Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel. – Ruth 4:7

Today's Scripture Reading (March 17, 2022): Ruth 4

We live in a written society. The cry of students being forced to memorize names and dates, or even mathematical formulas, is that there will be no time in their future when they won't be allowed to look up this information, so why bother with memorization. The day that a spoken promise or an important deal that is completed with a handshake is long past. Today, it is a signature, often one written in the presence of a lawyer, that is needed for the deal to be done. A verbal commitment is not good enough anymore. But it used to be enough, although maybe not as recently as we might like to think.

Some have called Ruth 4:7 the most important verse in the biblical Book of Ruth (admittedly, I find that to be a bit of a stretch). Some view the verse as a possible late addition to the book. The verse is actually an explanation of the text that has been inserted into the body of the story. For some, it is proof of a very late date for the writing of Ruth, maybe even as late as the third or fourth centuries B.C.E. But others aren't convinced of that. They point to a transition toward written contracts in Israel during the beginning years of the monarchy in Israel, starting during the reign of Saul and continuing through the reigns of David and Solomon. And that is in keeping with the tradition that Samuel wrote the Book of Ruth during the early years of David's reign. Even then, an explanation of the execution of a verbal contract executed only a century earlier might have been necessary.

Making the passage even more difficult to read is the similarity of this description of a verbal contract to the tradition of a levirate marriage (described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10). For a levirate marriage, a widow was commanded not to marry outside of her late husband's family. She was to go to her husband's brother and remind him of his obligation to her. But if he refused, she was to take the situation before the elders and tell them that the brother has refused to marry her.

Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled (Deuteronomy 25:8-10).

For a levirate marriage, the whole ordeal was intended to be an insult and to be carried down the family line as an insult to the generations yet to come.

The problem is that the explanation of a levirate marriage doesn't quite fit what happens as Boaz meets with his relative in the presence of the elders. First, Ruth isn't even present. And it is not Boaz who removed the sandal as an insult. Instead, the man takes off his own sandal. Maybe, because Boaz is willing to step in and redeem the land, there is no need for an insult. Or, maybe, this was just a way to conclude a land deal in Israel, which is actually what the passage states. It is possible that it was common to conclude a contract by removing a sandal and handing it to the purchaser in those days. In doing so, the conclusion of the verbal agreement was made obvious to all those who witnessed the event, and, apparently, one man went home without a sandal but with no insult intended.

By the time Samuel wrote the story, society had changed enough that he needed to explain what had happened. He needed to explain that this was a normal occurrence at the end of a transaction and not just the warped execution of the levirate marriage ceremony.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Judges 9