Click here to view the full article with footnotes
Click here to order Rabbi Jachter’s brand new Sefer, “Chiddush Levana,” which includes new insights and clarifications of Kiddush Levanah.
5786/2026
Unparalleled Pesukim
Rut Perek 4 Pesukim 7 and 8 are crying for an explanation. Pasuk 8 records the Kinyan conducted between Boaz and the Go’eil formalizing their agreement transferring the Ge’ulah obligations/rights/expectations to Boaz. Pasuk 7 is a highly unusual Pasuk. It is an almost unparalleled in Tanach interruption of the narrator to explain the background to help us understand the nature of the Kinyan conducted between Boaz and the Go’eil. Pasuk 7 clearly demands an explanation as to the necessity of this narrator’s note.
A Very Ancient Practice that Continues Until Today
The practice of our handing a Kli to one another to seal a deal is a very ancient practice as Pasuk 7 states. It is very much practiced until this very day. It is done when appointing the rabbi to sell the Chametz and it is done at weddings when the Chatan accepts his obligations to the Kallah as set forth in the Ketuba. We refer to this as Kinyan Sudar, since during the time of the Gemara until today it is common to perform this Kinyan with a Sudar/handkerchief.
The Question
Why is it important for us to know how Boaz and the Go’eil formalized their agreement? The flow of the story would seemingly be complete without the introduction of these Pesukim. These Pesukim seem more appropriate for a discussion in Masechet Bava Metzia than Pesukim in Megillat Rut.
Resolving an Ambiguity
An explanation begins with an examination of a most important Machloket regarding Pasuk 8. Look carefully at Pasuk 8. Who handed the shoe to whom? It is conspicuously unclear. Rashi to our Pasuk quotes the Gemara (Bava Metzia 47a) which presents a Machloket about who handed the shoe to whom. The same Machloket applies today about whether you hand the pen to the rabbi or the rabbi hands it to you (and whether the rabbi hands the Chatan a handkerchief at a wedding or the Chatan hands it to the rabbi). The Halacha follows the opinion that the rabbi hands it to you and the rabbi hands it to the Chatan at a wedding (and that Boaz handed the shoe to the Go’eil).
The Ibn Ezra to Pasuk 8 cites this Machloket and beautifully explains the reasoning of both opinions. The opinion that argues that the Go’eil hands the shoe to Boaz believes that the giving of the shoe mirrors the commitment to transfer the right to redeem to Boaz. The other opinion views Boaz giving the shoe as symbolic consideration to the Go’eil for transferring the right to redeem the relatives.
However, we must ask why does the Pasuk present the Kinyan in an ambiguous manner?
As background for an answer we must note two other similar ambiguous situations in Nach. The Midrash (Rut 7:12) notes two other ambiguities - when Shmuel tore clothes in connection with replacing Sha’aul (it is not clear if Shmuel tore his clothes or that of Sha’ul) and when Achiyah HaShiloni appoints Yerovam ben Nevat to take over ten of the Shevatim from the rule of Beit David (it is not clear if he tore his own clothes or that of Yerovam) וְדִכְוָותָהּ (מלכים א יא, ל): וַיִּתְפֹּשׂ אֲחִיָּה בַּשַֹּׂלְמָה הַחֲדָשָׁה וגו', שִׂמְלָתוֹ שֶׁל מִי, רַב וְלֵוִי חַד אָמַר שִׂמְלָתוֹ שֶׁל יָרָבְעָם, וָחֳרִינָא אָמַר שִׂמְלָתוֹ שֶׁל אֲחִיָּה. וְדִכְוָותָהּ (שמואל א טו, כז): וַיִּסֹּב שְׁמוּאֵל לָלֶכֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף מְעִילוֹ וַיִּקָּרַע, מְעִילוֹ שֶׁל מִי, רַב וְלֵוִי חַד אָמַר מְעִילוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל, וָחֳרִינָא אָמַר מְעִילוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל, וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּנַף מְעִילוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַצַּדִּיקִים לִהְיוֹת קוֹרְעִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין נְטִיעָתָן מְשֻׁבַּחַת.
The common denominator between these three ambiguities that the Midrash connects is that all three involve fateful decisions that determine the long term direction of the royal line.
We suggest that Pasuk 8 is deliberately presented in an ambiguous manner to convey the connection between these three Pesukim. Ee further suggest that the two possible directions of interpretation express the two possible directions the royal line could have taken – it could have stemmed from the Go’eil had he had the fortitude to commit to Rut and the restitution of both the Elimelech and Machlon family line.
Accordingly, Shemuel HaNavi (the author of Megillat Rut, according to Chazal) records the Kinyan to convey that a critical decision was made at this point that determines the course of the Davidic royal line for generations.
The Narrator’s Note
Now let us try to do our best to explain Pasuk 7 – the narrator’s note. We believe that Pasuk 7 clarifies why a shoe is used to make the Kinyan, when any Kli/vessel will do. On a simple level it seems that Pasuk 7 clarifies that performing the Kinyan with the shoe has nothing to do with Chalitza, even though it smacks of Chalitza and it is certainly a Chalitza like situation.
The Ibn Ezra to Pasuk 8 explains that a shoe was used because it is a Kli that is readily available to perform the Kinyan. Today we do it with a watch or a pen or a smartphone but, of course, these were not available לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
However, we believe that there is a deeper explanation that does connect Kinyan Sudar with Chalitza. But first some background about Kinyan Sudar.
The Rambam writes about Kinyan Suddar in Hilchot Mechira Perek 5. יד יש דברים הרבה שאין צריכין קניין, ואין לקניין בהם טעם--כגון המשחרר עבדו, או המגרש את אשתו, או העושה שליח, או המוסר מודעה, או המבטל מודעה, או המוחל לחברו חוב או פיקדון שיש לו בידו, וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו.
טו נהגו רוב המקומות להקנות למקצת אלו הדברים וכיוצא בהן, ואומרים וקנינו מפלוני שעשה פלוני שליח, או שמחל לפלוני חוב שיש לו אצלו, או שביטל המודעה שמסר על גט זה, וכיוצא באלו, ואף על פי שאינו צריך.
טז קניין זה שנהגו להקנות באלו הדברים--אינו מועיל כלום, אלא להודיע שאינו אומר דברים אלו כמשחק ומהתל אלא שגמר בליבו ואחר כך אמר; לפיכך אם אמר בלב שלם אני אומר, וגמרתי לעשות דבר זה--אינו צריך דבר אחר כלל.
In short, Kinyan Sudar is an expression of commitment; of resolve and seriousness of intent.
We now present a bold suggestion to explain Pasuk 7. Pasuk 7 conveys that conducting Kinyan Sudar with a shoe is a very old practice amongst our people (see Ibn Ezra to Pasuk 7 d”h V’Zot L’Fanim). We suggest that it even predates Matan Torah. Perhaps it originated in Mitzrayim when we were Avadim when there was nothing other than our shoes with which to make a Kinyan. Alternatively, right after Matan Torah we began to use a shoe for a Kinyan, in contrast to Chalitza.
The Yevama removing the shoe, we boldly suggest, is Hashem’s designing a Mitzva to mirror the practice of Kinyan with a shoe. The handing of the shoe in the context of Kinyan Sudar expresses commitment. The removal of the shoe in the context of Chalitza represents lack of commitment. The Yevama (Almana/widow) removing the Yavam’s (brother of the deceased husband) shoe is an expression of disdain (like the spitting of Chalitza) – you are the opposite of the Kinyan commonly done with a shoe – you failed to make a commitment!
It is possible that the use of a shoe fell out of use by Boaz’s era. Boaz resurrected the ancient practice to use a shoe (if we assume, as we do in practice, that Boaz was the one to hand the shoe to the Go’eil) to express the idea that he is acting in the opposite manner of Chalitza – he is willing to commit to restoring the families of Elimelech and Machlon, unlike the Go’eil who, like the brother-in-law from whom the shoe is removed, is unable to make the commitment.
Thus, the information supplied by the narrator in Pasuk 7 helps understand the rich symbolism employed by Boaz as recorded in Pasuk 8. In light of this idea, we present another reason for the ambiguous nature of Pasuk 8. Perhaps it is because both options express the point of the Kinyan: 1) Boaz giving the shoe to the Go’eil demonstrates his commitment. 2) The Go’eil removing his shoe in handing to Boaz smacks of Chalitza, since he is acting in a “Chalitza like” manner.
Conclusion
Megillat Rut records Pesukim 7 and 8 to communicate the following crucial points: The ambiguity of Pasuk 8 denotes that a major decision is made regarding the royal line. Pasuk 7 helps us understand that the reason for the royal line emerging from Boaz and not the Go’eil is Boaz’s willingness to make a commitment. It is reminiscent of Yehuda whom Yaakov pronounces as the royal tribe since Yehuda commits to taking responsibility for Binyamin אָנֹכִי, אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ--מִיָּדִי, תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ (BeReishit 43:9) during the Binyamin crisis, unlike the first born, Reuven, who failed to make such a commitment. At a crossroads of the direction of the royal line, it is the one who makes the commitment who triumphs.
The iconic handing of the shoe of Boaz and the Go’eil broadcasts a poignant lesson: Those who commit finish first. Those who fail to make or honor their commitments finish last.