Shoe In

There are a variety of Mitzvos, touching on every area of Halacha, discussed in this week’s Parsha. Some of them lend themselves to an exploration on the Derech of Drush or Machshava, and some seem to tend towards the more analytical or Halachic approaches. As we know, however, every Passuk and Mitzvah can be examined on multiple levels, and sometimes we find meaningful lessons in the least likely of places. With that in mind, let us examine one of the more technical areas of Halacha discussed in this Sedra: Yibum and Chalitzah.

If a married man is Niftar childless, the Torah tells us that his Almanah is to marry one of his brothers under the Halachos of Yibum. The Torah explains why she should do so: “V’Haya HaBechor Asher Teled Yakum Al Shem Achiv HaMes.” By marrying her brother-in-law, a union which would otherwise be Assur, the name of the Niftar is perpetuated.

After teaching the Mitzvah of Yibum, the Torah offers what seems to be an alternative: “V’im Lo Yachpotz HaIsh Lakachas Es Yivimto”, if the brother does not wish to marry his Yavam, she reports this to the Ziknei HaIr and the man is subject to the Dinim of Chalitzah. Though likely an emotionally fraught process, Chalitzah is a relatively simple ceremony: the woman removes the man’s shoe, and spits in front of him, declaring: “Kacha Yeaseh L’Ish Asher Lo Yivneh Es Bais Achiv.” The Torah then adds one final requirement of the process: “V’Nikrah Shemo B’Yisroel Bais Chalutz HaNa’al.”

The various Dinim of Yibum and Chalitzah are famously complicated—indeed Meseches Yevamos one of the most difficult in all of Shas—and certainly beyond the scope of our discussion. There are, however, a few general questions that arise while learning the Pessukim that bear exploration.

First, how are we to understand the existence of a Mitzvah such as Chalitzah? The Torah tells us that if a man dies without children his brother should marry the widow. This is itself a Mitzvas Asei—why is there an alternative, in the guise of Chalitzah, offered at all? The Torah seems to almost present a choice: “Im Lo Yachpotz,” as though that is his prerogative. Generally, when we are given a Mitzvah, it is our duty to fulfill that Mitzvah, not often do we find the Torah addressing an instance where someone decides the Mitzvah doesn’t work for him, so to speak. Why is Yibum different?

In addition, even if a person is given a choice, and the brother is not forced to marry the Yavama, why is ceremony or process of Chalitzah necessary? There seems to be some sort of a public element to Chalitzah—it takes place in front of the Bais Din, and the Yevama makes the declaration of “Kacha Yeaseh…”, proclaiming her brother-in-law’s recalcitrance for all to hear—why does the Torah require this?

The requirement of “V’Nikrah Shemo B’Yisroel Bais Chalutz HaNa’al” is curious as well. The Rashbam explains that the purpose of removing the shoe is to affect a Kinyan on the Yerusha of the deceased brother—as we see in Megilas Rus, shoes were historically used to make Kinyanim. Why then is the Chalutz referred to by this most mundane task? Why does the Torah instruct us to refer to him as the “Bais Chalutz HaNa’al”?

To answer these questions, it seems that we must better understand the Mitvos of Yibum and Chalitza. It would therefore be instructive to understand their origin, based on the Divrei Chazal and there is in fact a Medrash in Beraishis Rabbah that refers to Yibum in a most surprising context.

In Parshas Lech Lecha we learn of Avrohom’s efforts to save Lot and the five kings from the four kings led by Kidarlaomer. After the war, the Melech Sedom wished to reward his savior with untold riches by allowing him to keep all the booty secured in battle. Avrohom, however, demurred, refusing to take anything at all, “M’Chut V’Ad Sroch Na’al” and noting that he would not allow the Melech Sedom to take credit for his wealth and say “Ani Hisharti Es Avrohom.”

The Medrash there tells us that Avrohom was rewarded for his choice of words: for using the word “Chut”, his children would be given the Mitzvah of Tzitzis that is done with strings, and for using the term “Sroch Na’al” his children would be given the Mitzvah of Yibum, which includes the element of Chalitzah, done with a shoe.

This Medrash can easily be described as a Medrash Peliah, its true meaning far from obvious. How, and why, is the Mitzvah of Yibum a reward for Avrohom? We can perhaps understand that Mitzvas Tzitzis is a reward because it enables us to do a Mitzvah easily and to remember Malchus Shamayim at all times. But why would Avorohom be rewarded with Yibum of all Mitzvos? And even if we understand why Yibum itself is a reward, the connection with Avrohom’s words is really through Chalitzah, which only comes about if someone decides not to do the Ikur Mitzvah of Yibum—how is this a reward for our forefather?

R’ Yitzchak Zev Yadler, in Tiferes Zion, asks another, perhaps more basic, question on this Medrash: why was Avorohom rewarded for these words at all? What was it about his statement that engendered Schar of any sort? He answers this question based on a story that occurred many years later.

In Sefer Melachim, we learn that the Navi Elisha cured King Na’aman of his Tzaras and was offered a sizable reward as a result. Elisha refused the gift, exclaiming: “Ain Elokim B’Chol HaAretz.” Though pressed many times to accept, Elisha stood fast in his refusal, and did not allow Na’am to bestow any monetary gift upon him.

R’ Yadler explains that Elisha did not want to take reward from Na’aman so that it would be clear that the Refuah came about only through the Yad Hashem and not by any human means. In doing so, Elisha ensured a substantial Kiddush Shem Shamayim. Avrohom, says R’ Yadler, had the same intentions. By refusing any gifts from the Melech Sedom, he ensured that it would be clear that it was only Hashem who saved the five kings, and it was only He who could ensure Avrohoms continued success. By denying the Melech Sedom an opportunity to claim “Ani Hisharti Es Avrohom”, a Kiddush Shem Shamayim was ensured, and Avrohom was deserving of reward for bringing it about.

Perhaps, based on this, we can also understand why Avrohom was rewarded with the Mitzvah of Yibum.

If we think about it, a requirement of Yibum arises of dreadful circumstances: a man is Niftar without leaving an heir or legacy to carry on his name. as is the case any time the usual was of the world is disrupted, a situation such as this may lead others to question the Darchei Hashem, if only out of grief. Those aware of the circumstances, the relatives and friends of the Niftar, may feel that he was in some way wronged. Enter the Mitzvah of Yibum.

Though perhaps counterintuitive, R’ Hirsch explains that Yibum was given not for the Almana, but for the Niftar himself. After all, an Almana may have children from another marriage, but if the deceased man did not, she is still subject to Yibum. This Mitzvah exists, he explains, to provide a level of comfort to the Niftar—although he is taken from the world in tragic circumstances, the Torah provides a way for his legacy to be perpetuated, as the son born of Yibum is his: “V’Haya HaBechor Asher Teled Yakum Al Shem Achiv HaMes.”

Yibum, then, is a source of Kiddush Shem Shamayim. When all is bleak, when the Darchei Hashem are the least understandable, the Torah provides a Mitzvah that is proof positive that Hakadosh Baruch Hu protects everyone’s interests. Yes, someone had to pass from this world without natural born children, but the Torah suspends the normative Halacha, allowing his brother to wed his wife, so that his legacy can live on.

Chalitzah, then, is meant to protect the destruction of this Kiddush Hashem.

It is understandable that the Torah did not want to force Yibum upon the living brother—after all a marriage that comes about against his will may likely be less than productive. But, if he was allowed to make his choice in private, in silence, those close to the deceased brother would not see the Nechama, and attendant Kiddush Hashem, that results from Yibum. Therefore, the Torah told us to make Chalitzah in the most public way possible, so that it would be clear that the choice not to perpetuate his brother’s name was made by a human. The Chilul Hashem that may otherwise arise is avoided by the public and overt process of Chalitzah—we know that the Torah was concerned about the legacy of the Niftar, and only by the living brother’s choice was that legacy extinguished.

The Mitzvah of Yibum, and the attendant condition of Chalitzah, is therefore a most befitting reward from Avorohm Avinu. By uttering the words “M’Chut V’Ad Sroch Na’al” he ensured that a Kiddush Shem Shamayim would result, and he was rewarded with a Mitzvah that not only creates Kiddush Hashem in the darkest of times, but is engineered to protect that Kiddush Hashem under all circumstances.

The existence of Chalitzah, and its most public aspect, are now understood, and perhaps the reference to the Chalutz by the term “Bais Chalutz HaNa’al” may be as well. Although that part of the process may have a more technical purpose, we use a term that harkens back to Avrohom’s words. The Chalutz HaNa’al is thus labeled because he has stepped into the breach, affecting the potential for greater Kiddush Shem Shamayim that his forefather Avrohom so desired. His choices affect not only himself and his deceased brother, but all those who witness the event, and he must therefore be appropriately identified.

The lesson of Yibum and Chalitzah is clear: many times in life we are presented with choices, forced to select one path or another. We may technically be able to resolve either path with the Derech HaTorah, but that perhaps that must not be our only metric—we should consider the broader perceptions of our actions as well. Even if they are in line with the letter of the law, we must ensure that our choices enhance Kiddush Shem Shamayim, living up to the example of our Avos Hakedoshim. In doing so we too will be Zoche to the Schar that awaits us.