearly stating that she must *remove* the shoe! How can the Gemara suggest that burning it off is valid?

ANSWER: The ARUCH LA'NER explains that the Gemara found two contradictory phrases in the verse. On one hand, the verse says, "v'Chaltzah" ("and she shall remove [the shoe]"), which means that she must remove the shoe without tearing or burning it. On the other hand, the verse says, "Me'al Raglo" ("from upon his foot"), which implies that the main goal is to *expose* the foot and it does not matter how it is done.

Hence, the Gemara is asking which phrase is meant by the Torah to be the signficant one, "v'Chaltzah" or "Me'al Raglo?" (Even though the Gemara elsewhere derives a different Halachah from the words, "Me'al Raglo" (that is, where the shoe may be tied), the Gemara now is suggesting that the word "Raglo" is extra and is teaching that the Yevamah need only expose the foot, since the Torah could have written "Me'alav" without the extra word "Raglo.")

102b