Introduction: The Act of Acquisition at the Gate
In this part of the chapter, we find ourselves in the heart of the kinyan (formal acquisition) ceremony conducted by Boaz at the city gate. Here, the text reveals a rare historical and halachic detail: how transactions and acquisitions were finalized in Israel in earlier generations. From a single short verse, the Malbim unpacks an entire developmental progression of the methods of kinyan in Israel, and the special consideration that led Boaz to choose this ancient method specifically. Let us follow the order of the verses.
"A Man Drew Off His Shoe" - An Acquisition Designed to Validate
וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל הַתְּמוּרָה לְקַיֵּם כׇּל דָּבָר, שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ, וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. - Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: a man drew off his shoe and gave it to his fellow, and this was the manner of attestation in Israel.
The verse speaks of two situations: a person who wants to redeem, and a person who wants to exchange. "To confirm anything" - when they wanted to validate and confirm a matter, they would perform a kinyan. The Rambam writes that many forms of kinyan do not signify selling an item, but rather validating an act. A familiar example: a groom standing on his wedding night, and the officiating rabbi hands him a handkerchief or pen and says, "Lift it up to make a kinyan." What is being bought here? What is being sold? There is neither a sale nor a purchase here - the kinyan serves only to give binding legal validity to the commitment. This is the meaning of "to confirm anything." And how was the kinyan performed? "A man drew off his shoe and gave it to his fellow" - a person would remove his shoe and give it to his fellow to lift up and effect the transaction. "And this was the manner of attestation in Israel" - this was the testimony that the transaction had taken place.
The Groom Who Wanted to Make a Kinyan with a Shoe
Rav Zilberstein recounted an interesting question that came before him. He was officiating at a wedding, and the groom turned to him: After all, the verse states, "Now this was the custom in former times in Israel... a man drew off his shoe," and I want to perform the kinyan binding my ketubah obligations just like in former times in Israel - with a shoe. He also had a reasoning: Look at the lineage that emerged from that very kinyan, King David! I want to revive this kinyan, and who knows, perhaps great and righteous descendants will come from us as well.
The Rav replied: First of all, how could we do a kinyan with a shoe today? A shoe has ritual impurity, and after touching it one must wash their hands - should we stop in the middle of the chuppah to wash hands? The groom answered that he had prepared in advance by bringing a cloth with which he would remove the shoe and lift it. The Rav asked him: And why did they do the kinyan specifically with a shoe in ancient times? What is wrong with your Parker pen? He explained based on the Ibn Ezra: Because there was immense poverty, and a person had nothing else with which to make a kinyan. Would he take off his shirt? That was all he had on. He wore a single tunic, and if he had even a little money, he also owned shoes; a truly poor man did not even have shoes. Therefore, whoever had something used a shoe for the kinyan. But today, everyone carries more than enough suitable objects for a kinyan.
The Rav added: A person who performs a kinyan with a shoe today would look like a fool and an ignoramus - why on earth take off a shoe in the middle of the chuppah and lift it up? And regarding hand-washing, he related an incident involving the Chazon Ish, who once asked one of the scholars visiting him to move his shoes using a cane. The scholar said, "I will pick them up with my hands and move them away." The Chazon Ish told him, "There is a ruach ra'ah (spirit of impurity) on them." The scholar replied, "I will wash my hands afterward." The Chazon Ish responded, "True, but every moment one can be free of the ruach ra'ah is preferable." In other words, why bring upon yourself a ruach ra'ah and the need to wash hands if it can be avoided from the start? In the end, Rav Zilberstein rejected the idea completely.
The Evolution of Kinyan: Shoe, Ketzatzah, Money, Document, and Possession
Now let us turn to the Malbim's explanation, which requires focus, as it contains intricate points of study. The Malbim cites the Midrash: Originally, transactions were executed with a shoe or sandal, as it says, "a man drew off his shoe." Later, they transitioned to effecting transactions through ketzatzah (a severance ceremony). What was ketzatzah? Rabbi Yosi bar Avin said: Whenever someone would sell his ancestral field - meaning selling it to an outsider rather than to a family member - his relatives would bring a barrel full of roasted grains and nuts and smash it before the children, publicly in a place where many children gathered, and the children would gather them up and chant: "So-and-so has been cut off from his estate!" What kind of kinyan is this? A kinyan that cannot be forgotten. Such an act generates widespread notice, and everyone knows that an acquisition took place and was firmly established.
The Midrash describes another situation as well: If someone married a woman not fitting for him - where the marriage represented a decline in status, to an unsuitable family or one of questionable lineage - then the relatives, who disapproved of the match, would likewise bring a barrel full of roasted grains and nuts and smash it before the children. The children would gather them up and chant: "So-and-so is lost from his family!" "So-and-so has been cut off from his family!" Thus, the rite of ketzatzah was performed in two scenarios: "So-and-so has been cut off from his estate" - when he sold his ancestral land, and "So-and-so has been cut off from his family" - when he entered into an unfitting marriage. Ultimately, they transitioned to acquiring land through kesef (money), shtar (contract), and chazakah (taking possession), which remains the standard method for acquiring real estate to this day according to Chazal.
"Lefanim" and Not "Milfanim"
Based on this, the Malbim explains the verse's wording, "Now this was formerly in Israel" (vezot lefanim be-Yisrael) - meaning in ancient times. In the days of Yehoshua, they would acquire property through chalifin (symbolic exchange), but after the era of Yehoshua, they began to acquire property through ketzatzah. The Malbim notes a precise distinction: there is a difference between lefanim ("formerly") and milfanim ("from of old"). Milfanim implies that just as they practice today, so too they practiced back then, from time immemorial. But lefanim means that they practiced this only back then, and no longer today. And here it says "formerly in Israel" - because the acquisition by means of the shoe had already fallen out of practice.
Why Was the Acquisition of Chalifin Discontinued?
Why was it discontinued? Tosafot in Masechet Arachin write that anything that eventually returns to its owner - such as a gift given on condition that it be returned, a loan, or a rental - cannot be acquired through chalifin. Chalifin is effective only for a permanent, absolute acquisition; an acquisition that is destined to return cannot be acquired through chalifin. This raises an obvious difficulty, notes the Malbim: Where do we learn the concept of kinyan chalifin in the first place? From Boaz! We have no other source in the Torah for kinyan chalifin other than "a man drew off his shoe." Yet there, the transaction involved land that would return to its original owners in the Yovel (Jubilee) year - a temporary acquisition - so how could they use chalifin there?
The Malbim resolves this based on the Gemara in Masechet Gittin. The Gemara explains that a person brings bikkurim (first fruits) and recites the declaration "the land which You, Hashem, have given me" only when the land belongs to him entirely. But regarding land that is destined to revert in the Yovel, how could he say "the land which You have given me" when it is not fully his? The Gemara answers that there was indeed a circumstance in which one would bring the first fruits and recite the declaration even on land that reverts in the Yovel: during the first fifty years after entering Eretz Yisrael, before a single Yovel had yet passed. At that time, when someone bought land, it was still assumed in his mind that it would remain his permanently; and when someone sold land, it was not yet tangible to him that it would ever return, since they had not yet experienced such an event. Only after the first fifty years, once they witnessed the Yovel arrive and everything returned to its original owners, could a buyer no longer recite the declaration, since it was now completely clear to everyone that all land would revert in the next Yovel.
Now this becomes clear: throughout the first Yovel period, during those initial fifty years, land could indeed be acquired through kinyan sudar (chalifin) - for although it would ultimately return in the Yovel, the people had not yet experienced this reality and genuinely considered the purchase to be theirs forever. But from the second Yovel onward, once they saw with their own eyes that the land returned, they knew that the acquisition was merely temporary, and a temporary transaction cannot be effected through kinyan sudar. Therefore, they instituted ketzatzah - where a barrel was shattered, publicizing to all that the sale had taken place.
Why Boaz Could Not Acquire through Ketzatzah
Here the Malbim presents a brilliant insight: for Boaz, acquiring through ketzatzah was simply not an option. Had they shattered a barrel at the time of the transaction, people might say fifty or a hundred years later: "How do you know that the ketzatzah served as evidence for purchasing the field? On that very same day, Boaz married Rut! Perhaps they shattered the barrel as a protest because he married an unsuitable woman, and not for the purchase of the field at all!" As established, ketzatzah was performed for two distinct matters, and both occurred at that single gathering - which would leave the proof open to challenge.
Boaz therefore reasoned: although it has become customary to acquire land through ketzatzah, in this case it will not provide enduring proof over the years. I therefore wish to revert to the method that was formerly accepted in Israel - chalifin. And if you ask: is it not true that chalifin cannot effect a purchase that reverts in the Yovel? To this the Malbim answers: Boaz was not concerned with that, because his acquisition was connected to the concept of levirate redemption (yibbum), and property acquired by virtue of yibbum does not return in the Yovel, as we learn in the Mishnah in Masechet Bechorot regarding properties that do not revert in the Yovel - which includes one who performs yibbum. Thus, in Boaz's case it was truly an absolute, permanent acquisition, and therefore chalifin was specifically suited for it. This explains the verse: "Now this was formerly in Israel" - this was the practice in the past, during the first fifty years when acquisitions were still assumed to be permanent; and Boaz revived this practice because in his case the purchase truly was permanent. "And this was the testimony in Israel" - this would serve as his formal documentation and proof: specifically the lifting of the item and kinyan sudar, rather than ketzatzah.
Who Drew Off His Shoe?
וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לְבֹעַז קְנֵה לָךְ, וַיִּשְׁלֹף נַעֲלוֹ. - And the redeemer said to Boaz, "Buy it for yourself," and he drew off his shoe.
The redeemer says to Boaz: "Buy it for yourself; I am allowing you to redeem the field" - and draws off a shoe to execute a kinyan sudar. But who actually drew off his shoe? Over this there is a dispute among Chazal, reflecting the well-known halachic question of whether kinyan chalifin is performed using the vessel of the buyer or the vessel of the seller. The verse is ambiguous: "and he drew off his shoe" - was it Boaz or the redeemer? The very same debate arises regarding the cloak of Achiyah HaShiloni, where the verse relates that he took the new garment he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces - whose cloak was it, Yarov'am's or Achiyah's? So too with Shaul, when Shmuel tore the robe - was it Shmuel's robe that was torn or Shaul's robe? In all of these instances, the same underlying dispute applies, for the text does not explicitly state which of the two drew off or tore the garment; and when the verses leave it ambiguous, the Sages differed on the matter.
"For I Have Acquired All That Belonged to Elimelech"
וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז לַזְּקֵנִים וְכׇל הָעָם: עֵדִים אַתֶּם הַיּוֹם כִּי קָנִיתִי אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ וְאֵת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לְכִלְיוֹן וּמַחְלוֹן מִיַּד נׇעֳמִי. - Boaz said to the elders and all the people: "You are witnesses this day that I have acquired all that belonged to Elimelech, and all that belonged to Chilion and Machlon, from the hand of Naomi."
How did Boaz also acquire what belonged to Chilion? Some say that Chilion died first, and then Machlon married Chilion's wife. Although they were sisters, according to one view they had converted (while another view holds that they had not), and after conversion the halachic bond of sisterhood no longer applies. Consequently, once Machlon married Chilion's wife, Machlon inherited Chilion; and when Boaz comes and marries Ruth, he inherits Machlon - and through him, Chilion as well. That is why he says: "and all that belonged to Chilion and Machlon."
Boaz summons everyone to serve as witnesses that he acquired the field from the hand of Naomi, and he wants numerous witnesses so that tomorrow someone will not arise and claim: "I already purchased this field long ago; Elimelech sold it to me forty years ago." Therefore he does this publicly, so that if anyone has any claims, they should present them immediately; and if someone comes in two or five years, we can tell him: "The matter was done in full view of the public, so why did you remain silent?" And the Malbim notes: Naomi's field was acquired through money, contract, and taking possession (kesef, shtar, and chazakah), whereas the transaction regarding Ruth was performed through symbolic exchange (chalipin), as explained above.
"Ruth the Moabitess, the Wife of Machlon"
וְגַם אֶת רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה לְהָקִים שֵׁם הַמֵּת עַל נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ, עֵדִים אַתֶּם הַיּוֹם. - "And also Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Machlon, have I acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased shall not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place; you are witnesses this day."
Why does he refer to her as "the wife of Machlon"? Because her husband was still spiritually attached to her. The holy Zohar explains that as long as yibum has not been performed, a man who marries a woman "imbues within her a certain spirit" - he imparts a spirit into her, and that spirit remains within her. If children are born, this spirit emerges through the sons or daughters; but if he dies without children, that spirit emerges solely through the act of yibum. And this is the meaning of "to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased shall not be cut off."
Notice the repetition: in verse 9 he already stated, "You are witnesses this day that I have acquired," so why does he repeat at the end of verse 10, "You are witnesses this day"? The Malbim explains: there were two distinct matters here - the acquisition of Naomi's field, and the marriage to Ruth. He required witnesses for both: witnesses to the commercial transaction of purchasing the field, and witnesses to the betrothal (kiddushin) - and these are two separate testimonies. Naturally, two witnesses would suffice for each; the ten men mentioned earlier were not assembled to fulfill the legal requirement of testimony, but rather for public broadcast (pirsum), for a gathering of ten provides public renown to the event.
Finally, let us examine his phrasing with precision: "have I acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance." Boaz testifies before all that his intention is purely for the sake of Heaven: I did not marry her for her beauty, nor for her wealth, nor out of any other motive; my sole purpose is to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance.
In Summary:
These verses reveal the profundity of the acquisition ceremony conducted at the city gate. "A man took off his shoe" was a mode of formal acquisition meant to validate and finalize an agreement, and as the Rambam explains, there are forms of kinyan that are not outright sales but ratifications; and the shoe was chosen because of the prevailing poverty that left a person with virtually nothing else, as the Ibn Ezra explains. The Malbim teaches that the accepted modes of kinyan evolved over time - from chalipin to ketzatzah, and from ketzatzah to money, deed, and possession - and Boaz deliberately reverted to the ancient form of acquisition, since ketzatzah would have proven nothing in his situation (for it might have been construed as a severed association due to marrying an unworthy woman), whereas chalipin was uniquely fitting, as an acquisition resulting from yibum does not revert in the Jubilee year. Furthermore, Boaz publicly affirmed two separate transactions - the field and the marriage - declaring that his entire intention was to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his inheritance, solely for the sake of Heaven.