Ruth 4:5

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

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. No JFB commentary on this verse.

The wife of the dead; according to the law, , &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.

Rth 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.Ver. 5. What day thou buyest the field.] Here God is making provision for these two widows, his clients; maintenance for Naomi, and marriage for Ruth. Henceforth it shall be no more Marah, but, as heretofore, Naomi: and while Orpah lacked bread in her own country, Ruth is grown a great lady in Israel. "Who would not serve thee, O King of Nations?" &c. To raise up the name of the dead.] This Boaz kept in till now at last; at the hearing whereof, the other relinquisheth his right in the land, since it was so encumbered. It is a witty and pious advice that a grave divine giveth; When thou art making a covenant with sin, saith he, say to thy soul as Boaz did to his kinsman, At what time thou buyest it, thou must have Ruth with it. If thou wilt have the pleasure of sin, the wages of wickedness, thou must also have the curse that is due to it. And let thy soul answer as he there doth, No, I may not do it, I shall mar and spoil a better inheritance.

(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.

Verse 5. Thou must buy it also of Ruth] More properly, Thou wilt also acquire Ruth. Thou canst not get the land without taking the wife of the deceased and then the children which thou mayest have shall be reputed the children of Mahlon, thy deceased kinsman.

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 Rth 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 Rth 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 Deu 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 (Rth 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 Rth 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. Rth 4:10); it meant that the dead was deprived of the reverence and service of posterity (cf. 2 Samuel 18:18).

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.

5. Thou must buy it also of Ruth — The estate of Elimelech would have been Chilion and Mahlon’s had they lived.