POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 104
YEVAMOS 104 & 105 (6 & 7 Adar II) - have been dedicated by Harav
Avi Feldman & family in memory of his father, the Tzadik Harav
Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman) of Milwaukee
(Yahrzeit: 6 Adar)
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.
2) CHALITZAH AT NIGHT/ WITH THE LEFT FOOT
(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;
3) WHICH PARTS OF CHALITZAH ARE ESSENTIAL?
(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
(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
(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!
(g) (Mishnah): If Chalitzah was done with the left foot ...
2. Question: What did Shmuel object to?
i. Suggestion: If he objected to using a felt shoe
- a Stam (unauthored) Beraisa permits this!
3. Answer #1: He objected to Chalitzah without other
judges - an individual Tana permits this.
ii. Suggestion: If he objected to Chalitzah at
night - our Stam Mishnah says it is valid!
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;
4. Answer #2: All 3 elements of the Chalitzah were as
the opinion of an individual.
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.
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.
(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
(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.
(k) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak Bar Yosef): The opinions (in the
Mishnah) should be reversed.
i. Just as the right ear of the leper receives the
blood and oil, the right ear of the slave is
(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
(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
(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
1. R. Eliezer: "So will be done" - every action is
essential to Chalitzah.
(c) If the Yavam or Yevamah was deaf, or the Yevamah was a
minor - the Chalitzah is invalid;
2. R. Akiva: It says, "So will be done to the man" -
actions to the Yavam are essential.
(d) If the Yevamah was a minor - she does Chalitzah again
when she becomes an adult; if not, the Chalitzah was
(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
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
(h) Answer (Rava): A mute person has knowledge, just his
mouth cannot speak.
2. Rejection: No, rather because they lack knowledge.
3. Question: If so, a mute Yevamah or Yavam should also
be unable to do Chalitzah!
(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
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.
(n) Answer #1: Rather, this is as R. Eliezer.
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
ii. All the more so, spitting by itself will not
prohibit her to do Yibum!
(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
(q) Question: Does R. Akiva really hold that spitting does
not disqualify a Yevamah from doing Yibum?
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
3. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, they are not
sanctified unless the slaughter and throwing were