“In my opinion, Maestro, here Ruth and Deuteronomy are irreconcilable.”
“Let us hear you, then,” Theophil spoke tersely. “You better start with the biblical principle.”
“According to the rule set out in Chapter 25 of Deuteronomy, the issue of ‘shoe removal’ [ḥalitza] arises only in the context of levirate marriages [yibum]. When the surviving brother refuses to wed his brother’s widow, she is expected to ‘go up to the gate to the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refused to raise up to his brother a name in Yisra’el, he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother [levirate]. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and he shall stand, and say, I do not wish to take her; then shall his brother’s wife approach him in the presence of the elders, and loose [remove] his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, Thus shall it be done to that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Yisra’el, The house of him that his shoe loosed’ [Deut. 25:6-10].”
“A lengthy quote, Peter’le. Why didn’t you paraphrase it?”
“Because I dislike it. It sounds outlandish to me! I prefer to present it as composed!”
“Peter’le, Peter’le – we need to avoid emotive rejections. Don’t you think that this law served a purpose at its time?”
“It might have served a purpose in a kinship-based society in which public ritual, communal shame, and symbolic acts regulated family obligation and property transmission. In contrast, our modern society is grounded in individual autonomy, gender equality, and aligned with prevailing ethical and social norms.”
“I take your point, Peter’le. How does Rabbinical law cope with this?”
“Today ḥalitza is performed through a formal ceremony before a rabbinical court, which replaces the elders at the gate. The widow removes a special shoe from the levir’s foot, recites the prescribed declarations and spits on the floor. This releases both parties from the obligation of levirate marriage. And let me add that in many cases the widow is not at all interested in marrying the levir.”
“Well, Peter’le. To my way of thinking this is a neat manner of circumnaventig the principle or, rather, adapting it to our era. What is wrong with that?”
“I should prefer its outright repeal. I see no point in seeking to keep an obsolete principle alive by a meaningless procedure!”
“This is the view of secular Judaism. The Rabbis feel that they must retain every principle spelt out in the bible. So, they seek to adjust or modify a rule to maintain it.”
“Isn’t a straightforward repeal far more appropriate?”
“This is a general issue which goes far beyond our current discussion. I suggest we leave it and proceed to ḥalitza as set out in Ruth. Please start the ball rolling by describing it.”
“Ruth refers to ‘shoe removal’ when discussing redemption. Boaz tells Ploni that, by redeeming the plot of land, he also acquires Ruth, which means that he has to wed her and that their first born will be considered Maḥlon’s son and heir. To waive his priority right to go ahead, Ploni removes his shoes. The text tells us that this is a formal act which is legally binding.”
“Is this akin to the procedure described in the Bible”
“It is not. In the biblical ḥalitza the shoe removal is part of a procedure in which the man is publicly shamed. In Ruth it constitutes a legally binding procedural step. In my opinion, the two are distinct and separate of each other.”
“Traditional writers have spelt much ink on reconciling the two!”
“What a sheer waste of time and liquid toner! In my opinion, the custom outlined in Ruth had never been in effect!”
“Strong words, Peter’le. Treading on land with a shoe is in some instances seen as a symbolic appropriation.”
“But shoe removal? It is as perplexing as Nikita Khrushchev’s performance at the United Nations Assembly on 12 October 1960.”
“What did he do, Peter’le?”
“Having lost an argument, he – the then Head of the Soviet Union – evinced his frustration by taking off his shoes and banging the desk with them.”
“Obviously, you feel very strongly about the subject. It seems to me, my friend, that we better leave ḥalitza. Let us turn to the next item: what does the author of Ruth seek to tell us. What is the book’s message?”