Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the Chachamim, if a Safek ben Tish'ah le'Rishon Safek ben Shiv'ah le'Acharon strikes or curses both men one after the other (after being warned each time) or simultaneously, he is Chayav. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with them - in the former case, because it is Hasra'as Safek (and he holds 'Hasra'as Safek, Patur').

(b) According to others, Rebbi Yehudah even exempts him for hitting them simultaneously. Rebbi Chanina learns this by means of 'B'rachah' (a refined way of saying 'K'lalah') le'Matah from 'B'rachah' Lema'alah' (concerning the Din of cursing) - meaning that we compare cursing one's parents (which the Torah forbids) to cursing Hashem (which the Torah forbids too). Just as in the latter case, there is only One, so too, in the former case, there must be only one father, and not two.

(c) Despite the fact that the D'rashah only pertains to 'B'rachah', they apply it to striking one's parents too, by means of a 'Hekesh' ('Haka'ah' to K'lalah' - seeing as the two are close together, with only one Pasuk dividing them).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the Safek serves in the Mishmaros of both men. We refute the Kashya 've'Chi me'Achar de'Eino Cholek, Lamah Oleh' - on the grounds that the Kohen *wants* to serve (even if he cannot eat), because he wants to perform the Mitzvah.

(b) So we amend the Lashon to 've'Oleh', implying that he is obligated to do so. The members of both Mishmaros can force him to serve - on the grounds of 'P'gam Mishpachah' (not serving in the Beis Hamikdash will create a stigma on both families).

(c) He will not receive a portion (even if both men belong to the same Mishmar) - if they belong to different Batei Avos (the group that served on one of the days of the week during which the Mishmar served), since each Beis-Av can push him off on to another day.

3)

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah permits Hedyotos - he means that the Dayanim do not need to be members of the Sanhedrin (Gedolah or Ketanah).

(b) The significance of 'Dayanim' is - that they had to be at least sufficiently learned to read together with the Yavam "Lo Chafatzti le'Kachtah".

(a) Our Mishnah permits Chalitzah with a Man'al. Lechatchilah however, a Sandal is required (this will be discussed shortly). The basic difference between a Sandal and a Man'al is - that the former is hard, whereas the latter is soft (see also answers to 103a. 4a.)

(b) 'be'Anpalya, Chalitzasah Pesulah'. An 'Anpalya' is a cloth shoe (a sock), which is Pasul because the Torah requires a Na'al, which incorporates footwear that protects the foot of the wearer, which an Anpalya does not.

(c) A Sandal requires a heel - in order to be eligible for Chalitzah.

(a) If part of the Yavam's leg is missing, he might nevertheless be able to perform Chalitzah. To invalidate the Chalitzah - the foot and the leg up to the knee must be missing.

(b) If Chalitzah was performed with a shoe that was not his, or with a wooden shoe - it is nevertheless valid?

(c) The third case to be listed together with these two is - Chalitzah from the left foot.

(d) A shoe is Kasher even though it is ...

1. ... too big - provided the Yavam is able to walk with it.
2. ... too small - provided it covers the majority of his foot.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah (and the Tana Kama of the Beraisa) require three Dayanim for Chalitzah - Rebbi Yehudah requires five.

(b) The Tana Kama derives *three* Dayanim from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Alsah Yevimto ha'Sha'arah el *ha'Zekeinim*", implying at least two. The third Dayan is derived - from the fact that every Beis-Din must comprise an odd number of Dayanim (to enable them to rely on a majority vote in case there is difference of opinion). Consequently, whenever whenever we are faced with a Limud for an even number of Dayanim, we always add one ('Ein Beis-Din Shakul, Mosifin Aleihen Od Echad').

(c) Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates five Dayanim from the very same word ("ha'Zekeinim") - from the extra 'Yud': "Ziknei" (two), "Zekeinim" (two more).

(a) According to the Tana Kama, the extra 'Yud' in "ha'Zekeinim" comes to include - Hedyotos (as we learned in our Mishnah).

(b) From the word "*le'Einei* ha'Zekeinim" - Rebbi Yehudah precludes Dayanim who are blind.

(c) Tani Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Kulach Yafah Ra'ayasi u'Mum Ein Bach" - that anyone with a blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah now extrapolates from the previous D'rashah that Hedyotos must be Kasher - because if they were not, we would not need a Pasuk to preclude blind Dayanim, seeing as a blind person cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin anyway.

8)

(a) The Tana Kama learns from "le'Einei" Rava's Din - that, when the woman spits, the spittle must be visible to the eyes of the Dayanim.

(b) We conclude that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this D'rashah, and he derives Hedyotos from the Pasuk "le'Hakim le'Achiv Shem *be'Yisrael*". The Tana Kama learns from "be'Yisrael" like Tani Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah - that Chalitzah requires a Beis-Din of Yisrael (whose father and mother are both Jews), to preclude Geirim).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah precludes a Beis-Din of Geirim from another Pasuk "ve'Lo Yimacheh Sh'mo mi'*Yisrael*". The Tana Kama learns from there the Halachah that Rebbi Yehudah taught quoting Rebbi Tarfon - who was sitting on a Beis-Din of Chalitzah, and, when the Yevamah came to perform Chalitzah, he told everyone to announce (after the Chalitzah) "Chalutz ha'Na'al"!

(b) Rebbi Yehudah himself learns the obligation to announce 'Chalutz ha'Na'al' from "ve'Nikra Sh'mo be'Yisrael". If we Darshen the word "ve'Nikra", we ask, then in the Pasuk "ve'Kar'u Lo Ziknei Iro ve'Dibru Eilav", we will have to Darshen "ve'Kar'u" (two) and "ve'Dibru"(two). And in that case, Rebbi Yehudah ought to require *nine* Dayanim, and the Chachamim, *seven*? (However, there is no indication that the Tana Kama Darshens "ve'Nikra", so perhaps the Gemara's Kashya is sparked off by the fact that the Tana'im are Darshening from every word in the Pasuk.)

(c) We learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Kar'u Lo" - that the Dayanim themselves are obligated to call to the Yavam, and not their Sh'li'ach ("ve'Kar'u" 've'Lo Sh'lucham').
2. ... "ve'Dibru Eilav" - that if the Dayanim see that an old Yavam intends to perform Yibum with a young Yevamah or vice-versa, they advise him to desist, and rather to perform Chalitzah, so as not to bring strife into his house by entering into an inappropriate marriage.

(d) Initially, Rav Nachman ruled 'Chalitzah bi'Sh'loshah' - because it is the opinion of our Mishnah, which is a S'tam Mishnah.

(a) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over whether Miy'un requires a Beis-Din of experts or not. They both agree however - that three people are required.

(b) When Rav Nachman ruled (with regard to Miy'un) 'Halachah ke'Oso ha'Zug' (Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) - he meant that Miy'un requires only two judges (in spite of the S'tam Mishnah 'ha'Mi'un ve'ha'Chalitzah bi'Sh'loshah').

(c) We try to reconcile this ruling with his previous one, where he ruled that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim on the basis of a S'tam Mishnah - by differentiating between the former ruling, which is based on *three* S'tam Mishnahs and the latter one, where there are only *two*.

(d) When the Tana of the Mishnah says (above 25b.) 'Mi'anah O she'Chaltzah be'Fanav Yisa'enah, Mipnei she'Hu Beis-Din' - he means that the Dayan who sat on the Beis-Din of Chalitzah is subsequently permitted to marry her, because his ruling is not an independent one, but is issued in his capacity of a member of Beis-Din. Rava quotes this Mishnah as a second S'tam Mishnah that Miy'un requires three judges.

(a) We reject Rav Nachman's reply to Rava (that three S'tam Mishnah's are better than two) - on the grounds that if we rule like a S'tam Mishnah, then it makes no difference how many there are, and one S'tam Mishnah is as good as three.

(b) Rav Nachman finally justifies his ruling (that Chalitzah requires three and not five) - not because it is a S'tam Mishnah, but because Rebbi included a S'tam Mishnah that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim in the place of a Machlokes (meaning, that after citing a dispute wherein Rebbi Yossi requires three Dayanim for S'michah and Eglah Arufah and Rebbi Yehudah requires five, he concludes 'ha'Chalitzah ve'ha'Miy'un bi'Sh'loshah', and there Rebbi Yehudah does not argue, a clear indication that he retracted from his previous opinion, that Chalitzah requires five).

(c) Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua nevertheless require five Dayanim for Chalitzah - for the sake of publicity (either to let everyone know that she is a Chalutzah so that Kohanim will refrain from marrying her, or to let people know that she is now available for marriage).

(d) This ruling was widely accepted - because we find a number of Amora'im doing likewise. The bundle of canes to which they referred - was for the Dayanim to sit on during the Chalitzah ceremony.

(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk "ve'Alsah Yevimto *ha'Sha'arah* el ha'Zekeinim" - that one needs to fix a specific location for Chalitzah.

(b) Rav Shmuel ben Yehudah declined to sit on a Beis-Din for Chalitzah - because he and his father were Geirim, and we learned above that Chalitzah requires Dayanim whose father and mother were born Yisre'eilim.

(c) Rav Yehudah was impressed with Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's integrity. The initial version of his statement, in which he said that he would even extract money by his testimony is incorrect - inasmuch as the extraction of money requires *two* witnesses, and not just one.

(d) What he really said was - that he would invalidate a document (not to claim from it without a Shevu'ah, should Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah testify that the debtor had already paid (see Tosfos DH 'Mar'ana).