whether he was standing, sitting or reclining, and also if her halizah was performed with a blind man, her halizah is valid. [If her halizah] however, [was performed] with a torn shoe that did not cover the greater part of the [levir's] foot, with a broken sandal which does not hold the greater part of his foot, with a support of the hands,1 or with a cloth sock, and also where her halizah was performed with a minor, her halizah is invalid.2
Whose [view is represented in the first statement mentioning] the artificial foot?3 — [Obviously that of] R. Meir, for we learned: A cripple may go out [on the Sabbath]4 with his artificial foot;5 so R. Meir, and R. Jose forbids it;6 [but the latter statement]: 'With a cloth-sock'7 can only represent the view of the Rabbis!8 — Abaye replied: Since the latter statement [represents the opinion of] the Rabbis, the first also [must represent the opinion of] the Rabbis, the first [dealing with an artificial foot that was] covered with leather.9
Said Raba to him:10 What, however, [is the law if it11 was] not covered with leather? Is it then unfit!12 If so, instead of teaching in the latter statement, 'With a cloth sock',13 a distinction should have been drawn in [respect of the artificial foot] itself: This14 applies only where it was covered with leather, but if it was not covered with leather it is unfit!12 Rather, said Raba, since the first statement represents the view of R. Meir, the latter also represents the view of R. Meir, the one11 affording protection15 while the other16 affords no protection.17
Amemar stated: When a levir submits to halizah he must press down his foot [to the ground]. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Was it not taught [that the halizah was valid] 'whether he18 was standing, sitting or reclining'? — Read: And in all these cases, only if he pressed his foot [to the ground].
Amemar further stated: A man who walks on the upper side of his foot19 must not submit to halizah. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But, surely, it was taught: 'Supports of the feet';20 does not [this signify] that such [a cripple]21 may submit to halizah with a support! No; [the meaning is] that he may give it to another person22 who is allowed to submit to halizah [with it].
Said R. Ashi: According to Amemar's ruling neither Bar Oba nor Bar Kipof23 could submit to halizah.
[IF THE SHOE WAS WORN] BELOW THE KNEE etc. A contradiction was pointed out: Regalim,24 excludes25 stump-legged cripples!26 — Here27 it is different since it was written in Scripture, From off his foot.28 If so, [halizah should be permissible] above the knee also! — From off but not 'from off the from off'.29
Said R. Papa: From this30 it may be inferred that the istewira31 reaches down to the ground;32 for were it to be imagined that it is disconnected,33 it [would be situated] above [the foot], while the leg [would be] above that which is above [the foot].34 R. Ashi, however, said: It may even be said that it is disconnected, but any part adjacent to the foot is legally regarded as the foot itself.35
ABOVE THE KNEE. R. Kahana raised an objection: And against her afterbirth that cometh out from between her feet!36 — Abaye replied: When a woman kneels down to give birth she presses her heels against her thighs and thus gives birth. Come and hear: He had neither dressed his feet nor trimmed his beard!37 — This is a euphemistic expression. Come and hear: And Saul went in to cover his feet!38 — This is a euphemistic expression. Come and hear: Surely he is covering his feet in the cabinet of the cool chamber!39 — This is a euphemistic expression. Between her feet etc.!40 — This is a euphemistic expression.
R. Johanan Said: That profligate41 had seven sexual connections on that day;42 for it is said, Between her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay; at her feet he sunk, he fell; where he sunk there he fell down dead.43 But, surely she44 derived gratification from the transgression! R. Johanan replied in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: All the favours of the wicked45
are evil for the righteous;1 For it is said, Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or evil.2 Now, as regards evil, one can perfectly well understand [the meaning]3 but why not good? From here then it may be inferred that the favour of the wicked is evil for the righteous.
There,4 one can well see the reason,5 since he6 might possibly mention to him the name of his idol;7 what evil, however, could be involved here?8 — That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve,9 he infused her10 with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai,11 came to an end, the lust of the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.
IF THE WOMAN PERFORMED THE HALIZAH WITH A SANDAL THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM etc. Our Rabbis taught: [From the expression] His shoe12 I would only know that his own13 shoe [is suitable];14 whence, however, is it deduced that anybody's shoe is suitable?15 Hence was the term 'shoe' repeated,16 thus indicating the suitability of anyone's shoe.17 If so, why was the expression, 'His shoe', at all used? — 'His shoe' implies one which he can wear, excluding a large one in which he cannot walk, excluding a small one which does not cover the greater part of his foot, and excluding also a sandal which consists of a sole but has no heel.
Abaye once stood in the presence of R. Joseph when a sister-in-law came to perform halizah. 'Give him',18 he19 said to him,20 your sandal', and [Abaye] gave him' his left sandal. 'It might be suggested', he19 said to him,20 'that the Rabbis spoke21 only of a fait accompli; did they, however, speak also of what is permissible ab initio?' The other20 replied: If so, in respect of a sandal that is not the levir's own, it might also be suggested that the Rabbis spoke22 only of a fait accompli; did they, however, speak also of what is permissible ab initio! 'I', the first19 answered him, 'meant to tell you this: Give it to him and transfer possession to him'.23
A WOODEN SANDAL. Who is the Tanna [whose view is expressed in this ruling]?24 — Samuel replied: The view is that of R. Meir. For we learned: A cripple may go out [on the Sabbath]25 with his wooden stump; so R. Meir,26 while R. Jose forbids it.27 Samuel's father explained:28 With one that is covered with leather, [the ruling representing] the general opinion.29
R. Papi stated in the name of Raba: No halizah may be performed with a sandal that is under observation;30 a halizah, however, that has been performed [with it] is valid. No halizah may be performed with a sandal, the leprous condition of which has been confirmed;31 and even a halizah that had already been performed [with it] is invalid.32 R. Papa, however, stated in the name of Raba: No halizah may be performed either with a sandal under observation30 or with one the leprous condition of which had been confirmed;31 a halizah, however, that had been performed [with either] is valid.
An objection was raised: A house locked up33 imparts uncleanness from within,34 [and a house] confirmed in its leprous condition [imparts uncleanness]34 both within and without. The one as well as the other imparts uncleanness to anyone entering.35 Now, if it is to be assumed [that an object doomed to destruction is regarded] as already crushed to dust,36 surely [it may be objected] the requirement [there]37 is that He goeth into the house;38 but [such a house] is not in existence!39 — There37 it is different, because Scripture said, And he shall break down the house,40 even at the time of breaking down it is still called 'house'.
Come and hear: A [leprous] strip of cloth41 measuring three [finger-breadths] by three,42 even if [in volume] it does not amount to the size of an olive,43 causes, as soon as the greater part of it has entered a clean house, the defilement of that house.44 Does not [this refer to a strip of cloth the uncleanness of which] had been confirmed!45 No; [it refers to] one under observation.46 But if so, read the final clause: If in volume47 it constituted the size of many olives,48 as soon as a portion of it of the size of an olive49 enters a clean house, it causes the uncleanness of that house.50 Now, if you grant [that the reference is to a strip] of confirmed leprosy one can well understand why it was compared51 to a corpse;52 if, however, you maintain [that the reference is to a strip] under observation53 why [it may be objected] was it compared to a corpse! — There54 it is different,55 for Scripture said, And he shall burn the garment,56 even at the time of burning it is still called 'garment.'57 Then let [halizah] be deduced from it!58 — A prohibition cannot be deduced from [the laws of] uncleanness.59
Raba stated: The law is that [a sister-in-law] may not perform halizah either with a sandal under observation,60 or with a sandal of confirmed leprosy, or with a sandal belonging to an idol;61 if, however, she has performed halizah [with either of these], her halizah is valid.62 [With a sandal] that was offered to an idol63
- To Next Folio -