Ruth 4:5

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 Ruth 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 Ruth 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 Deuteronomy 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 (Ruth 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 Ruth 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. Ruth 4:10); it meant that the dead was deprived of the reverence and service of posterity (cf. 2 Samuel 18:18). This feeling may be traced back to the religious instinct which prompted the worship of ancestors.