Implied question: Why don't we establish [R. Yochanan's teaching] according to Rabanan; [they consider it a Kli for Shabbos, just like for Tum'ah,] but not for Chalitzah, because for its matter, i.e. the left (foot), it is not a Kli?

Answer: Since [Chachamim] hold that it is a Kli for Shabbos and for Tum'ah, even though it is not a Kli for its matter, it is Kosher for Chalitzah, since a left shoe on the right foot, the Chalitzah is Kosher;

However, according to R. Yehudah, it is not a Kli for its matter, and also for other matters (Shabbos and Tum'ah) it is not a Kli, presumably, it is not a Kli for Chalitzah.

Explanation (Rashi): The same applies if he did not fix it. It is Tamei Midras. If you would say that when it snapped, the Tum'ah departs, it would not return!

Support #1: He is correct. We find old Tum'ah (that returns afterwards) only regarding metal Kelim (it is a decree mid'Rabanan).

Support #2: Also above, we say that if one of the Oznayim (flaps) and one of them Tarsisiyos (places in which the straps are fixed) snapped, it is Tamei.

Implied question: Why does it say that he fixed it (if it is Tamei even if he did not fix it)?

Answer #1 (Rashi): It is due to the Seifa, to teach that even though he fixed it, when the second snaps, it is Tahor from Midras.

Suggested Answer #2: Perhaps it says that he fixed it due to what was taught in the Seifa "but it is Tamei Maga (like something that touched a) Midras"!

Rejection: Even if he did not fix it, and the second snapped, it is Tamei Maga Midras, like Rashi explained, because it is still a Kli to use for other uses.

Question: The Seifa of this Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) explicitly teaches that if he did not fix the first before the second snapped, it is Tahor!

Retraction: Rashi himself retracted and corrected [his Perush to say] "but it is Tamei Maga Midras, for it is still a Kli and proper for its use, for he fixed the first."

Affirmation of Answer #2: Now, the Reisha needed to say that he fixed it, for if he did not fix it, when the second snapped, it second be Tamei even Maga Midras, like the Seifa teaches explicitly;

Since the Reisha said that he fixed it, also the Seifa said so (but even if he did not fix the second, it is Tamei Maga Midras).

Question (Rabbeinu Shimon): Why is it Tamei Maga Midras? Sava Lah Tum'ah (since it was Tamei Midras, touching a Midras has no effect on it)!

In Menachos (24a), Rava asked about an Isaron that he divided - do we say Sava Lah Tum'ah, or not? (He should learn from here that we do not say so!)

Suggestion: Since the Zav stepped on it with his bare foot, Midras and Maga Midras came together to it. When they come at once, we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah, like is proven in Menachos (24a).

Rejection: If so, there are Panim Chadashos (it is not considered the same sandal he stepped on) for Maga Midras, just like for Midras!

Rather, you are forced to say that after the first was removed and he fixed it, Maga Midras came to it, like Rashi explained, that it touches itself. If so, we should say Sava Lah Tum'ah, like is proven in Menachos (24a)!

Answer #1: This is fine according to Rashi's first Perush, that even if both Oznayim snapped, it is Tamei Maga Midras.

Answer #2 (R. Shimon): We do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah when the Tum'ah came from it itself, like here, that Tum'as Maga comes from touching itself, like Rashi explained.

Consequence: According to this, it is like R. Meir, who says that Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim is Metamei, for touching itself is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (it is not externally visible).

Question: This is difficult, for in Chulin (72b, 129b) it asks simply "it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim!" This implies that we do not hold like R. Meir.

Answer: In Eruvin (24a), Rashi explained that when it separated, the Ozen received Tum'ah from its father (the entire sandal).

Question: This is difficult, for in Chulin (72b) we say that we require that [pieces that separate] come from a big garment [that still has a Shi'ur of Tum'as Midras, even after they separate, in order that the pieces receive Maga Midras]!

Answer #3 (Ri): When he fixed the first Ozen, Tum'as Midras and Maga Midras came to the Ozen together, and the sandal is Batel to the Ozen, for one cannot be Tamei without the other.

Question (Ri): Rather than ask that it should distinguish within the case itself, he should challenge our Mishnah itself - [in the Seifa] why is it Tamei Maga Midras? Since the outer one snapped, it no longer has the law of a Kli!

Answer (Ri): This is included in the Gemara's question. It should distinguish within the case itself (if the outer Ozen snapped, it is Tahor), and automatically we would know that Tamei Maga Midras (when both snapped) is not true!

Implied question: A Mishnah in Kelim (17:4) says that the pomegranates discussed are three touching each other (i.e. the Shi'ur is for three pomegranates to leave at once! This is slightly more than twice the size of one pomegranate.)

Answer: The Shi'ur is not for three pomegranates [to leave at once]. Rather, it explains what it said above. The pomegranate discussed is not big or small, rather, medium. It says that medium is when three touch each other and grow together;

However, pomegranates that grow individually or two together are big, and those that grow four together are small.

Question (R. Elchanan): Why don't we bring the support from a bed, which is taught before this Mishnah?

(Mishnah - Kelim 18:6): If a bed was Tamei Midras, and a long board broke and he fixed it, it is Tamei Midras. If the second [long board] broke and he fixed it, it is Tahor from Midras, but Tamei Maga Midras;

If he did not fix the first [before the second snapped, it is totally Tahor].

Assertion: The text does not say "it has two spouts." Why should two spouts be needed, since it has a opening?