(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Yevamos 103


(a) Whether the Yavam is standing, sitting or leaning; and one who does Chalitzah from a blind man - all of these are valid;
(b) But a torn Minal which does not cover most of the foot, or an incomplete sandal which does not hold most of the foot, a carpet on which one drags his hands, a cloth Anpilya, and Chalitzah from a minor - such a Chalitzah is invalid.
(c) Question: Who taught this Beraisa, which says that a false foot is as a shoe?
(d) Answer: R. Meir, as we see from a Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): A person with a false foot may walk outside with it; R. Yosi forbids this.
(e) Question: But the Beraisa invalidates Chalitzah with a cloth Anpilya - this is as Chachamim (that argue on R. Meir, and require leather).
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): Since the end of the Beraisa is as Chachamim, so is the beginning - the case is, the false foot is covered with leather.
1. Objection (Rava): But if it is not covered with leather - it is invalid? If so, why did the end of the Beraisa invalidate a cloth Anpilya - it should make a distinction in a false foot itself!
2. It should say - a false foot is only valid if covered with leather, if not, it is invalid!
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, since the beginning of the Beraisa is as R. Meir, so is the end; a false foot protects; a cloth Anpilya does not protect.
(h) (Ameimar): A man doing Chalitzah must press his foot on the ground.
(i) Objection (Rav Ashi): But the Beraisa says Chalitzah is valid, whether he stands, sits or leans!
(j) Answer (Ameimar): In all 3 cases, he presses his foot down.
(k) (Ameimar): One whose foot is reversed (and his leg rests on the front of his foot) may not do Chalitzah.
(l) Question (Rav Ashi): But the Beraisa permits a false foot!
1. Suggestion: The one missing the foot himself does Chalitzah!
2. Rejection: No, he gives the false foot to a regular person, who does Chalitzah with it.
i. Rav Ashi: According to Ameimar, Bar Uva and Bar Kifuf (men whose feet were reversed) may not do Chalitzah.
(a) (Mishnah): From the knee and below (the Chalitzah is valid).
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa): "Regalim" - to exclude those with false feet (from the obligation to enter the Temple on festivals; we see, the shin is not considered as a Regel!)
(c) Answer: The shin is valid for Chalitzah, since the Torah said "Me'al (from above) his foot".
(d) Question: If so, even above the knee should be valid!
(e) Answer: The Torah said "Me'al", not 'Me'al of Me'al".
1. (Rav Papa): We learn from this, there is no bone below the ankle - if there was, the ankle would be considered "Me'al", and the shin would be 'Me'al of Me'al"!
2. Rejection (Rav Ashi): There may be a bone underneath - whatever is across from the foot is considered part of the foot.
(f) (Mishnah): Above the knee ...
(g) Question (Rav Kahana): "And the fetal sac that comes from between Ragleha" (we see that "Regel" extends past the knee!)
(h) Answer (Abaye): When she gives birth, a woman puts her ankles by her thighs.
(i) Question: "He did not (shave) Raglav, nor his mustache".
(j) Answer: The verse used a clean language (but normally, Regel does not include above the knee).
(k) Question: "And Shaul came to rub Raglav (do his needs)".
(l) Answer: The verse used a clean language.
(m) Question: "But he is rubbing Raglav..."
(n) Answer: The verse used a clean language.
(o) (R. Yochanan): Sisera had relations 7 times - "Between Ragleha he bent, he fell, he lied; between Ragleha he bent, he fell; where he bent, he fell and was killed.
1. Question: But Ya'el enjoyed forbidden relations (why does the verse praise her)!
2. Answer (R. Yochanan): The good that wicked do, is bad for Tzadikim - "Beware, do not speak to Yakov good nor evil".

i. We understand, he should not speak evil to him.
ii. Question: Why shouldn't he speak to him of doing good?
iii. Answer: The good of the wicked is bad to Tzadikim.
3. We understand, by Lavan, if he would speak of good, he would mention idolatry.
4. Question: What was bad about Sisera's relations with Ya'el?
5. Answer: He cast filth into her.
i. (R. Yochanan): When the serpent had relations with Chava, he cast filth into her. Yisrael stood on Mount Sinai, and the filth left us; Nochrim did not stand on Mount Sinai, they still have the filth.
(a) (Mishnah): If she did Chalitzah with a shoe that is not the Yavam's ...
(b) (Beraisa): "His shoe" - one would only know, the Yavam's shoe. The word "shoe" is repeated, to include any man's shoe.
(c) Question: If so, what do we learn from "His shoe"?
(d) Answer: A shoe fitting for him - to exclude a big shoe that he cannot walk in, a small shoe that does not cover the majority of his foot, and a shoe missing the heel.
(e) A Yevamah came to do Chalitzah. Rav Yosef told Abaye to give the Yavam his shoe; Abaye gave him his left shoe.
1. Rav Yosef: Chalitzah with a left shoe is valid b'Di'eved - Lechatchilah, it may not be used!
2. Abaye: The same applies to a shoe which is not the Yavam's!
3. Rav Yosef: I intended that you should let the Yavam acquire your shoe.
(f) (Mishnah): A wooden shoe ...
(g) Question: Who is the Tana that considers a wooden shoe to be a shoe?
(h) Answer #1 (Shmuel): R. Meir.
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): One missing a foot may walk outside on Shabbos with a false foot; R. Yosi forbids this.
(i) Answer #2 (Shmuel's father): The Mishnah speaks of a wooden shoe covered with leather, and all agree to this.
(j) (Rav Papi citing Rava): A leprous shoe which has been closed off, should not be used for Chalitzah; if it was used, the Chalitzah is valid; a shoe which has been declared absolutely leprous may not be used for Chalitzah; if it was used, the Chalitzah is invalid.
(k) (Rav Papa citing Rava): A leprous shoe, whether it was closed off or was declared absolutely leprous, may not be used for Chalitzah; if it was used, the Chalitzah is valid.
(l) Question (Mishnah): A leprous house which was closed makes Tamei what touches its inside; a house declared absolutely leprous also imparts Tumah to something which touches its outside; both make Tamei one who enters the house.
1. If Rav Papi is correct (an absolutely leprous shoe is invalid, even b'Di'eved, because it is as if it is not the proper size) - the same should apply to a house, and we cannot apply "One who enters the house"!
(m) Answer: That is different - a verse says, "He will take apart the house" - even when it is being dissembled, it is considered a house.
(n) (Beraisa): A leprous rag which is 3 fingers by 3 fingers - even though its volume is less than an olive, once the majority enters the house, it makes Tamei all vessels in the house.
1. Suggestion: This speaks of an absolutely leprous rag (and this refutes Rav Papi, as above).
2. Rejection: No, the rag was only closed off.
3. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, 'If its volume was several olives, once an olive's amount enters the house, it makes vessels in the house Tamei.'
i. We understand, if it is absolutely leprous, it is equated to a corpse (that an olive's worth imparts Tumah).
ii. Question: If it is only closed off, why is it equated to a corpse?
4. Answer: The rag is absolutely leprous - a verse teaches, "He will burn the garment" - even when it is burned, it is called a garment.
(o) Question: Why don't we learn from this (that an absolutely leprous shoe may be used for Chalitzah)?
(p) Answer: We do not learn prohibitions from laws of Tumah.
(q) (Rava): A leprous shoe that was closed off, or was declared absolutely leprous, or a shoe of idolatry - it may not be used for Chalitzah; if it was used, the Chalitzah is valid;
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,