Willis : Hebrew Law 
13 
the death of Elimeleck. The sons then married Moabitish 
women; one son married Ruth: and they continued to live in 
Moab for about ten years. Then both the sons died, leaving 
no children, and Naomi decided to return to Bethlehem. One 
of her daughters-in-law returned to her mother's house, but 
the other, Ruth, insisted upon returning with Naomi. After 
their return they were so poor that the only way they could 
obtain a living was by gleaning in the fields, and here we get 
a glimpse of the poor laws of the Jews which forbade the 
owner from gathering the gleanings of his fields. One day it 
chanced that Ruth was gleaning in the fields of Boaz, who was 
a relative of Elimeleck. Naomi succeeded in making them 
form an acquaintance and Boaz wanted to marry Ruth. Then 
a great many legal complications arose. It seems that accord- 
ing to the law of that time the nearest kinsman (Goel, or 
redeemer), was bound to redeem both the property and the 
person of his relative, to avenge a wrong to him, and to marry 
his widow if she was childless. Boaz was a kinsman, but not 
the nearest kinsman of Ruth. Hence this nearest kinsman 
stood in the way of Boaz’s marriage with Ruth. So Boaz 
went up to the gate where the elders were, and when the near- 
est kinsman passed by he called to him “Ho, such a one ! turn 
aside, sit down here.” And he took ten of the elders of the 
city for judges, and they sat down. Then Boaz explained 
the facts in the matter of intestate succession to Elimeleck’s 
estate, and called upon the nearest kinsman to redeem the 
estate if he desired to do so, and told him that if he would 
not he (Boaz) would do so. The nearest kinsman answered 
that he would redeem it. Then Boaz informed him that if he 
desired to redeem the land he must also marry the childless 
widow (Ruth) of the last owner of the land, a son of 
Elimeleck “to raise up the name of the dead upon the inher- 
itance”, which shows that the unit was the family and that 
the estate was therefore a family estate and that a son of Ruth 
would continue the family of Elimeleck tho he had none of 
his blood. When the nearest kinsman heard this he relin- 
quished his right, “lest he mar his own inheritance” from 
which we may infer that Elimeleck’s estate was not worth 
much ; and the nearest kinsman drew off his shoe . 52 Evidently 
drawing off of a shoe had the same effect in Hebrew law that 
52 Later on the brother only had to redeem and the drawing off of the shoe became 
a sign of contempt as •yvell as symbol of ownership. 25 Deut. 5-10. 
