ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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)
(a) The Tana Kama validates Chalitzah that is performed at night, but
invalidates it if it performed with the left hand. Rebbi Elazar validates
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "*u've'Yom* Heira'os Bo" - that a Kohen may only
examine Nega'im by day.
(c) We try and establish the first Machlokes (whether Chalitzah is Kasher by
night or not) - based on the Pasuk "ve'Al Pihem Yihyeh Kol Riv ve'Chol
Naga"; the Tana Kama learns the Hekesh comparing Rivim to Nega'im, whereas
Rebbi Elazar does not.
(d) Chalitzah is incorporated in the realm of Rivim - by virtue of the fact
that it enables the Yevamah to claim her Kesubah.
(a) We decline to compare Ribim to Nega'im - because if we would, then
G'mar-Din (Beis-Din's final ruling) should also be restricted to the day
(when in fact, it is Kasher by night, too).
(b) On the presumption that, for other reasons, Techilas Din must be
practiced by day, we then establish the basis of their dispute - upon
whether Chalitzah is compared to Techilas Din (and is therefore Pasul - Tana
Kama) or G'mar Din (and is Kasher - Rebbi Elazar).
(a) Rabah bar Chiya K'tuspa'ah single-handedly permitted Chalitzah at night
with a soft shoe. Shmuel objected with regard to his having ruled
single-handedly, on the grounds that he was following the opinion of an
individual (Rebbi Akiva who permitted Chalitzah even without any Dayan at
all, because if two Dayanim are not needed, then one Dayan is not needed
(b) His objection could not have pertained to the fact that he permitted a
soft shoe or that he permitted the Chalitzah to be performed at night -
since both of these rulings are supported by S'tam Beraisos.
(a) The Tana Kama in the next Mishnah rules that if Chalitzah is performed
with two Dayanim or with three, one of whom is found to be Pasul - the
Chalitzah is invalid.
(b) Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sand'lar validate it. Rebbi Akiva
even validated a Chalitzah that a Yavam and Yevamah performed in jail -
without any Dayanim at all in attendance.
(c) Alternatively, we argue that all three issues currently under discussion
(judging single-handedly, by night and using a cloth shoe) are individual
opinions. The basis for saying this is - a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yishmael
b'Rebbi Yossi testifies how he witnessed Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha
practicing all three leniencies.
(a) The Tana Kama learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Regel" "Regel" from
Metzora - that Chalitzah performed with the left foot is Pasul.
In order not to learn from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is not Mufneh, there
must be a Pircha (a Kashya that renders the one more susceptible to the
D'rashah than the other). A Metzora is more susceptible to the Din of the
right foot than a Yavam - because he requires a cedar-twig, hyssop and a
scarlet thread, which a Yavam does not.
(b) According to our text in the Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar does not learn this
'Gezeirah-Shavah'. He does derive however, that Retzi'ah (the boring of an
Eved Ivri's ear who wants to remain after six years) must be done in the
*right* ear - with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Ozen" Ozen" from a Metzora Ani.
(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore assumes that,
seeing as Rebbi Elazar learns "Ozen" "Ozen", he will be the one to learn
"Regel" "Regel" (and the Tana must have confused the two opinions). Rava
resolves the contradiction in Rebbi Elazar without amending the text - by
pointing out that whereas "Ozen" "Ozen" is Mufneh (superfluous), "Regel"
"Regel" is not.
(d) Rava does not mean to say that "Regel" is not Mufneh at all - but that
it is not Mufneh from both sides (because, although "Regel" is superfluous
by Metzora Ani, it is not, by Chalitzah). And Rebbi Elazar is of the opinion
that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh only from one side, can be
(a) If the Yevamah ...
1. ... pulled off the Yavam's shoe and spat in his direction, but failed to
read the Parshah - the Chalitzah is nevertheless Kasher.
(b) If she failed to spit but did perform the other two operations, Rebbi
Eliezer invalidates the Chalitzah - Rebbi Akiva validates it.
2. ... spat in the Yavam's direction and read the Parshah, but failed to
pull off his shoe - it is Pasul.
(c) Rebbi Elazar derives from the Pasuk "Kachah Yei'aseh" - that any action
that needs to be performed, and is not, invalidates the Chalitzah.
(d) In his retort, Rebbi Akiva adds the word "Kachah Yei'aseh *la'Ish*" -
meaning that it is only actions that one failed to perform on the body of
the Yavam (such as the removal of the shoe) that render the Chalitzah
(a) If either the Yevamah was a Chareshes, or the Yavam was a Cheresh or a
Katan - the Chalitzah is invalid.
(b) If a Ketanah performed Chalitzah with her Yavam - she is obligated to
repeat it when she grows-up; otherwise, her first Chalitzah is invalid (see
Tosfos 105b. DH 'Ketanah').
(a) Rava extrapolates from our Mishnah that, if the reading of the Parshah
is not essential, the Chalitzah of a dumb Yavam or Yevamah is valid. The
reason that our Mishnah invalidates the Chalitzah of a Cheresh or a
Chareshes, according to him is - because they have no Da'as.
(b) The Chalitzah of a Yavam or a Yevamah who is dumb is Kasher, according
to him - because they have Da'as.
(c) Amri de'Bei Rebbi's explicitly state however, that a Cheresh and a
Chareshes are Pasul - because they cannot read the Parshah, thereby forcing
Rava to retract.
(a) So we conclude that, in fact, Rava's statement pertains to the Seifa,
which invalidates the Chalitzah of a Cheresh and a Chareshes. Now that the
Chalitzah of someone who cannot read is Pasul, says Rava - the Chalitzah of
a dumb Yavam or Yevamah is Pasul, too.
(b) We reconcile the fact that, on the one hand, the Chalitzah of a Cheresh
and a Chareshes (and of a Yavam and a Yevamah who are dumb) is Pasul,
whereas on the other, the reading of the Parshah is not essential - by
establishing the latter Halachah like Rebbi Zeira, who says that as long as
it is possible to mix the flour and the oil of the Minchah (i.e. as long as
there are not more than sixty Sa'ah of flour in one vessel together with the
oil), the Minchah is Kasher; but the moment that one adds more flour to the
vessel, and it becomes impossible to mix them, the Minchah is Pasul.
Similarly, in our case, as long as they are able to read the Parshah, it
does not matter even if they failed to do so, but the Chalitzah is Pasul
when, for some reason, it is not possible to read it.
(a) They sent to Shmuel's father - that if a Yevamah spat in front of one of
the Yevamin, she becomes obligated to perform Chalitzah and not Yibum
(because with the spitting alone she becomes forbidden to the brothers).
(b) This cannot go according to Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, who validates
the Chalitzah even if the spitting was not performed - because if when the
Mitzvah of Chalitzah *is* performed, when, although we might have compared
the spitting to the Eimurin of a Korban, to invalidate the Chalitzah by its
non-performance, just like the Eimurin (which do not invalidate the Korban
when they are *not* there, but do invalidate it if they not brought when
they *are*), yet we do not say that; then certainly, when the Mitzvah is
*not* being performed, the spitting should not invalidate the Yevamah from
(c) Initially, we query the statement even according to Rebbi Elazar, who
invalidates Chalitzah without the spitting of the Yevamah - on the grounds
that seeing as permitting the Yevamah requires two stages (removing the shoe
and spitting), one of them without the other ought to have no validity at
(a) The ramifications of the statement that it is not the Tenufah (the
waving) of the lambs of the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur on Shavu'os, that
sanctify the two loaves that accompany them, but the Shechitah - is that it
is the Shechitah, when it is performed Lishmah (for the correct motives),
that permits the loaves to be eaten, rather than the Tenufah.
This dispute helps us establish the Halachah that was sent to Shmuel's
father - since it clearly follows the opinion of Rebbi, who maintains that
even when a Mitzvah that comes to permit something has two parts, one of
them has the power at least to invalidate without the other ones.
(b) We learn this from the Eil Nazir, where the Torah writes "ve'es ha'Ayil
Ya'aseh *Zevach* Sh'lamim" (and the word "Zevach" means Shechitah).
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, if either the Shechitah or the
sprinkling of the blood was performed with the wrong intentions, the loaves
do not become sanctified. Rebbi agrees with him in the case of the
Shechitah, but if the Shechitah was performed Lishmah, but it is the Zerikah
that was performed she'Lo li'Sh'mah, then the loaves are 'Kadosh ve'Eino
(d) 'Kadosh ve'Eino Kadosh' means - Kadosh to become Pasul if they are taken
outside the Azarah or left overnight, but not Kadosh to permit the Kohanim
to eat them.