💍 Mishnah Yevamot 12

מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דַיָּנִין, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. חָלְצָה בְמִנְעָל, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. בְּאַנְפִּילִין, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. בְּסַנְדָּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ עָקֵב, כָּשֵׁר. וְשֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָקֵב, פָּסוּל. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה:

The mitzva of ḥalitza, the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds, must be performed before three judges, and the ritual does not require the judges to be experts fit to adjudicate other matters, as even if all three are laymen, it is acceptable. If she performed ḥalitza while he was wearing a shoe made of soft leather that covers the whole foot, her ḥalitza is valid, but if she performed ḥalitza while he was wearing a soft shoe [anpileya] made of cloth, her ḥalitza is invalid, as it is not considered a real shoe. If ḥalitza was performed while he was wearing a sandal, i.e., footwear made of hard leather, that has a heel, it is valid; but if performed with a sandal without a heel, it is invalid ḥalitza. If the leg of the yavam was amputated anywhere from the knee down and she performed ḥalitza as he wore a shoe on the stump of his leg, it is valid ḥalitza. If, however, the leg was amputated anywhere from the knee and above, and she performed ḥalitza as he wore a shoe on the stump of his leg, it is invalid ḥalitza.

חָלְצָה בְסַנְדָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, אוֹ בְסַנְדָּל שֶׁל עֵץ, אוֹ בְשֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בַּיָּמִין, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. חָלְצָה בְגָדוֹל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַהֲלוֹךְ בּוֹ, אוֹ בְקָטָן שֶׁהוּא חוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב רַגְלוֹ, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. חָלְצָה בַלַּיְלָה, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. בַּשְּׂמֹאל, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַכְשִׁיר:

If she performed ḥalitza while the man was wearing a sandal that did not belong to him, or a sandal made of wood, or on the left shoe, which was being worn on his right foot, it is valid ḥalitza. If she performed ḥalitza as the man was wearing a shoe that was too large for him but which he can still walk in, or a shoe that was too small but that covered most of his foot, her ḥalitza is valid. If a woman performed ḥalitza at night, her ḥalitza is valid, but Rabbi Elazar invalidates it. If she performed ḥalitza on the left foot, her ḥalitza is invalid, but Rabbi Elazar validates it.

חָלְצָה וְרָקְקָה, אֲבָל לֹא קָרְאָה, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. קָרְאָה וְרָקְקָה, אֲבָל לֹא ��ָלְצָה, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. חָלְצָה וְקָרְאָה, אֲבָל לֹא רָקְקָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה (דברים כה), כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה, מְעַכֵּב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה, כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה בָאִישׁ:

If she, i.e., the yevama, removed the shoe and spat in accordance with the halakha but did not recite the necessary text, her ḥalitza is valid. If she recited the text and spat but did not remove the shoe, her ḥalitza is disqualified. If she removed the shoe and recited the text but did not spit, Rabbi Elazar says: Her ḥalitza is disqualified, while Rabbi Akiva says: Her ḥalitza is valid. Rabbi Elazar said to him: The verse states: “So shall 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. Rabbi Akiva said to him: You derive proof from there? But it states: “So shall 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.

הַחֵרֵשׁ שֶׁנֶּחֱלַץ וְהַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁחָלְצָה, וְהַחוֹלֶצֶת לַקָּטָן, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. קְטַנָּה שֶׁחָלְצָה, תַּחֲלֹץ מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל. וְאִם לֹא חָלְצָה, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה:

The mishna 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.

חָלְצָה בִשְׁנַיִם, אוֹ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר מַכְשִׁירִין. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁחָלַץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְהִכְשִׁיר:

If she performed ḥalitza before two or three judges and one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified as a judge for some other reason, her ḥalitza is invalid. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi 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 Rabbi Akiva and he validated it.

מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה. בָּא הוּא וִיבִמְתּוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, וְהֵן מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ עֵצָה הַהוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, (דברים כה) וְקָרְאוּ לוֹ זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו. 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, רֹק הַנִּרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִים. וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו, עַד כָּאן הָיוּ מַקְרִין. וּכְשֶׁהִקְרָא רַבִּי הֻרְקְנוֹס תַּחַת הָאֵלָה בִּכְפַר עֵיטָם וְגָמַר אֶת כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה, הֻחְזְקוּ לִהְיוֹת גּוֹמְרִין כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל. מִצְוָה בַדַּיָּנִין, וְלֹא מִצְוָה בַתַּלְמִידִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִצְוָה עַל כָּל הָעוֹמְדִים שָׁם לוֹמַר, חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל, חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל, חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל:

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). 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. 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.