When we left our principal characters in this epic story, Ruth had returned home to Naomi with a report full of hope and promise. And Boaz had headed from the threshing floor into the city, specifically the city gate.
Now, in my Mishkan Katan travelogue from Israel I mentioned the significance of the elders sitting in the city gates. The ancient cities of Israel were surrounded by strong, fortified walls, for the protection of the inhabitants. The most prominent men of the city would meet at the gates to the city each day. These locations were the “county seat”, the headquarters of the city’s civil government. Not only were civil disputes settled there, but Torah was “drashed” and taught also.
The sages say that Boaz was not only a prominent man, but that he was actually the religious leader of the local religious body as well. This means, for one thing, that he was tremendously well-versed in the Torah, the Law. He was, of course, headed to the city gate in order to fulfill his promise to Ruth. As he went, he must have wondered how this was going to turn out? Would the nearer kinsman want to fulfill his responsibility as kinsman-redeemer? And, then, there was the matter of Ruth being a Moabitess. In his mind he was no doubt going over the rationale that would allow a peerless Jewish man to marry a Moabitess....his thoughts must have been churning.
So, he arrived, and sat down (to wait on the Lord). That last phrase is not in the text, but it is surely implied. What does verse one actually say? Let’s see.
Vs. 1
וּבֹעַז עָלָה הַשַּׁעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם וְהִנֵּה הַגֹּאֵל עֹבֵר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר־בֹּעַז
וַיֹּאמֶר סוּרָה שְׁבָה־פֹּה פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי וַיָּסַר וַיֵּשֵׁב׃
1Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down.
The word translated as “Behold” in Hebrew is Hee-NAY, which in colloquial mountain lingo could be translated, “well, lookey here!” indicating a mixture of the command to “notice this” along with wonder or surprise. What a striking “coincidence” that the very man Boaz needed to see just “happened along”, right? Hee-NAY also carries with it a sense of the unusual. In other words, the nearest kinsman did not usually pass that way at that time, but the Lord guided him there. God’s favor was shown to Boaz, enabling him to fulfill his promise to Ruth. Accordingly, Boaz asked the nearer kinsman to turn away from his planned destination and to sit for a moment with Boaz.
In so doing, he called him by his name, we can assume, but in the Scriptures, it is recorded that Boaz calls him “Ploni Almoni”. This is most certainly a pseudonym and is often translated “so-and-so”. But, the actual meaning of “ploni” is “hidden” and that of “almoni” is “nameless”. None of this, as you might imagine, is complimentary to this nearer kinsman. It is said in ancillary Jewish writings that the man’s name was Tov (from the Hebrew word that means “good”), and also that he was Boaz’ uncle. Since he did not act in a “good” way toward Ruth, he was not deserving of his given name and so Scripture disguised his identity. More about why he was undeserving, in a moment....
Vs. 2
וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃
2And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down.
Now, you may be thinking, “why 10 men?”, and if so, that’s a good question on your part. Most of you are familiar with the concept of a quorum. It’s a certain percentage of decision-makers who are present at any given time that business is being conducted. Example: I’m on the RHC finance committee. When we meet, at least 4 of the 7 members must be present. Well, in Judaism, a congregational quorum required to carry out certain obligations, both religious and civil, was 10 godly men. This group of 10 men was called a “minyan” (meen-YAHN). And, the source for this requirement is the Talmud, a written compilation of the Oral Law, although we see it in practice here in the days of Ruth and Boaz. This was one of those traditions that had existed for centuries but did not get written down until several centuries later. The tradition sprang from the story in Numbers 13-14, in which twelve spies were sent by Moses into Canaan, to scope it out, and ten of them brought back an evil report. The practice also hearkens back to when God was going to destroy Sodom/Gomorrah, but agreed to spare those evil cities if 10 righteous men could be found within them. The concept and practice of minyan in a sense redeems those horrible events in the history of the Jewish nation.
In Boaz’ day and even until today, a minyan is needed to hold a wedding ceremony. But, in Boaz’ specific case, a minyan was required for an additional reason - - that being to publicly validate the acceptability of permitting a female Moabite into the community of Israel and beyond that, permitting the marriage of a male Israelite to a female Moabite, because the reverse was expressly forbidden by Almighty God. Does anyone remember why?
{The Moabites did not show hospitality to the fleeing Hebrews as they left Egypt and journeyed to Sinai.}
Vs. 3
וַיֹּאמֶר לַגֹּאֵל חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מֹואָב׃
Then he said to the redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative (in some translations “brother”) Elimelech.
So, to recap - - you had these three brothers - - Elimelech, Tov and Salmon. We remember that Elimelech was Naomi’s husband; Tov we just met; and Salmon was the father of Boaz. Salmon was also one of the two spies sent into Jericho and who collaborated with Rahab to deliver the city into the hands of the Israelites. Furthermore, Salmon MARRIED Rahab. It has been theorized that these three brothers inherited a large tract of land from Nashon, a very prominent man and indeed the head of the tribe of Judah in his day. Nashon was also the brother-in-law of Aaron, the high priest. A very great man.
Well, again, it is theorized by the sages that Nashon divided his property among his three sons. It was considered very bad form in those days to sell family land to anyone outside the family, as I’ve mentioned in previous lessons. Although you’ll see “relative” translated as “brother” in some translations, the term is used in a general sense, sort of like how some RHC’ers refer to our pastor as “brother George”.
Vs. 4
וַאֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אֶגְלֶה אָזְנְךָ לֵאמֹר קְנֵה נֶגֶד הַיֹּשְׁבִים וְנֶגֶד זִקְנֵי עַמִּי אִם־תִּגְאַל גְּאָל וְאִם־לֹא יִגְאַל הַגִּידָה לִּי ואדע כִּי אֵין זוּלָתְךָ לִגְאֹול וְאָנֹכִי אַחֲרֶיךָ וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֶגְאָל׃
So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ‘Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if youa will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.”
The sages point out that it is intentional Boaz uses the word “buy” in the first part of the verse and “redeem” later; they believe that redeeming demands a more magnanimous price than does merely buying, and that Boaz is urging his uncle to do the latter, immediately, without delay. Accordingly, that is what the nearer kinsman agrees to do.
You might think Boaz was surprised to hear his uncle Ploni Almoni agree to redeem the parcel. But, I don’t think he was. I think he was prepared. Without skipping a beat, look what Boaz declares next.
Vs. 5
וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז בְּיֹום־קְנֹותְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמֹּואֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת קניתי לְהָקִים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת עַל־נַחֲלָתֹו׃
Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruthb the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.”
As we’ve learned previously in our study, this requirement hearkens back to Leviticus 25:25, the obligation of levirate marriage. Who can summarize how that works, for those who may not have been here for that particular part of this study?
It is not clear whether or not Ploni Almoni knew of Ruth or whether he did not. One plausible explanation is that he agreed to redeem the land because a) he was aware of his obligation to redeem it and b) he did not know a widow was in the picture. Another explanation is that he knew of Ruth, but being uninformed or unlearned about that point of the Law, thought he would be released from the obligation to marry her as well because she was a Moabitess.
But, Boaz made it clear that it was not either/or, it was both/and. Uncle Ploni could not simply buy Naomi’s portion. He would be obligated to buy Ruth’s also, and go on to raise up sons in Mahlon’s name, Mahlon being the deceased husband of Ruth and Uncle Ploni’s nephew. The implication from Boaz was: “Just as we cannot allow the field to be redeemed by an outsider, neither can we allow a righteous convert like Ruth to be married to an outsider.” Can we say, “package deal”?
Vs. 6
וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לֹא אוּכַל לגאול־לִי פֶּן־אַשְׁחִית אֶת־נַחֲלָתִי גְּאַל־לְךָ אַתָּה אֶת־גְּאֻלָּתִי כִּי לֹא־אוּכַל לִגְאֹל׃
Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”
Much speculation has swirled around what the nearer kinsman might have meant when he said that acting as kinsman-redeemer would “impair his own inheritance”.
Here are what the commentators say:
- One theory is that he believed the family of Ruth, Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion to be cursed. After all, the sons married Moabite women, and they were now dead as a result. Daunting, to say the least!
- Another thought is that to bring another, presumably younger, woman into his home would disrupt the harmony of his home (I.e. tick his wife off).
- A popular theory is that the nearer kinsman was thinking of the welfare of his children, that his marrying a Moabite woman would contaminate his seed, that is, his family line, and that his children would invariably suffer the consequences of that decision, that of being tainted, disqualified as Israelites. This attitude would indicate an ignorance of the “loophole” in the Law, which permitted Israelite men to marry Moabite women, but not vice versa, because you may recall that it was only Moabite men who were inhospitable to the fleeing Hebrews. The women were not involved.
- Another possible explanation is that he was saying he was not worthy of such a task, that a more noble man such as the highly-esteemed Boaz was better suited to the task, which is why in verse 6 that it is essentially what he suggested. This situation was the first time this “loophole” was employed, and the Ploni Almoni did not want to be the “test case”. As one sage, Rabbi Breuer put it: “The greater the selfishness of the egoist, the more generous the measure of altruism he allows to others.”
So, bottom line, we do not fully understand what caused the nearer kinsman to refuse the right to Ruth and to her property, as well as to Naomi’s. We can ascertain, however, from the Holy Scriptures’ use of the derogatory term of “hidden/nameless” or “so-and-so" that his refusal was not honorable. As the nearer kinsman, he should have stepped up BEFORE NOW and fulfilled his role as kinsman-redeemer.
Some commentators have compared Boaz to the Lord Jesus, and Ploni Almoni to Satan and of course Ruth to the Body of Messiah, the Church. What the enemy Satan was unable/unwilling to do, our Lord Jesus was very much willing to do on our behalf, to become our kinsman and our redeemer.
Vs. 7 and 8
וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־הַגְּאוּלָּה וְעַל־הַתְּמוּרָה לְקַיֵּם כָּל־דָּבָר שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלֹו וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃
וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לְבֹעַז קְנֵה־לָךְ וַיִּשְׁלֹף נַעֲלֹו׃
7Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel. 8So when the redeemer said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself,” he drew off his sandal.
LOL, aren’t you glad that today we have what is called “the gentleman’s handshake”? Or, at least, it used to be that if two men “shook on it”, they were binding themselves to their word to follow through? It seems that even that can’t be depended on today. But, in the presence of the minyan, Boaz took off his sandal and handed it to his uncle. This symbolic act, or something similar depending on whichever ancient culture and its methods, would seal the transaction even though no money had yet changed hands. The moment the relinquishing party, in this case Ploni Almoni, took possession of the article, then the purchaser, in this case Boaz, would acquire the possession. After this, then, according to civil law, neither party could back out, or renege. The commentators say that it was at this point that Ruth became “married” Boaz.
There IS a minority opinion that, since the Scripture is not completely clear on this point, it was Ploni Almoni who took off his shoe/sandal and gave it to Boaz. Accompanying this opinion is that he actually THREW it at Boaz. Interestingly, the Hebrew word “shalach”, with the kaf sofit on the end, means “threw” not “drew off”. So....could be. The Scriptures are not completely specific on who “gave” whom the sandal....
Vs. 9 and 10
וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז לַזְּקֵנִים וְכָל־הָעָם עֵדִים אַתֶּם הַיֹּום כִּי קָנִיתִי אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ וְאֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר לְכִלְיֹון וּמַחְלֹון מִיַּד נָעֳמִי׃
וְגַם אֶת־רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלֹון קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה לְהָקִים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת עַל־נַחֲלָתֹו וְלֹא־יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם־הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקֹומֹו עֵדִים אַתֶּם הַיֹּום׃
9Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon.
10Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day.”
Apparently, while this discussion and transaction was occurring, a crowd of people at this busy nexus of the city, had gathered to witness it. The Jewish law requires the witness of only two men to confirm a testimony. But, in this case, with such a significant transaction, it was good to have not only the minyan there, but also a gaggle of townspeople. Boaz mentioned the witnesses twice, once in conjunction with the land acquisition and again in conjunction with his acquisition of Ruth as his wife. It certainly seems that Boaz took every possible precaution to ensure he was doing things legally and properly.
Note that the names of the deceased brothers are not recorded here in the same order as they are recorded elsewhere. They are listed by Boaz in the order they died, that is, in the order of the succession of their inheritance. Although Boaz was not redeeming Chilion’s family line, he mentioned him in connection with the property transference so that no heir of Orpah’s could ever come and claim right of ownership.
Even though this proceeding sounds to our modern ears to be quite cold and almost like the purchasing of a slave, to which as a people Americans have more of a cultural memory, there is little similarity. It is because in Jewish culture then and in orthodox communities today a Jewish wife is respected and a beloved partner in the sacred task of building a home that Boaz emphasizes his acquisition/purchase of Ruth separately from his purchase of the land.
The commentators say he also emphasized her identification as a Moabite to make clear that the prohibition of Israelites marrying Moabites did not extend or apply to Moabite women marrying Israelite men.
Vs. 11 and 12
וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר־בַּשַּׁעַר וְהַזְּקֵנִים עֵדִים יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה
הַבָּאָה אֶל־בֵּיתֶךָ כְּרָחֵל וּכְלֵאָה אֲשֶׁר בָּנוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶם אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵ
ל וַעֲשֵׂה־חַיִל בְּאֶפְרָתָה וּקְרָא־שֵׁם בְּבֵית לָחֶם׃
וִיהִי בֵיתְךָ כְּבֵית פֶּרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יָלְדָה תָמָר לִיהוּדָה מִן־הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן
יְהוָה לְךָ מִן־הַנַּעֲרָה הַזֹּאת׃
Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem, 12and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the LORD will give you by this young woman.”
This is one of my favorite parts of the book, actually. Here, we find the people of God pronouncing a blessing on Boaz and on Ruth, for the future of their family. Why did they mention Rachel and Leah?
Yes, these two women were chosen by God to partner with Jacob to “build” the house of Israel. They were the mothers of the twelve sons of Jacob, and these 12 sons became the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel. Do you remember which sons belonged to each of these women?
Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. Leah was the mother of Reuben, Judah, Levi, Simeon, Issachar and Zebulun. But, that’s only 8. What about the other four sons? These were the sons of the two foreign wives of Jacob: Bilhah (Dan and Naphtali) and Zilpah (Gad and Asher). These two women were, according to Jewish sources, actually the half-sisters of Rachel and Leah. Rachel and Leah were daughters from Laban’s primary wife, while Bilhah and Zilpah were his daughters by the primary wife’s maidservant. Accordingly, Bilhah and Zilpah grew up as maidservants themselves. It is said that Laban gave Bilhah to Leah as a wedding gift and that he gave Zilpah to Rachel as a wedding gift. (Note that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, also had a maidservant who bore a child to her husband. His name was Ishmael.). All the wives of Jacob were Aramean, which means that they were from the area we know today as Syria. The area in biblical times extended up all the way into Mesopotamia to the Euphrates River. Abraham was from this area originally, and this is why Jews sometimes will say, “Our father was a wandering Aramean.”
In the liturgy for the evening meal at the start of the Sabbath, there is a portion where the parents bless the children. For sons, the blessing spoken by the parents over their sons (who are at the table with them) is “May God make you like Ephraim and Menasheh.” For daughters, the blessing is “May God make you like Sarah and Rebecca, Rachel and Leah.” It is from Ruth 4:11 that this blessing in part derives.
But, I am really getting off into the weeds here. Let me get back on track. The people blessed Boaz in three ways or emphases: 1. the woman. 2. Boaz himself. 3. your house.
Before we go on to verse 13, let’s highlight why the crowd hearkened back to Perez, Tamar and Judah.
Who remembers what we learned about these three?
{recap here}
Six months later, Tamar gave birth to twin sons. The first born was named Perez (which means “breaking out”), and the second twin named Zerah (which means “seed”). Perez Is mentioned in Ruth chapter 4, in the genealogy of David. In verse 18 the scriptures say: “Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron was the father of Ram, Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab was the father of Nahshon, Nahshon was the father of Salmon, Salmon was the father of Boaz.” This means that Perez was Boaz’ 4th-great-grandfather.
The assembled people mentioned the Judah/Tamar story because it, too, was unconventional. Yet, God had still highly esteemed the house of Perez, the son of Judah and Tamar. In just a few verses, I want to share a fascinating thing in the Hebrew language, concerning Perez. We know next to nothing about him, in Scripture. But, his name holds a mystery. I’ll save that for verse 18, and our next broadcast, however.
No comments:
Post a Comment