וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בֹּ֔עַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ֥ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד נָעֳמִ֑י וּ֠מֵאֵת ר֣וּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּ֤ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙ קניתי [קָנִ֔יתָה] לְהָקִ֥ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֖ת עַל־נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃
Lalu Boas berkata: “Pada hari engkau membeli tanah itu dari tangan Naomi, engkau juga harus memperoleh Rut, perempuan Moab itu, istri orang yang telah meninggal itu, untuk menegakkan nama orang yang telah meninggal itu atas milik pusakanya.”
Ibn Ezra
They also claim that the phrase when brothers dwell together denotes close relatives, but not actual brothers. They bring the case of Boaz [cf. Ruth 3: 9 ; Ruth 3: 13] as evidence. This is vacuous, however, because no mention is made there of the word yibbum [here translated as “acting as the husband’s brother” — Translator], only of “redemption” [cf. Leviticus 25: 25]. Besides, what, then, is the meaning of the word together ? That they live in the same country? In the same courtyard? That they are fond of each other? The Dissenters claim further that the Scriptural usage of the term act as her husband’s brother proves that she is his brother’s wife in name only, but not in fact, as in the phrase “your brother’s wife has returned” [Ruth 1: 16]. But they have stumbled into error. Note that regarding the sons of Y ǝ hudah, Scripture explicitly says, “act as her husband’s brother” [Genesis 38: 8], although there he clearly already was her husband’s brother. Even the abovementioned use of the word “your brother’s wife” can be understood on the grounds that the two women were married to two brothers. Every sensible person knows that, although the prohibitions that were told to Moshe were not forbidden beforehand, if someone before the time of Moshe refrained from engaging in such actions he would not have displeased God . Scripture even states, “for the men of the land who preceded you practiced all these abominations” [Leviticus 18: 27], and yet we have no evidence that any prophet had ever admonished them against such actions. With respect to Onan Scripture specifically says that he did not “provide progeny for his brother” [Genesis 38: 9] and consequently “it was evil in the sight of God ” [Genesis 38: 10]. For these reasons, we will rely on the tradition that actual brothers are meant here.
Rav Hirsch
Nicht ganz klar ist uns die Bedeutung der Verwandteneinlösung. Sie scheint zunächst nur im eigenen Interesse oder im Gesamtinteresse der Familie zu geschehen, deren Gut auch nicht temporär ihrem Kreise entfremdet bleibt. Einen direkten Nutzen scheint der Verkäufer durch eine solche Einlösung nicht zu haben. Gleichwohl wird der Verwandte in dieser Beziehung sein גואל genannt, was auf eine Erleichterung, einen Vorteil, eine Erlösung aus dem Notstand schließen läßt, welche ihm aus der von den Verwandten zu vollziehenden Gütereinlösung erwachsen würde. Vielleicht ging dabei die Sitte über die bloße Forderung des Gesetzes hinaus, wie ja z. B. Ruth 4, 5 die Sitte mit dem Rechte der Einlösung des Feldes eines verstorbenen Verwandten zugleich die Pflicht zur Ehelichung und Versorgung der nachgelassenen Witwe verband.