Previous daf

1)

(a) What do the following have in common:

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?
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?

(b) Is it permitted for the Yavam to be seated or leaning whilst the Chalitzah is being performed?

(c) Is the Chalitzah Kasher if it is performed with ...

1. ... a blind Yavam?
2. ... a Yavam who is a Katan?

(a) Rebbi Meir permits a footless man to go out with his stub on Shabbos. What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(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). What will Rebbi Meir hold regarding using a cloth sock?

(c) Then who appears to be the author of the Seifa, which invalidates a cloth sock?

(a) How does Abaye reconcile the Reisha of the Beraisa with the opinion of the Rabbanan?

(b) How does Rava refute Abaye's explanation (on the basis of the Seifa, which goes on to permit a cloth sock)?

(c) So how does Rava reconcile the Seifa with the opinion of Rebbi Meir?

(d) Ameimar requires the Yavam to press his foot on the ground whilst Chalitzah is being performed.
What did he reply to Rava, who 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 feet from a leaning position)?

(a) Ameimar also invalidated the Chalitzah of 'Ma'an de'Masgi al Lichsa de'Kar'a'.
What does that mean?

(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 and dragging his legs behind him (in which case, the supports are not on his soles, either).
What did he reply?

(c) Rav Ashi commented that, according to Ameimar, bar Uva and bar Kifuf were not eligible to perform Chalitzah.
Who were bar Uva and bar Kifuf?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (with regard to the Mitzvah of Aliyas ha'Regel) "Shalosh *Regalim*"?

(b) How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, which validates Chalitzah from a stump provided it is below the knee?

(c) Then why is Chalitzah not valid even from a stump that remains above the knee?

(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'.
On what grounds does Rav Ashi refute this proof?

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

1. ... "u've'Shilyasah ha'Yotzeis mi'Bein Raglehah" (Ki Savo)?
2. ... "Lo Asah Raglo (Shmuel 2.)?

(b) We learn from the multiple Lashon of the Pasuk in Shoftim that Sisro made seven Bi'os with Ya'el. Considering the immense pleasure that Yael must have derived from all that (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha'), why does the Navi then praise her (elevating her to even a higher plain than the Imahos)?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai learn from the Pasuk in Vayeitzei (when Hashem spoke to Lavan) "Hishamer Lecha Pen Tedaber im Ya'akov mi'Tov ad Ra"?

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 his god ("Lamah Ganavta es Elohai"?).
What is the evil inherent in the Bi'ah of Sisra with Yael?

(b) What did Rebbi Yochanan say in this regard (concerning the snake and Chavah)?

(a) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Chalutz *ha'Na'al*"?
2. ... "ve'Shalaf *Na'alo*"? Which three types of shoe does this come to preclude?

(b) What did Abaye counter, when Rav Yosef asked him why he gave his *left* shoe to a Yavam, even though the left shoe is only valid Bedieved?

(c) What was Rav Yosef's reply?

(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.
What does Shmuel's father say?

(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.
Why is that?

(b) And why is a Musgar Pasul Lechatchilah, according to Rav Papi?

(c) What does Rav Papa quoting Rava say?

(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.
What distinction does the Tana of the Beraisa make between a Muchlat and a Musgar (regarding someone who touches it) - according to Rashi's basic explanation)?

(b) Why is this a Kashya on Rav Papi?

(c) How do we resolve it from the words of the Pasuk itself ("ve'ha'Ba el ha'Bayis")?

(a) If most of the body of a Metzora enters a house, he renders Tamei all the vessels in the house.
How about 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, speaks about a garment that is a Musgar.
Why is that? What would be the problem (according to Rav Papi) if it was a Muchlat ?

(a) What does the Seifa of the Beraisa say regarding a garment that comprises many k'Zeisim?

(b) How does this force us to retract and to establish the Beraisa by a garment that is a Muchlat?

(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Saraf es ha'Baged", how are we able to reconcile Rav Papi's opinion with the Beraisa (despite the fact that the Beraisa speaks even a Beged that is a Muchlat)?

(d) Why can the above Din not 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?

(a) Seeing as Rava holds of the S'vara that something that stands to be burned lacks the required Shiur (as we shall see immediately), on what grounds does Rav Papa validate a shoe that is a Muchlat?

(b) And on what grounds does Rava himself ...

1. ... (apparently vindicating Rav Papa's opinion) validate (Bedieved) a shoe that is used for idolatry purposes, but invalidate one that was used as a sacrifice for idols and one belonging to an Ir ha'Nidachas?
2. ... invalidate a shoe that is made specifically to be used as part of the shrouds of an old man when he dies, but validate a Chalitzah-shoe belonging to Beis-Din?

Next daf