The MDY Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Daf Kuf Gimmel Yevamos, has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife in honor of his family, wishing them success and prosperity in all their endeavors. May he merit to raise his children in the ways of the Torah, and may they bring him much nachat. He should be blessed with health and happiness, kindness and grace in the eyes of both Hashem and man, and may blessings be sent to him and his entire family. Amen. Today's Daf is also being studied for the success of Yosef ben Sarah and his family, donated by an anonymous sponsor. May Hashem bless Yosef ben Sarah and his family with wealth, honor, success, health, and all good things. Amen. Additionally, today's Daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Chacham Avraham Zafrani ben Latifa, may the spirit of Hashem find rest for him in Gan Eden. Amen. It is also being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the spirit of Hashem find rest for him in Gan Eden. Amen.
We begin today's Daf on Kuf Bet Amud Bet, picking up from three lines from the bottom of yesterday's Daf. In our previous discussions, we learned about a distinction regarding an anpilya, which we identified as a type of sock. We noted a difference between a leather sock and a cloth sock concerning the mitzvah of chalitza. Specifically, we established that with a leather sock, one can fulfill the mitzvah of chalitza, as it is considered akin to a shoe. In contrast, a cloth sock does not suffice for this mitzvah, and we provided a source to support this ruling.
The Gemara states that this was Rava's answer. It continues, stating, "Tania kevata deRava," indicating that we have a braita that supports Rava. The braita discusses a scenario where one performs chalitza with a shoe that is nifram, meaning it is torn but still covers the majority of the foot, or with a sandal that is niphchat, meaning a part of it is missing yet still covers most of the foot. The commentators note that since a man'al is made of soft leather, the term nifram is appropriate. However, for a sandal, which is made of hard leather, the term niphchat is more fitting.
Furthermore, if the sandal is made of sh'am and siv, materials that are tough and can protect the foot, or if we consider a kav hakiteya, which is a wooden shoe for someone whose foot has been cut off, or bemok, which refers to a type of shoe made from felt, or smichat haraglayim, which is a crutch-like support for someone who cannot use their legs, we see that these items can also be involved in the discussion of chalitza.
In the case of an anpilya made of leather, and if one is performing chalitza from a gadol, whether standing, sitting, or leaning, we conclude that the chalitza is valid. Additionally, if chalitza is performed by a blind man, it remains valid as well. The Gemara seeks to clarify the novelty in the last two cases concerning standing, sitting, or leaning. One might have thought that chalitza must be performed while standing, as it is compared to Gmar Din, the final judgment, where everyone must stand. However, the braita teaches us that if one is sitting or leaning, it is still acceptable.
Regarding the blind man performing chalitza, one might question whether he can see the spit, which is a necessary part of the chalitza process. The braita teaches us that even in this case, it is still valid. Thus, we see that the beginning of this braita indicates that an anpilya made of leather is valid, while a torn shoe that does not cover the majority of the foot, or a sandal that does not cover the majority, does not fulfill the requirements.
Next, we analyze the case of kav hakiteya. The Gemara asks who authored this braita. It must be Rabbi Meir, who states that a person with a cut-off foot can wear a kav on Shabbat, indicating it is considered a shoe. This implies that Rabbi Meir believes that a wooden shoe is indeed valid for purposes of chalitza. In contrast, Rabbi Yossi disagrees, asserting that it is forbidden.
Thus, according to Rabbi Meir, the kav worn by the kitei'a is deemed a na'al concerning Shabbat, and the same applies to chalitza. However, when the braita states that an anpilya made of cloth is invalid, it suggests that this ruling aligns with the Rabbis, not Rabbi Meir. The braita indicates a distinction between an anpilya of leather and one of cloth.
Abaye proposes that since the latter part of the braita is attributed to the Rabbis, the first part must also follow their opinion. The Gemara responds that the first part pertains to a shoe covered in leather, making it acceptable. Rava questions the validity of a shoe not covered in leather, suggesting that it is invalid. The Gemara clarifies that the braita includes a new case of an anpilya to illustrate the distinction between leather and non-leather.
The discussion continues with a focus on the various types of shoes and their validity for chalitza. The Gemara addresses the case of a sandal made of wood and its acceptance. It notes that even if a shoe is not covered in leather, it may still be valid for chalitza depending on its sturdiness. The braita illustrates that certain shoes, even if not conventional, can still fulfill the requirements.
As the Gemara progresses, it examines the rules surrounding chalitza with different types of shoes, including those associated with idolatry and other specific cases. The discussion highlights the importance of ensuring that the shoe used for chalitza meets particular criteria, emphasizing the need for a valid shoe that adequately covers the foot.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that there are various conditions under which chalitza can be performed, and it is essential to understand the distinctions between the types of shoes and their respective halachic statuses. This exploration serves to deepen our understanding of the mitzvah of chalitza and the nuances involved in its practice.