Chapter 4 of Megillat Rut is the chapter where all the threads tie together. Boaz goes up to the gate, convenes a Beit Din, clarifies the halachah, arranges the redemption and the marriage - and out of all of this, the Davidic dynasty is built. We will follow the order of the pesukim, according to the commentary of the Malbim, along with the words of Chazal and the accompanying Midrashim.
וּבֹעַז עָלָה הַשַּׁעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם, וְהִנֵּה הַגֹּאֵל עֹבֵר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר־בֹּעַז, וַיֹּאמֶר סוּרָה שְׁבָה־פֹּה פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי, וַיָּסַר וַיֵּשֶׁב. (א) - "Boaz went up to the gate and sat there. And behold, the redeemer of whom Boaz had spoken passed by, and he said, 'Turn aside, sit here, so-and-so.' And he turned aside and sat down." (1)
The pasuk must be punctuated correctly: Boaz went up to the gate and sat there - and Chazal say that this was the seat of the Sanhedrin. His intention was to send a messenger of the Beit Din to summon the redeemer, in order to confirm officially that he had no interest in redeeming. And while Boaz was still speaking with the judges, telling them to summon the redeemer - behold, the redeemer passed by.
Here the Malbim teaches a major rule in the Holy Tongue: wherever the word "hinei" (behold) appears, it refers to something novel that occurred out of the ordinary course of things. Based on this, it is understandable why dreams always feature "ve-hinei": "and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright," "and behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf," "and behold, the sun and the moon bowed down to me." Everything there is a surprise, something that did not exist before, and therefore the expression conveys astonishment. So too here: it was not the redeemer's usual practice to pass by there, and the Holy One, blessed be He, brought him there unexpectedly. Chazal say that even had he been at the end of the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have flown him there - so that that tzaddik would not suffer and wait until they called and summoned him, and to expedite the matter from which the Mashiach of Hashem would emerge.
In Midrash Rut Rabbah, Rabbi Berachiah said: Thus expounded two giants of the world, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Boaz did his part, Rut did her part, and Naomi did her part. Until now we have seen how each one fulfilled their piece of the puzzle to complete the kingdom of the House of David. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I too will do My part. What was His part? The redeemer was needed here - and He immediately brought him. Without any special summons, someone who was not supposed to pass by there at all suddenly arrived and appeared.
"Surah" (turn aside) - you intend to go on your way, and you think you passed by here by chance; I ask that you turn aside and sit down, for I have an urgent matter to settle with you. We find this expression with Lot as well: "Please turn aside to your servant's house." Concerning this, Chazal expounded, "'I have found David My servant' - where did I find him? In Sedom." For the primary reason Lot was saved was so that Rut the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess would descend from him. Therefore, the angels asked him, "Whom else do you have here? A son-in-law..." - who here is the worthy son-in-law from whom King David is destined to descend? He answered them that there was none: "and he seemed like a jester in the eyes of his sons-in-law." They said: If there is no son-in-law through whom he will come, the matter will come about through Lot and his daughters. That same expression of "turn aside, please," which marked the beginning of redemption there, returns here: "Turn aside, sit here" - and from here the redemption will come.
The Malbim explains: "Peloni" is related to "pela" (wonder / specification), as in "when someone clearly utters [yafli] a vow," referring to deliberating and clarifying one's thought. "Hafla'ah" means to elucidate and articulate. "Almoni" is related to binding, as in "binding sheaves [mealmim alumim]." That is, Boaz is telling him: The time has come for you to articulate and clarify your intent, whether you wish to marry her or not, and let us untie the knot and know what is inside it.
The Targum explains "Peloni Almoni" as "covered and concealed." Peloni comes from "pela," a hidden matter, as in "If a matter is concealed [yippale] from you," which means hidden from you. Almoni means concealed and hidden. And what is the connection to the word "almoni"? Either from "almanah" (widow), who no longer bears her husband's name, and so this man has no name associated with him and it is not known who or what he is; or from "illem" (mute), meaning his name is not pronounced. And some say: a widow too cannot speak up and stand up for her rights.
And why did the Torah conceal his name? Because he was modest. Boaz told him: Now is not the time to act with modesty; on the contrary - now one must act with publicity. For we are coming to marry a Moabitess, and a Moabitess is ostensibly forbidden to enter the congregation, and only by virtue of the derashah "an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess" is she permitted. This halachah was still uncertain in their hands, and Boaz gathered the men to publicize it. Therefore he told him: There is no room here to hide; this must be done publicly, so that it becomes publicized that a Moabite woman is permitted to enter the congregation even though a Moabite man is forbidden.
וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ. (ב) - "And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, 'Sit down here,' and they sat down." (2)
Seemingly, why did he need ten? It should have been enough to state the matter before the judges at the gate. Rather, according to Chazal's exposition cited by the Malbim, he wanted to expound before them: "An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess," since this halachah was still fragile in their grasp. The Gemara asks: Is a ruling not expounded if there are not ten? Does every statement of halachah require a minyan? Rather, it is like that sage who, whenever he wished to publicize a halachah, would gather a minyan and state it before them - which brought about publicity. In those days there were no newspapers, and by announcing it before ten, they would spread the word. Boaz wanted this halachah to be widely publicized.
The Malbim adds an important principle: When a Talmid Chacham states a halachic ruling, it depends on when he stated it. If he stated it after the deed, it is not accepted from him; if he stated it prior to the deed, it is accepted. For example, if someone did an action regarding meat and milk, and people came and told him it was forbidden, and he innovated a halachah to permit it - it is not accepted from him, because he stated it after the fact. But if he taught the halachah first, and a week later found himself in that same situation and acted accordingly - it is accepted from him, since the halachic ruling preceded the deed. Therefore, Boaz acted proactively, taking ten men and expounding before them before the redemption took place, while the right to redeem and perform the levirate marriage still belonged to Tov who preceded him, so that Boaz had no personal stake in the matter. Later, once he became personally involved, he would no longer be able to expound it.
Another reason given by Chazal: Birkat Chatanim requires ten men, as explained in Yevamot; therefore he wanted them ready on hand so they could recite the blessings right there without delay or interruption.
וַיֹּאמֶר לַגֹּאֵל, חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב. (ג) - "And he said to the redeemer, 'Naomi, who has returned from the country of Moab, has sold the parcel of land that belonged to our brother, to Elimelech.'" (3)
First, let us understand the concept of redemption in those days. This was not the standard yibum familiar to us today, which applies only to a brother. In their time, two practices were customary: First, a relative redeems the land - as stated explicitly in the Torah, "either his uncle or his uncle's son shall redeem him" - the reason being that the land should remain within the family, not necessarily with a brother, but within the extended family, the tribe. Second, the relative who purchased the land would also marry the widow, in a manner akin to yibum, so that the name of the deceased would be perpetuated upon his inheritance: the child born is a continuation of the deceased landowner, and the land bears his name.
Now we must understand: If Naomi had already sold it, what was there left for the redeemer to redeem? Furthermore, ancestral land cannot be redeemed in less than two years, so how could Boaz say to him later, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi"? Therefore, the Malbim explains that it does not mean she had already sold it in practice, but rather "Naomi has sold" means she agreed to sell, she resolved to sell, and thus it is considered as if sold. She had full resolve to sell the field, and Boaz told her that first he wished to inform the redeemer who preceded him and offer him the opportunity to buy it.
And why does the verse say "the parcel of land" (chelkat hasadeh), implying part of the field rather than the whole of it? The Malbim finds difficulty with Ibn Ezra's view that Elimelech possessed only a single parcel of land, for Elimelech was a very wealthy man. Rather, "the parcel of the field" means that the field was destined to be divided, because there were two women involved: Naomi, the wife of Elimelech, who was entitled to a portion of her husband's field, and Ruth, the wife of Machlon, who was entitled to a portion by virtue of her ketubah, since her husband had died without assets. Therefore, Boaz begins by informing him only of Naomi's share, not yet disclosing that this was a package deal that also included Ruth's share - which he would reveal to him only later.
וַאֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אֶגְלֶה אָזְנְךָ לֵאמֹר, קְנֵה נֶגֶד הַיֹּשְׁבִים וְנֶגֶד זִקְנֵי עַמִּי, אִם־תִּגְאַל גְּאָל וְאִם־לֹא יִגְאַל הַגִּידָה לִּי וְאֵדְעָה כִּי אֵין זוּלָתְךָ לִגְאוֹל וְאָנֹכִי אַחֲרֶיךָ, וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֶגְאָל. (ד) - "And I thought I would disclose it to you, saying: Buy it in the presence of those seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if he will not redeem it, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I am after you." And he said, "I will redeem it." (4)
It would seem he should have said, "and if you will not redeem it," since he is speaking to him face to face. The Malbim explains that Boaz is recounting here what he had told Naomi: when Naomi told him that she wished to sell the field, he told her that Tov took precedence over him. Now, he turns to the redeemer and says, "If you will redeem it, redeem it," and immediately switches back to quoting what he told Naomi - "and if he will not redeem it," meaning if he does not redeem it, I will redeem it. Therefore, the phrase is in the third person, as he is relating what he had promised Naomi.
Others add another reason: regarding the positive option, he addresses him directly in the second person, "If you will redeem it, redeem it," but regarding the negative outcome, he avoids saying it directly to his face, so it would not sound as if there is a flaw in him for not wishing to redeem his family's field. This is the common practice everywhere, to phrase negative matters in the third person, just as the Gemara says, "those men almost died," rather than "we almost died."
Boaz continues: I do not want our inheritance to fall into the hands of strangers, and therefore I am informing you that you come first in redemption; but if you are unwilling - tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I am after you. The other replies immediately, "I will redeem it" - for at this point, all he knows about is Naomi's portion, and he has not yet heard about the portion of Ruth.
וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז, בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת קָנִיתָ, לְהָקִים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת עַל־נַחֲלָתוֹ. (ה) - "And Boaz said: On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the deceased, to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance." (5)
As is standard in business, one begins by presenting the attractive aspects, and just before finalizing the deal discloses the conditions: keep in mind that there is no warranty, so you cannot claim you were not informed. So did Boaz: he first presented Naomi's parcel, and once Tov agreed, he informed him that Ruth is also involved here.
The Malbim notes the subtle shift in phrasing. Initially the text said "the parcel of the field," whereas here it says "your buying the field" - meaning there is no option to purchase only Naomi's portion, but rather an all-inclusive deal for the entire field. Furthermore, Naomi's portion is acquired "from the hand of Naomi," through standard legal modes of acquisition, hand to hand, as a standard sale. However, Ruth's portion is acquired "from Ruth" - not a hand-to-hand acquisition, but rather by marrying her through yibum, whereby her field automatically becomes his through his status as her husband. That is why it says "from the hand of" there and "from" here: you acquire her, and with her comes her share in the field.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל, לֹא אוּכַל לִגְאָל־לִי פֶּן־אַשְׁחִית אֶת־נַחֲלָתִי, גְּאַל־לְךָ אַתָּה אֶת־גְּאֻלָּתִי כִּי לֹא־אוּכַל לִגְאֹל. (ו) - "And the redeemer said: I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it." (6)
What does "to redeem it for myself" mean? It would have been enough to say "I cannot redeem it." But Boaz had informed him that the purchase is "to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance," meaning that from now on the field would be named after Machlon. To this the redeemer replied: for myself I cannot redeem it. Had the field henceforth been known as "the field of Tov," I would have been willing; but if it is called the field of Machlon, I would ruin my own estate, as the field would no longer bear my name.
And why did he repeat "for I cannot redeem it" a second time? Chazal explain: because he did not expound the halachic derivation "an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess." According to his view, if he were to marry Ruth, any offspring would not be reckoned after him genealogically, since she would be forbidden to enter the congregation, and consequently the field would not be passed down in his name - and this is "lest I ruin my own inheritance," meaning that my children will not carry on after me. He therefore doubled his statement, the second time being due to the fear of a prohibition.
Another explanation: The redeemer feared punishment. Why did Machlon and Chilyon die? Because they married Moabite women. He thought: If I marry Ruth and children are born to me, what will be their fate? Will they die just as Machlon and Chilyon died? Look what became of those who married a Moabite woman. And an additional explanation: "Lest I ruin my inheritance" - I am already married, so why should I bring a rival wife into my home?
There is a difficulty here in the verse: If you fear ruining your inheritance, how can you say to your fellow, "Redeem it yourself"? This is like someone being offered a cup who says: No, it is poisonous, you drink it, please! Does Boaz not have reason to worry? According to the explanation that he was married, this is understandable: I am married, and I would be bringing a rival wife into my home, whereas you are a widower. But there is another explanation: As is well known, the entire law of yibum applies only when performed purely for the sake of Heaven. With two brothers, if his intent is not for the sake of Heaven, not only is it not yibum, it is actually a transgression, for a brother's wife is otherwise forbidden forever and is permitted only through yibum. In our case there is no biblical prohibition, since he is not a brother, yet the entire concept of perpetuating the name of the deceased upon his inheritance exists only when done for the sake of Heaven. The redeemer said to him: I am a simple man, and there is a concern that I might marry her for money or beauty. But you, Boaz, are a judge and the greatest of the generation, and especially since you are already old - with you there is no such concern, for your marriage will certainly be for the sake of Heaven, and therefore for you there is no "lest I ruin my inheritance." "Redeem my redemption yourself."
Rashi explains "lest I ruin my inheritance" - that I will ruin my offspring; the redeemer feared that his children would be considered Moabites. The Brisker Rav asks a powerful question: If you fear that a Moabite woman is not permitted to enter the congregation, then are you yourself permitted to marry her? Why do you fear only for the children?
A similar story is told about a man who came before the Chazon Ish. He said that he lived in Haifa, his children were beginning to grow up, the place was full of improper influences, and he was worried; should he move to a Torah-observant city? The Chazon Ish said to him: You fear for your children, but what about you? Are you immune? Is everything fine with you that you can remain in such a place? So too here: if she is considered a Moabite, she is forbidden to you as well, and you would be marrying a forbidden woman just as your sons would be considered Moabites.
The Brisker Rav resolves this based on the episode involving Shaul. After David struck down Goliath, Shaul asked Doeg the Edomite, "Whose son is this youth?", "Whose son is this lad?" - and our Sages expounded that he was asking whether he was from the descendants of Peretz or from Zerach: from Zerach come princes, but from Peretz come kings; that is, does he pose a threat to the monarchy? Doeg replied to him: Before you ask whether he is fit for royalty, ask whether he is fit to enter the congregation at all, for his ancestress was a Moabite! Avner immediately arose and said: Surely it is expounded, "An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess." Doeg was no ordinary man - he was a great scholar - and he retorted: If so, then for "A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of Hashem," you should also expound a male mamzer and not a female mamzer, since it is stated in the masculine form! They debated back and forth: But the stated reason is "because they did not meet you with bread and water," and it is the way of a man to go out and meet guests, not the way of a woman. The debate continued until Amasa ben Yether came and declared: Thus have I received a tradition from the court of Shmuel of Ramah - an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess. And immediately the dispute was settled.
The Brisker Rav asks: What did "thus have I received as a tradition" accomplish? After all, there was a Beit Din there; one scholar derived it one way and another derived it differently, you offer a kal vachomer and he offers another exposition. Rather, a textual derivation can be refuted or overturned, and to this Amasa ben Yether came and said: You are mistaken, this is not a mere derivation but a Halachah le-Moshe mi-Sinai, an oral tradition from Sinai - thus have I received it. And regarding a Halachah le-Moshe mi-Sinai, there are no disputes; bring verses, bring expositions - there is nothing left to argue.
According to this, the words of the redeemer are explained beautifully. He said to Boaz: You suggest that I marry her, but I fear that perhaps the exposition "an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess" will not hold, and perhaps she is a full-fledged Moabite. They told him: You have nothing to worry about; there is a Beit Din here, and they have ruled that she is permitted. He replied: You have reassured me; for myself I have a ruling, a seal of approval. But what will be with the children? In two generations, another court may arise that is greater in wisdom and in number, disagree with the exposition, and overturn the ruling - for one can dispute a textual derivation - and then they will say to my children: Your mother was a Moabite, you are disqualified from entering the congregation! And that is "lest I ruin my inheritance." Only several generations later, in the generation of David, when Amasa ben Yether came and established that it was a Halachah le-Moshe mi-Sinai, did the arguments cease completely. But in the days of Boaz, the matter was still subject to dispute. Therefore he said: You are right, Boaz, you brought ten elders, there is a Beit Din here that expounded it, and for me that suffices - but what will become of my children if tomorrow a court expounds differently?
In chapter 4 we see how Divine Providence completes the work: Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi each did their part, and the Holy One, blessed is He, said, "I too will do Mine" - bringing the redeemer to the gate at that very hour. Boaz gathered ten of the city's elders to publicize and expound "an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess" before he became personally involved as an interested party, since a halachah stated before the practical case arises is accepted. He offered the redeemer the parcel of land that Naomi had resolved to sell, and clarified that the transaction also included Ruth's portion, acquired not "from the hand of" but "from" - through marriage, to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. The redeemer hesitated: "I cannot redeem it for myself" - out of concern for his estate, out of concern over a prohibition that had not yet been fully settled, and out of concern for the future of his offspring. In doing so, he cleared the way for Boaz, from whom the dynasty of David would emerge.