(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 105

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 of the Beraisa validates a Chalitzah where the Yevamah removed the Yavam's shoe, but did not spit or read the Parshah. In a case where ...
1. ... she spat but neither removed the Yavam's shoe nor read the Parshah - her Chalitzah is Pasul (forbidding her on the brothers).
2. ... read the Parshah, but neither spat not removed his shoe - it is as if she had not done anything.
(b) We prove from the Reisha that the author of this Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Elazar (who considers any act [even that of spitting] to be crucial to the Chalitzah). So why would he validate Chalitzah where spitting was not performed.

(c) Having proved that the author must be Rebbi Akiva, we then go on to prove from the middle section 'Rak'kah ve'Lo Chaltzah ve'Lo Kar'ah, Chalitzasah P'sulah' - that even according to Rebbi Akiva, spitting *invalidates the Yevamah from the brothers* (not like we assumed earlier - that according to Rebbi Akiva, it does *not* do that), because that is what 'Chalitzasah P'sulah' always implies.

(d) 'Chalitzasah P'sulah' cannot possibly be taken literally - because it is obvious.

2) According to Rebbi Akiva, if we ignore the Yevamah's spitting, bearing in mind that spitting is only performed once, people will think that she actually spat after the Chalitzah, and that we have permitted a Chalutzah to the brothers; whereas reading occurs twice, once before the Chalitzah and once afterwards. Consequently, ignoring the reading will not cause any similar misunderstanding - because people will think that what she did was the reading *before* the Chalitzah, in which case, the brothers remain permitted.


(a) According to the second version the message that they sent Shmuel's father was that - once the Yevamah has spat before the Yavam (in the presence of the Dayanim), she does not need to repeat it after the Chalitzah.

(b) Rebbi Ami ruled that a Yevamah who spat before having removed the Yavam's shoe - should then remove the Yavam's shoe, and be sent home.

(c) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Ami - why she should not repeat the act of spitting after removing the shoe (in order to perform it in its right place - and it is such an easy thing to do).

(d) Rebbi Ami replied - that it was better not to repeat the spitting, because then people would think that the first spitting was not valid, and would permit the brothers to perform Yibum with a woman who spat.

(a) They asked Levi three She'eilos: Whether a woman without hands can perform Chalitzah with her teeth, and whether the Chalitzah is valid if she spat blood. The third She'eilah concerned the Pasuk in Daniel "Aval Agid Lecha es ha'Rashum bi'K'sav Emes", that the angel said to Daniel - with reference to Hashem's decrees. This seems strange, they asked Levi - inasmuch as it suggests that there is such a thing as a Divine decree that is *not* Emes.

(b) Levi did not have the answers to the questions. With regard to the first two, they told him in the Beis-ha'Medrash - that the Torah does not say anything about performing Chalitzah specifically with the hands, or about spitting specifically with spit.

(c) With regard to the third She'eilah, they define a K'sav that is Emes - as one that is accompanied by an oath (and that nothing can change), and one that is not Emes - as one that is not accompanied by an oath (that can be changed through Teshuvah).

(d) Rav Shmuel bar Ami Amar Rebbi Yonasan interprets the Pasuk "Lachein Nishba'ati le'Veis Eli, Im Yiskaper Avon Beis Eli be'Zevach u've'Minchah Ad Olam" - that, once a decree is accompanied by an oath, no atonement is possible.

(a) Rabah and Abaye were both descendants of Eli ha'Kohen. Despite the decree that all of Eli's descendants would die by the age of twenty, Rabah lived till the age of forty - because he studied Torah diligently; and Abaye lived until sixty - because he studied Torah diligently and excelled in Gemilus Chasadim.

(b) A certain family in Yerushalayim became known as Mishpachas Yochanan - because, as descendants of Eli ha'Kohen, they used to die at the age of eighteen; until Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai advised them to study Torah, and they survived.

(c) Rav Shmuel bar Unya Amar Rav extrapolates from the Pasuk "Mi ka'Hashem Elokeinu be'Chol Kor'einu Eilav" - that Hashem always answers our Tefilos.

(d) We reconcile this with the Pasuk "Dirshu Hashem be'Himatz'o" - by establishing the former Pasuk by a Tzibur and the latter by a Yachid, whose prayers are only certain to be answered during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah.

(a) Shmuel's father rules that a Yevamah who spat blood should go ahead and perform the rest of the Chalitzah ceremony - because it is impossible for blood that emerges from one's mouth not to contain spit.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Zovo Tamei ... " - that the Zivus that emerges from its source or the spit that comes out of the mouth is Tamei, but not the blood that emerges from either location.

(c) We reconcile Shmuel's father's ruling with this Beraisa, which declines to contend with any spittle that is mixed up with the blood that flows from a person's mouth - by establishing the Beraisa by blood that flows out by itself, and Shmuel's father by blood that the Yevamah sucked up, before spitting out.




(a) The Tana of our Mishnah declared the Chalitzah of a Katan, Pasul. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir - who (in ha'Ishah Rabah) compared the Chalitzah of a nine-year old Katan to the Get of a Gadol.

(b) He establishes the Seifa too, which invalidates the Chalitzah of a Ketanah, like Rebbi Meir - who learns a Hekesh "Yevamah" to "Ish", since they are both written in the same Pasuk.

(c) The Chachamim say ...

1. ... in the Reisha - that the Chalitzah of a Katan is totally ineffective.
2. ... in the Seifa - that the Chalitzah of a Ketanah is valid.
(a) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi were engaged in a dispute. One of them learned from the Pasuk "ve'Hayu Einai ve'Libi Sham Kol ha'Yamim", that the eyes of someone who Davens should be directed downwards - meaning towards the Beis Hamikdash.

(b) The other one learned from the Pasuk "Nisa Levaveinu el Kapayim" - that one should lift them heavenwards.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who entered the Beis-ha'Medrash just then, reconciled the two Pesukim - by establishing the first Pasuk with regard to one's eyes, and the second Pasuk, with regard to one's heart.

(d) When Avdan, a Talmid of Rebbi, asked who it was who was walking over the heads of the holy people - he was referring to Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who, being very portly, had difficulty getting to his place when Rebbi, the Nasi, entered to give the D'rashah. So he was forced to climb over the other Talmidim's heads.

(a) When Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi replied that it was he who had come to study Torah under Rebbi - Avdan asked whether he was worthy of such a privilege.

(b) And when Avdan asked him whether he was worthy of studying Torah under Rebbi - Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi asked him back whether Moshe was worthy of studying Torah under Hashem.

(c) And when Avdan asked him whether he was Moshe - he asked back whether his Rebbe was Hashem?

(d) Rebbi receive his due for not objecting when Rebbi Yishmael compared him to Hashem - inasmuch as Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi referred to him as 'Rabach' (*your* Avdan's Rebbe, and not his own. Indeed, it was immediately proven that Rebbi was not his superior - Agados Maharsha).

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi said ...
1. ... when Rebbi asked Avdan to examine whether the Yevamah who came before them was a Gedolah or a Ketanah - that this was not necessary, since his father permitted a Ketanah to perform Chalitzah.
2. ... to Avdan when, after Rebbi recalled him, he stepped over the heads of the holy people - that, someone whom the people needed was permitted to step over the heads of the people, but not someone whom they did not.
(b) After Rebbi ordered Avdan to remain where he was, he was stricken with Tzara'as - because he had spoken Lashon ha'Ra about Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi (and the punishment for speaking Lashon ha'Ra is Tzara'as).

(c) His two sons drowned and his two daughters-in-law made Miy'un (with his two remaining sons (see Agados Maharsha).

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak commenting on Avdan's harsh punishments, declared - 'Blessed be Hashem, who punished Avdan in this world rather than in the next.

(a) Rav Ami explains that, according to Rebbi Yossi, a Ketanah may perform Chalitzah 'bi'Pe'utos' - meaning from the age of six or seven (the age from which one's business transactions, with regard to movable property, is valid; in other words, the minimum age for decision-making).

(b) Rava is not so lenient. He explains Rebbi Yossi - to mean from the age of eleven, the age that her Nedarim are valid should she be particularly smart.

(c) The Halachah however - is like Rebbi Meir, that the Chalitzah of a Ketanah is invalid.

12) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman rules not like Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sand'lar (who permit Chalitzah with two Dayanim - but like the Tana Kama of our Mishnah who requires three). In spite of the fact that he rules ...
1. ... that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim, he nevertheless needs this second ruling - to teach us that he disqualifies Chalitzah that is performed in front of a Beis-Din of less than three, even Bedieved.
2. ... not like that pair, he nevertheless needs to rule that Chalitzah requires three Dayanim - because we might otherwise have thought that he holds like those opinions that require five.
(a) Rebbi Akiva validated the Chalitzah of the Yavam and the Yevamah who performed Chalitzah in jail without any Dayanim. He knew that Chalitzah was performed - because there were two witnesses who watched it taking place from outside the jail.

(b) We ask whether the Chalitzah took place in jail and Rebbi Akiva was in a different location, or whether the Chalitzah took place in a different location and Rebbi Akiva was in jail. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav states - that the Chalitzah took place in jail and then it was brought to Rebbi Akiva, who was also in jail.

Next daf


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