אבן העזר קס״טEven HaEzer 169

Se’if 1א׳

מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה בְּג' דַּיָּנִים יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, וְשֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ קְרוֹבִים זֶה לָזֶה וְלֹא לַיָּבָם וְלַיְבָמָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי בְּנוֹת אַחִין, לֹא יִהְיוּ זֶה עִם זֶה. אֲבָל שֵׁנִי בִּשְׁלִישִׁי, כָּשֵׁר (ת"ה סִימָן רכ"ו). וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵם הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, רַק שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ לְהַקְרוֹת אֶת הַיָּבָם וְהַיְבָמָה. וְאִם חָלְצָה בִּפְנֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאֵינָם יוֹדְעִים לְהַקְרוֹת, כְּשֵׁרָה:

The mitzvah of halitzah (release from levirate marriage) is to be performed in front of three Jewish judges, who are not related to each other or to the levir (yavam) or to the woman subject to levirate marriage (yevamah). And even two married to the daughters of two brothers shouldn't be on the same court, but a second generation with a third generation is valid (Terumat Hadeshen, siman 226). And even if they are ordinary judges, as long as they know how to read out to the yavam and yevamah. And if she performed halitzah in front of ignoramuses who don't know how to read out, it is valid.

Se’if 2ב׳

נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל, אוֹ גֵּר, פָּסוּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה אָבִיו גֵּר וְאִמּוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאִם אָבִיו מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר (טוּר בְּשֵׁם סְמַ"ג). וּמִיהוּ, חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה מִיהָא הָוְיָא לְפָסְלָהּ עַל הָאַחִים, אֲפִלּוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. הַגָּה: יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּאָסוּר לִקַּח שָׂכָר מֵחֲלִיצָה, דְּהַנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר לָדוּן דִּינָיו בְּטֵלִין (ר"י מִינְץ וּמהרא"י), וְכֵן נִרְאֶה בְּעֵינַי. בַּחֲלִיצוֹת, יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב בִּשְׁלשָׁה דַּיָּנִים שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִים לַחֲלֹץ מִי שֶׁנּוֹטֵל שָׂכָר, דַּהֲרֵי בָּעִינָן בֵּית דִּין כָּשֵׁר מִדְּאוֹרָיְתָא, וְעַיֵּן בְּחשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט סִימָן ט' אֵיזֶה שָׂכָר מֻתָּר לַדַּיָּן לְקַבֵּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ בָּזֶה נִרְאֶה לִי לְהַחֲמִיר אִם נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר מִן הַחֲלִיצָה, מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמַּחֲמִירִין לְעִנְיַן קְרוֹבִים וּבִשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים לְעִנְיַן בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל חֲלִיצָה, יוֹתֵר מִבִּשְׁאָר בֵּית דִּין. וְרָאִיתִי וְשָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהָרַב נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר הַרְבֵּה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה, וְסוֹמֵךְ עַצְמוֹ בַּמֶּה שֶׁמּוֹכֵר לוֹ סַנְדָּל שֶׁל חֲלִיצָה; וְקֻלָּא גְּדוֹלָה הִיא בְּעֵינַי, וְשׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְחַק מִזֶּה. וְלֹא דָּמֵי לְמַה שֶּׁעֵדֵי הַגֵּט נוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר מִטַּעַם שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לְעֵיל סִימָן ק"ל, גַּם הָרַב הַמְסַדֵּר הַגֵּט כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לְעֵיל בְּסֵדֶר הַגֵּט סָעִיף ד', כִּי אוֹתָן הַטְּעָמִים אֵינָם שַׁיָּכִים בַּחֲלִיצָה (הַכֹּל דַּעַת עַצְמוֹ):

[If] one of them is found to be related or invalid or a convert, [the chalitsah is] invalid. Even if his father was a convert and his mother an Israelite, [it is] invalid -- unless his father and mother are Israelites. And some say that if his father is an Israelite, [it is] valid (Tur in the name of the Great Book of Mitsvot). However, it is at any rate an invalid chalitsah to invalidate her to the brothers -- even [if done just] between him and her. Comment: Some say that it is forbidden to take pay for chalitsah, because, whoever takes pay to judge, his judgements are nullified (Ri Mintz and [?]); and so seems [correct] to me. At chalitsah ceremonies, one must be cautious that someone who takes pay not sit among the three judges who are sitting to effect the chalitsah, for we require a court that is valid according to [the law] of the Torah. See, in Choshen Mishpat chapter 9, what pay a judge is permitted to accept; but even for this, it seems to me [correct] to be strict if he takes pay for the chalitsah, because of the appearance to the eye, like we are strict about relatives and other matters regarding a court for chalitsah more than regarding another court. And I have seen and heard [cases] wherein a rabbi takes much pay for chalitsah and supports himself [in this position] on [the fact] that he sells him the sandal of chalitsah; this is a great leniency, in my view, and someone who takes care of his soul should distance himself from this. This is not similar to [the fact] that the witnesses of the bill [of divorce] take pay, for the reason I wrote above [in] chapter 130, and the rabbi who orchestrates the bill, as I wrote above in the agenda of the bill [of divorce], paragraph 4, for those reasons are not relevant to chalitsah (all this is his own view).

Se’if 3ג׳

לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִצְוָה שֶׁיּוֹסִיפוּ שְׁנַיִם עַל הַג', וַאֲפִלּוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם הֵם עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ. חָלְצוּ בְּג' חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה (טוּר). וְאֵלּוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִים, לֹא יִהְיוּ קְרוֹבִים וּפְסוּלִים; וְדַוְקָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל בְּדִיעֲבַד כָּשֵׁר (ב"י):

Ideally, it is a mitzvah to add on two in addition to the three, even if the two are ignorant people. If they did chalitsah with three the chalitsah is valid (Tur). These two that they added, they should not be relatives or invalid. Specifically ideally, but after the fact, it is kosher (Beit Yoseif).