Sanhedrin 017

21:
When a brother-in-law terminates the connection with his sister-in-law the ceremony is termed Ĥalitzah. Our mishnah stipulates that this ceremony must be performed before a Bet Din of three. (The alternative, where the brother-in-law formalizes the connection with his sister-in-law into marriage is termed Yibbum. Modern courts will not permit Yibbum and will require Ĥalitzah in all cases.) As women became less and less insistent on being accorded their rights through Yibbum, so the ceremony of Ĥalitzah became more and more distasteful for both parties: what was intended originally as the attempt by a desperate woman to shame her late husband's brother to "do his duty" by her, now became a meaningless ceremony of degradation. From mishnaic times onwards various means were developed to obfuscate the more strident aspects of this ceremony (which is required by Torah law, not rabbinic legislation). All involved, including the members of the Bet Din, are required to fast until after the ceremony; the "shoe" that the woman must remove from the man's foot is a special 'ceremonial' sandal provided by the court… But this still leaves the unpleasant episode of expectoration (even though the amount need not be measured!) – and the seeming untowardness of the whole ceremony, particularly now that it is mandatory.

22:
Ĥalitzah cannot be ignored, since it is an institution of Torah law. However, every effort should be made to obviate its necessity. It seems to me that the most obvious avenue to pursue in this regard is the one called "conditional divorce". This is a device whereby the husband writes a bill divorcing his wife if certain circumstances should ever arise. Thus should he die prematurely she would be a divorcee and not a widow, thus obviating the whole issue of Ĥalitzah if she is childless. But this requires bold and creative thinking from rabbinic authorities far greater than I can ever aspire to being – and I do not see such thinking at this time.

23:
Refusal is a right of a child bride. If a girl, orphaned of her father, is married off during her minority by her mother or brothers, upon reaching her majority she may repudiate the marriage before a Bet Din of three. Under such circumstances the marriage is deemed void from the start, as if it had never happened.

To be continued.

on 9th March I wrote: The Torah places a duty on a surviving brother to marry his deceased brother's childless widow. Such a union is termed levirate marriage … the ceremony of divorce terminates an ordinary marriage, so the ceremony of Ĥalitzah terminates a levirate marriage. An ordinary marriage is created by the mutual consent of the two contracting parties; a levirate union automatically exists between the childless widow and her brother-in-law from the moment her husband dies [omedet uzekukah lo], and this automatic connection can only be terminated by Ĥalitzah.

Art Kamlet asks:

Does this mean that if the widow is seen to be pregnant with her deceased husband's child, that Ĥalitzah still must be performed? Or does pregnancy and subsequent birth of the deceased's child nullify Yibbum/Ĥalitzah Practical example: does halakhah allow a widow who gives birth to (her husband's) child within 9 months of her husband's death get treated as a widow or as a divorcee for purposes of marrying a Kohen?

I respond:

A woman who is pregnant at her husband's death is not subject to Yibbum and Ĥalitzah, and she is a "common or garden" widow for all intents and purposes – if you will excuse the expression.

I also wrote:Ruth is destitute and is befriended by a distant relative, Boaz, and very soon their friendship deepens into love.

Art Kamlet objects:

And yet as I read the story, isn't it Ruth, with Naomi's advice, who goes after Boaz?

I respond:

I find Art's reading of the story most unromantic! In Chapter Two already Boaz is obviously attracted to Ruth from the start. He gives orders for her to get preferential treatment and he specifically asks her not to glean in any one else's field. But even more telling is the observation by Naomi at the end of Chapter Three that "that man will not rest until he has concluded this matter this very day" – where "this matter" is his marriage to Ruth in spite of the fact that someone else has a prior claim.

However, I must admit that Art's unromantic reading of the story is also plausible.