Question: What is the Hava Amina to disqualify one who was sitting?

Answer: It is because it says below (104a) that it is like Gemar Din (the end of judgment), and we say in Shevuos (30b) that at the time of Gemar Din, all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand.

This is why below (106a) we require standing l'Chatchilah. R. Chiya told the Yevamah "stand, my daughter" according to Rashi's second version. Also, it says "v'Amad v'Amar."

Limitation: However, this is not Me'akev, for it does not say v'Ya'amod va'Yomar." V'Amad v'Amar is merely Sipur Devarim (telling what happens).

Support: We explain like this in Mo'ed Katan (21a) regarding "what is the source that tearing [over the death of a relative] is done standing?"

Implied question: "V'Amdu Shenei ha'Anashim" [is Me'akev, that the litigants must stand], even though it does not say v'Ya'amodu!

Answer: This is because no action is written there afterwards;

However, here, after v'Amad, it says the action (v'Amar), so is merely Sipur Devarim, just like Amdu v'Kidshu and Amdah v'Niseis.

Implied question: In the Sifri, we expound [regarding Chalitzah] "v'Amad" - these matters are said only standing!

Answer (Rabbeinu Yehudah): Perhaps this is required l'Chatchilah, like I explained.

Question: What is the source to think to exclude a blind person?

Answer #1: It says l'Einei ha'Zekenim (they must see the spit leave her mouth). One might have thought that the same applies to the Yavam.

Answer #2: It says "v'Yarkah Befanav", which is like l'Einav.

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so (he need not see it).

Explanation: [R. Meir] considers [some things] to be a Min'al [even] if they are made of materials not usually used for a Min'al.

Explanation: They do not consider it to be a Min'al if it is made of cloth, since it is not normal to do so, and the same applies to an Anpiliya.

Question #1 (R. Tam): Here it connotes that R. Yosi does not consider Kav ha'Kitea to be a Min'al, since we establish the Beraisa that is Machshir it for Chalitzah only like R. Meir;

It connotes like this also in Shabbos (65b);

However, in Yoma (78b), we say that Kav ha'Kitea, both according to R. Meir and R. Yosi, it is considered a Min'al;

R. Yosi forbids to go out with it on Shabbos, lest it snap and he will come to carry it four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question #2: Here, we permit Chalitzah in a sandal of rubber, and in Yoma (78b) we say "I saw R. Yehoshua ben Levi go out with a sandal of rubber on Yom Kipur. Our Sugya compares Yom Kipur to Chalitzah! (Aruch l'Ner - we can answer both questions based on the Rashba. Here we say that the Beraisa is like R. Meir. It is also like R. Yosi, who argues only about a decree on Shabbos. It is unlike R. Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that it is not a shoe. R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is not called Regel, since they were reversed. Also his shin is not called me'Al Raglo;

However, when his foot was cut off, his shin is me'Al Raglo;

Since before it was cut his shin was above his foot, also after it was cut, it is called me'Al Raglo. Also a Gaon explained like this.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): One who presses on the front of his foot may not do Chalitzah because he cannot press his entire leg on the ground.

Also according to his Perush, we understand why he is worse than a Kite'a (one without a foot), for the latter can press his entire leg on the ground.

Inference: They hold that obviously, a Kite'a can do Chalitzah.

Objection (Ri): The Yerushalmi explains that the Mishnah teaches "below the knee Chalitzasah Kesherah" to be when he tied his sandal straps below his knee. It does not discuss a Kite'a at all.

Suggestion: The Beraisa teaches [that Chalitzah is Kosher with] Kav ha'Kitea (i.e. he can do Chalitzah)!

Rejection: We can explain that he gave it to someone else who did Chalitzah with it, like we said about a carpet for the legs of an amputee.

Implied question: [When Rav Ashi asked that the Beraisa is Machshir Chalitzah of an amputee, Ameimar] could have said "according to you [who hold that he himself does Chalitzah with the carpet], can one with a false foot do Chalitzah?! Rather, [you are forced to say that] he gave it to someone else."

Answer #1: In several places, the Gemara could have said "according to you...", but it does not say so.

Answer #2: Initially, Rav Ashi held that one with a reversed foot can do Chalitzah, and similarly a Kite'a can, but in the conclusion, [also] he cannot.

Implied question: The Gemara asked that "Regalim" excludes one with a false foot! (I.e. since regarding Aliyah l'Regel it is not called Regel, also regarding Chalitzah!)

Answer: We ask that since the shin is not called Regel (if it were, he would be obligated in Aliyah l'Regel), why is below the knee Kosher? It is not tied in the place of Regel!

Support: Also R. Nisim explained in a hidden scroll that a Kite'a cannot do Chalitzah. This follows all the more so from one with a reversed foot.

Implied question: The Mishnah is Machshir below the knee (i.e. when below this is cut off)!

Answer: It does not discuss when his foot is cut off. Rather, it discusses where he tied the straps, like the Yerushalmi said.

Implied question: The primary Drashah we learn from "Pe'amim", in Chagigah (3a)!

Answer: In any case it is a proper question, for the Tana makes an Asmachta [as if he learns] from "Regalim".

Suggestion: The Gemara asked why she was not Yotzei Moser Nefesh [to avoid Bi'ah with Sisera].

Rejection #1: She was Karka Olam (passive), like it says about Esther.

Rebuttal #2: Sisera would not force her. Just the contrary, she enticed him with words to sway him to have Bi'ah with her, in order to weaken his strength, in order to save Yisrael.

Explanation: Rather, the Gemara asked why the verse praises her so much. "She will be blessed more than women..." and we say in Nazir (23b) and Horiyos (10b) that an Aveirah Lishmah (l'Shem Shamayim) is greater than a Mitzvah Lo Lishmah.

I.e. [she will be blessed] more than the Imahos, for they (the Imahos) benefited from the Bi'ah, but Ya'el did not benefit from the Bi'ah.

It answers that surely she did not benefit, for the good that Resha'im do [is bad for Tzadikim].

Regarding this matter (why she is blessed so much, for she benefited from the Aveirah) this question was asked in Nazir and Horiyos.

Implied question: We expounded this above, to teach that we do not say that it can be only of Tachash!

Answer: These two Drashos are equally reasonable (there is no reason to favor one over the other), so we learn both of them.

Question: How can we expound these Drashos from "Na'al"? We need it for the simple meaning, that one must recite "Chalutz ha'Na'al"!

Answer: We expound properly from what one must recite.

Support: We expound in our Mishnah (below, 104b) from "Kachah" that it is Me'akev, even though it is [written] primarily to teach what [she] recites!

Implied question: Why doesn't it suffice to remove most of the heel [even if it does not cover most of the foot]?

Answer: It is called Min'al only if it covers most of the foot;

However, regarding Chalitzah, it suffices to remove most of the heel, like it says above (102a) that this is considered revealing the foot.

Explanation: This is the name of a sandal.

Source #1 (Yerushalmi): R. Yehoshua ben Levi went out with Suliya on the night of Yom Kipur.

Source #2 (Midrash Rabah): What is a crown for the head of Chachmah, is a heel for Sulyasa of humility. It says "Reishis Chachmah Yir'as Hash-m", and "Ekev Anavah Yir'as Hash-m"...

Implied question: The Midrash (Derech Eretz 7) lists three things that are equal - Chachmah, Yir'ah and Anavah!

Answer (Ri): They are equal, i.e. one without the other is not enough, but Anavah is the greatest.

Explanation: It is Metamei one who touched a Nega on the outside of the house.

Question: The Ri was unsure about a Bayis Musgar, if one touched a Nega inside it without entering:

Is this considered like the outside of a Muchlat house, which is Metamei through touching?

Or, perhaps it is [Metamei] less, and "inside a Musgar house" is when he totally entered the house, like Rashi explained.

Observation: Toras Kohanim expounds "k'Nega Nir'ah Li b'Bayis" - it is Metamei from the inside, but not from the outside. The verse discusses a Musgar.

Inference: It expounds that Tzara'as that arises in the house is Metamei, but not one that arises outside it.

Explanation (Ri): Even though he did not stay there, just he entered it and brought it out, it is Tamei.

Implied question: A Mishnah, brought in Kidushin (33b) says that if a Tamei (Metzora) passes under a tree and a Tahor person was sitting under it, he remains Tahor!

Answer: Only regarding a tree, which has no walls, we require that he (the Tamei) sit (i.e. stop), like it says "Badad Yeshev";

However, a house, which has walls, it is as if the Tamei sits under it, and he is Metamei the house.

Question: Here it connotes that a Metzora is Metamei b'Ohel;

Contradiction (Kelim 1:4 - Mishnah): Above (more Tamei than) them is a Mes, which is Metamei b'Ohel, unlike all of these [other Tum'os];

A Metzora was listed there with the other Tum'os!

Answer (Rabbeinu Yehudah): In any case, a Mes is more stringent, for even if it passes under the tree, it is Metamei b'Ohel everything under the tree.

Also, a Mes is more stringent, for it is Metamei even what is in another [adjacent] house, if there is a window opening a square Tefach [between them];

This is unlike a Metzora, who is Metamei only the house he entered, for it says "veha'Ba El ha'Bayis."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to idolatry of a Nochri, and before Bitul;

Since Bitul can be done, we do not say Michtas Shi'urei (it is as if was already burned, and it is less than the Shi'ur), even though Bitul was not yet done.