מתני׳ מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה: בָּא הוּא וִיבִמְתּוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, וְהֵן מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ עֵצָה הַהוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְקָרְאוּ לוֹ זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו״.

The mitzva of ḥalitza is performed as follows: He and his yevama come to the court, and the scholars of the court give him advice appropriate for him, whether to enter levirate marriage or to perform ḥalitza , as it is stated: “And the Elders of his city shall call him and speak to him” (Deuteronomy 25:8).

וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: ״מֵאֵן יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ״. וּבִלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים. ״וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו״ רוֹק הַנִּרְאֶה לַדַּיָּינִים. ״וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו״. עַד כָּאן הָיוּ מַקְרִין.

If they decide to perform ḥalitza , she says: “My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7), and afterward he says: “I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). And they would say these statements in the sacred Hebrew language and not in any other language. Afterward, the shoe is removed and she spits before him, as is written: “His yevama shall approach him, before the Elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him” (Deuteronomy 25:9), which indicates that this spittle must be visible to the judges. “And she shall respond and say: So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). Up until this point the judges would prompt the parties to recite the text that they are required to say.

וּכְשֶׁהִקְרָא רַבִּי הוּרְקָנוֹס תַּחַת הָאֵלָה בִּכְפַר עֵיטָם וְגָמַר אֶת כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה, הוּחְזְקוּ לִהְיוֹת גּוֹמְרִין כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. ״וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנַּעַל״. מִצְוָה בַּדַּיָּינִין, וְלֹא מִצְוָה בַּתַּלְמִידִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה עַל כָּל הָעוֹמְדִים שָׁם לוֹמַר: ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״.

And when Rabbi Hyrkanus once prompted the participants in ḥalitza under the ela tree in the village of Eitam, he prompted them to finish reciting the whole Torah passage, after which they established the custom of completing the whole Torah passage. Therefore, they continue and say the following verse: “And his name shall be called in Israel: The house of he who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:10). This mitzva of saying: The house of he who had his shoe removed, applies to the judges, but not to the students, i.e., the students of the judges and other onlookers who are present. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva upon all those present to say: He who had his shoe removed.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה: קוֹרְאָה, וְקוֹרֵא, וְחוֹלֶצֶת, וְרוֹקְקָה, וְקוֹרְאָה. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לָן? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לָן: מִצְוָה הָכִי, וְאִי אַפֵּיךְ – לֵית לָן בָּהּ.

Rav Yehuda said: This is the correct order for the mitzva of ḥalitza : She recites the sentence beginning with “My brother-in-law refused” (Deuteronomy 25:7), and afterward he recites “I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). Then she removes the shoe, and spits, and recites: “So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? This is already explicit in the mishna. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the mitzva is like this, i.e., this is the proper order, but if one switched the order, we have no problem with it, as even though he did not fulfill the mitzva properly, the ḥalitza is still valid, since the order is not indispensable.

תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: בֵּין שֶׁהִקְדִּים חֲלִיצָה לִרְקִיקָה, וּבֵין שֶׁהִקְדִּים רְקִיקָה לַחֲלִיצָה – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי.

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita : Whether the removal of the shoe preceded the spitting, or whether the spitting preceded the removal of the shoe, what he did is done, i.e., the ḥalitza is valid.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּמַקְרֵי גֵּט חֲלִיצָה – לָא לִיקְרֵי לְדִידָהּ ״לֹא״ לְחוּדֵיהּ וְ״אָבָה יַבְּמִי״ לְחוּדֵיהּ, דְּמַשְׁמַע: אָבָה יַבְּמִי, אֶלָּא: ״לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי״.

§ Abaye said concerning the details of these halakhot : The one who prompts the yavam and the yevama to read the text for the bill of ḥalitza should not prompt her by reciting “He did not” (Deuteronomy 25:7) by itself, and “wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7) by itself, because such a way of reading sounds to one who hears only the second phrase like he is saying: My yavam does wish to consummate the marriage. Rather, he should prompt her all at once consecutively: “He did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7), which will ensure that the intended meaning is clear.

וְלָא לִיקְרֵי לְדִידֵיהּ ״לֹא״ לְחוּדֵיהּ ״חָפַצְתִּי״ לְחוּדֵיהּ, דְּמַשְׁמַע: חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ, אֶלָּא: ״לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ״. רָבָא אֲמַר: אַפְסוּקֵי מִילְּתָא הִיא, וְאַפְסוּקֵי מִילְּתָא – לֵית לָן בָּהּ.

And he should not read to the yavam : “I do not” by itself, followed by: “Wish to take her” by itself, as it sounds to one who heard only the second phrase like: I do wish to take her. Rather, he should read together at once: “I do not wish to take her.” Rava said: It is a mere interruption in the matter. And we have no problem with regard to an interruption in the matter as it is basically just a pause for taking a breath .

רַב אַשִׁי אַשְׁכַּחֵיהּ לְרַב כָּהֲנָא דְּקָמִצְטָעֵר וּמַקְרֵי לָהּ ״לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לֵיהּ מָר לְהָא דְּרָבָא?

It is told: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana painstakingly trying to prompt a certain yevama , so that she would recite: “He did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” all at once, but the yevama did not understand and was distorting the meaning by not reciting the words together. Rav Ashi said to him: Does the Master not hold that which Rava said, that the proper pausing during the recitation is not indispensable?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֶה רָבָא בְּ״לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי״. אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּכָתַב גִּיטָּא דַּחֲלִיצָתָא – לִיכְתּוֹב הָכִי: אַקְרִינוּהָ לְדִידָהּ מִן ״מֵאֵן יְבָמִי״ עַד ״אָבָה יַבְּמִי״, וְאַקְרִינוּהוּ לְדִידֵיהּ מִן ״לֹא״ עַד ״לְקַחְתָּהּ״, וְאַקְרִינוּהָ לְדִידָהּ מִן ״כָּכָה״ וְעַד ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״.

He said to him: Although Rava disagreed with Abaye about interruptions in the recitation of: “I do not wish to take her,” Rava concedes concerning the recitation of: “He did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage,” as this recitation is essential and must be recited properly. Rav Kahana added that Abaye also said: One who writes a bill of ḥalitza must write as follows: We prompted her to recite from “My brother-in-law refused” until “he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7); and we prompted him to recite from “I do not” until “take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). And we prompted her to recite from “So shall” (Deuteronomy 25:9) until “he who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:10).

מָר זוּטְרָא מְשַׂרְטֵט וְכָתֵיב לְכוּלָּא פָּרָשָׁה. מַתְקִיף לָהּ מָר בַּר אִידִי: וְהָא לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב! וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא.

Mar Zutra would score lines of a parchment and write the whole ḥalitza passage on it as a bill of ḥalitza , so it would be displayed before the ḥalitza participants. Mar bar Idi strongly objected to this: But it is unable to be written like this on its own, as the Torah may be written only in a complete state, and it is prohibited to write parts of the Torah when there is no mitzva to write them separately. The Gemara comments: Even so, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra, because there is an aspect of a mitzva here, as it is being written as part of a bill of ḥalitza , not for its own purpose.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: רָקְקָה וּקְלָטַתּוּ הָרוּחַ – לֹא עָשְׂתָה וְלֹא כְלוּם. מַאי טַעֲמָא – ״וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו״ בָּעֵינַן. הִלְכָּךְ: הוּא אָרוֹךְ וְהִיא גּוּצָה, קְלָטַתְהוּ הָרוּחַ – אִיכָּא ״בְּפָנָיו״, הִיא אֲרוּכָּה וְהוּא גּוּץ – בָּעֵינַן עַד דְּמָטֵי לַהֲדֵי אַפֵּיהּ וַהֲדַר אָזֵיל.

§ Abaye said: If the yevama spat, but the wind seized her saliva yavam , she did nothing, and her actions have no halakhic significance. What is the reason for this? We require that “she spit before him,” as is mentioned in the verse. Therefore, if he is tall and she is short and the wind seized it, the requirement of “before him” is satisfied, because the moment the saliva left her mouth it was in front of the face of the yavam . But if she is tall and he is short, we require that the saliva reach the space across from his face, and afterward it may go with the wind; i.e., if she was taller than him and the saliva was taken by the wind before it reached the height of his face, she did not fulfill her obligation.

אֲמַר רָבָא: אָכְלָה תּוּמָא וְרָקְתָה, אָכְלָה גַּרְגִּישְׁתָּא וְרָקְתָה – לֹא עָשְׂתָה וְלֹא כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעֲמָא? ״וְיָרְקָה״, מֵעַצְמָהּ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא. וַאֲמַר רָבָא: צְרִיכִי דַּיָּינֵי לְמֶיחֱזֵי רוֹקָּא כִּי נָפֵיק מִפּוּמָּא דִּיבָמָה, דִּכְתִיב ״לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים וְיָרְקָה״.

Rava said: If she ate garlic and spat, or if she ate gargishta clay, i.e., a type of clay once chewed for medicinal purposes, and spat, she did nothing and her actions have no halakhic significance, for this is not called spitting. What is the reason for this? We require that “she shall spit” on her own, and this is not satisfied here, for in this case she spits only on account of another thing that causes a pooling of saliva in her mouth. And Rava said: The judges must see the spittle when it leaves the mouth of the yevama , and the mere fact that she spat on the ground is insufficient, as it is written: “Before the Elders…and spit,” indicating that the spitting must take place before the eyes of the judges.

״וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״ מִצְוָה בְּדַיָּינִין, וְלֹא בְּתַלְמִידִים. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִינוּ יוֹשְׁבִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וּבָאתָה יְבָמָה לַחֲלוֹץ, וְאָמַר לָנוּ: עֲנוּ כּוּלְּכֶם: ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״, ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״, ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״. הדרן עלך מצות חליצה

§ It was taught in the mishna: With regard to the verse “And his name shall be called in Israel: The house of he who had his shoe removed,” there is a mitzva upon the judges to recite this but it is not a requirement for the students or onlookers. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Once we were sitting before Rabbi Tarfon and a yevama came to perform ḥalitza . He said to us: You must all answer: “He who had his shoe removed,” “He who had his shoe removed,” “He who had his shoe removed,” stating that portion of the verse three times.