(Devarim 25:9) "Then his yevamah shall draw near to him before the eyes of the elders": We are hereby taught that she goes after him to the elders. "before the eyes of the elders … and she shall spit": spittle that is visible to the eyes of the elders.
"and she shall remove his shoe": This tells me only of his shoe (i.e., a shoe that he owns). Whence do I derive (that chalitzah is valid with) anyone's shoe? From (the repetition of) "shoe" (here), "shoe" (verse 10) — in any event. If so, why is it written "and she shall remove his shoe"? To exclude as valid for chalitzah (a shoe) so large that he cannot walk in it or one so small that it does not cover most of his foot, or one that lacks a heel.
"from his foot": From here they ruled: (If she removed the shoe) from the knee-joint down (in the case of one whose foot was amputated), the chalitzah is valid. "his foot": It is written here "his foot," and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:18). Just as there the right (foot is specifically indicated), here, too, the right (foot is intended).
"and she shall spit in his face": I might think "in his face," literally; it is, therefore, written "before the eyes of the elders" (so that "in his face" is understood as "before him.")
"Thus shall it be done with the man": From here it was ruled: If she removed the shoe and spat, but did not recite (the prescribed formula), the chalitzah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not remove the shoe, the chalitzah is invalid. If she removed the shoe and recited but did not spit — R. Eliezer says: The chalitzah is invalid; R. Akiva says: The chalitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him. (It is written) "Thus shall it be done" — Everything which is an act is a categorical requirement. R. Akiva: Is that a proof? It is written "with the man" — Everything that is done with the man (such as the removal of the shoe) is a categorical requirement.
"who would not build the house of his brother" — who would not build and who is not destined to build (i.e., Once he did not build it, he may build it no more.) (Ibid. 25:10) "And his name shall be called in Israel 'the house (of him) chalutz hana'al' ('whose shoe was removed')":
"in Israel": Why is this written here? Is it not already written elsewhere? (Ibid. 7) — That excludes converts (from yibum), this excludes a beth-din of converts (from officiating at chalitzah.)
"the house chalutz hana'al": It is a mitzvah for the judges (to say this), and not for the disciples. R. Yehudah says: It is a mitzvah for all those standing there to say "chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al." R. Yehudah said: Once we were sitting before R. Tarfon (at a chalitzah) and he said to us: All of your answer "chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al."
(דברים כה ט) וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו, רֹק הַנִּרְאֶה לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְיַחֶדֶת עִמּוֹ לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים.
(Devarim 25:9) "Then his yevamah shall draw near to him before the eyes of the elders": We are hereby taught that she goes after him to the elders. "before the eyes of the elders … and she shall spit": spittle that is visible to the eyes of the elders.
וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נַעֲלוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל״ (דברים כה י) מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ? פְּרָט לְגָדוֹל שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ, וְקָטָן שֶׁאֵין חוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב רַגְלוֹ, וְסוֹלְיָיס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָקֵב, שֶׁחֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה.
"and she shall remove his shoe": This tells me only of his shoe (i.e., a shoe that he owns). Whence do I derive (that chalitzah is valid with) anyone's shoe? From (the repetition of) "shoe" (here), "shoe" (verse 10) — in any event. If so, why is it written "and she shall remove his shoe"? To exclude as valid for chalitzah (a shoe) so large that he cannot walk in it or one so small that it does not cover most of his foot, or one that lacks a heel.
מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן רַגְלוֹ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (ויקרא יד יד) רַגְלוֹ, מַה רַגְלוֹ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן יְמָנִית אַף רַגְלוֹ הָאָמוּר כָּאן יְמָנִית. מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ, מִכָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה.
"from his foot": From here they ruled: (If she removed the shoe) from the knee-joint down (in the case of one whose foot was amputated), the chalitzah is valid. "his foot": It is written here "his foot," and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:18). Just as there the right (foot is specifically indicated), here, too, the right (foot is intended).
וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו, יָכוֹל בְּפָנָיו מַמָּשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, רֹק הַנִּרְאֶה לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: חָלְצָה וְרָקְקָה וְלֹא קָרְאתָה – חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. קָרְאתָה וְרָקְקָה וְלֹא חָלְצָה – חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. חָלְצָה וְקָרְאתָה וְלֹא רָקְקָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה.
"and she shall spit in his face": I might think "in his face," literally; it is, therefore, written "before the eyes of the elders" (so that "in his face" is understood as "before him.")
וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, נֶאֶמְרָה כָּאן עֲנִיָּה וְנֶאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן עֲנִיָּה, מָה עֲנִיָּה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אַף עֲנִיָּה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ.
"and she shall answer and she shall say": "answering" is written here and elsewhere (Ibid. 27:14) . Just as there, in the holy tongue, so, here.
כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִבְנֶה אֶת בֵּית אָחִיו, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא בָנָה וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא עָתִיד לִבְנוֹת.
"Thus shall it be done with the man": From here it was ruled: If she removed the shoe and spat, but did not recite (the prescribed formula), the chalitzah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not remove the shoe, the chalitzah is invalid. If she removed the shoe and recited but did not spit — R. Eliezer says: The chalitzah is invalid; R. Akiva says: The chalitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him. (It is written) "Thus shall it be done" — Everything which is an act is a categorical requirement. R. Akiva: Is that a proof? It is written "with the man" — Everything that is done with the man (such as the removal of the shoe) is a categorical requirement.
[כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה] אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה – בְּדָבָר שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה מְעַכֵּב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה בָּאִישׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חֲלִיצָה מְעַכֶּבֶת וּרְקִיקָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: חֲלִיצָה בִּשְׁכִיבָה וּרְקִיקָה כְּדֵי שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע.
"who would not build the house of his brother" — who would not build and who is not destined to build (i.e., Once he did not build it, he may build it no more.) (Ibid. 25:10) "And his name shall be called in Israel 'the house (of him) chalutz hana'al' ('whose shoe was removed')":
וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מַה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן פְּרָט לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁל גֵּרִים, אַף בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הָאָמוּר כָּאן פְּרָט לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁל גֵּרִים.
"in Israel": Why is this written here? Is it not already written elsewhere? (Ibid. 7) — That excludes converts (from yibum), this excludes a beth-din of converts (from officiating at chalitzah.)
בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל, מִצְוָה בַּדַּיָּנִים וְלֹא מִצְוָה בַּתַּלְמִידִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה עַל כָּל הָעוֹמְדִים שָׁם לוֹמַר: חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִינוּ יוֹשְׁבִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וְאָמַר לָנוּ: עֲנוּ כֻּלְּכֶם וְאִמְרוּ: חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל.
"the house chalutz hana'al": It is a mitzvah for the judges (to say this), and not for the disciples. R. Yehudah says: It is a mitzvah for all those standing there to say "chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al." R. Yehudah said: Once we were sitting before R. Tarfon (at a chalitzah) and he said to us: All of your answer "chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al."