Contradiction with Deuteronomy 25:9
In Ruth 4:7, the redemption process involves exchanging a shoe, whereas in Deuteronomy 25:9, refusal to fulfill the duty of a kinsman-redeemer leads to public shaming by removal of a sandal.
Deuteronomy 25:9: Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
Contradiction with Ruth 3:4
Here, uncovering the feet is part of a marriage proposal process, whereas Ruth 4:7 involves the removal of a shoe for finalizing a transaction, showing different uses of footwear in customs.
Ruth 3:4: And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. [uncover: or, lift up the clothes that are on]
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency around Ruth 4:7 involves the practice of "taking off the sandal" as a sign of a legal agreement. In the context of the book of Ruth, this custom is explained as a way to confirm transactions and transfers of property or rights. However, elsewhere in the Bible, particularly in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, removing a sandal is part of a different custom that involves a widow and her deceased husband's brother. These differing contexts can create some confusion about cultural practices.