Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS A VALID SHOE FOR CHALITZAH

(a) A shoe which was offered to idolatry, or of a condemned city (that its majority served idolatry), or of an elder made for his honor may not be used - b'Di'eved, the Chalitzah is invalid.
(b) Question (Ravina): The shoe of an elder made for his honor is invalid, because it was not made to walk in - the same should apply to the shoe of Beis Din!
(c) Answer (Rav Ashi): If the messenger of Beis Din would walk in it, the judge would not mind (i.e. it is considered fit to walk in).

(a) (Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done at night, it is valid; R. Elazar says it is invalid;
(b) Chalitzah done with the left foot is invalid; R. Elazar says it is valid.
(c) (Gemara) Suggestion: R. Elazar equates court cases (which includes Chalitzah) to plagues (and it must be done by day), the 1st Tana does not equate them.
(d) Rejection: No, all agree, we do not equate court cases to plagues - if we did, even the final verdict could not be at night!
(e) Rather, R. Elazar says that Chalitzah is like the beginning of court cases (and it must be by day); the 1st Tana says it is as the end of court cases (and it may be at night).
(f) Rabah Bar Chiya Ketosfa'ah oversaw a Chalitzah with a felt shoe, without other judges, at night.

1. Shmuel (sarcastically) He is so great, to act as the opinion of an individual!
2. Question: What did Shmuel object to?

i. Suggestion: If he objected to using a felt shoe - a Stam (unauthored) Beraisa permits this!
ii. Suggestion: If he objected to Chalitzah at night - our Stam Mishnah says it is valid!

3. Answer #1: He objected to Chalitzah without other judges - an individual Tana permits this.

i. (Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done with 2 judges, or with 3 and 1 was found to be a relative or invalid, the Chalitzah is invalid; R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar say it is valid;
ii. A case occurred, a Yavam and Yevamah did Chalitzah by themselves in jail; R. Akiva said, it is valid.
iii. (Rav Yosef Bar Minyomi): The law is not as R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

4. Answer #2: All 3 elements of the Chalitzah were as the opinion of an individual.

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

(g) (Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done with the left foot ...
(h) Question: Why do Chachamim invalidate this?
(i) Answer (Ula): They learn a Gezeirah Shaveh "Foot - foot" from a leper.

1. Just as there, the right foot is required, also by Chalitzah.

(j) Question: Does R. Elazar not learn this Gezeirah Shaveh?!

1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar): A Yisrael slave that wants to remain a slave, his right ear is pierced - it says "Ear" by the slave, and "ear" by a leper.

i. Just as the right ear of the leper receives the blood and oil, the right ear of the slave is pierced.

(k) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak Bar Yosef): The opinions (in the Mishnah) should be reversed.
(l) Answer #2 (Rava): We need not switch the opinions - R. Elazar learns from "Ear - ear" because the words are free (they are only needed for the Gezeirah Shaveh); he does not learn from "Foot - foot", since these words are not free.
(m) Question: Even if they are not free - he should learn, unless there is a reason not to learn!
(n) Answer: We have a reason not to learn - a leper requires cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool (and therefore, the Torah insisted on the right foot) - Chalitzah does not require these, perhaps the Torah is not insistent on the right foot!

(a) (Mishnah): If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not read the verses - the Chalitzah is valid; if she read and spat but did not take off the shoe, it is invalid;
(b) If she took off his shoe and read, but did not spit - R. Eliezer says, the Chalitzah is invalid; R. Akiva says, it is valid.

1. R. Eliezer: "So will be done" - every action is essential to Chalitzah.
2. R. Akiva: It says, "So will be done to the man" - actions to the Yavam are essential.

(c) If the Yavam or Yevamah was deaf, or the Yevamah was a minor - the Chalitzah is invalid;
(d) If the Yevamah was a minor - she does Chalitzah again when she becomes an adult; if not, the Chalitzah was invalid;
(e) If Chalitzah was done with 2 judges, or with 3 and 1 was found to be a relative or invalid, the Chalitzah is invalid; R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar say it is valid;

1. A case occurred, a Yavam and Yevamah did Chalitzah by themselves in jail; R. Akiva said, it is valid.

(f) (Gemara - Version #1 - Rava): Once we say that if she did not read the verses, the Chalitzah is valid - if the Yevamah or Yavam is mute, the Chalitzah is valid.
(g) Question (Mishnah): If the Yavam or Yevamah was deaf, or the Yevamah was a minor - the Chalitzah is invalid.

1. Suggestion: It is invalid because they cannot read the verses.
2. Rejection: No, rather because they lack knowledge.
3. Question: If so, a mute Yevamah or Yavam should also be unable to do Chalitzah!

(h) Answer (Rava): A mute person has knowledge, just his mouth cannot speak.
(i) Question: But d'Vei R. Yanai taught, Chalitzah of a deaf person is invalid, since he/she cannot read the verses!
(j) Version #2 (Mishnah): If the Yavam or Yevamah was deaf, or the Yevamah was a minor - the Chalitzah is invalid.
(k) (Rava): Now that we say that reading the verses is essential to Chalitzah - if the Yevamah or Yavam is mute, the Chalitzah is invalid.

1. The Mishnah is as R. Zeira - when a flour offering is small enough to be mixed, it is valid even if it was not mixed; if it is too big to be mixed - it is invalid, because it was not mixed.

(l) Version #1 - Rabanan: A Yevamah that spit must do Chalitzah.

1. We see, spitting disqualifies her from doing Yibum.

(m) Question: According to which Tana was this said?

1. Suggestion: This is as R. Akiva.
2. Rejection: When spitting is a Mitzvah (i.e. in Chalitzah), one could compare it to parts of a sacrifice offered on the Altar - when these parts are not around, they do not forbid the meat to be eaten; but when they are around, the meat may not be eaten until they are offered.

i. R. Akiva does not make this comparison, and says that failure to spit does not invalidate the Chalitzah.
ii. All the more so, spitting by itself will not prohibit her to do Yibum!

(n) Answer #1: Rather, this is as R. Eliezer.
(o) Objection: But 2 things permit her (removing the shoe and spitting) - and in such a case, one does not permit without the other!
(p) Answer #2: Rather, it is as Rebbi.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi):The 2 loaves brought on Shavuous only become sanctified through slaughter of the lambs:
2. If the lambs were slaughtered, and their blood was thrown on the Altar Lishman (intending for the Mitzvah), the loaves are sanctified; if the lambs were slaughtered not Lishman, and the blood was thrown Lishman, the loaves are not sanctified; if the slaughter was Lishmah, but the blood was thrown not Lishman, the loaves are sanctified and not sanctified;
3. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, they are not sanctified unless the slaughter and throwing were Lishman.

(q) Question: Does R. Akiva really hold that spitting does not disqualify a Yevamah from doing Yibum?