Explanation #3 (R. Chananel in Kesuvos): "I will discredit a document" means that even if Ne'emanus (he will be believed) is written in the document, the lender swears and collects.

Explanation (Ri): He means that the borrower wrote to the lender in the document that he is believed without an oath whenever he will say that it was not paid;

This is even if it was paid with one witness, or he admits that part was paid, or he collects in the borrower's absence. In such a case, the lender must swear [to collect] had he not written this. We discuss such cases. (If Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah said that it was paid, he would obligate the lender to swear.)

Explanation (Rashi): He can judge another convert [even] in capital cases.

Objection: This is wrong, like I wrote above (45b. He can judge another convert only in monetary cases.)

Explanation: It is not enough that his mother is a Yisrael. Also his father must be a Yisrael;

Distinction: However, it suffices that his father is a Yisrael. Even regarding lineage (for the daughter to marry into) Kehunah, it suffices that his father is a Yisrael, like it says in Kidushin (77a).

Question (Ri): In Kesuvos (44b), it says about a Na'arah Me'orasah "Ki Asesah Nevalah b'Yisrael", that if she was conceived and born in Kedushah, she is a full Yisraelis (even though her father was a Nochri)!

Answer (Ri): Since one who was conceived and born in Kedushah is a full Yisraelis, if so, also for Chalitzah of converts, those conceived and born in Kedushah are full Yisraelim, and we apply to them "[Sum Tasim] Alecha [Melech]"...

Therefore, even without "v'Nikra Shmo b'Yisrael", we know that a convert is disqualified from [judging] Chalitzah of converts, unless his mother is a Yisrael, for we require "mi'Kerev Achecha."

Therefore, we should expound "v'Nikra Shmo b'Yisrael" that even his father must be a Yisrael.

Consequence: Based on this, we must say that Rav Shmuel's mother was a Yisrael, for [he cited the Beraisa to explain why he is disqualified, and] we need the Beraisa to disqualify only one whose mother is a Yisraelis.

Question: He should have asked [against the Makshan] from the Seifa, which teaches that a sandal with a heel is Kosher. This connotes that it is not l'Chatchilah!

You [the Makshan] are forced to say that since the Seifa taught that [a sandal] without a heel is Pasul, also the Reisha says Kosher [even though really, it is l'Chatchilah. We can say the same about a Min'al!]

Answer: Indeed, the Gemara could have [asked this, i.e.] said "according to your reasoning..."

Citation: The text in the Yerushalmi is "I was a Shulchani (moneychanger) in my city, and he was regular on my table...

The text: The text does not say 'and the Torah said "Na'alo", and not Min'alo', like Rashi explained.

Support: Also Rav Yehudai Gaon deleted this from the text. It is not in the Tosefta.

Question: [A Beraisa] in Shabbos (141b) teaches that a woman may not go out [on Shabbos] with Min'al ha'Merufat, and she may not do Chalitzah with it. If she did, the Chalitzah is Kosher!

Answer: There, it is not so torn that it is not proper to wear it.

Citation: The text of the Yerushalmi in our Perek is "what does he do [in Chalitzah]? He ties it until he can walk in it by itself (without holding it in place).

Citation (cont.): R. Chanina brei d'Rebbi Hillel says, he makes a bow in order that he can untie it with one hand;

Citation (cont.): What does she do? She unties it with her right hand and holds it in her left hand, and removes the heel with her right hand and drags it with her left hand, so untying and removing is with her right hand.

However, the custom is to tie it well with a real knot. Also, she must untie it with her right hand based on the Yerushalmi.

Observation: [There is no source for this in the Bavli.] We find that [using] the left disqualifies only regarding the foot, but Chalitzah is Kosher even with the left hand!

We say below (105a) that an amputee removes the shoe with her teeth.

Inference: It is not Pasul because she did not use the right hand. (Tosfos Chulin 20a DH Lo suggests that perhaps the left hand is worse than with the teeth, and b'Di'eved it is Pasul.)

Question: In Chulin (70a), the Gemara asked about a weasel that [stuck its mouth in the womb of an animal that had not yet given birth], totally swallowed [the fetus, and returned it to the womb];

It also asked about the wombs of two animals that were stuck together (and a male fetus left one womb and entered the other).

If so, what is the question here "do we find something like this?" (The Gemara asks even about cases that will never occur!)

Answer (Ri): It was obvious to the Gemara that a shoe on top of a shoe is possible. It asks that such a Chalitzah is invalid, for it is not normal for people to wear shoes this way;

It answers that it is normal, for Rabanan saw Rav Yehudah...

Explanation: Since it taught that both of them must have Kavanah, this implies that we must know that they intend for Chalitzah.

Explanation: Rav holds like Rabanan, who argue with R. Meir, who argues about a false foot (R. Meir is Machshir for Chalitzah);

Rabanan hold that we require a shoe of [leather, which is like] Tachash. R. Meir requires only something that protects.

Inference: R. Tam learns from here that the shoe must be from leather of a Kosher animal, for it says Tachash.

Rejection: One need not be particular if he did Chalitzah with a shoe from [leather of a] Tamei animal.

Question: We need "me'Al" to teach that the shin is Kosher for Chalitzah, like it says below (103a)!

Answer: If so, it could have written "b'Al mi'Raglo". Why did it say "me'Al"? This is so we will learn both of these.

Implied question: We could have distinguished within it (Anpiliya) itself, and taught that one may not walk with a leather Anpiliya!

Answer: The Tana discussed something common. It is common to walk with Kordakisin (undershoes).

Question: Since it is Kosher for Chalitzah, it must be made for walking;

If so, it should be Tamei Medras even without tufts!

Answer: It is not made so much for walking that it is Tamei Medras;

Even so, it is proper for Chalitzah, for it is no worse than a sandal of idolatry, and a sandal of Beis Din , like it says below (103b, 104a).