Blog Yomi – Yevamos #105/Daf 106

We’re at the bottom of דף ק״ה עמוּד ב, discussing the final case with which the preceding Mishnah ended. As a reminder, that case was as follows:

וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁחָלַץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְהִכְשִׁיר

There was an instance of חַלִיצָה occurring between a yavam and yevama in prison, and the matter came before R’ Akiva who affirmed its validity.

So our Gemara asks: בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ מִי יָדַעְנָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְעֵדִים רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ

If the ceremony was just between the two of them, how can we take their word for it without any witnesses that it occurred? R’ Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that witnesses viewing from the outside did see the event occur. (For example, through the fence of a courtyard.)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁחָלְצוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אַבָּרַאי, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין, אוֹ דִלְמָא: מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁחָלְצוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וּלְבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין בָּא מַעֲשֶׂה

The Gemara then seeks to clarify: Did the incident in which they performed חַלִיצָה between him and her privately actually take place outside in a different locale, and the reference to prison is that the case came before R’ Akiva when he was confined in prison? Or, perhaps the incident when they performed חַלִיצָה between him and her took place in prison, and then this case came before R’ Akiva? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The חַלִיצָה incident took place in prison, and also the case came to R’ Akiva when he was in prison.

Rabbi Stern shared the following תּוֹסָפוֹת here:

ובא מעשה לפני ר’ עקיבא בבית האסורין – וא”ת והא במתני’ משמע בהדיא שחלצה בבית האסורין דקתני מעשה שחלצה בינו לבינה בבית האסורין ובא מעשה לפני רבי עקיבא ויש לומר דבהרבה ספרים גרסי’ בא מעשה לפני ר’ עקיבא בלא וי”ו וקאי נמי בבית האסורין ארבי עקיבא ואם תאמר והיכי פשיט שהמעשה בא לפני רבי עקיבא בבית האסורין ולא בא אבראי ויש לומר דיודע הגמרא שבא לפניו בבית האסורין כדאמר בירושלמי רבי יוחנן הסנדלר עבר קומי חבושין דרבי עקיבא היה מכריז ואמר מאן בעי מחטין ומאן בעי צנורין חלצה בינו לבינה מהו אדיק ליה רישיה מן כוותיה אמר ליה אית לך כושין אית לך כשר

Some brief background here: The Romans imprisoned R’ Akiva in an attempt to stop him from teaching Torah to this students. It was therefore impossible to ask him questions openly, so his students adopted various guises to pose questions in code that he would decipher and to which he would respond. תּוֹסָפוֹת is citing the Yerushalmi version of Yevamos, דף ע עמוּד א, which relates the incident above as follows:

Rav Yochanan the Sandler disguised himself as a peddler and passed by the place in which R’ Akiva was incarcerated. He called out: “Does anyone need needles? Does anyone need knitting hooks? What if חַלִיצָה occurred when only he and she were present?” (Wow, you had to work hard to fool those Roman guards, didn’t you?) And R’ Akiva called back: “Do you have spindles? Do you have kosher?” From this we learn that his opinion was that the חַלִיצָה in question was kosher or valid.

Peter Alley

As an aside I can envision this from the days of my youth in the Logan section of Philadelphia, when peddlers would periodically walk narrow alleyways or passageways to sell various wares. And parenthetically, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַנְדְלָר has quite a pedigree as documented in ArtScroll’s Introduction to the Talmud (page 340). It is believed that Rashi traced his family tree back to him, and thereby back to King David. He is buried in Meron (Israel) in the same area as R’ Shimon bar Yochai.

See the source image

It is entirely speculative that he has a descendant known as אָדָם הַסַנְדְלָר.

See the source image

The Gemara continues by stating that a “mistaken” chalitzah is valid: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲלִיצָה מוּטְעֵת — כְּשֵׁרָה

But what is considered a חֲלִיצָה מוּטְעֵת? It can’t be where he was duped into thinking that his חַלִיצָה was going to enable him to remain with the yevama, because we learned that חַלִיצָה requires kavana – an appreciation or understanding of the intent of the process. Rather the Gemara suggests that his acceptance of חַלִיצָה was conditional, based on being paid 200 zuz for agreeing to the process.

אֵי זוֹ הִיא חֲלִיצָה מוּטְעֵת — כֹּל שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: חֲלוֹץ לָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז

On this Rashi comments:

על מנת שתתן לך מאתים זוז – ואע”ג דלא יהבא ליה חליצתה כשירה כדמפורש בכתובות בהמדיר (כתובות דף עד.) דכל תנאי מבני גד ובני ראובן גמרינן תנאה שאפשר להתנות על ידי שליח שעשה משה את יהושע שליח לתת להם את ארץ הגלעד הוי תנאיה תנאה וכל תנאי דלא אפשר לעשות על ידי שליח כגון חליצה אין תנאי מועיל בה וזהו טעמו של דבר

So even though the condition or תְּנַאי was not fulfilled, the action of חַלִיצָה is nevertheless valid.

The Gemara then relates: בַּת חֲמוּהּ, דְּרַב פָּפָּא נָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יָבָם שֶׁאֵין הָגוּן לָהּ. Rav Pappa’s sister-in-law fell in front of a yavam who was not suited to her. Rav Pappa said: אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲלוֹץ לָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז. לְבָתַר דַּחֲלַץ לַהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ: זִיל הַב לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְשַׁטָּה אֲנִי בָּךְ עֲבַדָה לֵיהּ. Let her perform חַלִיצָה on the condition that she will give you two hundred dinars. Convince him to allow חַלִיצָה on the basis that he will profit financially from it. Abaye told the yavam to do so and he did. After he let her perform חַלִיצָה, Abaye said to Rav Pappa’s sister-in-law: Go give him the money, for you have agreed to give him two hundred dinars. Rav Pappa said to Abaye on her behalf that a case of: I was fooling you, was what she did to him. She never seriously intended to give him the money when accepting his stipulated condition, and even though the חַלִיצָה is valid one cannot force her to pay.

See the source image

It is understandable that the Elders would do their best to insure yibum took place to protect the interests of the woman, ranging from having her financial needs to the personal, while perpetuating her husband’s name through her brother-in-law. At the same time, if it is recognized that the yavam and yevama would be incompatible spouses, the Elders have alot of latitude as noted above in trying to influence the yavam to break the nominal zikah bond through חַלִיצָה. It is universally acknowledged that a relationship that begins without shalom bayis is destined to be rocky if not a failure.

On that note I leave you with Rabbi Stern to take you to the end of the Perek.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה

About Leonard J. Press, O.D., FAAO, FCOVD

Developmental Optometry is my passion as well as occupation. Blogging allows me to share thoughts in a unique visual style.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Blog Yomi – Yevamos #105/Daf 106

  1. doctuhdon says:

    It is entirely speculative that he has a descendant known as אָדָם הַסַנְדְלָר.

    That is hilarious 😆

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s