A wonderful metaphor for power in a relationship begins our daf. Beit Hillel say that "his hand is as her hand" when it comes to a husband's rights to his wife's property. Beit Shammai say that his hand is stronger than her hand in this regard. But what of a yavam? Beit Hillel suggest that the hand of a yavam is weaker than that of a full husband, for a yavam's hold on a yevama are always less than that of a husband. Beit Shammai suggest that the yavam's rights are similar to those of a husband. All of this affect inheritance should the yevama die after levirate betrothal but before consummation. According to Beit Hillel, her property is divided between her yavam and her family. According to Beit Shammai, her property is given to her yavam and his heirs.
The rabbis wonder whether the Mishna is providing us with clues to its interpretation. Are we to understand the strength of the levirate bond through hints about the requirement of a get, bill of divorce, in addition to chalitza? We are reminded that the yavam should create a new ketubah if the yevama presents herself without a ketubah. The rabbis teach that he will be less likely to divorce her thoughtlessly if there is a financial incentive to remain married.
A new Mishna teaches us that the eldest brother is required to consummate the marriage with the yevama. If he refuses, each younger brother is asked to do the same. If none wish to consummate the marriage the eldest brother must do so or perform chalitza immediately. No excuses, including waiting for a minor brother to grow up, or waiting for a deaf-mute brother to heal, or waiting for a brother to return, is accepted. The yevama must be married or free to marry someone else. A note reminds us that a yevama is never compelled to consummate a marriage with a yavam who is a deaf-mute or an 'imbecile'; she is permitted to perform chalitza as she chooses.
There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Which is preferable, the eldest or the youngest brothers consummating the marriage? Performing chalitza? Is it better for the eldest brother to perform chalitza or the youngest brother to consummate the marriage? Through the debate, it is clear that the expedience is the primary consideration. Deliberating about who is going to marry or release the yevama should be done as quickly as possible, for "we do not delay in the performance of a mitzva."
We learn about the halacha in a note by Steinsaltz: chalitza is no longer a preferable choice. Thus if all brothers are willing to perform chalitza, it is preferably performed by the eldest brother. And if the yevama is interested at all in chalitza, then chalitza is performed by the eldest brother immediately.
Beyond the halachic difficulties with yibum because of forbidden relationships, I am picturing balagan each time that this tradition was practiced. What if one brother died on a boat and the remaining brother was to marry his former sister-in-law? How might that affect the family dynamics, both for that couple and for the larger family? How might it affect the children? The rival wives, who had no say in the matter? What if a yavam wanted to perform chalitza but felt sorry for his yevama, who just lost her husband, and so he married her to save her from further rejection or isolation?
The rabbis describe the ritual of chalitza and suggest that a bill of chalitza be drawn up and kept as a legal record of the act. In chalitza, the yavam extends his right foot. The yevama removes his shoe and then spits toward his face with the spittle landing on the ground between them. The document would have to describe the shoe, note that her spittle was visible, and provide assurances that the yavam is the brother of the deceased and that the yavam is the widow of the deceased.
The rabbis want to ensure that chalitza or consummation of the levirate marriage is chosen because of its status as a mitzva. One interpretation teaches that when society values the mitzva of chalitza, then chalitza is the preferred option. When society values the mitzvah of consummation of the yibum, then marriage is the preferred option. At the end of the daf, we learn more about rabbis' mixed feelings regarding this issue.
If a yavam is interested in consummation because of the beauty of the yevama, or because of her inheritance, or because he wants to be served by her, or because he wants the status of being a married man, is it a mitzva to marry? Perhaps not. Then again, we learn that Deuteronomy 25:5 tells us that "Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her." This could suggest that the reasons for his compliance are secondary to his willingness to fulfil that mitzva. It is as simple as: she was permitted to her brother-in-law until she married his brother. When his brother died childless, she became permitted to him again -- again, he can choose whether or not he wishes to marry her.
This quote from Deuteronomy is interpreted to mean that it is preferable to consummate the marriage, as it is a clear positive mitzva. Chalitza is thus a less preferred option.
And so why do the rabbis create halacha that prefers chalitza? I am guessing that chalitza was simpler for the courts, simpler for the family members. This is a wonderful example of the rabbis choosing to interpret and enact rituals based on their human preferences and not simply on the logic that they understand as an extension of G-d's words. And if they can do this regarding chalitza, why not with other contentious and challenging issues? It would seem clear that we are intended to consummate yibum, and yet we do not. Why would it be so difficult to understand verses, such as those regarding slavery or sexualized behaviour between men, as problematic and unhelpful to our societal structure? Why not reinterpret?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment