Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ruth 4:7
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 neighbor: and this [was] a testimony in Israel.
7. in former time in Israel ] Cf. 1Sa 9:9, which begins similarly. Driver ( Introd. 8 , p. 455) thinks that the present verse is also an explanatory gloss, because it is not needed in the narrative, and has the appearance of being a later addition; see, however, the Introduction, p. xiv.
a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour ] This old custom was not altogether intelligible in the writer’s day, so he gives an explanation of it. When property was transferred, as in the present case, to take off the sandal and hand it to the person in whose favour the transfer is made, gave a symbolic attestation to the act and invested it with legal validity (Driver, Deut., p. 283). The same symbolism was used on other occasions, and with varying significance. Thus, when a deceased husband’s brother declined to contract a levirate marriage, the widow loosed his sandal from off his foot in token that he renounced his right to make her his wife, Deu 25:9; cf. the Arabic form of divorce, ‘she was my slipper and I have cast her off’ (Robertson Smith, Kinship etc., p. 269); the action implied at the same time a feeling of contempt, which is probably denoted by the expression in Psa 60:8; Psa 108:9 [5] . The drawing off of the sandal also symbolized among the later Arabs the renunciation of an oath of fealty to a sovereign: his authority was withdrawn as the sandal from the foot (Goldziher, Abhandl. z. Arab. Philologie, i. p. 47).
[5] Cf. the story told by Burton, Land of Midian, ii, p. 196 f.: a man who owned 2000 date-palms was asked by the leader of a band of robbers to sell them; and when he suggested that an offer should be made, the robber, taking off his sandal, exclaimed ‘with this!’ For the Jewish practice of Chaltzah, i.e. ‘removal’ of the shoe, see Oesterley and Box, Rel. and Worship of the Synagogue (1907), p. 294 f.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In former time in Israel – Showing that the custom was obsolete in the writers days. The letter of the law (see the marginal reference) was not strictly followed. It was thought sufficient for the man to pull off his own shoe and give it to the man to whom he ceded his right, in the presence of the elders of his city.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. A man plucked off his shoe] The law of such a case is given at large in De 25:5-9. It was simply this: If a brother, who had married a wife, died without children, the eldest brother was to take the widow, and raise up a family to the brother deceased; and he had a right to redeem the inheritance, if it had been alienated. But if the person who had the right of redemption would not take the woman, she was to pull off his shoe and spit in his face, and he was ever after considered as a disgraced man. In the present case the shoe only is taken off, probably because the circumstances of the man were such as to render it improper for him to redeem the ground and take Ruth to his wife; and because of this reasonable excuse, the contemptuous part of the ceremony is omitted. See Clarke on De 25:9.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For to confirm all things, i.e. in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that Deu 25:9, because that concerned only one case, but this is more general. Besides, he pleads not the command of God, but only ancient custom, for this practice.
A man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: he who relinquished his right to another, plucked off his own shoe, and gave it to him. This was symbolical, and a significant and convenient ceremony; as if he said, Take this shoe wherewith I used to go and tread upon my land, and in that shoe do thou enter upon it, and take possession of it.
This was a testimony in Israel; this was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7, 8. a man plucked off hisshoeWhere the kinsman refused to perform his duty to thefamily of his deceased relation, the widow was directed to pull offthe shoe with some attendant circumstances of contemptuous disdain.But, as in this case, there was no refusal, the usual ignominy wasspared; and the plucking off the shoe, the only ceremony observed,was a pledge of the transaction being completed.
Ru4:9-12. HE MARRIESRUTH.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming,…. It is a custom, and not a law, that seems here referred to, when an estate was bought and sold; not the law in Le 25:25, though that respects the redemption of an estate by a near kinsman, yet no such manner was enjoined as here practised afterwards, made mention of; nor the law in De 25:5 which does not concern the redemption of estates, nor a kinsman’s marrying the widow of a deceased kinsman, but a brother’s marrying the widow of a deceased brother, and the rites and ceremonies there enjoined upon refusal are different from those here used; though Josephus i is express for it, that the law is here referred to; but this is not only concerning purchase of estates, but “concerning changing” also one field for another as Aben Ezra interprets it: “for to confirm all things”; the following custom was observed for the confirmation of any bargain whatever, whether by sale or barter, and where there was no marriage in the case:
a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour; signifying thereby, that he yielded his right to him in the thing sold or bartered; the Targum says, he plucked off the glove of his right hand, which perhaps was then in use, when the Targumist wrote, and answered the same purpose; and, according to Jarchi, it was a linen cloth, vail, or handkerchief, that was used, and delivered by the one to the other; and of this way of buying writes Elias k; at this day, says he, we purchase by a linen cloth or handkerchief called “sudar”, which is a garment; and this two witnesses take, and explain before them the words of their agreement, and each of the witnesses stretches out the skirt of the garment, and those that take upon them to confirm every matter, touch the skirt of their garments; and this is called purchasing by “sudar”, or the linen cloth:
and this was a testimony in Israel; a witness to, or a confirmation of the bargain made; but who gave the shoe, whether the kinsman or Boaz, is not certain from the text; and about which the Jewish writers are divided, as Jarchi observes.
i Antiqu. l. 5. c. 9. sect. 4. k Tishbi, p. 207. See Leo Modena’s History of the Rites, &c. of the present Jews, part 2. c. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ruth Redeemed, vs. 7-12
The law concerning the levirate marriage (which is the marriage of a younger brother to the widow of his older brother, who has died without an heir, so that he can beget a son of her to receive the inheritance in the name of the dead brother) is found in De 5:5-10. The younger brother was not compelled to marry her, but if he refused it would be made very embarrassing to him and would place him in an unfavorable position with the citizens of his town.
The young widow would report him to the elders, who would then try to reason with him and get him to go through with the levirate marriage. If they failed in this, the woman would take off his shoe and spit in his face, and say, “So shall it be done unto that man who will not build up his brother’s house.” He would become known as the “house of him who hath his shoe loosed.”
This explains why the nearer kinsman of Naomi pulled off his shoe and gave it to Boaz. It was testimony that he relinquished his right to redeem the land. In this case the severity of the law was not carried out, for neither Boaz nor the nearer kinsman was actually under this law, for neither or them was a brother to Mahlon. Consequently Boaz called on the leaders to bear witness that he was buying everything that .had belonged to Elimelech and his sons. He mentions Chilion first, implying, it seems, that Mahlon was the younger. This puts the likelihood of redemption through the marriage of Ruth even a step farther from the requirement of the law.
The elders and others who witnessed the transaction were obviously pleased with the matter. They commended Boaz and uttered their blessing upon his marriage with Ruth. They prayed that he might have such offspring of her as had Jacob from his wives, Rachel and Leah (read Genesis, chapters 29, 30), or of Pharez, their ancestor, the son of Judah and Tamar (Genesis, chapter 38).
There is a beautiful analogy in these things to the saved and Jesus Christ, their Kinsman Redeemer. Like Naomi and Ruth men were in destitution and helpless, facing eternal loss. There was a prior kinsman in Adam, but he failed in the Garden of Eden, and could not redeem mankind, (1Co 15:22). But Jesus became a man, took upon Himself human form (Php_2:6-8; Joh 1:14; Gal 4:4-5), became man’s near Kinsman, and was able to fully redeem man. This He did, though not compelled to do so, because He “so loved the world” (Joh 3:16).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(7) In former time.Arguments have been built on this word in favour of our assigning a late date to the book, but the inference seems hardly warranted. The same Hebrew word occurs in Deu. 2:10, Jdg. 1:10, &c.
Plucked off his shoe.The idea of this act apparently is that the man resigns the right of walking on the land as master, in favour of him to whom he gives the shoe. A similar but not identical custom is prescribed in Deu. 25:9.
A testimony.The testimony, the manner in which the solemn witness is born.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. The manner in former time This remark implies that the custom was no longer in use when this book was written.
Concerning redeeming and concerning changing That is, concerning the buying and exchanging of property.
A man plucked off his shoe “The custom itself, which existed among the Indians and the ancient Germans, arose from the fact that fixed property was taken possession of by treading upon the soil; and hence taking off the shoe and handing it to another was the symbol of the transfer of a possession or right of ownership.” Keil.
“The shoe symbolized a possession which one actually had, and could tread with his feet at pleasure.” Cassel.
A testimony in Israel Rather, an attested usage: a custom in Israel. This custom, it will be observed, is not precisely the same as that recorded Deu 25:9, in which the widow that claimed the right of marriage came into the presence of the elders and loosed the shoe, and spat in the face, of the man who refused to marry her. This nearest kinsman of Elimelech could not properly marry Ruth, and therefore the transaction between him and Boaz at the gate of the city was but an honourable transfer to his relative of his right to redeem the inheritance. It was but an instance of the ancient Israelitish custom concerning redeeming and changing. But the custom of Deu 25:9, is said to be still in use among the Jews in some localities, and Burckhardt tells us that the modern Arabs, in speaking of a repudiated wife, say, “She was my slipper; I have cast her off.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging. To confirm all things, a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour, and this was the manner of attestation in Israel.’
The writer then pauses in order to explain an ancient custom, which presumably in his day had ceased to apply, so as to explain what happened next (Rth 4:8). Where a man refused to act as kinsman redeemer (to act ‘concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging’) he evidenced it by publicly taking off his shoe and handing it over to the one on whom he devolved the right. This was final confirmation in the sight of witnesses that he had withdrawn his own right to act as kinsman redeemer, and had passed it on to his neighbour.
This custom may be connected with the fact that it was the shoe which trod on the land denoting the owner’s possession. Compare YHWH’s words to Abraham in Gen 13:17, and His words to Joshua in Jos 1:3. The result being that the handing over of the shoe was seen as devolving possession. But it was also perhaps an adaptation of the original Law. For in the Law of Moses, where a person refused to act as kinsman and beget children through the wife of a deceased relative in order to preserve the name of her family, the wife had the right to loose his shoe and spit in his face (Deu 25:9), and his family would from then on be known as ‘the family of him who had had his shoe loosed’ (Deu 25:10). By this he would be ‘branded’ as having failed to fulfil his responsibility towards his wider family. It may be that the custom had now been altered in order to make it less openly offensive. If this is the case it was seemingly mainly followed in the time of the Judges, whilst no longer being so in the time of David. That would not, however, lessen the continual importance of the law of Levirate marriage.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rth 4:7. This was the manner in former time See the note on Deu 25:5. Though the custom there referred to was somewhat different from the present, there can be no doubt that this was founded upon it; and the ceremony seems to express, that the person refusing to redeem transferred all his right to the man to whom he delivered his shoe. The reason of the custom, as Bishop Patrick says, is plain enough: it being a natural signification that the man resigned his interest in the land, by giving to the person redeeming his shoe, wherewith he used to walk in it, to the end that he might enter in it, and take possession of it himself. The Chaldee, instead of his shoe, reads his right hand glove. The Germans and Dutch call gloves the shoes of the hands. Rabbi Jarchi observes, “It is now the custom with us, that a handkerchief or vail be given, instead of a shoe, when we purchase any thing.” It is doubtful from the next verse, whether the kinsman or Boaz drew off the shoe; though it seems most likely to have been the former.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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. (8) Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
This was an ancient custom, as we read, Deu 25:7-9 . Spiritually considered, none but Jesus could undertake it. Had he declined it, and drawn off the shoe of offering to any other, what being in all creation could have been found to have put it on. Yes, precious Jesus! thou, and thou only couldst undertake it, without finally marring thine own inheritance: for though thou wert rich, yet didst thou for our sakes become poor, that we through thy poverty might be made rich. And now, having accomplished redemption through thy blood, God our Father hath highly exalted thee, and given thee a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phi 2:9-10 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rth 4:7 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.
Ver. 7. Now this was the manner. ] Tyrannus ille trium literarum, Mos, permultum apud omnes gentes invaluit. Several nations have their several customs and ceremonies. In this, there was some resemblance of that which had been appointed by Moses, Deu 25:9 but only there was some alteration crept in. a
A man plucked off his shoe.
a Diodat.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a man. Hebrew. ‘ish. App-14. A custom that grew up outside the Law.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
a man plucked off: This custom does not refer to the law about refusing to marry a brother’s widow, but was usual in the transfer of inheritances: for this relative was not a brother, but simply a kinsman; and the shoe was not pulled off by Ruth, but by the kinsman himself. The Targumist, instead of his shoe, renders “his right hand glove,” it probably being the custom, in his time, to give that instead of a shoe. Jarchi says, “When we purchase anything new, it is customary to give, instead of a shoe, a handkerchief or veil.” Deu 25:7-10
Reciprocal: Gen 23:17 – made sure Gen 23:20 – were Deu 25:9 – loose his shoe Psa 108:9 – I cast
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Rth 4:7. Now this was the manner in Israel, &c. We do not know that there was any law of God enjoining any such ceremony as is here mentioned; but only it was a long-established custom to act thus in transferring one mans right in any land to another. To confirm all things That is, in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that mentioned Deu 25:9, because that concerned only one case, but this is more general. Besides, he alleges, not the command of God, but only ancient custom for this practice. A man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour That is, he who relinquished his right to another did this. The reason of the custom, as Bishop Patrick observes, is plain enough, it being a natural signification that the man resigned his interest in the land by giving to the person redeeming his shoe wherewith he used to walk in it, to the end that he might enter into it, and take possession of it himself. Or it might signify that as he pulled off, and divested himself of his shoe, so he divested himself of that which he was about to surrender. It is now the custom with us, says Rabbi Jarchi, that a handkerchief or veil be given, instead of a shoe, when we purchase any thing. This was a testimony in Israel This was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
4:7 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 {e} testimony in Israel.
(e) That he had resigned his right, De 25:9.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
B. Boaz obtains the right to marry Ruth 4:7-12
Probably the practice of standing on land one possessed led to the custom of using the sandal as a symbol of possession in land transactions (Rth 4:7; cf. Gen 13:17; Deu 1:36; Deu 11:24; Jos 1:3; Jos 14:9). [Note: Ernest R. Lacheman, "Note on Ruth 4:7-8," Journal of Biblical Literature 56 (1937):53-56.] Many scholars believe that it was the kinsman who removed his sandal to symbolize the completion of the transaction (Rth 4:8).
Boaz’s emphasis on raising up the name of the deceased (Rth 4:10), namely, Mahlon, and his father, Elimelech, shows Boaz’s concern for the reputation and posterity of his family line. These were important concerns in Israel because of God’s promises concerning Abraham’s seed and especially Judah’s descendants (Gen 49:10).
"The ancients believed that when a person’s name is never mentioned after his death, he ceases to exist (Isa 14:20)." [Note: Block, p. 723.]
The witnesses to Boaz’s transaction wished God’s blessing of numerous descendants on him. They cited Rachel and Leah, both of whom, like Ruth, had joined the Israelites and had entered their land from alien nations that had demonstrated hostility to God’s people. Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem. She and her sister had given Jacob 12 sons directly and through their maids. They had indeed "built the house of Israel" (Rth 4:11). The people also wished wealth (cf. Rth 2:1; Rth 3:11) and fame on Boaz, which he did obtain thanks to God’s blessing on his family, especially through Ruth and David. Ephrathah means "fruitful."
The reference to Perez (Rth 4:12) is also significant. There are many parallels between the story of Boaz and Ruth and the story of Perez’s parents, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38). Ruth and Tamar were both foreigners who had married into Israel. The first husbands of both women died leaving them widows. Both women participated in levirate marriages. Tamar seduced Judah under cover of a disguise, but Ruth encouraged Boaz under the cover of night. When Judah and Tamar appeared before a public tribunal they were ashamed and condemned, but when Boaz and Ruth did so they received praise and blessing. In both cases the husbands were considerably older than the wives. Both women, however, bore sons in the Davidic messianic line, Ruth honorably and Tamar dishonorably. Tamar bore Perez, and Ruth bore Obed (lit. he who serves; Rth 4:21). Obed lived up to his personality trait name by serving as Boaz and Ruth’s son, and as Naomi’s grandson.
"Like Ruth, Tamar was a foreigner who perpetuated a family line threatened with extinction, one which later became Judah’s leading house, and thereby gained herself fame as its founding mother. If fertile, may not the equally creative (ch. 3) foreigner, Ruth, also preserve Elimelech’s line, and, if that line became famous, thereby earn a similar grand destiny?" [Note: Hubbard, p. 261.]
Perez’s descendants included many leaders who were a blessing to Israel. The tribe of Judah led the Israelites in the wilderness march and in the settlement of the land following Joshua’s death (Num 10:14; Jdg 1:1-2).
The witnesses also recognized that children are a gift from God (Rth 4:11; cf. Psa 127:3-5). They prayed that Boaz would achieve wealth (standing, valor, worth, ability; Heb. hayil) in Israel (cf. Rth 2:1; Rth 3:11). God is the source of all blessing.