(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Megilat Ruth and the sale of Elimelech's property
Yedidya Israel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
I wonder if you an refer me for an explanation for these two queries.
(a) It seems that Naomi inherited all possessions (especially lands) of
Elimelech, Ruth did not have part of them as she didn't pass a Giyur when
married Machlon and hence did not deserve a Ketuba. Why then didn't Naomi
sell them for food, why Ruth has to go "Lelaket Bashibolim"?
(b) How Ruth was related to the Geula of the land that Namoni sold/was about
to sell? Marrying her ex-husband's uncle (or son of uncle) cannot be
counted as a Ibum, how will then the Goel will "Yakim Et Shem Hamet"?
Thanks in advance.
--
Yedidya Israel,
System Administrator.
--------
The Kollel replies:
I discussed these points (among others) in a Parasha-Page (Shavuot 5756).
Here, in brief, is what I wrote:
(a) In Ruth 4:3, the verse says that Naomi indeed sold Elimelech's field
(which she apparently received as her Kesuvah) in an attempt to support
herself upon returning from Moav. Elimelech's relatives were thus expected
to redeem the property from the buyer, as the Torah says in Vayikra 25:25.
This is the redemption which is discussed in the end of Megilat Ruth.
Presumably, it was when the money from the sale ran out (paying for rent
and food over the first few months) that Ruth went to gather in Boaz's field.
However, there is more to this than meets the eye. If the verse in Ruth 4:3
is to be taken literally (i.e. that Naomi already sold the field),
what does Boaz mean when he later says, "You are witnesses this day that I
have purchased all that was Elimelech's ... from the ownership of *Naomi*"
(4: 9)? If Naomi already sold the property to someone else, it is from the
hands of that other party that the redemption was taking place, not from
Naomi! Similarly, in v. 5 the property Boaz bought is described as being
purchased from Naomi and from Ruth. How could either Naomi or Ruth be
involved in this transaction, if they already sold the property?
In addition, the Torah says that redemption is not permitted until at least
two years have passed following the sale of the property (Erchin 29b). In
the story of Ruth, we are told that Naomi sold her husband's field upon
returning destitute from Moav (4:3). We learn (1:22) that Naomi and Ruth
returned to Israel "at the beginning of the barley harvest" (i.e. Pesach
time). Ruth stayed at Boaz' field until the end of the wheat and barley
harvests (2:23 - i.e. Shavuos time). It was during the winnowing process
which immediately followed the harvest that Ruth approached Boaz and he
agreed to redeem the field. Boaz acted upon his obligation of redemption
the very next day (3:18). If so, the redemption must have taken place no
longer than several months after the time when Naomi sold the property.
Since two years had not passed, how was redemption possible?
These questions are raised by Rav Shlomo Alkabetz (16th cent. Mekubal of
Tzfat) in his work "Shoresh Yishai" on Megilat Ruth, and he discusses them
at length. Here is what he writes about them.
The key to answering to these questions can be found in a comment of the
Ramban (to Vayikra 25:33). The Ramban proposes that the term "redemption"
is also be applied to a situation other than the one outlined by the Torah
in Vayikra for redeeming fields sold by relatives. When a person found it
necessary to sell his ancestral property due to poverty, it was customary
(although not obligatory) for a relative of his to offer to buy the field
*directly* from him, so that he would not have to sell it to a non-relative
in the first place. This, too, is referred to as "redemption" by the Torah.
Although such "preventative redemption" was not a Mitzvah, it was
nevertheless an ancient custom, explains the Ramban.
With this in mind, the Ramban suggests that the property being redeemed by
Boaz still belonged to Naomi -- she and Ruth had never sold the fields!
Nevertheless, the Torah -- and the Book or Ruth -- refers to Boaz' act as
one of "redemption," because he stepped in to ensure that the property
would not have to be sold to a stranger in the future. This seems to be the
opinion of Rashi as well, in his comments to Ruth 3:9 and 4:5. This
explains how the redemption could be carried out before the requisite
two-year waiting period.
The problem with this interpretation is that in 4:3 Boaz says, "Naomi, who
has come back from the fields of Moav, has *sold* the portion of land that
belonged to our brother Elimelech." According to what we have just said,
Naomi had not sold the property yet! The Ibn Ezra (who also apparently
understood the verses as the Ramban did) provides us with a solution to
this problem in his commentary on that verse. He explains that the word
"sold" in this case should not be taken literally, but should be understood
to mean that Naomi had *planned* to sell the property. (Alternatively, as
the Bach [17th cent. Poland] suggests in his work "Meishiv Nefesh" on Ruth,
4:3, Naomi had entered into an agreement to sell the land but did not
actually conclude the transaction.)
The Ramban's interpretation answers our questions. The sale was indeed
directly from Naomi and Ruth to Boaz. Apparently, until then Naomi did not
sell the family property but preferred to let Ruth collect leftovers in the
fields, in order to avoid at all costs selling ancestral property to a
non-relative. When Naomi saw that she could not find a relative willing to
buy the property (under her conditions, see below), she sent Ruth to
convince Boaz to buy the property so that she could sell it to him (he was
a close relative) and not let it go to a stranger.
(b) As for your second question, how did the marriage of Ruth become a
condition for redemption, Rashi (to 3:9 and 4:5) deals with this issue.
Rashi, as mentioned above, agrees with the Ramban's interpretation that
Naomi and Ruth themselves were selling the fields to Boaz. He asserts that
Ruth, as the seller, stipulated that she was not willing to sell her field
to anyone unless he would agree to marry her. She wanted to retain an
attachment to the field so that, through the combination of Machlon's wife
and Machlon's field, people would not forget her deceased husband. This is
the meaning of Boaz' statement (4:10), "I have also acquired Ruth of Moav,
Machlon's wife, for a wife, to establish the name of the deceased in his
inheritance so that the deceased's name should not be eradicated from among
his brothers and from his place."
It is interesting to note that although Ruth is mentioned in 4:5 as one of
the sellers in the transaction that was *about* to take place, the
subsequent verses do not mention her again. Rather, they portray Naomi
alone as the actual *seller* of Elimelech's, Machlon's and Kilyon's
properties. Perhaps the reason for this is that once it was made clear that
Ruth was only willing to sell her property to someone who would marry her
(4:5), it became apparent that her need for cash was considerably less
urgent. By marrying a wealthy man such as Boaz, she would no longer need to
resort to the sale of her husband's ancestral property in order to raise
money. Thus, it is only Naomi's property that was actually purchased by
Boaz and not Ruth's! Ruth's simply became "Nichsei Mi'Lug."
By the way, an entirely different approach to all the problems mentioned
above is presented by the Bach in his "Meishiv Nefesh" on Megilat Ruth
(4:3); see also Sefer HaMikneh, Kiddushin 21b s.v. Hahu. Rav Shlomo
Alkabetz (ibid.) also presents a number of alternate approaches to these
questions.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
