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


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 both.

(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 either).

(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.

(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 disproved.

6) 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.


(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.
2. ... spat in the Yavam's direction and read the Parshah, but failed to pull off his shoe - it is Pasul.
(b) If she failed to spit but did perform the other two operations, Rebbi Eliezer invalidates the Chalitzah - Rebbi Akiva validates it.

(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 invalid.




(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 the brothers.

(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 all.

(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.

(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 Kadosh'.

(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.

13) 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.

Next daf


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