“And Boaz went up to the gate”—for there was the seat of the Sanhedrin. Boaz intended to summon the redeemer through an agent of the court, but God arranged matters such that the redeemer himself happened to pass by there. Thus Scripture says: “and behold, the redeemer was passing by”—the word “behold” indicates something new, for it was not ordinarily his custom to pass that way. Rather, because Boaz had business with the redeemer, God arranged for him to pass there. Therefore Boaz said: “Turn aside, sit here”—meaning, turn from your path, which you intended to continue, and sit down. He called him “Ploni Almoni”—meaning, “So-and-so,” but Malbim explains the phrase as implying: there is a matter of significance and wonder (pele) concerning you, as in “to utter a wondrous vow” (Numbers 6:2), which denotes deliberate choice and consideration. The term Almoni is related to binding or connection, as in “binding sheaves” (me’almim alumim). Thus, Boaz hinted that there was an important matter concerning the bond or connection involved in his act of redemption, one that required clarification.

“And he took ten men”—Our Sages expounded that Boaz assembled them and taught before them the ruling: “an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess.” Boaz understood the principle that when a Torah scholar states a legal ruling, if he says it before the matter concerns him personally, his words are accepted; but if he says it after the matter concerns him, his ruling is not accepted, since he is then considered personally interested in the outcome. Therefore, Boaz gathered these men now, before he himself had any personal stake in the matter, because at this point the redemption and levirate-like marriage still belonged to the nearer redeemer, and Boaz was not yet involved personally. Furthermore, our Sages said that the blessing of bridegrooms requires ten men, and Boaz wished that they already be present so that the wedding blessings could be recited immediately, whatever the outcome might be.

“And he said to the redeemer: Naomi has offered for sale the parcel of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech”—This cannot mean that Naomi had already sold the field to another person and Boaz sought for the redeemer to buy it back from the purchaser, for ancestral land cannot be redeemed within less than two years. Furthermore, Scripture later says: “on the day you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi,” implying that the purchase had not yet taken place. Therefore, the meaning is that Naomi had agreed to sell it, and it had already been publicly announced that this field was available for purchase, such that it was as though she had already sold it to whoever would choose to buy it. [Alternatively, the meaning may be: Naomi wished to sell it, and I told her, “I will first reveal the matter to you and say to you: buy it.” According to this interpretation, the phrase “if he will not redeem” (spoken in the third person) refers back to what Boaz had said to Naomi: “I told her that I would first inform you and say before the elders of my people: ‘Acquire it; if you will redeem, redeem.’” Thus Boaz had promised Naomi that he would speak to the redeemer, and when he said: “if the redeemer will not redeem”, the remainder is left unstated because it is obvious from the context.] From the phrase “the parcel of land” it appears that this was only part of the field, not the whole of it. [It is strained to say, as Ibn Ezra does, that Elimelech did not own an entire field.] Rather, after the deaths of Elimelech and his sons, Naomi took a portion of the field as part of her marriage settlement, and Ruth likewise took a portion through her own marriage settlement. Boaz first informed the redeemer about Naomi’s portion—namely, that she wished to sell the half of the field belonging to her from Elimelech’s estate.

“And I said”—Since I do not wish the inheritance of our brother to fall into the hands of strangers, and because you have the prior right of redemption, “I thought to disclose this to you and say: Acquire it”—you should purchase it. And if you do not wish to redeem it, then I stand after you in priority. “And he said: I will redeem it”—because Boaz had revealed only Naomi’s portion of the field, the redeemer was willing to redeem that portion.

“And Boaz said”—At that point, Boaz revealed to him that it was impossible to redeem Naomi’s portion alone, because the redeemer who purchased Naomi’s share would also be required to redeem Ruth’s share. There was a distinction between them: Naomi’s portion could be acquired through one of the standard legal methods of purchasing land. However, the portion belonging to Ruth could not be acquired in that manner, but only through levirate-like marriage—by marrying Ruth, and thereby automatically obtaining the field. Yet in that case, there was an obligation “to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance,” since one acquires this portion through levirate-like redemption, whereby the deceased’s name is established through the inheritance. Thus Boaz said: “On the day you acquire the field”—meaning, you will not acquire merely “the parcel of land”, that is, Naomi’s portion alone, but the entire field in both of its shares. However, the methods of acquisition differ: Naomi’s portion you will acquire “from the hand of Naomi” through ordinary legal means of purchase, paying its price in money. But the second portion, which you acquire “from Ruth the Moabite”—here Scripture does not say “from the hand of”, because this is not transferred directly by payment—rather, since she is “the wife of the deceased,” you must acquire that share by marrying the deceased’s widow through levirate-like redemption, and together with her you gain the field. But this comes with the condition: “to establish the name of the dead upon his inheritance”—meaning, this inheritance will be reckoned in the name of the deceased husband through his wife, not in your own name, according to the law of levirate marriage.

“And the redeemer said”—To this he replied: “I cannot redeem it for myself”—emphasizing the word “for myself” (li), meaning: I cannot redeem it in such a way that it will belong to me personally and bear my own name. Since it would not be called by my name, “lest I impair my inheritance”—I fear diminishing my own estate. Therefore: “Redeem for yourself my right of redemption”—you take my redemption right, “for I cannot redeem it.” According to the Sages, however, the nearer redeemer had not accepted the interpretation: “an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess.” Thus, when he said: “lest I impair my inheritance,” he meant that he feared harming his lineage by marrying a Moabite woman. It may therefore be that he repeated: “for I cannot redeem it” because of these two reasons together.

“Now this was formerly the custom in Israel”—The Midrash says: At first, acquisitions were made through a shoe or sandal, as it says: “a man drew off his shoe.” Later, they came to make acquisitions through a ketzatzah. What was the law of ketzatzah? Rabbi Yose bar Avin said: Whenever a person sold his field [to a gentile—this wording appears to be a textual error], his relatives would bring a barrel full of roasted grain and nuts, break it before the children, and the children would gather them while proclaiming: “So-and-so has been cut off from his inheritance!” Likewise, if someone married a woman unfit for him, the relatives would bring a barrel full of roasted grain and nuts, break it before the children, and they would proclaim: “So-and-so has been lost to his family!” Afterward, they again made acquisitions through a shoe or sandal, as it says: “A man drew off his shoe and gave it to his fellow.” Later still, they came to make acquisitions through money, document, and possession. According to this, the meaning of “formerly in Israel” is: in ancient days, such as the era of Joshua, acquisitions were made through symbolic exchange (chalipin), whereas afterward they began using ketzatzah. For there is a distinction between lifanim (“formerly”) and milfanim (“from ancient times”): the term milfanim indicates a practice that continues from antiquity until the present, whereas lifanim indicates something practiced in earlier times but not later, as in: “The Emim formerly dwelt there” (Deuteronomy 2:10). Thus it is clear that this mode of acquisition later ceased. One may explain the reason based on Tosafot in Arakhin (30b), who state that anything destined to return to its owner—such as a gift on condition of return, a loaned item, or a rental—cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange (chalipin). One might object: but the law of chalipin is learned from Boaz, where it says: “a man drew off his shoe,” and there the property was inherited land, which ultimately returned in the Jubilee, as Rabbi Yochanan said that brothers who divide an inheritance are like purchasers and restore the land to one another in the Jubilee—and the Jubilee was in force then. It may be explained through what is stated in Gittin (48b): Rabbi Chisda said that the dispute concerns the second Jubilee, but regarding the first Jubilee all agree that one brings first fruits and recites the declaration, because people had not yet fully accepted that the land would revert. Therefore, throughout the first Jubilee period, acquisitions could still be made through symbolic exchange. But after the first Jubilee, once people knew the land would certainly return in the Jubilee and relied on that expectation, symbolic exchange was no longer effective, and they instituted ketzatzah. However, in the case of Boaz, acquisition through ketzatzah was impossible. For the nearer redeemer had refused redemption, saying: “lest I impair my inheritance,” because he did not interpret “an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess.” If they had brought a barrel and broken it before the children, people would have assumed that the issue was not the sale of inherited land but rather marriage to an unsuitable woman, for ketzatzah was also performed in such cases, as the Midrash states and as explained in Ketubot (28a): “What is ketzatzah? One of the brothers who married an unsuitable woman…” Therefore, the earlier practice of symbolic exchange was revived—the method used “formerly in Israel” during the first Jubilee period. For although this occurred after the first Jubilee, the field acquired through levirate-like marriage did not revert in the Jubilee, as taught in Bekhorot (52b): “These do not return in the Jubilee… including one who acquires through levirate marriage.” Thus Scripture says: “Now this was formerly the custom in Israel” and “this was the manner of attestation in Israel”—meaning, since this form of acquisition had once been practiced in the era of the first Jubilee, it was employed again here, because acquisition through ketzatzah was not feasible.

“And the redeemer said to Boaz”—After authorizing Boaz to redeem, the nearer redeemer transferred the right to him through a symbolic acquisition (kinyan sudar). The Rashba writes in Kiddushin (21a), concerning the statement there: “as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: the nearer relative takes precedence”—that one might ask: why is a verse needed to establish the priority of the closer relative, since this can already be derived from “the nearest relative to him”? He answers that the primary function of the verse is to make the order mandatory—that redemption must proceed specifically in this sequence. Thus, if an uncle is not financially able to redeem but a cousin is, redemption nevertheless cannot bypass the uncle. This appears to contradict the case of Boaz, where the nearer redeemer refused to redeem and the redemption passed to the more distant relative, Boaz. One must therefore say that this itself is the reason the nearer redeemer executed a formal acquisition: by means of the symbolic transfer, Boaz legally stood in the redeemer’s place, such that his power became as the redeemer’s own power.

“And Boaz said to the elders”—Accordingly, Boaz summoned them all as witnesses that he had acquired from Naomi the entirety of the field. This acquisition was effected through money, document, and possession, as explained earlier that later generations returned to acquiring property through money and written deed—that is, in situations not involving levirate-like marriage. He also declared that he had acquired Ruth, who was still regarded as the wife of Mahlon, for—as the Zohar says—the bond of her deceased husband still remained attached to her, and this is the meaning of the commandment of levirate marriage. “And I have acquired her to be my wife”—with the intention “to establish the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” For this reason, Boaz summoned them a second time as witnesses, because the purchase of the field was one legal matter, whereas the acquisition and betrothal of the woman constituted a separate legal matter requiring its own testimony.

“And all the people who were at the gate said: We are witnesses”—They also blessed the couple with wedding blessings, and there were three blessings. The first blessing concerned the woman: although Ruth was originally the daughter of a foreign people, since she had entered “your house”—the house of a righteous man such as Boaz—she would, through her righteousness, become like Rachel and Leah, who were likewise daughters of Laban the Aramean, yet through their union with Jacob they “built the house of Israel.” So too, from Ruth would be established a faithful house—the royal house—upon which the success of all Israel would depend. The second blessing concerned Boaz: “And prosper in Ephrathah”—for Bethlehem was the name of his city, while Ephrathah was the name of his distinguished family lineage. The blessing meant: may you attain greatness and excellence in every virtue, until you become an honor to the entire family of Ephrathah. “And proclaim a name in Bethlehem”—through the fame of your own name, may the name of your city also become renowned for praise and glory, because such a man as you was born there.

“And may your house be”—The third blessing concerned the children who would be born. Although they would be children born through levirate-like redemption and would bear the name of the deceased, nevertheless, the house of Perez—whom Tamar bore—also emerged from a matter related to levirate marriage. Yet Perez was reckoned to Judah, and upon him depended the honor of his father’s house. So too, may the household established from “the offspring that Hashem will give you from this young woman” become great and enduring.

“And Boaz took”—Scripture relates that Boaz did not conduct himself as one performing formal levirate marriage with a brother’s widow, in which case “his brother-in-law shall come to her” and consummate the union, while monetary or documentary betrothal does not effect acquisition, and only a rabbinic declaration (ma’amar) is made. Rather, this form of levirate-like redemption existed here only by custom. Therefore, Boaz formally betrothed Ruth through money or document, as implied by: “And Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife”—that is, she first became his wife before he came to her. Only afterward does Scripture say: “and he came to her.” “And Hashem gave her conception”—through Divine Providence she conceived immediately, even though with her first husband, who had been young, she had borne no child.

“And the women said… Blessed be Hashem, who has not left you without a redeemer this day”—That is, with regard to the present moment, there is reason to bless Hashem, “who has not left you without a redeemer”, for the child born is, in a sense, your own son, according to the principle underlying levirate-like redemption: the deceased himself is regarded as returning through the child. Thus, this child is your redeemer, so that you will not die childless. As for the future, “may his name be proclaimed in Israel”—meaning, may he become one of the great men of Israel, renowned among people of name and distinction.

“And he shall be to you a restorer of life”—That is, the child has restored the soul of Mahlon to this world once again, for his soul is regarded as the soul of Mahlon, your son. He will also sustain your old age, since he was born from your daughter-in-law, who loves you, and together they will care for and support you in your later years.

“And Naomi took the child”—Accordingly, Naomi became his nurse, for he was considered truly her son, and she carried him as a nurse carries her own child. The neighboring women said: “A son has been born to Naomi”—for this was regarded as the truth according to the principle of levirate-like redemption: he was Naomi’s son. Thus they called him by a name identifying him as Naomi’s son. His personal name, however, they called “Oved” (“Servant”), because he was destined to serve God. He became the father of Jesse, from whom the royal house of David emerged. The Ari z”l explains in Sefer HaGilgulim (on the verse “the time when one man rules over another to his harm”) that souls oppressed in the hands of those who exploit them cannot easily be extracted, because their oppressors draw spiritual sustenance through them. These oppressors deceive them by presenting them with a flawed place, imagining that the souls will remain under their control there; yet ultimately the souls overcome those who oppress them. Thus, according to this teaching, the souls of the tribes were placed through Rachel and Leah, who were sisters, with the thought that the souls would remain in impurity because the marriages were forbidden; likewise, the soul of Perez through Tamar, and the souls connected with Ruth and Naomi through Ammon and Moab. Therefore David said: “O sons of men, how long shall my honor be turned into shame?” (Psalms 4:3). The Midrash says that people would disparage David for descending from Ruth the Moabite, and David responded to them: “Speak in your hearts upon your beds and be silent”—meaning: did you yourselves not descend from the matter of two sisters (Rachel and Leah), which also involved difficulty? This, says Malbim, is what the people and elders sensed when they blessed: “May Hashem make the woman… like Rachel and Leah” and “May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore”—for all of this, according to this mystical interpretation, was necessary in order to draw forth these souls through such means from the grasp of their spiritual oppressors.