Kiddushin, Daf Yod Daled, Part 4
Introduction
Today s section asks why a married woman cannot be released through halitzah, as is a yevamah and why a yevamah cannot be released through a get, as is a married woman. Again, these questions are theoretical. The rabbis know that halitzah works only for a yevamah. But they are asking why it does not work for a married woman or how we know it does not work.
ותהא אשת איש יוצאה בחליצה מק"ו ומה יבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה זו שיוצאה בגט אינו דין שיוצאה בחליצה אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) ספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה
Now, let a married woman go out through halitzah, on the basis of a kal vehomer argument: if a yevamah, who does not go out through a get, does go out through halitzah; then this one [a married woman], who does go through a get, certainly goes out through halitzah! The verse says [then he shall write her] a bill of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) a document divorces her, but nothing else can divorce her.
While we might construe a logical argument for claiming that a married woman could have her marriage terminated through halitzah, the verse proves that only a document will sever the marriage.
ותהא יבמה יוצאת בגט מקל וחומר ומה אשת איש שאין יוצאה בחליצה יוצאה בגט זו שיוצאה בחליצה אין דין שיוצאה בגט אמר קרא (דברים כה, ט) ככה וככה עיכובא
Now, let a yevamah go out of her marriage with a get on the basis of a kal vehomer argument: if a married woman, who does not go out through halitzah, does go out through a get: then this one [a yevamah], who does go out through halitzah, should also go out through a get! The verse says: Thus (Deuteronomy 25:9) and thus implies indispensableness.
The word thus in the passage about levirate marriage means that a yevamah goes out of the obligation for levirate marriage only through halitzah, and not through a get as does a regular wife.
וכל היכא דאיכא עיכובא לא דרשי ק"ו והא יוה"כ דכתיב (ויקרא טז, ח) גורל וחוקה ותניא (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שקידש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת וטעמא דמעטיה קרא הא לאו הכי דרשינן קל וחומר אע"ג דכתיב ביה חוקה
Now, wherever there is word that implies indispensableness, we cannot make a kal vehomer? But what about Yom Hakippurim, where lot and statute are written, yet it was taught: [And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and offer it for a sin-offering (Leviticus 16:8): the lot renders it a sin-offering, but designation does not render it a sin-offering. For I might have thought: In a place where the lot does not sanctify, designation does, how much more would designation sanctify where the lot does! Scripture says: and offer it for a sin-offering, the lot renders it a sin-offering, but designation does not render it a sin-offering. Thus, it is only because Scripture excluded it [designation]; otherwise we would draw a kal vehomer argument, even though statute is written!
This is a complicated argument embedded within another argument. Above, we learned not to make a kal vehomer in a case where a word implies that a certain act is indispensable. But the Talmud cites another case where an indispensable word exists and yet there is still a kal vehomer. The case refers to the goat on Yom Kippur upon whose head falls the lot to be a sin-offering. The midrash teaches that this goat becomes holy not by verbal designation but by the placing of the lot. It rejects a kal vehomer argument that would argue that designation also works to make it holy. But were it not for this midrash, the kal vehomer argument would be valid even though the word statute implies indispensableness. Thus indispensableness itself does not rule out making a kal vehomer argument to the contrary.
אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) לה לה ולא ליבמה
The verse says, [then he shall write] her [a bill of divorce] : for her but not for a yevamah.
The Talmud now comes up with a new midrash to prove that a yevamah does not leave the marriage by divorce the word her in the verse about divorce.
ואימא לה לשמה תרי לה כתיבי ואכתי מיבעי ליה חד לה לשמה ואידך לה ולא לה ולחבירתה
But say that her teaches that it must be for her sake?
Her is written twice.
Yet even so they are both needed: one her to teach that it must be for her sake; and the other her teaching, but not for her and her companion?
The problem with the word her is that even though it is written twice, it is needed for two other midrashim. One to teach that the get must be written with a specific woman in mind and the other to teach that two women cannot be divorced with one get. This means we still need a midrash to prove that a yevamah is not released with a get.
אלא אמר קרא (דברים כה, ט) נעל נעל אין מידי אחרינא לא
Rather Scripture says, [The house of him that has a] shoe [loosed] (Deuteronomy 25:9) only a shoe [can set her free], but nothing else can.
The Talmud now comes up with another midrash the word shoe proves that the removal of his shoe (essentially what halitzah is) severs the tie with the yavam and nothing else, including a get.
והאי נעל להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא נעלו אין לי אלא נעלו נעל של כל אדם מנא ליה ת"ל נעל נעל ריבה
א"כ מה ת"ל נעלו נעלו הראוי לו פרט לגדול שאין יכול להלך בו פרט לקטן שאין חופה את רוב רגלו פרט למסולים שאין לו עקב
This word shoe does it come to teach this? Is it not necessary for what was taught: [And she shall loosen] his shoe : I know only that this works with his shoe. From where do I know [that it may be] any person s shoe? From the verse: [The house of him whose] shoe [was loosened]: shoe adds [anyone s shoe]. If so, why state, his shoe ? His shoe [implies that it must fit him, excluding one [too] large, in which he cannot walk, excluding one [too] small, which does not cover the greater part of his foot, excluding a sandal, which has no heel!
The problem is again familiar the word shoe is used for other midrashim. So how can we use it to teach that a yevamah is not released through a get?
אם כן ניכתוב קרא נעל מאי הנעל שמעת מינה תרתי :
If so, Scripture should have written shoe ; why the shoe ? Learn from this both.
The extra heh allows the word shoe to be used for both purposes to teach laws about what type of shoe may be used and to teach that a yevamah is not released through a get.