(3)[Boaz] said to the relative (lit., "redeemer"), "Naomi, who has come back from the fields of Moav, has sold the portion of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech. (4)I thought that I would inform you, saying, purchase it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders -- if you will redeem [the property], redeem it, and if not, tell me, so that I may know, because there is no one else [with rights to redeem it] before you, and I am after you." He said, "I will redeem it." (5)Then Boaz said, "On the day you purchase the field from Naomi and from Ruth, you must also take the [Ruth, the] wife of the deceased, in order to establish the name of the deceased in his inheritance." (6)So the relative (lit., "redeemer") said, "I cannot redeem it myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem it, because I cannot redeem it." ... (8)So the relative (lit., "redeemer") said to Boaz, "Purchase it for yourself," and he took off his shoe. [Giving the shoe -- or any other object -- to someone as a symbolic barter, is an act that effects acquisition. The Gemara explains that Boaz was performing this act with the *relative*.] (9)Boaz said to the elders and to all the people, "You are witnesses this day that I have purchased all that was Elimelech's and all that was Machlon's and Kilyon's from the ownership of Naomi (10)and that I have also acquired Ruth of Moav, Machlon's former wife, for a wife, in order to establish the name of the deceased in his inheritance, so that the deceased's name should not be eradicated from among his brothers and from his place. You are witnesses this day!"

(Ruth, 4:3-6, 8-10)

In Ruth 3:9 we read that Ruth told Boaz, "You are the redeemer." Rashi (ad loc.) explains her statement to mean, "Since you are a close relative of my husband's, you have the responsibility to reclaim the inheritance of my husband, as it says in Vayikra 25:25, `If someone becomes poor and has to sell part of his ancestral property, his redeemer -- that is, his next of kin -- shall go and redeem the sale of his relative.' "

Every male who entered the land of Israel after the Exodus from Egypt was allotted a portion of property (Bemidbar Chap. 26). This portion was divided among the man's heirs upon his death, and so on throughout the generations. This ancestral property could not be completely sold; it could only be "leased" until the next Yovel [= Jubilee] year, when all property reverted to its original owner.

If someone found it necessary to sell (actually, lease) some of his inherited property in order to raise cash, the buyer -- perhaps someone of a different family, or even of a different tribe -- would now occupy this land. The Torah mandates that if the seller would at some point be able to raise the money necessary to buy back the property, the buyer was obligated to return the property for a full refund (calculated according to the time still remaining on the lease) (Vayikra 25:26).

If the buyer himself did not find the means to repurchase ("redeem") his ancestral property, his next of kin was urged to redeem the family property in his place (ibid., 25:25). This relative is thus called a "redeemer." As the Gemara tells us (Kiddushin 21a), the duty of redemption rests upon the closest relative of the seller of the field. If he does not redeem the property, the next closest relative takes his place, and so on. There is one important restriction in the laws of redemption, however. A field may not be redeemed (even with the consent of the purchaser!) until at least two years have elapsed from the time of its sale (Erchin 29b).

Elimelech had a living brother who was his next of kin. This man was Boaz' interlocutor in vv. 4:3-8 (Rashi to 2:1 and 3:12). According to the Sages, this man's name was Tov (see Rashi to 3:12). Boaz himself was only a nephew to Elimelech (his father, Salmon, was Elimelech's brother). This is what Boaz meant when he told Tov, "If you will redeem [the property], redeem it, and if not, tell me so that I may know, because there is no one else [with rights to redeem it] before you and I am after you."

This at least seems to be the background of the events recorded in the verses cited above. Upon further analysis, however, several serious questions arise on this reconstruction of the events.

(#1) Firstly, what is meant by, "You are witnesses this day that I have purchased all that was Elimelech's ... from the ownership of *Naomi*" (v. 9)? Didn't Naomi already sell the property to someone else (v.3)? It is from the hands of that other party that the redemption was taking place, not from Naomi's! Similarly, in v. 5 the property is described as being purchased from Naomi and from Ruth. How could either Naomi or Ruth be involved in this transaction, if they already sold the property?

(#2) The second question is, why does Boaz say (v. 5) that the redemption of the property is contingent upon taking Ruth as a wife? Why should marrying Ruth be a pre-condition for performing the mitzvah of redemption? The concept of redeeming a relative's field applies even when that relative is still alive, and certainly does not seem to have any relevance to his wife!

(#3) A third difficulty is, why did Boaz perform the acquisition ceremony of "taking off the shoe" with Tov (his uncle)? Boaz was redeeming property from the anonymous man who had purchased it from Naomi. It was with this anonymous party that he should have performed an act of acquisition, not with Tov! What was Boaz attaining from Tov?

(#4) Fourth and last, we mentioned above that redemption is not permitted until at least two years have passed following the sale. In the story of Ruth, we are told that Naomi sold her husband's field upon returning destitute from Moav (4:3). We learn (1:22) that Naomi and Ruth returned to Israel "at the beginning of the barley harvest" (which precedes the wheat harvest, in early spring). Ruth stayed at Boaz' field until the end of the wheat and barley harvests (2:23). During the winnowing process which followed the harvest, Ruth approached Boaz and brought the redemption of the field to his attention (3:2). Boaz acted upon his obligation of redemption the very next day (3:18). This latter event must have taken place no longer than several months after the beginning of the barley harvest, which was when Naomi sold the property. Since two years had not passed, how was redemption possible?

These questions are raised by Rav Shlomo Alkabetz (16th cent. Safed, Israel) in his work "Shoresh Yishai" on Megillat Ruth, and he discusses them at length. Let us follow his lead, and see how we may resolve these difficulties.

With this in mind, the Ramban suggests that the property being redeemed by Boaz still belonged to Naomi -- she and Ruth had never sold the fields! Nevertheless, the Torah -- and the Book or Ruth -- refers to Boaz' act as one of "redemption," because he stepped in to ensure that the property would not have to be sold to a stranger in the future. This seems to be the opinion of Rashi as well, in his comments to Ruth 3:9 and 4:5.

The problem with this interpretation is that in 4:3 Boaz says, "Naomi, who has come back from the fields of Moav, has *sold* the portion of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech." According to what we have just said, Naomi had not sold the property yet! The Ibn Ezra (who also apparently understood the verses as the Ramban did) provides us with a solution to this problem in his commentary on that verse. He explains that the word "sold" in this case should not be taken literally, but should be understood to mean that Naomi had *planned* to sell the property. (Alternatively, as the Bach [17th cent. Poland] suggests in his work "Meishiv Nefesh" on Ruth, 4:3, Naomi had entered into an agreement to sell the land but did not actually conclude the transaction.)

(#1,#4) To return to our four questions -- as Shoresh Yishai points out, the Ramban's interpretation clearly answers question #1, as the sale was indeed directly from Naomi and Ruth to Boaz. It also explains how the redemption could be carried out before the requisite two-year waiting period (question #4). It is obvious that the waiting period is necessary only when redeeming a field from a purchaser, and not in this "preventative" type of redemption.

(#2) As for question #2, or how did the marriage of Ruth become a condition for redemption, Rashi (to 3:9 and 4:5) deals with this issue. Rashi, as mentioned above, agrees with the Ramban's interpretation that Naomi and Ruth themselves were selling the fields to Boaz. He asserts that Ruth, as the seller, stipulated that she was not willing to sell her field to anyone unless he would agree to marry her. She wanted to retain an attachment to the field so that, through the combination of Machlon's wife and Machlon's field, people would not forget her deceased husband. This is the meaning of Boaz' statement (4:10), "I have also acquired Ruth of Moav, Machlon's wife, for a wife, to establish the name of the deceased in his inheritance so that the deceased's name should not be eradicated from among his brothers and from his place."

(#3) We must still solve the problem raised in question #3 -- why did Boaz conduct a transaction with Tov, being that he was not buying anything from Tov? Shoresh Yishai deals with this issue by noting that an act of transaction is not necessarily indicative of a sale. Sometimes it is done as a mark of an *agreement* between two parties, without any connection to an actual purchase (the equivalent of a handshake in today's society). The "removal of the shoe" was carried out in order to officially ensure that Tov was indeed waiving his rights as primary redeemer, and would not be able to change his mind before Boaz purchased the field. (In actuality, there was not much time for Tov to change his mind since Boaz ended up redeeming the fields immediately thereafter).

(#5) It is interesting to note that although Ruth is mentioned in 4:5 as one of the sellers in the transaction that was about to take place, the subsequent verses do not mention her again. Rather, they portray Naomi alone as the seller of Elimelech's, Machlon's and Kilyon's properties. How can this be accounted for? Perhaps the answer is that once it was made clear that Ruth was only willing to sell her property to someone who would marry her (4:5), it became apparent that her need for cash was considerably less urgent. By marrying a wealthy man such as Boaz, she would no longer need to resort to the sale of her husband's ancestral property in order to raise money. Thus, it is only Naomi's property that was actually purchased by Boaz in the end, and not Ruth's!

The Bach preserves the literal meaning of the statement (ibid.) that "Naomi *sold* the portion of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech." Naomi had indeed sold the field, and thus, this was a normal actual case of redemption from the hands of an unspecified buyer (as opposed to the "preventative redemption" described by the Ramban). The Bach deals with the four questions raised above in the following manner.

(#1) Why did Boaz conduct a transaction with Naomi, rather than with the buyer of her field (question #1)? The Bach quotes a suggestion made by Rav Yehudah Ibn Shushan (as quoted in Shoresh Yishai, Ruth 4:5) that perhaps the redemption of sold ancestral property can only be carried out with the express permission of the inheritor who had originally owned the property and who would eventually reclaim the land in the Jubilee year.

Who was the inheritor of the piece of land that Naomi sold? The verse (4:3) states that Naomi's husband, Elimelech, had inheritance rights to the property. Elimelech and his offspring had all passed away, however. Even though his wife, Naomi, had received the land in payment of her Kettubah, since a woman does not inherit the possessions of her husband, she could not be called the "inheritor" of the property. She was simply a "purchaser" of the property, and would have to forfeit it on the Jubilee year. Who, then, *did* inherit Elimelech's property?

According to the Jewish laws of inheritance, when one dies without leaving behind a living child or father, his inheritance goes to the living descendants of his father (i.e. his brothers or their families). Rashi (2:1) tells us that Elimelech had three brothers: Tov, Boaz' father and Naomi's father. If so, Tov, Boaz and Naomi were each rightful heirs to 1/3 of Elimelech's property. The transaction Boaz made with Naomi was not an act of acquisition or purchase, but merely a formal act indicating consent on the part of Naomi (the "non-purchasing" type of transaction mentioned earlier).

(I have added this point on my own to the words of the above-mentioned commentators. Their own presentation is slightly different, and contains some questionable points.)

(#2) Since Naomi was a partial inheritor of the property, and the inheritor must grant the redeemer permission to redeem the property (according to the suggestion of Rav Yehudah Ibn Shushan), Naomi's consent was required before anyone could redeem the property of Elimelech. This is why a transaction had to be made with Naomi.

How did marrying Ruth become a part of the redemption process (question #2)? We saw before that Rashi (quoted above, section III answer #2) asserts that Ruth, as the seller of the property, was entitled to stipulate anything she desired as part of the sale, and she insisted that the buyer marry her. We can apply this same line of reasoning to the Bach's approach. Naomi's permission was necessary in order to allow the redemption process to take place, as we just explained. She was entitled to make her permission contingent on anything she pleased, and she desired to make it contingent upon her daughter-in-law's marriage to the redeemer. This is why it was not possible to redeem the land without first accepting Ruth's hand in marriage.

(#3,#4) How was it possible for redemption to take place before the mandatory two-year waiting period (question #4)? The Bach suggests that perhaps Boaz did not actually *purchase* the property at this juncture. He simply agreed to redeem it after the two-year waiting period had lapsed. At this point in time, he simply made a transaction with Naomi (as explained above, in answer to Q#1) in order to extract a legal commitment from Naomi not to withdraw her consent before the two years had passed.

This, in turn, provides an answer to question #3 -- what was the need for the transaction between Boaz and Tov? As we explained in the first approach (section III answer #3), this transaction was not a transaction of purchasing, but rather one of agreement to an understanding between two parties, like a handshake. Now that we have shown that the acquisition of the field would not actually take place for two years hence, it was particularly important for Boaz to extract a legal commitment from Tov not to change his decision.

(#5) As for the last question raised above -- why is it not mentioned in verse 4:9 that Boaz bought Machlon's field from *Ruth*, and not from Naomi? The answer is that the transactions being discussed were not actual acquisitions, but rather a procurement of *permission* from the inheritor to perform the Mitzvah of redemption. If so, we understand very well why Ruth was not involved in this. She was not one of the heirs of the original owner of the property, Elimelech, and was thus not a party to this transaction as Naomi was.

If anything, we must wonder why Ruth's name *does* come up in verse 4:5. Shoresh Yishai (to 4:5) deals with this question, and answers that the verse does not mean to say that Ruth was the inheritor of the property, but that Naomi (who *was* an inheritor) had made the sale contingent on Ruth. It is therefore "as if" Ruth was one of the sellers of the field, since her consent was necessary for the sale!