Yevamot

whether he was standing, sitting or reclining, and also if her halizah was performed with a blind man, her halizah is valid. [If her halizah] however, [was performed] with a torn shoe that did not cover the greater part of the [levir's] foot, with a broken sandal which does not hold the greater part of his foot, with a support of the hands,  or with a cloth sock, and also where her halizah was performed with a minor, her halizah is invalid. Whose [view is represented in the first statement mentioning] the artificial foot?  — [Obviously that of] R. Meir, for we learned: A cripple may go out [on the Sabbath]  with his artificial foot;  so R. Meir, and R. Jose forbids it;  [but the latter statement]: 'With a cloth-sock'  can only represent the view of the Rabbis!  — Abaye replied: Since the latter statement [represents the opinion of] the Rabbis, the first also [must represent the opinion of] the Rabbis, the first [dealing with an artificial foot that was] covered with leather. Said Raba to him:  What, however, [is the law if it  was] not covered with leather? Is it then unfit!  If so, instead of teaching in the latter statement, 'With a cloth sock',  a distinction should have been drawn in [respect of the artificial foot] itself: This  applies only where it was covered with leather, but if it was not covered with leather it is unfit!  Rather, said Raba, since the first statement represents the view of R. Meir, the latter also represents the view of R. Meir, the one  affording protection  while the other  affords no protection. Amemar stated: When a levir submits to halizah he must press down his foot [to the ground]. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Was it not taught [that the halizah was valid] 'whether he  was standing, sitting or reclining'? — Read: And in all these cases, only if he pressed his foot [to the ground]. Amemar further stated: A man who walks on the upper side of his foot  must not submit to halizah. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But, surely, it was taught: 'Supports of the feet';  does not [this signify] that such [a cripple]  may submit to halizah with a support! No; [the meaning is] that he may give it to another person  who is allowed to submit to halizah [with it]. Said R. Ashi: According to Amemar's ruling neither Bar Oba nor Bar Kipof  could submit to halizah. [IF THE SHOE WAS WORN] BELOW THE KNEE etc. A contradiction was pointed out: Regalim,  excludes  stump-legged cripples!  — Here  it is different since it was written in Scripture, From off his foot.  If so, [halizah should be permissible] above the knee also! — From off but not 'from off the from off'. Said R. Papa: From this  it may be inferred that the istewira  reaches down to the ground;  for were it to be imagined that it is disconnected,  it [would be situated] above [the foot], while the leg [would be] above that which is above [the foot].  R. Ashi, however, said: It may even be said that it is disconnected, but any part adjacent to the foot is legally regarded as the foot itself. ABOVE THE KNEE. R. Kahana raised an objection: And against her afterbirth that cometh out from between her feet!  — Abaye replied: When a woman kneels down to give birth she presses her heels against her thighs and thus gives birth. Come and hear: He had neither dressed his feet nor trimmed his beard!  — This is a euphemistic expression. Come and hear: And Saul went in to cover his feet!  — This is a euphemistic expression. Come and hear: Surely he is covering his feet in the cabinet of the cool chamber!  — This is a euphemistic expression. Between her feet etc.!  — This is a euphemistic expression.