Study Yevamot folio 104B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אמר רבי אליעזר: ״ככה יעשה״ — כל דבר שהוא מעשה מעכב. אמר ליה רבי עקיבא: משם ראיה? ״ככה יעשה לאיש״ — כל דבר שהוא מעשה באיש.
R' Elazar said to him: The verse states: “So should it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). “So” is an exclusionary term indicating that only precisely in this fashion is ḥalitza valid. Therefore, any term that constitutes an action for ḥalitza is indispensable. R' Akiva said to him: You derive proof from there? But it states: “So should it be done to the man” indicating that only a term constituting an action toward the man, namely any aspect of ḥalitza that concerns the man’s body, such as removal of his shoe, is indispensable. But spitting, which does not involve the man, although it takes place in his presence, is not indispensable.
החרש שנחלץ, והחרשת שחלצה, וחולצת לקטן — חליצתה פסולה. קטנה שחלצה — תחלוץ משתגדיל, ואם לא חלצה — חליצתה פסולה. חלצה בשנים או בשלשה, ונמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול — חליצתה פסולה. רבי שמעון ורבי יוחנן הסנדלר מכשירין. ומעשה באחד שחלץ בינו לבינה בבית האסורים, ובא מעשה לפני רבי עקיבא והכשיר.
The Mishnah lists additional halakhot with regard to ḥalitza. If a deaf-mute man underwent ḥalitza, or a deaf-mute woman performed ḥalitza, or if an adult woman performs ḥalitza with a male minor, her ḥalitza is invalid and the woman may not marry. If a female minor performed ḥalitza, she must perform ḥalitza a second time once she becomes an adult, and if she does not perform the second ḥalitza, her first ḥalitza is invalid. If she performed ḥalitza before two or 3 judges and one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified as a judge for some other reason, her ḥalitza is invalid. R' Shimon and R' Yoḥanan the Cobbler validate the ḥalitza in this case. And an incident occurred involving a certain person who performed ḥalitza between him and her alone in prison, i.e., not in the presence of others, and the case came before R' Akiva and he validated it.