|
Top Document: soc.culture.jewish FAQ: Miscellaneous and References (11/12) Previous Document: Question 19.13: What is the origin of the word "kike"? Next Document: Question 19.15: I'm a health care provider? What do I need to know for Jewish patients? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
Answer:
The question raised concerning the incident in the Book of Ruth 4:7 is
an interesting one. This practice was formerly done in Israel in cases
of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would
take off his sandal and hand it to the other. Apparently this was an
early form of acquisition (kinyan) where the sign of agreement was
made by the passing or transfer of an inanimate object. In some cases
that was a shoe, a scarf, etc. The author of Ruth is describing this
practice while seeming to suggest it is no longer the case.
However we know that among Jews this practice or a form of it
continued. The Talmud, the work of the rabbis, is filled with such
examples. In the tractate Baba Mezia (46a) a transaction takes place
in a granary through a scarf. This is in lieu of one who left his
money at home! Even in our own day, the agreement made before a
wedding (Tenaim) and a symbol of the agreement made in the document of
betrothal is formalized by a "symbolic delivery" by, according to the
Orthodox Rabbis' Manual, HAMADRIKH, "...letting the parties concerned
hold a kerchief, that they will fulfill whatever is provided for in
the tenaim." Here we see that an ancient custom continues in some form
today. Such a practice can also be found in other cultures as well.
The Rev Dr A. Cohen in his commentary on Ruth (Soncino Press)
suggests, "The custom is also known among the Indians, the ancient
Germans and the Arabs." Without trying to confuse the issue, the
particular sandal practice has also been linked to the law in
Deuteronomy 25:5. This is the obligation of a brother (Levir) to marry
the wife of his deceased sibling. According to Deuteronomy, should he
refuse, he is to go to the gate of the city and there the widow is to
"pull off the sandal, spit in his face..."
In Ruth, the rejecting kinsman is not a brother-in-law to Ruth, but he
is described as her "redeemer." While most commentators reject the
connection, it is unavoidable.
User Contributions:Top Document: soc.culture.jewish FAQ: Miscellaneous and References (11/12) Previous Document: Question 19.13: What is the origin of the word "kike"? Next Document: Question 19.15: I'm a health care provider? What do I need to know for Jewish patients? Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: SCJ FAQ Maintainer <maintainer@scjfaq.org>
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: