Judges, Ruth: Revised Edition (The NIV Application Commentary)

by K. Lawson Younger

Since Naomi “is selling” the field, only two broad scenarios are possible explanations: (1) Elimelek did not sell the usufruct of his field before moving to Moab. Due to Elimelek’s death, Naomi now possesses the usufructuary rights. As Naomi’s agent, Boaz is appealing to the nearer redeemer to obtain these usufructuary rights from her. Thus the transaction would be a case of preemption similar to the one in Jeremiah 32.14 (2) Elimelek sold the usufruct of his field15 before moving to Moab. The field’s usufruct has ever since been in the possession of a third party. Naomi, of course, has no means to repurchase the usufruct of the field, and so through Boaz she is making appeal to the nearer redeemer to obtain the field from its present owner. In this situation, the transaction would be a case of redemption similar to the one in Leviticus 25:25.16 In the context, this is the more likely scenario.17 Hence, Boaz appeals to the nearer redeemer to buy back the usufruct of Elimelek’s field from the unnamed third party.