Meat Purchase required for Levirate marriage?

[Verifyveritas76]

Ruth 4:3-10

And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s:
And I thought to advertise† thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it,redeem it:but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it.
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.
And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi.
Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.

Purchased and witnessed . . . . Thoughts?

 

[PeteR]

The command doesn't require a purchase be involved, however, if property was attached to the widow, purchase may have been necessary.

mho

 

[Verifyveritas76]

There may be a caveat to the above custom

Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger:†: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

Perhaps if they dwelt together, (not sure what all that entails) there was no need for a purchase/redemption. It could be that Boaz and the other kinsman had to pay because they didn’t meet the conditions of this “dwelling together” clause.

This is not something I know, just throwing it out to see if anyone else had seen this or something like it. It’s new to me.

 

[aineo]

I don’t think it was a requirement or a custom. I think Boaz was shrewd. Let me first share some notes from the NET version:

(NET Bible Notes) It is more likely that Naomi, being a woman, held only the right to use the land until the time of her remarriage or death (F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 202-4). Because she held this right to use of the land, she also had the right to buy it back from the its current owner. (This assumes that Elimelech sold the land prior to going to Moab.) Since she did not possess the means to do so, however, she decided to dispose of her rights in the matter. She was not selling the land per se, but disposing of the right to its redemption and use, probably in exchange for room and board with the purchaser (Bush, 211-15). If this is correct, it might be preferable to translate, "Naomi is disposing of her rights to the portion of land," although such a translation presumes some knowledge of ancient Israelite property laws.

I think Boaz could have claimed Ruth as his wife as soon as the other man said no, but he wanted the property too, so he threw down a challenge that may have caught the other man off guard and called his honor into question. There was no requirement that Boaz or the other man take Ruth, not Biblically speaking anyhow, but Boaz told him he must take her too, which *might* have been saying, “If you’re a man of honor, you’ll take the responsibility of Ruth too.” I think it is possible the man didn’t know how to reply after that challenge, and just backed out, allowing Boaz to take possession of the land and Ruth. I readily admit I am reading some into this, but it’s as plausible.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

My thoughts are that the land-laws were pretty tight, you could sell your family's land, but it was actually land given to each tribe by God, and would have to return to the proper family by the year of Jubilee at the very least. And the whole thrust of the levirate marriage was for the deceased brother's name not to disappear from Israel. So it would seem like common sense if there was land to be redeemed, and there was also an opportunity to get that land to the 'lost' name of the deceased family member, it had better be done.

I have always been struck by what actually transpired was more based on the law than following the law... I was irritated that Ruth didn't spit in the guys face, for instance. I didn't ever catch the caveat about them dwelling together, which I could see being an easy out. "Chillion? Ain't seen 'im in years. He don't dwell here..." also because Ruth was a Moabitess. "So you want me start 10 generations of children who aren't allowed in the assembly? Pull the other one..."

I also add in the squiffyness of it being the time of Judges, when if anybody was following the law, it's because they just happened to feel like it, so the practices found in Ruth (while probably deeply prophetic) might not speak much to proper execution of the law.

I do see a lot of grace being applied to someone that couldn't actually expect it... which sits nicely with me.

I have a peace about it. (these are the jokes... if you don't laugh there's no refund....lol)

 

[Verifyveritas76]

(NET Bible Notes) It is more likely that Naomi, being a woman, held only the right to use the land until the time of her remarriage or death (F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 202-4). Because she held this right to use of the land, she also had the right to buy it back from the its current owner. (This assumes that Elimelech sold the land prior to going to Moab.) Since she did not possess the means to do so, however, she decided to dispose of her rights in the matter. She was not selling the land per se, but disposing of the right to its redemption and use, probably in exchange for room and board with the purchaser (Bush, 211-15). If this is correct, it might be preferable to translate, "Naomi is disposing of her rights to the portion of land," although such a translation presumes some knowledge of ancient Israelite property laws.

After re reading the passage, it seems that there are several contradictory statements in this ^^^ commentary, that do not align very well with the passage in question.

1. Primarily, if Elimelech had leased off the land rights prior to his departure to Moab, then neither Naomi nor Ruth would have had any additional rights to lease off until after the Jubilee. Any mention of redemption would have involved money being paid not to Naomi or Ruth, but to the lease holder.
2. That there was a harvest happening the year they return would indicate that this year was neither a shemitah nor a Jubilee. Naomi and Ruth are returning because they hear that there is bread in Israel again, indicating that the year previous was a harvest year also.
3. Also when Elimelech’s family left there was a severe drought, making it questionable whether anyone would be willing to lease additional farmland/property when their own was unproductive as well.

As I understand the redemption/lease laws of Leviticus 25, property was leased based upon the number of years to Jubilee (also Jeremiah 32:9) which was at a ratio of one silver shekel per year. As a widow of Elimelech, and since Orphah returned to her family, Naomi would have been left with Chilion’s portion and Ruth would have been left with Malon’s portion. I don’t believe the two portions could be split without male heirs, (plural) but the women could not have been disenfranchised either as widows.

Another issue was that Naomi, as an older widow, would have been incapable of producing an heir, so whoever “redeemed” it would have probably ended up with the property as his lot forever after her death. This would have been a very beneficial “redemption” for whoever sealed the deal. However, the presence of Ruth as a widow of childbearing capabilities completely changes that dynamic. Now, whoever “redeems” the property must do so with the understanding that he is doing so as proxy for her late husband, and the property is essentially held in trust for the fruit of their union, typically the first male. Thus, the property would revert to Malon’s “son” at his maturity rather than to the children of the kinsman redeemer as would be probable if it was just Naomi.

And there’s also the issue of Ruth’s lineage. Up until the time of David, there was a stigma towards any Moabite, man or woman. A Moabite could marry into Israel, but the children were considered outsiders for 10 generations (if memory serves me correct) IMO this is why the nearer kinsman was fine with redeeming from Naomi, but once Ruth the Moabitess is incorporated into the picture, he backs away so that the redemption will not mar his inheritance (legacy/offspring?). Within the rule of David, it is clarified that the stigma/curse is only on the Moabite men, but at this point in history, it was a big deal.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I didn't ever catch the caveat about them dwelling together, which I could see being an easy out.

I’m not sure it was an easy out, rather that this was the more obvious first choice for kinsman redeemer. Brothers living in close proximity, same farm etc? Seems like this would offer the least disruption to the existing family structure. After brothers would come first cousins, second cousins etc. Boaz was probably a second cousin, or the second oldest first cousin.

And the men could refuse as seen in this passage, and the women could refuse also by returning to their parents house as Orpah does. Ruth decides to stay with Naomi even tho she has no one to offer as a replacement husband. Seems to me that Ruth is intent on providing for her widow. Much like 1 Timothy 5:16

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Brothers living in close proximity, same farm etc? Seems like this would offer the least disruption to the existing family structure. After brothers would come first cousins, second cousins etc. Boaz was probably a second cousin, or the second oldest first cousin

oh yeah. That would make sense to me.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I’m confused. The land had to stay in the same line, returning every Jubilee. The Levirate baby is the hair of the man who’s land it was. It would return to that child every Jubilee no matter what. Where does land redemption come in?

 

[aineo]

After re reading the passage, it seems that there are several contradictory statements in this ^^^ commentary, that do not align very well with the passage in question.

1. Primarily, if Elimelech had leased off the land rights prior to his departure to Moab, then neither Naomi nor Ruth would have had any additional rights to lease off until after the Jubilee. Any mention of redemption would have involved money being paid not to Naomi or Ruth, but to the lease holder.
2. That there was a harvest happening the year they return would indicate that this year was neither a shemitah nor a Jubilee. Naomi and Ruth are returning because they hear that there is bread in Israel again, indicating that the year previous was a harvest year also.
3. Also when Elimelech’s family left there was a severe drought, making it questionable whether anyone would be willing to lease additional farmland/property when their own was unproductive as well.

To point 1 - that is assuming that leasing is what is being described in Leviticus 25. I assumed this was selling with the knowledge that it would be returned to the family in the year of Jubilee. If this was more of a lease with a defined end date (i.e. you can use this property until I return or until I ask for it back at this set price), then the Jubilee may not apply. That would negate point #2 if it is true.

For point #3 - perhaps, but it is an assumption and the text doesn’t tell us this. I can’t definitively say either way, but neither can your position be proven.

As I understand the redemption/lease laws of Leviticus 25, property was leased based upon the number of years to Jubilee (also Jeremiah 32:9) which was at a ratio of one silver shekel per year. As a widow of Elimelech, and since Orphah returned to her family, Naomi would have been left with Chilion’s portion and Ruth would have been left with Malon’s portion. I don’t believe the two portions could be split without male heirs, (plural) but the women could not have been disenfranchised either as widows.

Interesting question - are Ruth and Orpah entitled to anything as Moabites? Or did Mahlon and Chilion even own anything yet, or was it all still owned by Elimelech and to be left to them later?

Another issue was that Naomi, as an older widow, would have been incapable of producing an heir, so whoever “redeemed” it would have probably ended up with the property as his lot forever after her death. This would have been a very beneficial “redemption” for whoever sealed the deal. However, the presence of Ruth as a widow of childbearing capabilities completely changes that dynamic. Now, whoever “redeems” the property must do so with the understanding that he is doing so as proxy for her late husband, and the property is essentially held in trust for the fruit of their union, typically the first male. Thus, the property would revert to Malon’s “son” at his maturity rather than to the children of the kinsman redeemer as would be probable if it was just Naomi.

I’m not sure I see your point here. I think this is exactly what Boaz is doing - he is redeeming the land for Mahlon’s heir. Sure, he benefits from it before the heir inherits it, and he gets the benefits of Ruth as a wife, but the property is not some sort of empire building. In fact, as I noted above, I’m not sure this was required. I think Boaz called the other man’s honor into question, resulting in Boaz taking ownership of the property (to later be passed to the firstborn son) in addition to Ruth.

 

[aineo]

I have always been struck by what actually transpired was more based on the law than following the law... I was irritated that Ruth didn't spit in the guys face, for instance.

Like I said above, I don’t think the law applied to Boaz or the other man. Given that, Ruth probably didn’t have a right to spit in the guy’s face. But, it does say at this time the tradition was to remove the sandal and give it to the other party. Perhaps spitting in his face was the right thing to do, but tradition had taken precedent over the law.

 

[aineo]

I’m confused. The land had to stay in the same line, returning every Jubilee. The Levirate baby is the hair of the man who’s land it was. It would return to that child every Jubilee no matter what. Where does land redemption come in?

The redemption of the land is simply redeeming (reacquiring it) from the one who leased it. Like I said above, I’m not so sure this is the same thing that is covered by the Jubilee passage. I think of this more like renting. There would be no expectation of maintaining rented property until the year of Jubilee.

At this point though, there is no child/heir. I think Boaz is ensuring the land, the heir, and the widows are taken care of.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

To point 1 - that is assuming that leasing is what is being described in Leviticus 25. I assumed this was selling with the knowledge that it would be returned to the family in the year of Jubilee. If this was more of a lease with a defined end date (i.e. you can use this property until I return or until I ask for it back at this set price), then the Jubilee may not apply. That would negate point #2 if it is true.

I’m using lease as a generic term that would be the closest equivalent today of what they did then. I am unaware of a shorter term lease as you described in parenthesis except in the case of a house in a walled town or city. Those had to be “redeemed” within one year. Leviticus 25:29
In chapter 4, its pretty plain that Naomi and Ruth are the sellers of the property, or the ones that will be receiving the redemption price. According to Leviticus 25:27, if the Kinsman were redeeming the property to return it to the family, he would be paying the remaining years back to the Leasee, not to the Leasors, or their survivors.

For point #3 - perhaps, but it is an assumption and the text doesn’t tell us this. I can’t definitively say either way, but neither can your position be proven.

Ruth 1:1-6 would be the passage dealing with the drought and them hearing about bread causing them to return. Typically, the land would be leased/redeemed til Jubilee based upon the number of years that one could expect a harvest based upon Leviticus 25:15, 16. To lease a property for a short term would have been cost prohibitive as the leasee would have to pay for all the years remaining till the Jubilee up front. To do so in a prolonged drought would not make any sense, when the only way you could recoup those costs was from the produce from the fields.

If there’s a different assumption that I’m not following, could you please elaborate.

Interesting question - are Ruth and Orpah entitled to anything as Moabites? Or did Mahlon and Chilion even own anything yet, or was it all still owned by Elimelech and to be left to them later?

That I’m aware of, the inheritance passed from father to sons and they were responsible for providing for their mother with the inheritance. In this case, it’s a bit murkier but if the surviving widows have no sons to continue that line of the family, then it would revert back to the next closest male and his children upon their death. Until their death, it could be stewarded by the next closest male for them and they’d be given a position in his household. There are exceptions to this such as Abigail and Judith who managed their estates after their husbands passed.
My understanding is that if Ruth or Orpah left, they were only entitled to their Ketubah. If they stayed, they were entitled at least to be taken care of from the estate. This could be done thru a steward, or thru their own management. Upon their death the remaining estate would revert back to their husbands family if their were no heirs to carry on the family name.

In the case of surviving daughters, they had to marry within their extended family to keep the land within the tribe.

I’m not sure I see your point here. I think this is exactly what Boaz is doing - he is redeeming the land for Mahlon’s heir. Sure, he benefits from it before the heir inherits it, and he gets the benefits of Ruth as a wife, but the property is not some sort of empire building. In fact, as I noted above, I’m not sure this was required. I think Boaz called the other man’s honor into question, resulting in Boaz taking ownership of the property (to later be passed to the firstborn son) in addition to Ruth.

Boaz’ position of kinsman redeemer for Mahlon’s heir is that of a steward or regent until the heir comes of age. As such, he gains no monetary or material benefit from his position, but rather may/could be somewhat out of pocket to fulfill his obligation to the deceased kinsman. OTOH, if there is no possibility of an heir, (as in the case of Naomi without Ruth) then he would most likely be the one that the property reverts to, which would most definitely be a windfall to his own finances.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’m confused. The land had to stay in the same line, returning every Jubilee. The Levirate baby is the hair of the man who’s land it was. It would return to that child every Jubilee no matter what. Where does land redemption come in?

I honestly don’t know, this is the only instance that I’ve seen it in connection with a kinsman redeemer/levirate marriage scenario. I know of no other instance in canon or other documents. Apparently, in this passage, it plays a role in the levirate marriage. To what degree. . . . ?

 

[aineo]

Ruth 1:1-6 would be the passage dealing with the drought and them hearing about bread causing them to return. [leaving some out for brevity] To do so in a prolonged drought would not make any sense, when the only way you could recoup those costs was from the produce from the fields.

If there’s a different assumption that I’m not following, could you please elaborate.

What you’ve stated is clear, that there was a drought, but it to say the land could not be leased is an assumption. Yes, it would be hard to recoup losses, but it is still an assumption.

I am not going to spend a lot of time defending the notes I quoted from the NET version because I’m not personally vested in them in any way. I only offered as a suggestion. I just think it’s a stretch to assume some sort of transaction had to take place for a levirate marriage when there is no law indicating that and no other source indicating it that any of us are aware of. I think there’s likely some other explanation.

I still think it is likely this was Boaz being shrewd in his business dealings, and, additionally ensuring the land would be there to pass on to Ruth and Mahlon’s son, whom he would father. While this would go to this son if the Jubilee applied, there is some doubt whether it would, as this doesn’t follow the exact rules of the levirate marriage, so Obed might not be legally considered Mahlon’s son. In fact, just a few verses later, at the end of chapter 4, Obed is listed in Boaz’s lineage. It seems to me a stronger case could be made that Boaz is ensuring Naomi and Ruth are taken care of while being an honorable man by giving Mahlon an heir and ensuring that heir had something passed on to him. This is all supposition - there’s not enough data to prove it, but it seems likely to me, especially since Boaz has already been ensuring Naomi and Ruth were cared for.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What you’ve stated is clear, that there was a drought, but it to say the land could not be leased is an assumption. Yes, it would be hard to recoup losses, but it is still an assumption.

I am not going to spend a lot of time defending the notes I quoted from the NET version because I’m not personally vested in them in any way. I only offered as a suggestion. I just think it’s a stretch to assume some sort of transaction had to take place for a levirate marriage when there is no law indicating that and no other source indicating it that any of us are aware of. I think there’s likely some other explanation.

I still think it is likely this was Boaz being shrewd in his business dealings, and, additionally ensuring the land would be there to pass on to Ruth and Mahlon’s son, whom he would father. While this would go to this son if the Jubilee applied, there is some doubt whether it would, as this doesn’t follow the exact rules of the levirate marriage, so Obed might not be legally considered Mahlon’s son. In fact, just a few verses later, at the end of chapter 4, Obed is listed in Boaz’s lineage. It seems to me a stronger case could be made that Boaz is ensuring Naomi and Ruth are taken care of while being an honorable man by giving Mahlon an heir and ensuring that heir had something passed on to him. This is all supposition - there’s not enough data to prove it, but it seems likely to me, especially since Boaz has already been ensuring Naomi and Ruth were cared for.

Let me recap.
I agree that there’s not enough info to say that there could never be a short term lease, I’ve just never seen it anywhere in scripture or elsewhere, so that seems more like a projection from our era than something that was realistic in their era.

As to the transaction that had to take place to qualify for levirate marriage, this is also something I’ve never seen addressed anywhere else. I am not saying that a monetary transaction had to take place then, nor am I trying to say that it should take place now or in the future if someone should choose to enact a levirate marriage.

What I am trying to ask, is, Does anyone else have any additional info that would shed light on why Boaz would have associated a purchase with a levirate custom?
And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi.
Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.

 

[PeteR]

Let me recap.
I agree that there’s not enough info to say that there could never be a short term lease, I’ve just never seen it anywhere in scripture or elsewhere, so that seems more like a projection from our era than something that was realistic in their era.

As to the transaction that had to take place to qualify for levirate marriage, this is also something I’ve never seen addressed anywhere else. I am not saying that a monetary transaction had to take place then, nor am I trying to say that it should take place now or in the future if someone should choose to enact a levirate marriage.

What I am trying to ask, is, Does anyone else have any additional info that would shed light on why Boaz would have associated a purchase with a levirate custom?
And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi.
Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.

Maybe Elimelech left a pile of debt due to failing crops, life, etc? If so, then the land may have been encumbered, but not necessarily leased?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I still think it is likely this was Boaz being shrewd in his business dealings, and, additionally ensuring the land would be there to pass on to Ruth and Mahlon’s son, whom he would father. While this would go to this son if the Jubilee applied, there is some doubt whether it would, as this doesn’t follow the exact rules of the levirate marriage, so Obed might not be legally considered Mahlon’s son. In fact, just a few verses later, at the end of chapter 4, Obed is listed in Boaz’s lineage. It seems to me a stronger case could be made that Boaz is ensuring Naomi and Ruth are taken care of while being an honorable man by giving Mahlon an heir and ensuring that heir had something passed on to him. This is all supposition - there’s not enough data to prove it, but it seems likely to me, especially since Boaz has already been ensuring Naomi and Ruth were cared for.

I think that Boaz thinks he’s fulfilling the Torah command for a levirate custom. And the community seems to recognize it that way as well. Whether or not he’s fulfilling it exactly per Torah as we know it, makes me think that there was a cultural knowledge and custom for levirate marriage, that was more extensive than what was recorded in Torah. That Torah lists the minimum basic scenario, and principles and boundaries for its use, but that scenarios not explicitly covered and described were left to the participants and community to iron out within those principles and boundaries.

I agree with you it is somewhat confusing that Obed is listed in Boaz’ lineage instead of Elimelech and Mahlon’s. The same also happens in Judah and Tamar’s case, with Pharez and Zerah being listed as Judah’s. Especially as Boaz specifically states that he is marrying Ruth to keep the name of the dead from being cut off among his brethren.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Maybe Elimelech left a pile of debt due to failing crops, life, etc? If so, then the land may have been encumbered, but not necessarily leased?

This is an interesting line of thought.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I honestly don’t know, this is the only instance that I’ve seen it in connection with a kinsman redeemer/levirate marriage scenario. I know of no other instance in canon or other documents. Apparently, in this passage, it plays a role in the levirate marriage. To what degree. . . . ?

We may be making the same mistake we make with “concubines”, description as opposed to proscription.