Halakhah zu Bereschit 14:23

I have found written in an Ashkenazic chalitza arrangement: When the yavam and yevama arise, the Rabbi says (a blessing): "Blessed are you, Lord, our G_d, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments, and charged us in the commandments and laws of our father Abraham." And the reason, as stated in chapter "Kisui hadam" (Chullin chapter 6) as reward for Abraham saying "and to a shoelace" (Genesis 14:23), his descendents merited the shoe of chalitza. It should be said without saying the name of G-d or his kingship. Rama: There are chalitza arrangements in which it is written to declare excommunication on those who slander the chalitza, but I have not seen people follow this custom.

An opposing view is expressed by Kezot ha-Hoshen 259:3. Kezot ha-Hoshen regards the verse "And you shall do what is right and good" as a general biblical principle mandating restoration of lost and stolen property to the original owner even subsequent to ye'ush. As a general principle designed to preserve property owners from undeserved loss, this provision, according to Kezot ha-Hoshen, applies to spoils of war no less than to ordinary theft.³⁰The comments of Rashi, Ḥullin 89a, tend to indicate that spoils of war should be restored to their original owner by a successor in due course at least on the basis of ethical considerations. The Gemara declares, “As a reward for our father Abraham having said, ‘I will not take a thread or a shoe-strap’ (Genesis 14:23) his descendants were privileged to receive two commandments: the thread of blue [on the fringes of garments] and the strap of the phylacteries.” Rashi remarks that Abraham was rewarded in this manner because “he did not wish to benefit from theft.” Indeed, the Gemara itself subsequently employs the term “theft” in relation to this incident. The term “theft,” as applied in this context, certainly cannot be understood in a literal sense. The verse cited by the Gemara was uttered by Abraham in declining the offer of the spoils of war proffered by the King of Sodom. Abraham apparently felt constrained to refuse, even though his status was that of a successor in due course, either because principles of equity recognized by the Jewish legal system apply to spoils of war as well as to stolen objects, or because of a general concern to act in accordance with an ethical standard “beyond the boundary of the law.” Cf., Shabbat 120a which characterizes refusal to profit from another’s involuntary abandonment of property in the face of impending fire as an act of piety.