What does Ruth 4:5 mean?
There's a lot of nuance in this verse, particularly with the language and the legal consequences of that language.The gist of the verse is that a relative of Elimelech's has agreed to buy Elimelech's family land from the man who had bought it when Elimelech took his family to Moab. The man will use the proceeds to care for Elimelech's widow, Naomi, as long as she lives. Boaz, who presented the offer on Naomi's behalf, isn't finished. If the man is honorable, he will also marry Naomi's daughter-in-law and give Elimelech an heir.
That he will "buy the field from the hand of Naomi" is unusual because, technically, women didn't have the right to own land. Apparently, Elimelech sold the land to someone who was not in his clan, thinking he could buy it back or re-inherit it on the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:25-28, 47-49). Since Elimelech and his sons are dead, Naomi wants a closer relative to buy it to keep it in the clan, but he would have permanent ownership since Elimelech had no one to receive it.
Then Boaz identifies Ruth as a Moabite. This is true, of course, but why does he bring it up? Is it required for legal reasons? Or, considering the scandalous reputation of Moabite women (Genesis 19:30–38; Numbers 25:1–9), is Boaz trying to discourage the man from accepting the offer?
Next, Boaz identifies Ruth as ʾēset ha mēt, or "wife of the deceased" even though he has already identified the landowner as Naomi who is the literal wife of the deceased. Technically, Elimelech died before his son—and Ruth's husband—Mahlon, so Mahlon would have inherited the land in absentia. But Ruth is a Moabite, and foreigners could not own land in Israel. So, Ruth isn't the agent of Mahlon's estate; Naomi is.
Boaz also tells the kinsman-redeemer he will "acquire" Ruth. The interpretation of this is problematic. Is he buying Ruth or is the King James right when it reads, "What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess…"? Most likely, Boaz is just continuing his legal language and asserting that Ruth is part of the transaction.