One of the key moments in M’gilas Rus is the conversation between Boaz the unnamed relative of Elimelech’s (Rus 4:1-6). Although originally this relative agreed to “redeem” the field that had been Elimelech’s and was sold by his widow Nu’umi, after being told that doing so included marrying Rus, he backed out. However, it is unclear why the two were connected. Why was being able to “redeem” the land dependant on marrying Rus, the widow of Elimelech’s son Machlon? Why couldn’t the unnamed relative insist on taking the field without having to take Rus too?

In 5763, I suggested the following: “Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘Jerusalem was destroyed because [its inhabitants] insisted on acting [with each other] based on the dictates of the law, rather than going above and beyond that which the law requires” (Bava M’tzia 30b). While the relative might have been within his legal rights to insist that he be able to buy the field without any other conditions, he also knew that doing so would not be fair to Rus. By allowing Boaz, who wanted to marry her, “redeem” the field instead of him, he was thereby allowing Rus to stay connected to the land that had belonged to the person who first introduced her to (the religion now known as) Judaism, land that would stay with her progeny. He had seen the troubles that had befallen Elimelech and his family and wasn’t going to turn his back on a downtrodden convert. Even if, had he gone to a rabbinical court, the law would have been decided in his favor (allowing him to buy the field unconditionally), he went beyond what the law required (while being within its parameters) to do what he knew was right. Looking into this issue again this year, I found that the Akeidas Yitzchok makes a similar suggestion, boruch she’kivanti. Nevertheless, there are other possibilities as well.

In order to figure out how redeeming the field that Nu’umi sold required marrying Rus, we have to figure out how Nu’umi even had a field to sell. After all, when Elimelech died, his property was inherited by his children, Machlon and Khilyon, not by his wife. When they died, their wives didn’t inherit what had been Elimelech’s property, and neither did their mother. It would have gone to the males in Elimelech’s family, i.e. Boaz and this unnamed relative. How could Nu’umi have sold a field that had belonged to Elimelech (4:3) to a third party, thereby requiring that it be “redeemed” by those same relatives to whom the field should have belonged?

One possibility is based on Nu’umi being a family member even before she married Elimelech, as she was his brother’s daughter (see Bava Basra 91a). If she had no brothers, she would have inherited her father’s property. It might have still been referred to as “the portion of the field that was our brother Elimelech’s” because while he was alive, he was the administrator even though Nu’umi was the actual owner. [A similar scenario would result if Elimelech, or Machlon or Khilyon, had given Nu’umi the property as a gift, with the field being referred to as “Elimelech’s” because at one time it did belong to him.] When she sold this field (because she needed the money), other family members could then redeem it from the buyer, whether the buyer wanted to sell it back to the family or not. However, under these circumstances, after the field was “redeemed” it wouldn’t belong to the redeemer, but would go back to Nu’umi. Yet, this transaction, besides being described as a “redemption,” is also referred to as an “acquisition” (4:4), with the redeemer “acquiring it from Nu’umi and Rus” (4:5). It is therefore possible that there were two steps to this redemption; first the field would be brought back to the family by redeeming it from the person Nu’umi had sold it to, then it would be acquired by the redeemer in exchange for marrying Rus. The other relative was willing to redeem the field so that it would go back to Nu’umi, but he wasn’t willing to marry Rus. He therefore let Boaz redeem the field instead, since he would fulfill the second part of the transaction–marrying Rus and taking possession of the field that would have belonged to her first husband (and would eventually belong to her children). Although he could have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Rus, since the field would go back to Nu’umi, it was not a business decision, but an act of kindness. Boaz redeeming the field accomplished the same “kindness” (getting the field back into the family) and then some (since he would marry Rus), so there was no reason for the unnamed relative to insist that he be the one to redeem the field.

Most understand Nu’umi having a field to sell to be referring to the lien she had on Elimelech’s field to cover her k’suba (marriage contract); she sold “part of one of Elimelech’s fields” in order to get the money she was owed from her k’suba. After it was sold to a third party, Boaz wanted to “redeem” it, i.e. bring it back into the family. In this case, since Elimelech’s property had no other inheritors, it would go to his brothers (and their families), i.e. Boaz and this unnamed relative. As opposed to the standard “redemption,” where the redeemer doesn’t keep what was redeemed, here the redeemer would “acquire” it. (However, whichever relative took possession of the field that was sold would get the corresponding amount less of the rest of Elimelech’s property.) Rus would have also had a lien on property for her k’suba. If she hadn’t sold that field yet, she could insist that whomever buys it agrees to marry her (see Rashi on 4:5). It is also possible that Nu’umi hadn’t actually sold her field yet, and this “redemption” meant selling it to a relative rather than to a third party, in which case she could make the same stipulation–in order to take “possession” of these fields the “redeemer” would have to marry Rus. (If the two fields were next to each other, even if Nu’umi had already sold hers, the relative who would redeem it would likely want to “own” both of them; without Rus agreeing to sell her part, there would be less interest in redeeming Nu’umi’s.)

Even if both Nu’umi and Rus had already sold their fields, it is still possible that they could have determined who gets to redeem them. Relative are not required to perform a “redemption” (see Rambam’s Hilchos Sh’mita 11:18), but if one of them wants to, the person who bought the field cannot prevent it. Normally, there would be no reason for the person who sold the field to tell the relative willing to redeem it “no thanks,” and if they did, the potential redeemer would probably be thrilled that he didn’t have to spend any money on a field he couldn’t benefit from. In this case, however, Nu’umi and Rus already received the money owed for their k’subos. They wouldn’t get any additional use from the field after it was redeemed (unless one of them married the redeemer); the redeemer would have full use of the property. Can such a field also be “redeemed” against the buyer’s will? What if both the buyer and the seller don’t want the “redemption” to occur, can the “redeemer” still proceed? In Meishiv Nefesh (his commentary on Rus), the Bach says it’s likely that a redeemer cannot force the buyer to sell the field to him if the original seller does not want it to happen. If so, in order for the unnamed relative to be able to buy Nu’umi’s field back against the will of the buyer, she would have to want it to happen as well. And she could insist that she’ll only “want” it if the redeemer agrees to marry Rus.

It is clear that the underlying concept behind the relationship between Boaz and Rus was “yibum” (levirate marriage), where a relative of the deceased marries the widow, and “their firstborn takes the place of the deceased brother” (D’varim 25:6). This is apparent from the fact that when Rus first mentions Boaz marrying her, she refers to him as “the redeemer” (Rus 3:9), from Boaz describing the purpose of “buying” Rus’ field to be “taking the place of the deceased” (4:5), and from his similarly describing the essence of his marriage to Rus (4:10). Even though the “yibum” described in the Torah (and halacha) is only the brother of the deceased and not other relatives, this is likely because there is no prohibition against the widow marrying any of the other relatives; the Torah (and halacha) has to teach us that even though usually the wife of a brother is forbidden, in the case of “yibum” it is not. The concept, and advantages, of “yibum” (from a kabbalistic perspective) also apply to other close relatives if there is no brother. As Ramban puts it (B’raishis 38:9), “this subject is one of the great secrets/mysteries (read: kabbalistic concepts) of the Torah regarding human reproduction, which is recognized by those who have eyes to see, to whom G-d has given eyes to see and ears to hear… that there is a great benefit when the brother performs ‘yibum,’ and it is appropriate that he (the brother) should have precedence and afterwards the closest member of the family, for [regarding] all relatives who are close to him from his family–in the sense that they inherit them–a benefit results through [the widow marrying] him.” On 38:8, Ramban includes the marriage of Boaz to Rus as an example of “yibum.”

The Talmud (Y’vamos 24a) says that the expression “taking the place of the deceased” (literally: “establishing upon the name of the deceased”), used in the Torah to describe “yibum” and in M’gilas Rus to describe the relationship between Boaz and Rus, refers to inheriting the land that had belonged to the deceased. As Rashi paraphrases it (D’varim 25:6), “the one who performs “yibum” with [the dead person’s] wife takes the inheritance of the deceased.” For example, if there were three brothers (none of whom were the firstborn), they would normally divide their father’s estate in thirds, each brother inheriting a third. If the older brother died without children and the second brother performed “yibum,” the second brother now receives two thirds of their father’s estate, his original share and the share that would have gone to his older brother. (Had there been no “yibum” despite the oldest brother having no children, the two surviving brothers would each get half of the estate.) To put it succinctly, the estate of the deceased is transferred to the one who performs “yibum.”

“And Boaz said to the nation, ‘you are witnesses today that I have acquired all that belonged to Elimelech, and all that belonged to Khilyon and Machlon” (Rus 4:9). Everything? Nothing went to the other living relative(s)? Well, since upon Elimelech’s death all of his possessions went to Machlon and Khilyon, and Khilyon died without children, by marrying Machlon’s widow (Rus), Boaz took over Elimelech’s entire estate. Now let’s look back at the conversation between Boaz and the unnamed relative. Why couldn’t the other relative “redeem” the property that Nu’umi had sold without marrying Rus? Technically, he might have been able to. But if he didn’t marry Rus, Boaz was going to. And once Boaz marries Rus, all of Elimelech’s fields will be transferred to him. What would be the point of redeeming Elimelech’s field if it was going to belong to Boaz anyway?