FOR WHAT CAN A CONVERT BE A JUDGE?
(Rava): Mid'Oraisa, a convert can judge a case between converts. It says "You will put on yourself a king ... amidst your brethren" - on you, a ruler must be amidst your brethren, but a convert can judge converts.
If one's mother is a Yisrael, he can even judge a Yisrael;
For Chalitzah, both parents must be from Yisrael - "His name will be called in Yisrael".
WHAT IS NEEDED FOR CHALITZAH
(Rabah citing Rav): If Eliyahu would come and say that we do Chalitzah with a Min'al (a soft leather shoe), we would heed him. If he would say that we do not do Chalitzah with a sandal, we would not heed him, because we are accustomed to using a sandal.
(Rav Yosef citing Rav): If Eliyahu would say that we do not do Chalitzah with a Min'al, we would heed him. If he would say that we do not do Chalitzah with a sandal, we would not heed him, because we are accustomed to using a sandal.
Question: What is the difference between these two versions?
Answer: According to Rabah, we may not use a Min'al l'Chatchilah. According to Rav Yosef, we may.
Question (against Rav Yosef - Mishnah): If they did Chalitzah with a Min'al, it is Kesherah,
This connotes that it is b'Di'eved!
Answer: No, it is even l'Chatchilah. Since the Seifa says that if it was done with an Anpilya (a slipper or sock) it is invalid even b'Di'eved, the Reisha also discusses b'Di'eved.
Tana'im argue about whether a Min'al may be used l'Chatchilah:
(Beraisa - R. Yosi): An elder said that he saw R. Yehudah ben Beseira oversee many Chalitzos.
R. Yosi: Did he use a Min'al or a sandal?
The elder: Is a Min'al really Kesherah? (The Torah said a shoe, not a Min'al! - some texts delete this)
R. Yosi: If so, why did R. Meir say that if Chalitzah was done with a Min'al, it is Kesherah?
R. Yakov says, R. Meir permits a Min'al l'Chatchilah.
Question: What is the reason for the opinion that a Min'al is only b'Di'eved?
Suggestion: (Chalitzah must be "me'Al (from) Raglo".) The top of a Min'al is considered me'Al his foot, and the straps (Rashi; Aruch - the leather covering) is me'Al of me'Al (from on top of)" his foot.
Rejection: If so, the Chalitzah should be invalid b'Di'eved!
Answer: It is a decree, lest one use a torn (Rashi; Aruch - loose) Min'al, or a half-Min'al.
(Rav): Had I not seen R. Chiya oversee a Chalitzah using a sandal with laces, I would have allowed only an Arab sandal, that is tight-fitting.
Even though our sandals are tied, we tie a thin rope to make it an ideal Chalitzah.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED TAKING OFF THE SHOE?
(Rav Yehudah): Once most of the heel is removed, the Yevamah is permitted.
Question (Beraisa): If the straps of a Min'al or sandal were untied, or if he removed most of his foot, the Chalitzah is invalid.
Inference: It is invalid only because he removed the majority. Had she removed it, it would be valid!
The majority of the foot is required, not most of the heel!
Answer: 'Most of the foot' refers to most of the heel;
The Tana calls it 'foot' because it supports the foot.
This supports R. Yanai;
(R. Yanai): Whether he untied the shoe and she removed it, or she untied the shoe and he removed it, the Chalitzah is invalid. She must untie the shoe and remove it.
Questions (R. Yanai): If she tore the shoe off, what is the law? If she burned the shoe, what is the law?
If Chalitzah require exposing the foot, this was done;
If the shoe must be removed, this was not done.
These questions are unresolved.
Question (R. Nechemyah): If he is wearing two shoes, one on top of the other, what is the law?
Question: What is the case?
If she removed the outer shoe, and left the inner shoe, surely it is Pasul. We require "me'Al Raglo", not from on top of his foot!
Answer: Rather, she tore the outer shoe and removed the inner shoe, and left the outer shoe on his foot;
If removal of the shoe is required, this was done.
If she must expose the foot, this was not done.
Question: Is it normal to wear a shoe on top of a shoe? (Tosfos - the Gemara often asks about unusual things. We ask because Chalitzah requires a shoe worn normally.)
Answer: Yes! Rav Yehudah walked in the market wearing five pairs of cloth (felt) shoes.
(Rav Yehudah): (Even) if a Yevamah grew up among the Yevamim, she may do Yibum. We are not concerned lest she took off the sandal of one of them
Inference: If we knew that she took off his sandal, we would be concerned!
Question (Beraisa): Whether he intended for Chalitzah, but she didn't; or if she intended for Chalitzah, but he didn't - the Chalitzah is invalid until both have intention.
Answer #1: Rather, Rav Yehudah taught that even if we saw that she took off his sandal, we are not concerned lest they had intention.
Answer #2: Indeed, if she took off a Yavam's sandal, we are concerned!
The Beraisa teaches that Chalitzah without intent does not permit her l'Shuk, but she is forbidden to do Yibum.
FROM WHAT MUST THE SHOE BE MADE?
(Rav Yehudah): A sandal stitched with linen may not be used for Chalitzah - "I gave you shoes of Tachash" (an animal whose hide was used to make a cover for the Mishkan).
Question: If so, we should say that only Tachash may be used!
Answer: The verse of Chalitzah says "shoe" twice, to include (leather of other animals).
Question: If so, we should allow all materials!
Answer: If so, what would we learn from the verse "Shoes of Tachash"?
Question (R. Elazar): If a shoe is of leather and the straps are of goats' hair, may it be used?
Answer (Rav): Yes, this is like Tachash.
Question: If so, even if the entire shoe is of hair, it should be permitted!
Answer: That is called Karka (like a Min'al - it is not called a shoe).
THE MEANING OF CHALITZAH
Question (Rav Kahana): How do we know that 'Choltzah' means that she removes?
Answer (Shmuel): "V'Chaltzu (they will remove) the stones in which there is a plague".
Question: Perhaps it means to invigorate (i.e. put on the shoe), like "Hechaltzu (prepare) from yourselves men for the army"!
Answer #1: There also, it means to remove (men from their houses to go to fight).
Question: It says "Yechaletz (He will support) a poor person in his poverty"!
Answer #1: There also, his reward for bearing poverty will be removal of punishments in Gehenom".
Question: It says "Hash-m's angel camps by those who fear Him va'Ychaltzem (and will save them)"!
Answer #1: A reward for fearing Hash-m will be exemption from punishment in Gehenom.
Question: It says "And your bones Yachalitz";
(R. Elazar): This is the greatest of the blessings.
(Rava): This is strengthening of the bones.
Answer: Indeed, the word can mean to strengthen or to remove. Regarding Chalitzah, had it meant strengthening (putting on) it would have said 'On his foot'. (Note: It seems that this is another answer for questions (c), (e) and (g).)
Objection: Had it said 'On his foot', one might have thought that it must be done on the foot, but not the shin. "Me'Al Raglo" teaches that the shin is also acceptable!
Answer: Had it meant that she puts on his shoe, it would have said 'b'me'Al' (to include the shin). "Me'Al" teaches that she removes the shoe.
A heretic: Hash-m cast off your nation - "... Chalatz from them"!
R. Gamliel: Fool! It doesn't say 'Chalatz Lahem' (cast them off), rather, "Chalatz Mehem";
If a Yavam took a shoe off the Yevamah, this does nothing!
CHALITZAH WITH AN ANPILYA
(Mishnah): Chalitzah with an Anpilya (slipper or sock) is invalid.
Inference: An Anpilya is not a Min'al.
Support (Mishnah): One who comes to take Terumas ha'Lishkah (Shekalim to buy Korbanos Tzibur) does not enter the room wearing a cloak with a hem (lest people suspect that he hid Shekalim for himself in the hem) nor with Anpilya. We need not forbid with a Min'al or sandal, since no one may enter the Mikdash wearing a Min'al or sandal.
Contradiction (Beraisa): A Min'al, sandal and Anpilya all have the same law (on Yom Kipur). One may not walk in them from house to house, nor from bed to bed.
Answer #1 (Abaye): The Anpilya in the Beraisa has soft wads in it, and is forbidden because it is pleasurable.
Objection (Rava): If it is not a Min'al, it is not forbidden on Yom Kipur just because it is pleasurable!
Rabah bar Rav Huna went out with a turban wrapped on his leg!
Answer #2 (Rava): A cloth Anpilya is not like a shoe; a leather Anpilya is.
Support: If we will not say so, there is a contradiction between Beraisos about Yom Kipur!
(Beraisa): A person may not walk in Kordakisin (undershoes worn to protect from water) in his house, but he may walk in Anpilin in his house.
We must say that cloth Anpilin are permitted, and leather Anpilin are forbidden.