Ruth 4:5

Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(5) What day . . .—When the person had been bought out to whom Naomi had sold the land until the year of Jubilee should restore it to her family, there remained Naomi’s own claim on the land, and after wards that of Ruth, as the widow of the son of Elimelech. But further, this last carried with it the necessity of taking Ruth to wife, so that a child might be born to inherit, as the son of Mahlon, Mahlon’s inheritance.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

4:1-8 This matter depended on the laws given by Moses about inheritances, and doubtless the whole was settled in the regular and legal manner. This kinsman, when he heard the conditions of the bargain, refused it. In like manner many are shy of the great redemption; they are not willing to espouse religion; they have heard well of it, and have nothing to say against it; they will give it their good word, but they are willing to part with it, and cannot be bound to it, for fear of marring their own inheritance in this world. The right was resigned to Boaz. Fair and open dealing in all matters of contract and trade, is what all must make conscience of, who would approve themselves true Israelites, without guile. Honesty will be found the best policy.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Observe the action of the Levirate law. If there had been no one interested but Naomi, she would have sold the land unclogged by any condition, the law of Levirate having no existence in her case. But there was a young widow upon whom the possession of the land would devolve at Naomi's death, and who already had a right of partnership in it, and the law of Levirate did apply in her case. It was, therefore, the duty of the גאל gā'al to marry her and raise up seed to his brother, i. e. his kinsman. And he could not exercise his right of redeeming the land, unless he was willing at the same time to fulfill his obligations to the deceased by marrying the widow. This he was unwilling to do.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

4. there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee—(See on [229]De 25:5). The redemption of the land of course involved a marriage with Ruth, the widow of the former owner.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

The wife of the dead; according to the law, Deu 25:5 Matthew 22:24, &c.

To raise up the name of the dead; to revive his name, which was lost and buried with his body, by raising up a seed to him, to be called by his name.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then said Boaz,.... In order to try the kinsman, whether he would abide by his resolution, he acquaints him with what he had as yet concealed:

what day thou buyest the field of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead; the wife of Mahlon, who was dead, the eldest son of Naomi, and so his widow, Ruth the Moabitess, had the reversion of the estate; wherefore the purchase must be made of her as well as of Naomi, and the purchase could not be made of her without marrying her; which, though no law obliged to, yet it seems to be a condition of the purchase annexed to it by Naomi, that she would sell it to no man, unless he would consent to marry Ruth, for whose settlement she had a great concern, having been very dutiful and affectionate to her; which is clearly intimated in the next clause:

to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance; and so Naomi had another end to answer thereby, not only to provide a good husband for her daughter-in-law, but to perpetuate the name of her son, agreeably to the design of the law in Deuteronomy 25:5.

Geneva Study Bible

Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his {d} inheritance.

(d) That his inheritance might bear his name that is dead.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

5. thou must buy it also of Ruth] The text is certainly wrong, for it gives a misleading sense; with a small change read as in Ruth 4:10, Ruth also thou must buy, with Vulg., Pesh.; the LXX. gives both translations! Rendered strictly the whole sentence runs ‘What day thou buyest … thou wilt have bought (perf.) Ruth also’; see Driver, Tenses, § 124.

In primitive and semi-primitive societies women have no independent rights of their own; they are treated as part of the property of the family to which they belong. Hence ‘a wife who had been brought into her husband’s house by contract and payment of a price to her father was not free by the death of her husband to marry again at will. The right to her hand lay with the nearest heir of the dead’ (Robertson Smith, Encycl. Bibl., col. 4166). This was the old law in Arabia to the time of Mohammed, and that it prevailed with some modifications among the ancient Hebrews is shewn by the narrative in Genesis 38. (see on Ruth 1:13 above), by the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5 ff., and by the present story, which implies that for the nearest kinsman to marry the widow was regarded as an act of compassion. It is important to notice that the law of Deuteronomy 25:5 ff, applies only to the case of brothers living together on the same estate; if one dies without a son, the survivor is bound to marry the widow. But neither the Go’el here, nor Boaz, was a brother of Ruth’s late husband; this, therefore, was not a levirate marriage. Again, in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 25.) the Go’el is not required to purchase the widow as well as the land of the dead kinsman, and it is clear that in the present case the Go’el did not consider that he was under an obligation to do so; he agrees to purchase the land (Ruth 4:4), but when he is told that this involves the purchase of Ruth, he withdraws his consent. At the same time we gather from his language in Ruth 4:6, and from the applause of the people in the gate, that custom admitted the propriety of the double purchase. It was in fact a work of charity, going beyond the strict letter of the law but sanctioned by ancient usage, and thoroughly in keeping with the generous, kindly disposition of Boaz. The writer holds him up as an edifying example.

to raise up the name of the dead] Again the law of levirate marriage furnishes a parallel; the object of such a marriage was ‘to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel’ Deuteronomy 25:7, as well as to prevent the estate passing out of the family. To leave behind no name in the community was considered a grave misfortune (cf. Ruth 4:10); it meant that the dead was deprived of the reverence and service of posterity (cf. 2 Samuel 18:18). This feeling may be traced back to the religious instinct which prompted the worship of ancestors.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 5. - And Boaz said, In the day when thou acquirest the land from the hand of Naomi, and from Ruth the Moabitess, (in that day) thou hast acquired the wife of the deceased, to establish the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. So we would punctuate and render this verse. Boaz distinctly informed his relative that if the land was acquired at all by a kinsman, it must be acquired with its living appurtenance, Ruth the Moabitess, so that, by the blessing of God, the Fountain of families, there might he the opportunity of retaining the possession of the property in the line of her deceased husband, that line coalescing in the line of her second husband. It was the pleasure of Naomi and Ruth, in offering their property for sale, to burden its acquisition, on the part of a kinsman, with the condition specified. If there should be fruit after the marriage, the child would be heir of the property, just as if he had been Machlon's son, even though the father should have other and older sons by another wife. Ruth 4:5

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Boaz then called ten of the elders of the city as witnesses of the business to be taken in hand, and said to the redeemer in their presence, "The piece of field which belonged to our brother (i.e., our relative) Elimelech (as an hereditary family possession), Naomi has sold, and I have thought (lit. 'I said,' sc., to myself; cf. Genesis 17:17; Genesis 27:41), I will open thine ear (i.e., make it known, disclose it): get it before those who sit here, and (indeed) before the elders of my people." As the field had been sold to another, getting it (קנה) could only be accomplished by virtue of the right of redemption. Boaz therefore proceeded to say, "If thou wilt redeem, redeem; but if thou wilt not redeem, tell me, that I may know it: for there is not beside thee (any one more nearly entitled) to redeem, and I am (the next) after thee." היּשׁבים is rendered by many, those dwelling, and supposed to refer to the inhabitants of Bethlehem. But we could hardly think of the inhabitants generally as present, as the word "before" would require, even if, according to Ruth 4:9, there were a number of persons present besides the elders. Moreover they would not have been mentioned first, but, like "all the people" in Ruth 4:9, would have been placed after the elders as the principal witnesses. On these grounds, the word must be taken in the sense of sitting, and, like the verb in Ruth 4:2, be understood as referring to the elders present; and the words "before the elders of my people" must be regarded as explanatory. The expression יגאל (third pers.) is striking, as we should expect the second person, which is not only found in the Septuagint, but also in several codices, and is apparently required by the context. It is true that the third person may be defended, as it has been by Seb. Schmidt and others, on the assumption that Boaz turned towards the elders and uttered the words as addressed to them, and therefore spoke of the redeemer as a third person: "But if he, the redeemer there, will not redeem." But as the direct appeal to the redeemer himself is resumed immediately afterwards, the supposition, to our mind at least, is a very harsh one. The person addressed said, "I will redeem." Boaz then gave him this further explanation (Ruth 4:5): "On the day that thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou buyest it of the hand of Ruth the Moabitess, of the wife of the deceased (Mahlon, the rightful heir of the field), to set up (that thou mayest set up) the name of the deceased upon his inheritance." From the meaning and context, the form קניתי must be the second pers. masc.; the yod at the end no doubt crept in through an error of the pen, or else from a ו, so that the word is either to be read קנית (according to the Keri) or קניתו, "thou buyest it." So far as the fact itself was concerned, the field, which Naomi had sold from want, was the hereditary property of her deceased husband, and ought therefore to descend to her sons according to the standing rule of right; and in this respect, therefore, it was Ruth's property quite as much as Naomi's. From the negotiation between Boaz and the nearer redeemer, it is very evident that Naomi had sold the field which was the hereditary property of her husband, and was lawfully entitled to sell it. But as landed property did not descend to wives according to the Israelitish law, but only to children, and when there were no children, to the nearest relatives of the husband (Numbers 27:8-11), when Elimelech died his field properly descended to his sons; and when they died without children, it ought to have passed to his nearest relations. Hence the question arises, what right had Naomi to sell her husband's field as her own property? The Rabbins suppose that the field had been presented to Naomi and Ruth by their husbands (vid., Selden, de success. in bona def. c. 15). But Elimelech could not lawfully give his hereditary property to his wife, as he left sons behind him when he died, and they were the lawful heirs; and Mahlon also had no more right than his father to make such a gift. There is still less foundation for the opinion that Naomi was an heiress, since even if this were the case, it would be altogether inapplicable to the present affair, where the property in question was not a field which Naomi had inherited form her father, but the field of Elimelech and his sons. The true explanation is no doubt the following: The law relating to the inheritance of the landed property of Israelites who died childless did not determine the time when such a possession should pass to the relatives of the deceased, whether immediately after the death of the owner, or not till after the death of the widow who was left behind (vid., Numbers 27:9.). No doubt the latter was the rule established by custom, so that the widow remained in possession of the property as long as she lived; and for that length of time she had the right to sell the property in case of need, since the sale of a field was not an actual sale of the field itself, but simply of the yearly produce until the year of jubilee. Consequently the field of the deceased Elimelech would, strictly speaking, have belonged to his sons, and after their death to Mahlon's widow, since Chilion's widow had remained behind in her own country Moab. But as Elimelech had not only emigrated with his wife and children and died abroad, but his sons had also been with him in the foreign land, and had married and died there, the landed property of their father had not descended to them, but had remained the property of Naomi, Elimelech's widow, in which Ruth, as the widow of the deceased Mahlon, also had a share. Now, in case a widow sold the field of her deceased husband for the time that it was in her possession, on account of poverty, and a relation of her husband redeemed it, it was evidently his duty not only to care for the maintenance of the impoverished widow, but if she were still young, to marry her, and to let the first son born of such a marriage enter into the family of the deceased husband of his wife, so as to inherit the redeemed property, and perpetuate the name and possession of the deceased in Israel. Upon this right, which was founded upon traditional custom, Boaz based this condition, which he set before the nearer redeemer, that if he redeemed the field of Naomi he must also take Ruth, with the obligation to marry her, and through this marriage to set up the name of the deceased upon his inheritance.