Ruth 4:7

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.] In token of giving place to another; whence some will have it that David went barefoot from Jerusalem when Absalom was up against him. And others herehence expound that speech of his, Psa 60:8. Possessio est quasi pedum positio. In taking possession, a man goeth and setteth his foot upon the possession: and the giving his shoe to his neighbour, is a symbol of foregoing his right to him, so that he may not pass that way, but upon sufferance. Among us, a man may sue another for treading upon his grass: but such extremity is utterly void of charity.

{a} Diodat.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 man’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:7 in those days: The book of Ruth was not written immediately after these events. By the time Ruth was written, most people had forgotten this custom of removing a sandal and what it meant. The transfer of a sandal symbolized transferring a right of purchase to redeem the land. See also Deut 25:9 for a similar (but not identical) custom in relation to levirate marriage; in both cases, the sandal apparently signified the right of redemption.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

That he had resigned his right, Deut. 25:9.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

a man plucked off his shoe--Where the kinsman refused to perform his duty to the family of his deceased relation, the widow was directed to pull off the shoe with some attendant circumstances of contemptuous disdain. But, as in this case, there was no refusal, the usual ignominy was spared; and the plucking off the shoe, the only ceremony observed, was a pledge of the transaction being completed.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Chalîtzah, i.e. ‘removal’ of the shoe, see Oesterley and Box, Rel. and Worship of the Synagogue (1907), p. 294 f.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Lev 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 Deu 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

In former time in Israel - Showing that the custom was obsolete in the writer’s 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Israel. Hebrew, "and this was the testimony in Israel." The ceremony here specified is very different from that which the law prescribed, Deuteronomy xxv. 7. But Josephus says, that they complied with all the regulations of the law, and that Ruth was present on this occasion. (Calmet) --- Perhaps the law was not executed in all its rigour, when another was found to marry the widow, (Worthington) and when no real brother was living. (Tirinus)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And this was formerly a custom in Israel, on occasion of surrendering rights of kinship, or of selling and buying land, in order to confirm any matter; a man drew off his shoe and gave it to the other contracting party. This was attestation in Israel. We give a free translation. The custom was significant enough. He who sold land, or surrendered his right to act as a kinsman in buying land, intimated by the symbolical act of taking off his shoe, and handing it to his friend, that he freely gave up his right to walk upon the soil, in favor of the person who had acquired the possession. Corresponding symbolical acts, in connection with the transfer of lands, have been common, and probably still are, in many countries. No doubt the shoe, after being received, would be immediately returned.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All things - That is, in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that, Deut. xxv, 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. Gave it - 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 - This was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Now this was the custom

The writer of the book explains of the custom of exchange during the time of Ruth. (See: Background Information)

in former times

"in earlier times." This implies that the customs had changed from when the story took place until the book was written. (See: Background Information)

his shoe

"his sandal"

his neighbor

This refers to the person with whom he was making the agreement. In this situation the near kinsman gave Boaz his shoe.

translationWords

redeem

Israel

kin

Boaz

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

concerning redemption This is a sale.

and exchange This is an exchange.

one would remove his shoe This is an act of acquisition, as we acquire title with a scarf in lieu of a shoe, and our Rabbis of blessed memory differed on this matter: who gave [the shoe] to whom. Some say that we perform the act of acquisition with the utensil of the acquirer, and Boaz gave [the shoe] to the redeemer, and others say that we perform the act of acquisition with the utensil of the seller, and the redeemer gave [the shoe] to Boaz.

and this was the attestation in Israel the law of testimony.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

"In former times, in ancient days that have passed, as 'the faces' are the first.

"Concerning redemption." If a person redeems or exchanges one field for another.

"And this is the testimony." Derived from 'witnessing', about this they would testify, and some interpret the word 'testimony' as habit and custom. And the first is correct.

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.