Previous daf

1)

(a)

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; leather or wooden supports for a man who pulls himself along with his hands, dragging his legs behind him; leather socks - are all Kasher Bedieved.
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; leather covers to protect the hands of the man who pulls himself along with his hands; cloth socks - are all Pasul even Bedieved.

(b) It is not permitted Lechatchilah for the Yavam to be seated or leaning whilst the Chalitzah is being performed - but Bedieved, the Chalitzah is Kasher.

(c) Chalitzah that is performed with ...

1. ... a blind Yavam - is Kasher Bedieved.
2. ... a Yavam who is a Katan - is Pasul.

(a) Rebbi Meir permits a footless man to go out with his stump on Shabbos - Rebbi Yossi 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 "ve'An'alcha Tachash" (from which we insist on a leather shoe).

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

(a) Abaye reconciles the Reisha of the Beraisa with the opinion of the Rabbanan - 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 the Beraisa 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 does protect (the Reisha) and one that doesn't (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 had to do.

(a) Ameimar also invalidated the Chalitzah of 'Ma'an de'Masgi al Lichsa de'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 asked 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.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (with regard to 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.

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

(d) Rav Papa proves from here that there is no joint between the ankle and the sole; otherwise the calf would be 'me'Al de'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".

(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, anything above the foot is no longer considered 'Regel'. The Pasuk (which suggests that even the thigh is still considered 'Regel') ...

1. ... "u've'Shilyasah ha'Yotzeis mi'Bein Raglehah" (Ki Savo) - can be understood literally, because, at the moment of birth, a woman curls up, bending her feet up to her thighs.
2. ... "Lo Asah Raglo - must not be taken literally, but deviates slightly for reasons of modesty.

(b) We learn from the multiple Lashon of the Pasuk in Shoftim that Sisro made seven Bi'os with Ya'el. 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 (when Hashem spoke to Lavan) "Hishamer Lecha Pen Tedaber im Ya'akov mi'Tov ad Ra" - that even the good spoken by the Resha'im, is evil in the eyes of the Tzadikim.

7)

(a) The evil (inherent in the good) to which the Pasuk refers with regard to Ya'akov was the fear that he would, even as he attempts to make a treaty with him, mention the name of his god (which he did - "Lamah Ganavta es Elohai"?). The evil inherent in the Bi'ah of Sisra 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 filth (see Agados Maharsha). When Yisrael received the Torah at Har Sinai, that filth dissipated. It remained with the Nochrim however, who did not stand at Har Sinai.

(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. ... "ve'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 Bedieved - 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.

(a) Everybody agrees that Lechatchilah, 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 Bedieved - because it stands to be burned, and anything that has to be burned has no Shiur (in which case it is like a shoe that does not fit his foot).

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

(c) Rav Papa quoting Rava - validates even a Muchlat Bedieved.

(a) Someone who enters a house that is stricken with Tzara'as (with most of his body), becomes Tamei, irrespective of whether the house is a Muchlat or a Musgar. The Tana of the Beraisa makes 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, does not have a Shiur?

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

(a) If most of the body of a Metzora enters a house, he renders Tamei all the vessels in the house - and so does a garment that has Tzara'as.

(b) We suggest that 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), speaks about a garment that is a Musgar, because, if it was a Muchlat - it would require burning, in which case, according to Rav Papi, it should not have a Shiur and should therefore not render the vessels in the house, Tamei.

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa says - that a garment that comprises many k'Zeisim renders the vessels in the house Tamei, as soon as one k'Zayis has entered.

(b) The Shiur Tum'ah of a garment is normally three by three finger-breadths). Consequently, if the Tana gives the Shiur of the garment as a k'Zayis - he must be talking about a Muchlat, which is compared to a Meis, 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 "ve'Saraf es ha'Baged" implies that even though the garment has to be burned, it is still called a 'Beged' (as we explained earlier, 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 that stands to be burned is considered as if it was burned and lacks the required Shiur - because it is speaking about Tum'ah, and we cannot learn Isur from Tum'ah.

(a) Even though Rava holds of the S'vara that something that stands to be burned lacks the required Shiur (as we shall see immediately), Rav Papa nevertheless validates a shoe that is a Muchlat - because he learns from the Pasuk "ve'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]).

(b) Rava himself ...

1. ... (apparently vindicating Rav Papa's opinion) validates (Bedieved) a shoe that is used for idolatry, but invalidate 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 Shiur immediately, as we explained earlier); whereas in the former case it does not have to be burned; because there exists the alternative of having it nullified by the owner, and it will become permitted.
2. ... invalidates a shoe that is made specifically to be used as part of the shrouds of an old man when he dies, but validates a Chalitzah-shoe belonging to Beis-Din - because, in the latter case, Beis-Din will not object to a Shli'ach Beis-Din's using the shoe from time to time; whereas in the former case nobody will wear the shoe during the old man's lifetime.