1)

(a)Rava extrapolates from the Pasuk in Shoftim ...

1. ... "Som Tasim Alecha Melech ... mi'Kerev Achecha" - that a Ger is disqualified from any area of ruling, including judging.

2. ... "mi'Kerev Achecha Tasim Alecha Melech" - that it is only to judge a Yisrael that a Ger is Pasul, but not to judge a Ger like himself.

(b)We learn that the above extends to other important positions, besides kingship - from the double Lashon "Som Tasim".

(c)It is also confined to Dinei Nefashos (see Tosfos DH 'Ger'). As far as Dinei Mamonos is concerned - a Ger is eligible to judge even a Yisrael (see Tosfos DH 'Ger').

(d)A Ger whose mother is a Yisraelis, is eligible to judge even a Yisrael - with the exception of Chalitzah, where the Dayanim must be born Yisraelim, whose father and mother were Yisraelim too.

2)

(a)Rabah and Rav Yosef argue over what Rav Kahana Amar Rav said. According to Rabah, he said that if Eliyahu would come and say 'Choltzin b'Man'al Shom'in Lo; Ein Choltzin b'Sandal, Ein Shom'in Lo'. The reason for the second half of this statement is - because it is the accepted Minhag to use a Sandal for Chalitzah.

(b)Rav Yosef disagrees with the first half of Rabah's statement. According to him, if Eliyahu were to forbid the use of a Man'al for Chalitzah, we would listen to him.

(c)With regard to using a Man'al for Chalitzah before Eliyahu comes, according to ...

1. ... Rabah - it is forbidden l'Chatchilah.

2. ... Rav Yosef - it is permitted.

(d)Rav Yosef will explain that the Tana of our Mishnah, which states 'Chaltzah b'Man'al, Chalitzasah Kesheirah' (implying b'Di'eved, but not l'Chatchilah) - really permits a Man'al l'Chatchilah too. Only because the Seifa says 'b'Anpalya, Chalitzasah Pesulah' (even b'Di'eved), he says 'Chalitzasah Kesheirah' in the Reisha.

3)

(a)When, upon arriving in Netzivin, Rebbi Yosi asked that old man whether ...

1. ... he knew Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah well - he replied that, not only did he know him well, but that he (Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah) often dined at his table.

2. ... as a Dayan at a Chalitzah ceremony, he would use a Man'al or not - he replied 'Since when does one use a Man'al for Chalitzah?'

(b)Rebbi Yosi retorted that - if that was so, why did Rebbi Meir permit it b'Di'eved?!

(c)Rebbi Yakov even quotes Rebbi Meir - as permitting a Man'al l'Chatchilah.

(d)The text in our Gemara (in parenthesis) 've'ha'Torah Amrah "Na'alo", 'v'Lo Man'alo' cannot be correct - because a 'Na'al' simply means a shoe, incorporating a Man'al as well as a Sandal.

4)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "v'Chaltzah Na'alo me'Al Raglo", to explain those who disqualify a Man'al, we initially suggest - that since the removal of a Man'al entails untying the straps that wind round the leather of the shoe to keep it in place, it is considered 'me'Al d'me'Al' (on top of what is on top of the leg, which is Pasul, as we shall see later). Note: a Sandal, which is hard, does not have such straps, seeing as they would serve no purpose).

(b)We reject this reason however - on the grounds that, if the source for invalidating a Man'al l'Chatchilah is a Pasuk, then it should be Pasul even b'Di'eved (when in fact, a Man'al is Kasher b'Di'eved).

(c)We finally ascribe the prohibition to a Man'al Merupat - a torn shoe, which one might (mistakenly) come to use, because it cleaves to the leg and remains there, which is not the case by a Sandal, which, due to its hardness, tends to fall off, in which case there is no reason to issue a decree.

(d)Rebbi Chiya used to use a Sandal that required extensive lacing to keep it in place for Chalitzah. Rav commented - that had he not seen his uncle using such a shoe, he would have used one that does not need laces, but that sits tightly on the foot without them.

5)

(a)A Sandal which is tied with a large knot (that requires one lace on top to prevent it from slipping off the foot) - should be tied before the Chalitzah, for the Yevamah to untie before removing the shoe.

(b)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the minimum area of the foot from which the Yevamah needs to remove the shoe in order to become Muteres l'Shuk is - the majority of the heel.

(c)We imply from the Beraisa which invalidates a shoe whose straps come undone by themselves, or which the Yavam removed from his foot - that it is only because the Yavam removed it, that the Chalitzah is Pasul; but that, had the Yevamah removed it, the Chalitzah would be Kasher.

(d)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav reconciles his statement with this Beraisa, which implies that most of the foot is required - by equating the foot with the heel, because it carries most of the weight of the person.

6)

(a)The Beraisa (invalidating a shoe whose straps came undone by themselves) serves as a proof for the ruling of Rebbi Yanai - who says that the woman is also obligated to untie the straps, as well as to remove the shoe from the Yavam's foot.

(b)The two sides of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yanai's She'eilah (whether it will suffice to tear or to burn the shoe off the Yavam's foot) are - whether the Torah wants the Yevamah to reveal the Yavam's foot (which she has done), or whether it wants her to actively pull the shoe off the foot (which she has not).

2. ... Rebbi Nechemyah's She'eilah from Rabah whether it will suffice to remove one of the two shoes which the Yavam is wearing on his foot (meaning to pull the inner shoe from the Yavam's foot, without removing the outer one) are - whether the Torah wants her to remove the shoe (which she has done), or to reveal his foot, which she has not.

(c)We prove that it is normal practice to go with two shoes one on top of the other - because the Rabanan saw Rav Yehudah going out wearing five pairs of light shoes.

7)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permitted the Yevamin to perform Yibum with the Yevamah who grew-up with them - and we do not suspect that in jest, she once pulled off one of their shoes.

(b)The problem with this is - that it implies that if she did once do such a thing, she is Patur from Chalitzah, even though there is no indication that they both had Kavanah to perform the Mitzva and without Kavanah, the Chalitzah is not valid.

(c)We therefore emend Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's ruling - to a case where we actually saw her pulling off one of the brother's shoes, and he still permits them to perform Yibum, on the assumption, that at least one of the two did not have Kavanah to perform the Mitzvah.

(d)In the second Lashon, we are more stringent - inasmuch as Rav only permits Yibum as long as we did see her pulling off one of their shoes, but if she did, then the brothers will be forced to perform Chalitzah, and not Yibum (in case they both had Kavanah).

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "v'En'alech Tachash" - that a shoe that has been stitched with linen (or any material that is not animal based) is not eligible for Chalitzah.

2. ... the extra "Na'al" in Ki Setzei - that the shoe need not necessarily be made of Tachash-skin, but that any animal skin is acceptable.

(b)'Sandal ha'Tafur b'Pishtan' - can either mean that a patch of linen is sewn inside it, or that it is stitched with linen threads.

(c)When Rebbi Elazar asked Rav about a Na'al ...

1. ... whose laces are made of another material, the latter replied - that it is nevertheless Kasher.

2. ... that is made entirely of another material - he replies that it is not Kasher - because that is called a 'Kraka' (a kind of Man'al, and not Na'al).

9)

(a)We compare "v'Chaltzah Na'alo" to the Pasuk "v'Chaltzu es ha'Avanim", which means "and they shall remove the stones". Rav Kahana suggested that it should be compared to the Pasuk "Hechaltzu me'Itchem" - which he interprets as 'to mobilize' (to join the army), and "v'Chaltzah Na'alo" as putting the shoe on the Yavam's foot (rather than taking it off).

(b)Shmuel interprets ...

1. ... "Hechaltzu" - to mean 'to take away from their homes'.

2. ... "Yechaletz Ani b'Anyo" (Iyov) - to mean that, on account of the poor man's poverty, the Din of Gehinom is removed from him.

3. ... "Choneh Mal'ach Hash-m el Yere'av va'Yechaltzem" - as 'Hashem will remove the Din of Gehinom from them'.

(c)When Rav Kahana asked Shmuel from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "v'Atzmosecha Yachlitz", which Rava later interprets to mean "He will strengthen the bones" (giving the word a connotation of 'putting on' rather than 'taking off' - he conceded that sometimes the word means to put on and sometimes, to take off.

(d)Rebbi Elazar said - that the Pasuk in Yeshayah constitutes the finest of the Berachos.

10)

(a)We initially learn from "v'Chaltzah Na'alo me'Al Raglo" that the Pasuk is speaking about taking off the shoe and not about putting it on - because if it meant 'putting it on', the Torah would have written "v'Chaltzah b'Raglo", and not "me'Al Raglo".

(b)We reject that proof however, on the grounds that we need "me'Al Raglo" (as opposed to "b'Raglo") to teach us - that even if she pulls the shoe from (or places it on) the stump of his calf (and not necessarily from/on his foot), the Chalitzah is Kasher.

(c)We that the Mitzvah is taking off the shoe and not putting it on, from the same Pasuk - from the fact that the Pasuk writes "me'al Roglo", and not "b'me'Al Raglo" (which would have meant to put on and would have taught us the Din of stump).

11)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "b'Tzonam uvi'V'karam Yelechu l'Vakesh es Hash-m, v'Lo Yimtza'u, Chalatz Mehem", a certain heretic mocked Yisrael - by claiming that Hash-m had sent them away, and wanted nothing more to do with them.

(b)Raban Gamliel replied - that the Pasuk does not write "v'Chalatz Lahem" but "v'Chalatz Mehem", implying that it was not Hash-m who had sent them away, but they who had sent Hash-m away (which, like a Yevamah with whom the brothers perform Chalitzah, has no validity).

12)

(a)It is clear from our Mishnah that an Anpalya is not considered a shoe, as it is from the Mishnah in Shekalim, where the Tana forbids the Kohen who performed the Terumas ha'Lishkah 'to enter with socks and needless to say, with shoes ... '. It is forbidden to enter the Azarah with ...

1. ... socks and similar clothes - which have hems, in case people later accuse him of having stolen money from the boxes and carried it away hidden in the hem of their clothes.

2. ... shoes - because of the prohibition of entering the Beis Hamikdash wearing shoes (as we learned in the Mishnah in Berachos).

(b)Abaye initially reconciles our Mishnah with the Beraisa, which equates socks with shoes regarding wearing them on Yom Kippur - by establishing the Beraisa when the socks contain soft padding, and which are therefore prohibited, not because they are considered like shoes, but because they are comfortable (and negate the spirit of Yom Kippur).

(c)Rava refutes this answer however, from Rabah bar Rav Huna, who used to go out on Yom Kippur with a cloth tied round his foot (even though this made his walking more comfortable). He ultimately resolves the above contradiction - by establishing our Mishnah by a cloth sock (which is not considered a shoe), and the Beraisa by a leather one (which is).

13)

(a)The Tana of another Beraisa - permits walking in the house with socks. If not for Rava's distinction, how would we resolve the contradiction between the two Beraisos.

(b)The same Beraisa forbids walking in the house with Kurdekisin on Yom Kippur. These are - thin undershoes that are worn underneath regular thick shoes, to protect the wearer's feet from getting wet.

(c)We prove Rava's distinction from yet another Beraisa - which includes a leather sock among the items that are eligible for Chalitzah, and a cloth one among the items that are not.