In Ruth 4:4-4:6, the nearer redeemer initially agrees to buy the field being sold by Naomi, but when Boaz tells him that he will be required to take Ruth as his wife, he reneges on this, leaving Boaz to fulfill the redeemer role.
So I thought I would tell you of it and say, "'Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.' If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.”
Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.”
Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance.
Regardless of how verse 5 is translated, it seems evident that Boaz is introducing a new condition that the nearer redeemer was not previously aware of. From what I can tell, the marriage was not strictly required by the levirate rules of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 since he was not a brother of the deceased. Yet neither the would-be redeemer nor the gathered elders offers any objection.
Was the condition cited by Boaz within the normal application of levirate obligation? If so, why was the nearer redeemer not familiar with it? And was there a law/custom dictating how this obligation would be related to the purchase of the field in this story?
