Support (for Rava - Beraisa): In the following cases Chalitzah is valid:

The shoe was a torn Min'al that covers most of the foot, an incomplete sandal that holds most of the foot, a sandal of rubber or bark, a false foot (in which the leg rests), in a felt shoe, a carpet for the legs of an amputee (his ligaments constricted and he cannot straighten his legs; he propels himself with his hands and drags his legs), or a leather Anpilya;

The Yavam is an adult;

The Yavam was standing, sitting or leaning;

The Yavam is blind.

In the following cases Chalitzah is invalid:

The shoe was a torn Min'al that does not cover most of the foot, an incomplete sandal that does not hold most of the foot, a carpet for an amputee's hands, or a cloth Anpilya;

The Yavam is a minor.

Question: This Tana holds that a false foot is like a shoe. Who is the Tana?

Answer: It is R. Meir:

(Mishnah - R. Meir): A person with a false foot may walk outside with it (on Shabbos);

R. Yosi forbids.

Question: The Beraisa invalidates Chalitzah with a cloth Anpilya. This is like Chachamim (who argue with R. Meir, and require leather)!

Answer #1 (Abaye): Since the Seifa is Chachamim, also the Reisha is. The case is, the false foot is covered with leather.

Objection (Rava): This implies that if it is not covered with leather, it is invalid. If so, why does the Seifa invalidate a cloth Anpilya? It should distinguish between different kinds of false feet!

It should say that a false foot is valid only if it is covered with leather!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, since the Reisha is R. Meir, also the Seifa is. A false foot protects; a cloth Anpilya does not protect.

(Ameimar): The Yavam must press his foot on the ground.

Question (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): Chalitzah is valid whether he stands, sits or leans.

Answer (Ameimar): In all three cases, he presses his foot down.

(Ameimar): If one's foot is reversed (his leg rests on the front of his foot), he may not do Chalitzah.

Question (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): Chalitzah with a carpet for an amputee's feet is valid.

Suggestion: The amputee himself does Chalitzah (even though his legs are bent)!

Answer: No, a healthy person may use the carpet for Chalitzah.

Rav Ashi: According to Ameimar, Bar Uva and Bar Kifuf (men whose feet were reversed) may not do Chalitzah.

(Mishnah): From the knee and below (the Chalitzah is valid).

Contradiction (Beraisa): "Regalim" excludes one with a false foot (from the obligation to enter the Mikdash on festivals. This shows that the shin is not called 'Regel'!)

Answer: The shin is valid for Chalitzah, since the Torah said "me'Al (from above) his foot".

Question: If so, even above the knee should be valid!

Answer: It says "me'Al", but not 'me'Al of me'Al'.

(Rav Papa): This teaches that there is no bone below the ankle. If there was, the ankle would be called 'me'Al', and the entire leg would be 'me'Al of me'Al'!

Rejection (Rav Ashi): Even if there is a bone underneath, whatever is even with the foot is considered part of the foot.

(Mishnah): Above the knee (is Pasul).

Question (Rav Kahana): "And the fetal sac that comes out from between Ragleha" (shows that "Regel" extends above the knee)!

Answer (Abaye): A woman puts her heels by her thighs when giving birth.

Question: "Lo Osah Raglav (he did not remove the hair by the Ervah)".

Answer: This is a euphemism (to avoid explicit mention of the area. Normally, Regel does not include above the knee.)

Question: "Va'Yavo Sha'ul le'Hasech Es Raglav" (to defecate; alternatively to urinate).

Answer: This is a euphemism.

Question: "Ach Mesich Hu Raglav..."

Answer: This is a euphemism.

(R. Yochanan): Sisera had Bi'ah seven times - "Between Ragleha he crouched, he fell, he lied; between Ragleha he crouched, he fell; where he crouched, he fell and was killed.

Question: Ya'el benefited from Bi'as Isur (why is she blessed "mi'Nashim ba'Ohel", i.e. the Imahos?)!

Answer (R. Yochanan): The good that wicked do is bad for Tzadikim. We learn from "Beware, do not speak to Yakov good nor evil";

Question: Granted, Lavan should not speak evil to him. However, why shouldn't he speak (about doing) good to him?

Answer: The good of Resha'im is bad for Tzadikim.

Question: Granted, if Lavan would speak of good, he would mention idolatry. However, what was bad about Sisera's Bi'ah with Ya'el?

Answer: He cast filth into her;

(R. Yochanan): When the Nachash had Bi'ah with Chavah, he cast filth into her. When Yisrael stood on Har Sinai, the filth left them. Nochrim did not stand on Har Sinai, so they still have the filth.

(Mishnah): If she did Chalitzah with a shoe that is not the Yavam's ...

(Beraisa): "Na'alo" teaches only the Yavam's shoe. "Na'al" is repeated to include any man's shoe.

Question: If so, what do we learn from "Na'alo"?

Answer: The shoe must be fitting for him. This excludes a big shoe that he cannot walk in, a small shoe that does not cover the majority of his foot, and a shoe missing the heel.

A Yevamah came to do Chalitzah. Rav Yosef told Abaye to give the Yavam his shoe; Abaye gave him his left shoe.

Rav Yosef: Chalitzah with a left shoe is valid b'Di'eved. It may not be used l'Chatchilah!

Abaye: The same applies to a shoe that is not the Yavam's!

Rav Yosef: I intended that you should let the Yavam acquire your shoe.

(Mishnah): A wooden sandal (is valid for Chalitzah).

Question: Who is our Tana, who holds that a shoe can be of wood?

Answer #1 (Shmuel): It is R. Meir.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): An amputee may walk outside on Shabbos with a false foot;

R. Yosi forbids this.

Answer #2 (Shmuel's father): Our Mishnah discusses a wooden sandal covered with leather. All agree that it is a shoe.

(Rav Papi citing Rava): A shoe with Tzara'as that is Musgar (it has not brought Simanim of absolute Tum'ah) may not be used for Chalitzah. If it was used, the Chalitzah is valid;

A shoe that (brought Simanim and) was Muchlat may not be used for Chalitzah. If it was used, the Chalitzah is invalid. (Since it must be burned, it is considered to be too small.)

(Rav Papa citing Rava): In either case it may not be used for Chalitzah, but if it was used, the Chalitzah is valid.

Question (Mishnah): A Musgar house is Metamei whatever touches it internally. A Muchlat house is Metamei even what touches it externally. One who enters either of them becomes Tamei.

According to Rav Papi, here also we should say that (a Muchlat house is not the proper size so) we cannot apply "One who enters the house (becomes Tamei)"!

Answer: There is different. "He will take apart the house" teaches that even when it is being destroyed it is called a house.

Question (against Rav Papi - Beraisa): If a rag with Tzara'as is (at least) three fingers by three fingers, even if its volume is less than a k'Zayis (olive), once the majority enters the house, it is Metamei all Kelim in the house.

Suggestion: This discusses a Muchlat rag.

Answer #1: No, it was only Musgar.

Objection (Seifa): If its volume was several k'Zeisim, once a k'Zayis enters the house, it is Metamei Kelim in the house.

Granted, if it is Muchlat, it is equated to a Mes (a k'Zayis of a corpse is Metamei).

However, if it is only Musgar, why is it equated to a Mes?

Answer #2: Indeed, it was Muchlat. "He will burn the garment" teaches that even when it is being burned, it is called a garment.

Question: Why don't we learn from this (that a Muchlat shoe is called a shoe and is valid for Chalitzah)?

Answer: We do not learn about Isurim from laws of Tum'ah.

(Rava): If a shoe was Musgar or Muchlat or of idolatry (people put it on an idol), it may not be used for Chalitzah. If it was used, the Chalitzah is valid.