1)

(a)In the Beraisa to which we just referred, the Tana also lists ...

1. ...a torn Man'al that covers most of the foot, a sandal that has come apart but that still holds the foot, a reed-shoe, the stump of a man who has lost his foot, light shoes, and leather or wooden supports for a man who pulls himself along with his hands, dragging his legs behind him, all of which - are Kasher b'Di'eved.

2. ... a torn Man'al that does not cover most of the foot, a sandal that has come apart and no longer holds the foot and leather covers to protect the hands of the man who pulls himself along with his hands - which are all Pasul.

(b)The Tana rules that if the Chalitzah is performed by a Yavam who is ...

1. ... standing, sitting or leaning - it is Kasher (See Tosfos DH 'Bein Omed').

2. ... blind - the Chalitzah is Kasher b'Di'eved .

3. ... a Katan - the Chalitzah is Pasul.

2)

(a)Rebbi Meir permits a footless man to go out with his stump on Shabbos - Rebbi Yosi forbids it.

(b)The author of the Reisha of the Beraisa (which validates Chalitzah on a footless man's stump, appears to be Rebbi Meir (who considers it a shoe). By the same token - he will also permit using a cloth sock (seeing as he does not Darshen "v'An'alcha Tachash" (from which we insist on a leather shoe).

(c)So the author of the Seifa appears to be the Chachamim.

3)

(a)Abaye reconciles the Reisha of the Beraisa with the opinion of the Rabanan - by establishing the Beraisa when the stump is covered with leather.

(b)Rava refutes Abaye's explanation (on the basis of the Seifa, which goes on to permit a cloth sock) - because, if that is correct, the Tana should rather have permitted a stump which is not covered with leather.

(c)So Rava reconciles the Seifa with the opinion of Rebbi Meir - by differentiating between a non-leather shoe that protects the foot (the Reisha) and one that does not (the Seifa).

(d)Ameimar requires the Yavam to press his foot on the ground whilst Chalitzah is being performed. When Rava queried him from the Beraisa (that we just learned), which validates the Chalitzah of someone who is leaning (considering that it is very difficult to press one's foot from a leaning position) - he replied that, in spite of the difficulty, that is what he has to do.

4)

(a)Ameimar also invalidates the Chalitzah of 'Man d'Masgi al Lichsa d'Kar'a', meaning - the Chalitzah of someone whose foot is twisted, so that Chalitzah entails removing the shoe from the top of his foot instead of from the sole.

(b)Rav Ashi queries him from the Beraisa quoted above, which validates Chalitzah from leather or wooden supports for a man who pulls himself along with his hands, dragging his legs behind him (in which case, the supports are not on his soles, either). To which he replied - that the Tana is not talking about using the supports himself, but of giving them to someone else who is able to walk normally, to use when he is a Yavam.

(c)Rav Ashi commented that, according to Ameimar, bar Uva and bar Kifuf were not eligible to perform Chalitzah. bar Uva and bar Kifuf were professional eulogizers, who incurred Rav Ashi's displeasure and whose feet became twisted as a result.

5)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with the Mitzvah of Aliyas ha'Regel) "Shalosh Regalim" - that someone who has a stump instead of a foot is Patur from Aliyas ha'Regel (because anything above the foot is not included in Regel).

(b)Our Mishnah nevertheless validates Chalitzah from a stump provided it is below the knee - because the Torah writes "me'Al Raglo", incorporating the calf in the Mitzvah of Chalitzah (even though it is not called 'Regel').

(c)Chalitzah is not however, valid from a stump that remains above the knee - because that is not "me'Al", but "me'Al d'me'Al".

(d)Rav Papa proves from here that there is no joint between the ankle and the sole; otherwise the calf would be considered 'me'Al d'me'Al'. Rav Ashi refutes this on the grounds that even if there would be a joint there - the entire foot would be considered "Raglo", and the limb above it, "me'Al Raglo".

6)

(a)According to the Tana of our Mishnah, anything above the foot is no longer considered 'Regel'. The Pasuk in ...

1. ... Ki Savo "uv'Shilyasah ha'Yotzeis mi'Bein Raglehah, which suggests that even the thigh is still considered Regel - can nevertheless be understood literally, because, at the moment of birth, a woman curls up, bending her feet up to her thighs.

2. ... "Lo Asah Raglo (with reference to pubic hair), and with Pesukim in Shmuel and Shoftim which refer to relieving oneself as "Mesich es Raglav" - must not be taken literally, since, for reasons of modesty, it uses the term 'Regel' even though it is not literal.

(b)We learn from the multiple Lashon of the Pasuk in Shoftim that Sisro was intimate with Ya'el seven times. The Navi praises her (elevating her to even a higher plain than the Imahos) - because in fact, a Tzadik derives no pleasure from being intimate with a Rasha.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai learns from the Pasuk in Vayetzei (in connection with Hash-m's dialogue with Lavan) "Hishamer Lecha Pen Tedaber im Yakov mi'Tov ad Ra" - that even the good spoken by the Resha'im, is evil in the eyes of the Tzadikim ...

(d)... because why else would Hash-m forbid Lavan to speak good to Yakov?

7)

(a)The evil (inherent in the good) to which the Pasuk refers with regard to Lavan was the fear that he would, even as he attempted to make a treaty with him, mention the name of his god ("Lamah Ganavta es Elohai?"). The evil inherent in Sisra's intimacy with Yael was - the filth which he injected into her.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan said - that when the snake had relations with Chavah, he injected into her a filth (see Agados Maharsha), which dissipated when Yisrael received the Torah at Har Sinai, but which remained with the Nochrim who did not stand at Har Sinai.

8)

(a)The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Chalutz ha'Na'al" - that even if the shoe is borrowed, and does not belong to the Yavam, the Chalitzah is nevertheless valid (despite the previous use of the word "Na'alo") See Tosfos DH 'Talmud Lomar'.

2. ... "v'Shalaf Na'alo" - that the shoe must fit the Yavam's foot (to preclude one that is either too large, too small, or that does not have a heel).

(b)When Rav Yosef asked Abaye why he gave his left shoe to a Yavam, even though the left shoe is only valid b'Di'eved - he countered that if Rav Yosef could validate a borrowed shoe, then he could give his left one.

(c)Rav Yosef replied - that he did not intend Abaye to lend the Yavam his shoe, but that he should give it to him as a (temporary) gift.

(d)According to Shmuel, the author of our Mishnah who permits a wooden shoe, is Rebbi Meir, who considers a wooden shoe a Na'al. According to Shmuel's father - it could also be the Chachamim, and the Mishnah is speaking about a shoe that is covered with leather.

9)

(a)Everybody agrees that l'Chatchilah, one may not use a shoe that is stricken with Tzara'as, whether it is a Musgar (one that is locked-up [pending]) or a Muchlat (conclusively Tamei, and must be burned). According to Rav Papi quoting Rava, the latter is Pasul even b'Di'eved - because it stands to be burned, and anything that has to be burned has no Shi'ur (in which case it is like a shoe that does not fit his foot).

(b)And a Musgar is Pasul l'Chatchilah - so that one should not come to perform Chalitzah using one that is a Muchlat.

(c)Rav Papa quoting Rava - validates even a Muchlat b'Di'eved.

10)

(a)We query Rav Papi from a Beraisa which declares someone who enters a house that is stricken with Tzara'as (with most of his body), Tamei, irrespective of whether the house is a Muchlat or a Musgar. The Tana draws a distinction between a Muchlat - which renders Tamei someone who touches it from the outside as well as from the inside; whereas a Musgar renders Tamei someone who touches it from the inside, but not from the outside.

(b)According to Rav Papi - why should a house that is a Muchlat render the person who enters it Tamei, considering that the Torah writes in Metzora "ve'ha'Ba el ha'Bayis ... Yitma ... ", and a Muchlat that has to be demolished, according to him, does not have a Shi'ur!?

(c)We resolve the Kashya from the words of the Pasuk itself ("v'Nasatz es ha'Bayis") - which clearly indicate that, regarding Tzara'as at least, it is still called a house, despite the fact that it is has to be demolished.

11)

(a)We now query Rav Papi from a Beraisa. If most of the body of a Metzora enters a house - he renders Tamei all the vessels in the house ...

(b)... the Tana now rules - that the same applies to a garment that measures three by three finger-breadths that has Tzara'as.

(c)Three by three finger-breadths is - the minimum size of a garment.

(d)We suggest that, according to Rav Papi, the Beraisa, which considers the majority of a garment (should it comprise less than a k'Zayis) that enters a house, as if the entire garment had entered (thereby rendering all the vessels in the house, Tamei), must be speaking about a garment that is a Musgar - because, if it was a Muchlat, it would need to be burned, in which case, it should not have a Shi'ur and should therefore not render the vessels in the house, Tamei.

12)

(a)We query our answer however, from the Seifa - that a garment that comprises many k'Zeisim renders the vessels in the house Tamei, as soon as one k'Zayis has entered it.

(b)The Shi'ur Tum'ah of a garment is normally three by three finger-breadths). Consequently, if the Tana gives the Shi'ur of the garment as a k'Zayis - he must be talking about a Muchlat, which is compared to a Mes, in which case, the Kashya on Rav Papi returns.

(c)We reconcile Rav Papi's opinion with the Beraisa (despite the fact that the Beraisa speaks even a Beged that is a Muchlat - by pointing out that the Pasuk "v'Saraf es ha'Baged" implies that even though the garment has to be burned, it is still called a 'Beged' (as we explained above, regarding the case of a house with Tzara'as).

(d)The above Din cannot be a source to refute Rav Papi's contention (regarding a shoe of Chalitzah) that something which stands to be burned is considered as if it was burned and lacks the required Shi'ur - because it is speaking about Tum'ah, and we cannot learn Isur from Tum'ah.

13)

(a)Even though Rava holds of the S'vara that something that stands to be burned lacks the required Shi'ur (as we shall now see), Rav Papa nevertheless validates a shoe that is a Muchlat - because he learns from the Pasuk "v'Saraf es ha'Beged" (that in the entire area of Tzara'as, the garment is still called a garment, even if it is Muchlat. And he does not contend with the principle 'Isur mi'Tum'ah Lo Yalfinan' here, because, since we are confined to different aspects of Tzara'as, it is not really a Limud, but a 'Giluy Milsa' [an indication from one to the other]).

(b)Rava himself (apparently vindicating Rav Papa's opinion) validates (b'Di'eved) a shoe that has been used for idolatry, but invalidates one that was used as a sacrifice for idols and one belonging to an Ir ha'Nidachas - because in the latter two cases, there is no alternative but to burn them (causing them to lose their Shi'ur immediately, as we explained earlier); whereas in the former case it does not have to be burned; because of the possibility of having it nullified by the owner, and it will become permitted.

(c)Ravina asked Rav Ashi why, on the one hand, Rava invalidates a shoe that is made specifically to be used as part of the shrouds of an old man when he dies, whereas on the other, he validates a Chalitzah-shoe belonging to Beis-Din. The latter replied - that he validates the latter, because Beis-Din will not object to a Shaliach Beis Din's using the shoe from time to time, and invalidates the former, because nobody will wear the shoe during the old man's life-time.