וְגַ֣ם אֶת־ר֣וּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה֩ אֵ֨שֶׁת מַחְל֜וֹן קָנִ֧יתִי לִ֣י לְאִשָּׁ֗ה לְהָקִ֤ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת֙ עַל־נַ֣חֲלָת֔וֹ וְלֹא־יִכָּרֵ֧ת שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֛ת מֵעִ֥ם אֶחָ֖יו וּמִשַּׁ֣עַר מְקוֹמ֑וֹ עֵדִ֥ים אַתֶּ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם׃
Juga Rut, perempuan Moab itu, istri Mahlon, telah kuperoleh menjadi istriku, untuk menegakkan nama orang yang telah meninggal itu atas milik pusakanya, supaya nama orang yang telah meninggal itu tidak lenyap dari antara saudara-saudaranya dan dari pintu gerbang tempat kediamannya. Kamulah saksi-saksi pada hari ini.”
Ramban
AND IT SHALL BE THAT THE FIRSTBORN THAT SHE BEARETH SHALL SUCCEED IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER THAT IS DEAD. It [the true purport thereof] is not the simple meaning that they call the first son by the name of the dead, Reuben or Shimon as his name was, for in the case of Boaz it says thus, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren,376Ruth 4:10. and yet they did not call the child born [to Boaz and Ruth] Machlon. But this verse by way of the Truth, [the mystic teaching of the Cabala], is an assurance377See Vol. I, p. 469, Note 155, and p. 470, Note 163. and thus it is to be understood in its simple sense. And our Rabbis found support in this verse for the following laws:378Yebamoth 24a. that the eldest [surviving] brother contracts the levirate marriage, that a sterile woman may not be contracted for such marriage, nor the wife of a eunuch since his name was “blotted out” [when he was yet alive]. Now, all these are but Scriptural supports [for laws of levirate marriage], because the laws of the sterile widow and the widow of the eunuch are derived from the very essence of the Scriptural section [and are not derived from the Scriptural supports quoted].379That is to say, since the purpose of the levirate marriage is as stated by Scripture that the name of the dead be not blotted out from Israel by definition, a sterile woman is excluded from the commandment for she cannot fulfill that function. No special verse is needed to exclude her from such a marriage. Similarly the widow of the eunuch may not be contracted for such a marriage since his name was already “blotted out” when yet alive and no special verse is necessary to exclude his widow from such a marriage. These laws, therefore, are derived from the very essence of the chapter, and the Rabbis merely found support for them in the language of the quoted verse.
Ramban
AND MARRY HER AS BROTHER-IN-LAW, AND RAISE SEED TO THY BROTHER. The son will be called by the name of the deceased. This is Rashi’s language.
But this is not true, for in the same commandment of the Torah it likewise says, And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel,150Deuteronomy 25:6. and yet the brother-in-law is not commanded to call his son by the name of his dead brother.151Yebamoth 24a. In the case of Boaz it says, Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Machlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place,152Ruth 4:10. and yet she called him Obed,153Ibid., Verse 21. not Machlon. Moreover, it says here, And Onan knew that the seed would not be his.154Verse 9 here. Now what misfortune would have befallen him — to the point that he wasted his seed from before her — if his son was to be called by the name of his dead brother? Most people even desire to do so. Again, Scripture does not say, “And Onan said,” but instead it says, And Onan ‘knew’ that the seed would not be his.154Verse 9 here. This would indicate that Onan had some definite kind of knowledge in this matter which made him certain that the seed would not be his.154Verse 9 here.
The subject is indeed one of the great secrets of the Torah,155Ramban here hints to the mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5. concerning human reproduction, and it is evident to those observers who have eyes to see, and ears to hear.156Deuteronomy 29:3. The ancient wise men who were prior to the Torah knew of the great benefit in marrying a childless dead brother’s wife, and that it was proper for the brother to take precedence in the matter, and upon his failure to do so, his next of kin would come after him, for any kinsman who was related to him, who would inherit his legacy, would derive a benefit from such a marriage. And it was customary for the dead man’s wife to be wed by the brother or father or the next of kin in the family. We do not know whether this was an ancient custom preceding Judah’s era. In Bereshith Rabbah15785:6. they say that Judah was the one who inaugurated the commandment of marrying a childless person’s widow, for since he had received the secret155Ramban here hints to the mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5. from his ancestors he was quick to fulfill it. Now when the Torah came and prohibited marrying former wives of certain relatives, it was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, to abrogate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife in case he dies childless, but it was not His will that the prohibition against marrying a father’s brother’s wife or a son’s wife or similar wives of relatives be set aside. It was only in the case of a brother that the custom had established itself,158Prior to the giving of the Torah. and the benefit is likely with him and not with the others,159Ramban’s intent is that when two brothers come from one father, the soul of the dead one finds closer identification with the child that his brother will beget rather than with that of any of the other relatives. (Abarbanel; see my Hebrew commentary, p. 215). as I have mentioned. Now it was considered a matter of great cruelty when a brother did not want to marry his dead brother’s wife, and they would call it the house of him that had his shoe loosed,160Deuteronomy 25:10. for [after his dead brother’s wife had performed Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) of the brother-in-law], he161The soul of the dead brother. The Cabala has considered the subject of Chalitzah, as one of profound mystery. was now removed from them, and it is fitting that this commandment be fulfilled through the loosening of the shoe. Now the ancient wise men of Israel, having knowledge of this important matter, established it as a custom to be practised among all those inheriting the legacy, providing there is no prohibition against the marriage, and they called it Ge’ulah (Redemption).162Ruth 4:7. This was the matter concerning Boaz, and the meaning of the words of Naomi and the women neighbors.163Reference is to what the neighbors said; There is a son born to Naomi (Ruth 4:17), meaning that she was thereby given back the son Machlon whom she had lost. This explains why the women did not say, “There is a son born to Ruth or Boaz.” The man of insight164A term denoting the student of the Cabala, the mystic doctrine of the Torah. will understand.
But this is not true, for in the same commandment of the Torah it likewise says, And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel,150Deuteronomy 25:6. and yet the brother-in-law is not commanded to call his son by the name of his dead brother.151Yebamoth 24a. In the case of Boaz it says, Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Machlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place,152Ruth 4:10. and yet she called him Obed,153Ibid., Verse 21. not Machlon. Moreover, it says here, And Onan knew that the seed would not be his.154Verse 9 here. Now what misfortune would have befallen him — to the point that he wasted his seed from before her — if his son was to be called by the name of his dead brother? Most people even desire to do so. Again, Scripture does not say, “And Onan said,” but instead it says, And Onan ‘knew’ that the seed would not be his.154Verse 9 here. This would indicate that Onan had some definite kind of knowledge in this matter which made him certain that the seed would not be his.154Verse 9 here.
The subject is indeed one of the great secrets of the Torah,155Ramban here hints to the mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5. concerning human reproduction, and it is evident to those observers who have eyes to see, and ears to hear.156Deuteronomy 29:3. The ancient wise men who were prior to the Torah knew of the great benefit in marrying a childless dead brother’s wife, and that it was proper for the brother to take precedence in the matter, and upon his failure to do so, his next of kin would come after him, for any kinsman who was related to him, who would inherit his legacy, would derive a benefit from such a marriage. And it was customary for the dead man’s wife to be wed by the brother or father or the next of kin in the family. We do not know whether this was an ancient custom preceding Judah’s era. In Bereshith Rabbah15785:6. they say that Judah was the one who inaugurated the commandment of marrying a childless person’s widow, for since he had received the secret155Ramban here hints to the mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5. from his ancestors he was quick to fulfill it. Now when the Torah came and prohibited marrying former wives of certain relatives, it was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, to abrogate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife in case he dies childless, but it was not His will that the prohibition against marrying a father’s brother’s wife or a son’s wife or similar wives of relatives be set aside. It was only in the case of a brother that the custom had established itself,158Prior to the giving of the Torah. and the benefit is likely with him and not with the others,159Ramban’s intent is that when two brothers come from one father, the soul of the dead one finds closer identification with the child that his brother will beget rather than with that of any of the other relatives. (Abarbanel; see my Hebrew commentary, p. 215). as I have mentioned. Now it was considered a matter of great cruelty when a brother did not want to marry his dead brother’s wife, and they would call it the house of him that had his shoe loosed,160Deuteronomy 25:10. for [after his dead brother’s wife had performed Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) of the brother-in-law], he161The soul of the dead brother. The Cabala has considered the subject of Chalitzah, as one of profound mystery. was now removed from them, and it is fitting that this commandment be fulfilled through the loosening of the shoe. Now the ancient wise men of Israel, having knowledge of this important matter, established it as a custom to be practised among all those inheriting the legacy, providing there is no prohibition against the marriage, and they called it Ge’ulah (Redemption).162Ruth 4:7. This was the matter concerning Boaz, and the meaning of the words of Naomi and the women neighbors.163Reference is to what the neighbors said; There is a son born to Naomi (Ruth 4:17), meaning that she was thereby given back the son Machlon whom she had lost. This explains why the women did not say, “There is a son born to Ruth or Boaz.” The man of insight164A term denoting the student of the Cabala, the mystic doctrine of the Torah. will understand.