Yerushalmi Yevamot 12:1 ירושלמי יבמות י״ב:א׳

MISHNAH: The commandment of ḥalîṣah is to be executed before three judges; all three may be lay people¹The procedure has to be executed in front of the town elders (Deut.25:7); this implies that it must be in a judicial setting. Usually, the word “elders” in the Pentateuch is interpreted as “professional judges”; the admissibility of lay judges has to be justified in the Halakhah.. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a shoe²Defined as leather shoe or boot enclosing the entire foot, sown together from several pieces of leather, some of it soft, and kept in place by leather shoelaces., the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a felt slipper³Latin impilia, ium, (plur.), “felt shoes”. it is invalid. With a sandal⁴Made of a single piece of hard leather covering the sole and some of the sides of the foot, held together with shoe laces fastened tightly over the foot.
Greek σάνδαλον, τό. The word might have been imported with the article from farther East. having a heel it is valid, without a heel it is invalid. Below the knee the ḥalîṣah is valid⁵In the Halakhah the reference is to the way the shoelaces are wound around the leg. The straps may be wound around the lower leg but not around the thigh. The Babli (103a) refers this part of the Mishnah to amputees., above the knee it is invalid.

HALAKHAH: “The commandment of ḥalîṣah is to be executed before three judges,” etc. It is written “elders”, and you say laymen? The commandment is on the elders. From where that even laymen [are acceptable]? The verse says, “stripped of shoe”⁶Deut. 25:10. It seems that the argument refers to the entire verse, “His house shall be known in Israel as the house of the stripped of shoe.” Any three in Israel may make the fact known. (Sifry Deut. 291 may be interpreted as prohibiting a lay person to preside.) The quote from Deut. is an introduction to the next paragraph.
The language “the commandment is on the elders” should imply that levirate not before judges is improper but valid; cf. Midrash Tannaïm 25:8., in any case.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid. And there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid⁷In Sifry Deut. 291 and the Babli, 101b (an Amoraic baraita), the reference is to a court composed only of converts. There is no proof that this is also the position of the Yerushalmi.. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid follows him who says “in Israel⁸There is no record of such a baraita in the parallel texts. In the Babli, those who admit a court composed of converts simply note that Deut. 25:10 may be given another meaning. It is somewhat difficult to accept the validity of a court of converts who themselves are not under the rules of levirate (Mishnah 11:2).” to include converts. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid follows him who says “in Israel” to exclude converts.

Here, you say, to exclude converts. But there⁹Lev. 23:42. “Every citizen in Israel has to dwell in huts.”, you say, to include converts. There, “the citizen” to exclude converts, “in Israel” to exclude converts; an exclusion after an exclusion¹⁰That an exclusion after an exclusion implies an inclusion is a fundamental principle of R. Akiba’s hermeneutics accepted in both Talmudim; cf. Peah Chapter 6, Note 154. For this particular example, cf. Babli Sukkah 28b; a more complicated argument, taking note of the inclusive “every”, in Sifra Emor Pereq 17(9). to include converts. But here, “in Israel”, not converts.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the presence of two men it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid from two [judges]¹¹This is the position of the Yerushalmi, cf. Sanhedrin 1:1. The Babli (Sanhedrin 3a) follows Samuel in accepting judgments from a court of two; but such a court is called “insolent”..

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the night is valid¹²Mishnah 12:2. The Tosephta (12:9) reports that R. Ismael presided over an emergency ḥalîṣah as sole judge, in the night.; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the night it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid in the night¹³Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:6 states that civil proceedings have to start during daytime but may be concluded in the night. The Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin Halakhah 4:6) holds that this is only a desideratum but that civil suits may be adjudicated any time since it says (Ex. 18:26) “they have to judge for the people at all times.”.

Some Tannaim state, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say¹⁴Tosephta 12:9. In the Babli, 101a: Only if they know how to instruct as a judge would do. לקרות is short for להקראת.. Some Tannaim stated, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say. He who said, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say, before they found a hint in Scripture, but he who said, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say, after they found a hint in Scripture¹⁵The hint that only one of the people present has to instruct the participants what to say since their recitation is called “answering”. Cf. Bikkurim, Chapter 3, Note 83.: “You shall answer and say;” one answers only to a single person. Rebbi Yose said, and only from the mouth of the judge, but one does not follow this.

“If she performed ḥalîṣah with a shoe, the ḥalîṣah is valid.” For whom is this statement needed? For Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Meїr said, one does not perform ḥalîṣah with a shoe. It was stated¹⁶In the Babli, 102a, and the Tosephta, 12:11, the story is told to exclude shoes from ḥalîṣah.: Rebbi Yose said, it happened that I went to Nsebin¹⁷In Greek sources, Nisibis; the important border town between the Roman and Persian Empires, seat of the rabbinic family Bene Bathyra for many generations. and saw there an old man to whom I said, did you ever know Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra in your lifetime? He told me, Rabbi, I was a banker in my city and he was a constant customer of my bank. I told him, did you ever see him supervising a ḥalîṣah in your lifetime and what he did use for ḥalîṣah, a shoe or a sandal? He said to me, Rabbi, is there a sandal in our place¹⁸From antique statuary and pictures, it seems that the sandal was the usual Roman footwear and the shoe the Persian. The high boot was the Roman military footwear.? I wondered, how could Rebbi Meïr say that one does not perform ḥalîṣah with a shoe¹⁹His position would create places where ḥalîṣah is not possible.?

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav²⁰In the Babli, 102a, the opinion of R. Abba is quoted in the name of Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani), that of R. Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Yosef. The Babli explains that in the opinion of Rabba, one uses a shoe only if one does not have a sandal whereas in the opinion of Rav Yosef one may use a shoe anytime.: If Elijah²¹He was taken in a fiery chariot to be a member of the Heavenly Court and knows all rules how they should be by Heavenly standards. came and said that one performs ḥaliṣah with a shoe, one would listen to him; that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a sandal, one would not listen to him since most people use a sandal for ḥalîṣah and usage supersedes practice. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav²²The title “Rebbi” given in the ms. cannot be correct since R. Jeremiah was the foremost student of R. Ze‘ira. The reference is to Rav Jeremiah (bar Abba), the colleague of Rav. Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: If Elijah came and said that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a shoe, one would listen to him; that one does not perform ḥaliṣah with a sandal, one would not listen to him since most people use a sandal for ḥalîṣah and usage supersedes practice.

Rebbi Ze‘ira showed the bending²³The meaning of this paragraph is in doubt. It may either mean that the sandal used for ḥalîṣah is not a flat piece of leather but must be bent upwards to enclose heel, toes, and part of the sides of the foot [since the sandal must be “slipped off the foot” (Deut. 25:9) which cannot be done if the sandal is just a flat piece of leather] or whether he bent to show how ḥalîṣah is executed. to Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Isaac²⁴Most commentators emend to “Rebbi Abba bar Isaac” on base of the next paragraph.. He said to him: Does one do this? He said to him, one does. He said to him, did not our teacher²⁵Probably R. Joḥanan. bend?

Rebbi Ze‘ira showed Rebbi Abba bar Isaac how it is done. He binds [the shoelaces] that he can walk unaided. How is it done? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, he laces it so that she will be able to untie it with one hand. How is it done? She unties with her right hand, grabs [the shoe] with her left hand, slips it off the heel and drags it away with her right hand, so that the slipping off and the unbinding should be done by the right hand²⁶The Babli has no parallel to this paragraph. In Giṭṭin 24b, it quotes R. Eleazar to the effect that ḥalîṣah not done by the right hand (or in the night) forbids the widow to the levir but must be repeated to free the widow for outside marriage..

Rav said, the essence of ḥalîṣah²⁷As the paragraph shows, this needs a semantic clarification since up to now, the word ḥalîṣah designated the entire ceremony by which the widow is freed to marry outside the family. But here, the word designates the action by which the sister-in-law slips the levir’s shoe off his foot, which must be followed by her spitting in front of the levir (Deut. 25:9). Rav insists that the widow’s action is invalid if it does not start with untying the shoelaces.
In the Babli, 102a, Rav insists that the deciding act is slipping the shoe off the levir’s heel. is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, nothing was done unless she slips off and spits²⁸Cf. Mishnah 3.. Even though Rav said “unless she slips off and spits” he agrees that the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.

Rav said, the main point in acquiring squatters’ rights is the bringing in of the yield. Did not Rav say, only if one saw him hoeing and weeding? Even though Rav said, only if one saw him hoeing and weeding, Rav agrees that the main point in acquiring squatters’ rights is the bringing in of the yield.

Rebbi Yannai said, if he took off [his shoe] and she put it on again, or she took it off but he had untied, the ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back, he may not go back on it³⁰It is not clear what “going back” means. It may mean that if the levir changes his mind after the invalid ḥalîṣah and wants to marry the widow that he is barred from doing so; or it may mean that the entire ceremony has to be cancelled and everything started anew. The next paragraphs seem to indicate that the first interpretation is the correct one.
In the Babli, 102 a, the statement of R. Yannai is quoted without the last clause and the extent of the damage by invalid ḥalîṣah is not discussed.. Why? Is it since the two actions are not there together or because they are not in the right order? What is the difference? If she afterwards untied [the shoestrings]. If you say, because the two actions are not there together? They are there together! The reason therefore must be that they are not in the right order.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases³¹The Babli, Giṭṭin 24b, states that in the cases discussed here, the valid ḥalîṣah implies the prohibition of the widow to the levir and the invalid ḥalîṣah is a nonexisting ḥalîṣah which does not preclude the possibility of levirate marriage. they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper³²Babli 102b, a statement of Rava (cf. Chapter 1, Note 21).. A shoe in a slipper³³This case does not appear in the Babli., some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather³⁴The leather shoe with which the levir stands on the ground is removed from his heel.. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement³⁵Babli 102b, Yerushalmi Yoma 8:1 (fol. 44d), Ta‘aniot 1:6 (fol. 64c). It is held that wearing a textile slipper outside the house does not protect the foot from feeling the stones on the road and therefore does not violate the sanctity of the Day of Atonement as a day of deprivation. and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

“With a sandal having a heel it is valid.” There, they say, for example those קנסרוס³⁶A kind of sandal. There is no convincing identification of this word either in Persian or in a Western language. The best so far is I. Löw’s Greek κόθορνος, Latin cothurnus, “hunting boot laced up in front; high Grecian boot, high shoe worn by actors” for which the first meaning is appropriate here. (Löw credits an author A. Löwinger; I have been unable to find a first reference.) D. Sperber (Sinai 82, 1977/78, p. 168) refers to Latin cursorius “belonging to running”.. But the rabbis here say, like ours³⁷The common Roman sandals.. Rav said, if I had not seen my uncle, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, performing³⁸I. e., supervising. a ḥalîṣah with a sandal with plaited straps³⁹In the Babli, 102a, סנדל דאית ליה שינצין. The word שורציפא is Semitic, from Syriac רצפא “sandal (to walk on a stone floor)”., I would not feel competent to do so. The maternal uncle of Rav Cahana performed³⁸I. e., supervising. ḥalîṣah in the night, as single judge, on Friday night, with a cork sandal, and standing; (Rabbi Zeriqa said) and she did not spit. Rav heard that and said, who would ever do that⁴⁰Every single step being questionable. Since Rav Cahana I was a contemporary of Rav, his uncle belonged to the pre-Amoraic Babylonian scholars. In the Babli, 104a, he is called Rabba bar Ḥiyya from Qaṭosap. except the maternal uncle of Rav Cahana?

So is the Mishnah: “If he ties⁴¹The shoelaces. lower than the knee, it is valid, above the knee it is invalid.” It is written: “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it⁴²Ex. 30:19..” It was stated about this: The hand up to the wrist, the foot up to the calf; and here you say so⁴³The “foot” of the priests refers only to the calf (in another interpretation to the shinbone) but not to the knee, but for the widow it extends up to the knee!? There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”. In that case, even higher than the knee should be valid! There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”, and not from higher than above his foot⁴⁴The Babli agrees, 103a.. Cahana objected: Is it not written, “and the afterbirth which comes out from between her feet⁴⁵Deut. 28:57. Usually, one translates “between her legs”; then one also should translate that the widow has to remove the levir’s shoe “from his leg” and shoelaces bound above the knee should be permissible. The same question is quoted in the Babli, 103a.;” does it come out from between her feet? It looks as if it was between her feet; as we have stated there: “The water pit was between the Temple hall and the alter drawn towards the South.⁴⁶Mishnah Middot 3:6. It was between the Southern edge of the hall and the altar.” Was it put between the hall and the altar? Only it looked as if between hall and altar.