[2] Most ancient and modern interpreters fall into the trap that Boaz sets, and suppose that Levirate marriage is involved. Not so Rashi. See note 8 below.
[3] For why the exchange of a sandal is no proof of an intended Levirate marriage, see my comments on Ruth 4:7-8 in The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, with Tikvah Fryemer-Kensky, 2012.
[4] Peretz appears only 9 other times in the entire Bible, all in genealogies where he is of minor or no importance.
[5] Given also that redemption does not entail marriage but only caregiving in whatever form is needed, there is no reason to follow the rare use of the term in Ezek 16:8 where it might pertain to betrothal.
[6] Ambiguity as to Ruth’s request remains. Moreover, who is to acquire the widow of the deceased in 4:5? Is it Boaz (as the ketib indicates with qaniti) or the unnamed redeemer, as the Qeri indicates with qanita)? This would make a big difference. Translators and commentators disagree. But the presence of the ambiguity is irrefutable.
[7] Rashi preempts a “misreading” this scene as if it were about Levirate marriage. With his long gloss to Ruth 3:9 he anticipates and resolves the problems with Boaz’s language at the gate at 4:5 and 4:10 and by framing Boaz’s claims in Ruth 4 as an implicit response to Ruth’s request. She, according to Rashi, says in 3:9: “When people see me upon the land they will say:’Here goes the wife of Machlon.’” This, then, in Rashi, how marriage with Ruth perpetuates the name of the deceased upon his land.
