Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 7

If one was an Israelite and one a priest -- he marries a woman eligible for a priest, and he may not render himself unclean by the dead; but if he rendered himself unclean, he does not receive the forty. And he does not eat terumah; but if he ate, he does not repay the principal and the homesh. And he does not share at the threshing-floor, and he sells the terumah, and the proceeds are his, and he does not share the sanctified things of the Temple, and they do not give him sanctified things, and they do not take away from him, and he is exempt from the shoulder, and from the cheeks, and from the maw. And his firstborn shall graze until it becomes blemished; and they apply to him the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites. And if both of them were priests -- he conducts himself as an onen for them, and they conduct themselves as onenim for him; he may not render himself unclean for them, and they do not render themselves unclean for him; he does not inherit from them, but they inherit from him. And he is exempt if he smites or curses either of them; and he goes up with the watch of this one and of that one, and he does not share. If both of them were in one watch, he takes one portion.

Kehati

This mishnah is a continuation of the preceding mishnah and contains further rules on the son who may be a nine-months' child by the first husband, or a seven-months' child by the second husband.

If one -- of the husbands of the woman who remarried within three months of her husband's death or of her divorce, was an Israelite and one a priest -- and therefore the son who may have been a nine-months' child by the first husband, or a seven-months' child by the second husband, may be a priest, or may be an Israelite, he -- this son, marries a woman eligible for a priest -- in case he is a priest, and he may not render himself unclean for the dead -- for in the case of prohibitions we rule with stringency; and if he rendered himself unclean -- for the dead, he does not receive the forty -- lashes for having transgressed the prohibition, "There shall none defile himself for the dead" (Lev. 21:1), since he is only possibly a priest.

And he does not eat terumah -- in case he is an Israelite; and if he ate -- terumah, he does not repay the principal and the homesh -- since he could say, "I am a priest," and a debt cannot be collected on the basis of a doubt.

And he does not share -- he does not take a portion of the terumah which is apportioned -- at the threshing-floor, and he sells the terumah -- that he separated from his produce, and the proceeds are his -- he is not required to give to the priest either the terumah or its monetary value, for he can say to him, "Bring proof that I am not a priest"; and he does not share the sanctified things of the Temple -- not even the inedible things, e.g., the skins of the sacrifices, and they do not give him the sanctified things -- sacrifices, to offer. According to another interpretation, they do not give him the firstborn and the property set aside for the use of the priest or the Temple, as explained above (see 11:5); and they do not take away from him -- if he is liable to a sin-offering, or a guilt-offering, or a burnt-offering, he is not compelled to give his sacrifices to the current Temple watch, but may give them to any priest or to Temple watch that he wishes. According to an alternative interpretation (cited above, 11:5) if a firstborn was born to him, they do not take it away from him, and he deals with it as specified further on: and he is exempt from the shoulder, and from the cheeks, and from the maw -- the gifts which are given to the priests,

And his firstborn shall graze until it becomes blemished -- until it acquires a blemish, and he, and even an Israelite, can eat it in its blemished state;

And they apply to him the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites -- regarding his meal-offering, from which a fistful is taken as of an Israelite, it is offered by itself, and its remnants are not eaten but burned, as the meal-offering of a priest which is completely burned; however, due to the doubt the remnants are burned in the place of the ashes (see 11:5, above).

And if both of them -- the first and the second husbands, were priests -- then the son, a nine-month child by the first husband, or a seven-month child by the second husband, is certainly a priest, he conducts himself as an onen for them -- on the day of death of either of them, he has the legal status of an onen, and may not perform the service of the sacrifices or eat of the sanctified things, since he might be his father, and they -- each of them, conduct themselves as onenim for him -- and may not perform the service of the sacrifices or eat of the sanctified things, since he might be his son;

He may not render himself unclean for them, and they do not render themselves unclean for him -- for when a prohibition is involved we apply stringency. The Gemara asks: the statement in this mishnah, "and they conduct themselves as onenim for him," implies that both are alive, and how is it possible that both husbands are priests, and both of them are alive? If she was divorced from the first one, then she is prohibited to the second one. And if the second one transgressed and married her, then the son is possibly a halal, and if so, why does the mishnah teach afterwards, "he does not render himself unclean for them"? Indeed, he may not render himself unclean for the second one, since he may be the son of the first one and he is a fit priest, but he should be permitted to render himself unclean for the first one, since if he is his son, a priest may become unclean for his father; and if he is the son of the second one, then he is a priest a halal, who is permitted to render himself unclean for the dead. "He conducts himself as an onen regarding them," may be interpreted as referring to a case in which the second one died and he collects the bones of the first one. However, how is the statement that "they conduct themselves as onenim for him," i.e., that both of them are alive and he is a proper priest, to be interpreted? The Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which the first one betrothed her with a condition which was not fulfilled, and she went away from him without a bill of divorce, and married the second one within three months; in such a case, it is possible that both of them are alive, and he is a fit priest. This then is the meaning of the mishnah, that they conduct themselves as onenim for him, and that he does not render himself unclean for them; he does not inherit from them -- for the certain heirs may reject him and say to him, "Bring proof that you are our brother" (see Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger), but they inherit from him -- if he did not leave offspring, in which case the father inherits from him; they, as possible fathers, share the inheritance.

And he is exempt from the death penalty if he smites or curses either of them -- since he is only possibly his father. If, however, he struck both of them at the same time, or if he cursed both of them in the same statement, he is liable (Gemara; Rambam); and he goes up with the watch of this one and of that one -- we have already explained (in Tractate Ta'anit) that the priests were divided into twenty-four watches, and each watch served in the Temple for one week, in rotation. This priest may serve in the watch of each of his possible fathers, i.e., in whichever one he wishes. According to one interpretation, the mishnah teaches that the members of the watch cannot prevent him (Rashi; Bartenura). According to another interpretation (in the Gemara), each one of the watches of his possible fathers may compel him to serve in their watch, lest people should say, "There is among you an unfit priest, ineligible for the service"; and -- but -- he does not share -- he does not take a portion of the sacrifices, for each one could reject him saying, "You are not from our watch."

If both of them were in one watch -- the Gemara explains that the two husbands were in the same watch, and even in one bet av i.e., they both served on the same day of the watch, for each watch was divided into batei av, according to the days of the week, he takes one portion -- of the sacrifices of that day, for, in any event, he belongs to this watch and bet av.

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 12: MISHNAH 1

The mitzvah of halitzah requires three judges, and even if the three of them are laymen. "If she performed halitzah with a shoe, her halitzah is valid"; with anpilin -- her halitzah is invalid. With a sandal that has an akev, it is valid; and that does not have an akev -- it is invalid. From the knee downward, her halitzah is valid; from the knee upward, her halitzah is invalid.

Kehati

It is written in the Torah section about yibum, "And if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate of the elders, and say: 'My husband's brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him; and if he stands, and says: 'I do not want to take her'; then shall his brother's wife go up to him in the presence of the elders, and loose [ve-haltzah] his shoe from off his foot, and spit before him; and she shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man that does not build up his brother's house.' And his name shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him that had his shoe loosened'" (Deut. 25:7-10). This chapter teaches the procedure of the mitzvah of halitzah and the details of its laws.

The mitzvah of halitzah requires -- a Court of -- three judges -- as it is written, "then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders ... then shall his brother's wife go up to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe." The minimum number of "elders" is two; and since a Court may not have an even number of members, they add one more to them, making a total of three, and even if three of them are laymen -- who were not ordained as judges. The Gemara explains that initially the mishnah uses the term "judges" to teach that, at least, they must be capable rehearsing to the yavam and to the yevamah the relevant verses from the Torah section about yibum, viz., for the yevamah, "My husband's brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me"; and for the yavam, "I do not want to take her"; and again to the yevamah (after loosening the shoe), "So shall it be done to the man that does not build up his brother's house." It was also stated in the Gemara that, although the mishnah teaches, "The mitzvah of halitzah requires three," it nevertheless is necessary to add to them another two, so that the halitzah will be before five, in order to publicize the matter. These additional two are not considered part of the Court, and even if they do not know how to read out the verse, they are eligible.

If she performed halitzah with a shoe, her halitzah is valid -- it is said, regarding halitzah, "and loose his shoe from off his foot" -- a "shoe" must be made of leather; and it must be whole. If the upper leather is torn, the halitzah is invalid. Consequently it is stated in the Gemara that lekhathilah, the mitzvah of halitzah is to be performed with a sandal, which is made of hard leather, which, since it cannot be repaired if it is torn and will no longer sit on the foot, we do not fear lest she perform halitzah with a torn sandal. This is not so regarding a shoe, which is made of soft leather (as is the current-day shoe), which is customarily worn even when it has a split, and as a result we fear lest she will perform halitzah with a torn shoe. Therefore, halitzah is not performed, lekhathilah, with a shoe. This mishnah teaches that, bedi'avad, "If she performed halitzah with a shoe, her halitzah is valid." If she performed halitzah with anpilin -- a shoe made of cloth, wool, or felt, her halitzah is invalid -- for the reason explained above, i.e., that the term "shoe" refers only to leather footwear, and this is not made of leather.

With a sandal that has an akev -- the vertical piece of leather that surrounds the back of the foot, it is valid -- for halitzah; and that does not have an akev -- it is invalid -- according to Tosefot, the intent of the mishnah is that the sandal that is suitable for halitzah is only the one with an akev, and if she performed halitzah with a sandal without an akev, the halitzah is invalid, and the mishnah used the bedi'avad clause, "[if she performed halitzah] with a sandal that has an akev," because of the following clause, that if it lacks an akev it is invalid, even bedi'avad. According to Tosefot Yom Tov, this mishnah teaches that if a sandal has an akev, even if it lacks a sole, it is valid, bedi'avad. And this is why the mishnah used the bedi'avad clause, because lekhathilah a shoe with a sole is required.

If she performed halitzah From the knee downward -- the straps of the sandal were tied below the knee, her halitzah is valid -- for it is written, "she shall loose his shoe from off [me-al, lit., "from above"] his foot, and below the knee is considered "from above his foot"; from the knee upward -- if the straps of the sandal were tied above the knee, her halitzah is invalid -- for the essential part of the halitzah procedure is the untying of the straps, and their untying must be "from above his foot," while above his knee is not considered to be "from above his foot." According to Rashi, the mishnah teaches that in the case of an amputee, if his leg was amputated below the knee, and she took off the shoe from there, the halitzah is valid, while if his leg had been amputated above the knee, her halitzah is invalid.

Hameiri writes, regarding the "shoe" (min'al) and the "sandal" (sandal) which were mentioned in this mishnah:

"You should know that both the min'al and the sandal are footwear, and both are of leather: the "na'al" mentioned in the Torah does not refer to a min'al any more than to a sandal, nor to a sandal rather than to a min'al. Linguistically, the link to min'al is shown, because the word na'al and the word min'al stem from the same root. We nevertheless find in the Prophets, that it refers to sandal, as it is written, "to march over dry-shod [ba-ne'alim]" (Isa. 11:15), which the Targum translates as "in sandals." Although most people in ancient times wore sandals rather than the min'al, as far as the Biblical institution of halitzah is concerned they have the same legal status, and there is no legal difference between them. The Sages, however, decreed that the min'al should not lekhathilah be used in the halitzah ceremony but rather a sandal. Nonetheless, bedi'avad, her halitzah is valid with a min'al, as well (as taught in the mishnah).

"The difference in their characteristics is as follows: the min'al is made of thin leather, of two or three pieces, as is our shoe, and covers the foot from all sides, both the sole, the top of the foot, and the back of the foot (the heel), just as our min'al, and thin, short straps come out from its heel on both sides and are tied on the shoe itself on the top of the foot. There is no need for long straps, for since it surrounds the entire foot, a small knot is sufficient. The sandal is made of hard leather, and is made of only one piece of leather, and it holds the sole of the foot, and the heel at the back of the foot, but does not cover the front of the foot, but there are, on the edges of the piece of leather, rings which are known in Talmudic language as oznayim, ("ears") and long straps ... these straps go into these rings, and one ties them on top and the back of the foot, and finish the knots either on the thigh, or on the top of the foot; these knots fasten them tightly to the foot ...

"The essence of the matter is that straps are tied on the top of the foot, and the woman performing halitzah unties them, and afterwards removes the min'al or the sandal from the foot; the Jer. Talmud refers to this, when it states, "the essence of halitzah is the untying of the strap."

Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives