Ruth · Chapter 1

And it happened in the days when judges judged. [During the period] before King Shaul reigned, when the generations were administered by judges; and this occurred in the days of Ivtzan, as our sages said, “Ivtzan is Bo’az.” — Notes: (1) There was no individual judge who could exercise control over all of Yisroel, rather there were many judges. (Malbim) Alternatively, this was a period when God judged the judges. (Gra) (2) Maseches Bava Basra 91a; and Bo’az is a central figure in Megillas Rus. And a man went. He was very wealthy, and the leader of the generation. He left Eretz Yisroel for regions out of the land because of stinginess, for he was miserly toward the poor who came to press him; therefore he was punished. — Notes: (3) איש denotes an important person, as Targum renders, גברא רבא, “a great man.” (4) He was the only man to leave Eretz Yisroel because of the famine. Because of his stature and greatness he was severely punished for leaving Eretz Yisroel and remaining in Mo’av. (Malbim) (5) He was afraid that the poor would unite and confiscate all of his possessions. (Malbim)

In the name of God, may He strengthen my hand and may remembrance of Him sustain my glory — from the commentary on the Scroll of Ruth by Abraham the Spaniard. The declaration of Abraham: Because David is the root of the kingship of Israel, the lineage of David was recorded in the holy books. 'And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged' — Some say that Hashem judged the judges, for on their account a famine came upon the land of Israel. And there is a grammarian who says that it [shefot] is not the infinitive [shem ha-po'al] but rather a noun, like 'cherev shefot' [a sword of judgment]. But it is also possible that it is exactly as it appears [i.e., that it is indeed the infinitive], for every verb — past, future, or participle — is always derived from the infinitive, since that is the primary form. The mem of 'mi-Beit Lechem Yehudah' [from Beth-lehem of Judah] serves both itself and the word that follows it [i.e., it applies to 'Yehudah' as well], because a place name cannot be joined to another in construct.

"And it came to pass" — etc. Now, it is fitting to understand the following in this verse: (1) Its saying "vayehi" (and it came to pass) twice, rather than saying "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land." (2) Its saying "the judging of the judges" (shefot ha-shofetim) — for there seems to be no need for the narrative to mention the matter of the judging of the judges, only the matter of the famine on account of which Elimelech went; and it would have been fitting to say, "And there was a famine in the land, and a man went," etc. And if one should say that these were the days when the judges judged, and that this was a specific period, and we are being told this because that is why it is stated — this is not so; it would have been far better and more fitting to mention the leading figure of the generation and say, "And it came to pass in the days of Ivtzan," or "And it came to pass in the days of Boaz, there was a famine in the land," etc. (3) Its saying "and a man went," rather than saying "and Elimelech went." (4) Its saying "to sojourn" — but does not the end of the story prove that he did not go down to sojourn, but rather to settle permanently? (5) Its saying "the sedei (fields) of Moab" with a yod, whereas many times afterward, when it mentions the fields of Moab, it is written "sadeh" with a heh. (6) Its saying "he and his wife" — for the word "he" is superfluous. (7) For it would have been fitting to mention his wife immediately, once it had mentioned "a man," and to say, "and a man and his wife and his two sons went from Beth-lehem in Judah to sojourn," etc. (8) Its saying "and the man's name was" — for it would have sufficed to say, "and his name was Elimelech." (9) Its saying "from Beth-lehem in Judah" — for it had already said, "and a man went from Beth-lehem in Judah." (10) Its saying "and they were there" — for who does not know that if they came there, they were there? Now, the Sages of blessed memory have upheld and accepted as tradition that wherever it says "vayehi" (and it came to pass), it is an expression of distress, and "vehayah" (and it shall come to pass) is an expression of joy. And in our own way, let us consider what distinguishes the one from the other, that this one is distress and that one is joy. And I think that this relates to their statement, of blessed memory, in Lamentations Rabbah on the verse "Her adversaries have become the head" (Lamentations 1:5): that when the ruffians burned all the stores of grain, bread, and food that were in Jerusalem while the city was under siege, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai heard of it and said, "Vai! [Woe!]" And when his words were heard by the people, their anger flared and they gathered against him to kill him. Then he answered and said, "I did not say vai, rather I said vah" — which is an expression of joy — and he gave the reason for his joy: that now that the staff of bread was broken, they would give themselves over to fight with all their strength against their enemies until they were consumed, which would not be so were they to have bread to satiety. Behold, just as the nature of the term "vai" is distress, so the term "vah" is joy. And likewise in Midrash Esther, on the first verse, the Sages of blessed memory said: "vehamelech David" [and King David] — "vah," that David reigned, which is an expression of joy; "vayimlokh Achav" [and Achav reigned] — "vai," that Achav reigned. So far their words. Behold, we have found and seen good reason why "vayehi" is distress and "vehayah" is joy: since after "vai" comes distress, therefore in its saying "vayehi," which begins with "vai," it is distress, as with "vayimlokh Achav"; and since after "vah" comes joy, therefore in its saying "vehayah," whose opening is "vah," it is joy, as with "vehamelech David," as has been said. Now, regarding the substance of this teaching, it is fitting to consider that after saying that "vayehi" is distress, they asked: "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged" — what distress was there in this, that they judged their judges, etc.? But is this not to be regarded as strange — what sort of question is "what distress was there," when it is stated quite openly that "there was a famine in the land"? And moreover, in their answer they set aside the explicit distress of the famine and went instead to expound by way of allusion, saying that they judged their judges. But in fact, they saw and therefore wondered at the indication of two distresses in close succession, for it says "vayehi" twice: "vayehi in the days..." and "vayehi a famine." Now, if the distress was the disgrace of famine, that is what is stated by the second "vayehi," in "vayehi a famine" — so then, what was the first "vayehi"? What distress was there apart from the famine, of which it says "vayehi a famine"? Therefore they said that they judged their judges. And in their way, they also answered another difficulty: the superfluity of the word "shefot" (judging), instead of simply saying "vayehi bimei ha-shofetim" (and it came to pass in the days of the judges). Rather, the sense of the verse is: "vayehi bimei" — and what was the distress? It was "the judging of the judges," that is, the judging of their own judges. Let us now come to the intent of the verse in mentioning these two distresses in light of these words, and let us return to the other matters noted, by recalling their statement, of blessed memory, on the verse "Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 16:20), etc.: that they said the appointment of fit judges is worthy to give life to Israel and to settle them upon their land — this being the first clause, "that you may live," and the second, "and you shall possess." And it says "to settle them," not "to make them inherit the land," for the intent of the verse in saying "and you shall possess the land" would seem to refer only to the conquest, whereas the appointment of judges comes after the possession; therefore they said and explained that it refers to permanent settlement therein, and called this "possession," as is known from the nature of an inheritance, that it has no cessation — the opposite of the term "gift." Now let us come to the point: they said that since the appointment of fit judges brings about sustenance, it follows that if this is overturned, sustenance is withheld. And this is what is meant by: "vayehi in the days" of the distress of "the judging of their judges" — that the attribute of justice was flawed; therefore from this distress there followed another, namely the removal of sustenance, for "vayehi a famine in the land" — whether the flaw was that the judges themselves needed to be judged, or that the people refused to heed the voice of the judges and did not support them in administering justice, for what they would decree against evildoers, they themselves did to the judges, as is found regarding both matters in the words of the Sages of blessed memory. Behold, in this there is great need for its saying "vayehi" twice, concerning two distinct distresses, to say that the first caused the second, as has been said. Now, concerning this, a person could object and say: if so, why then did their not remaining upon their own land not also cause a further distress, seeing that they were not driven out of it? To this it answers: "and a man went," etc. — meaning that God saw their attachment to the Land of Israel, for despite all their distress from the famine, and though there was an opportunity to leave the land, as the saying goes, "When there is famine in a city, scatter your feet [and leave]," nevertheless they clung to it and did not leave — except for one man, and Scripture publicized this. This is the meaning of "and a man went" — to say that one man alone went, and no other. Therefore Hashem, too, dealt with them in a single gracious manner: that they should not be driven out by the famine, and He sustained them in a way that they could endure while dwelling upon their land. And not only that, but even Elimelech himself did not go down to settle permanently, but only to sojourn there, mere sojourning — and this is the meaning of "to sojourn." And to indicate the very intent of his sojourning, it says "in the sedei of Moab" with a yod and not with a heh, for the Sages of blessed memory said that "sedeh Moav" [singular, with a heh] refers to what is called the "city of Moab," whereas its saying "sedei" with a yod refers to the towns of Moab. And by this it is plausible that, in order to indicate the intensity of his intent to merely sojourn, it says "to sojourn in the sedei" — the many towns — that is to say, that even in one place he did not choose to fix any period of sojourning, but stayed only a little in each town, like a wanderer, with no indication of any permanence — except that afterward his evil inclination overpowered him, and he began to fix his dwelling outside the Land, and by this sin of his he died. And this should be noted in its saying, "and they came to the sedei of Moab, and they were there" — for this appears to be a superfluous expression, since who does not know, once it says they came there, that they were there? So its saying "and they were there" would be superfluous. Now, the Targum answered this by saying, "vehavu taman rofilin" [and they became dignitaries there], meaning that they acquired positions of authority there and became great officials. But according to the plain sense, what we have said here is that at first he did not go down to settle permanently but only to sojourn there; but afterward, once "they came to the sedei of Moab," their hearts enticed them to acquire there a permanent establishment — and this is the meaning of "and they came to the sedei of Moab," and then "and they were there" — therefore "and Elimelech died," etc. And for this reason, it is possible to explain why at first, in the first verse, it concealed his identity, saying simply "a man went," while in the second verse it made this public, saying "and the man's name was Elimelech," etc. This is because at first, when he had gone down only to sojourn, he was not to be blamed in essence, and therefore Scripture did not make it public by saying "and Elimelech went," but only "a man went," etc. But afterward: "and the man's name," etc., "and his wife's name," etc., "and his two sons' names," etc. — the reason being that once "they came to the sedei of Moab" they established a permanent residence, "and they were there," and it therefore became fitting to make them known. And the sense of the verse is: "and the man's name was Elimelech," etc. — and why am I making them known? Because of "and they were there." Or, it is possible that he went out in concealment, like one who sneaks away — this being the meaning of "a man went," in a hidden manner — but afterward Scripture made it public and said, "and the man's name," etc. Now, it is still fitting to note that it mentions him in a manner of eminence and greatness, saying "and the man's name was Elimelech," with the cantillation mark called pazer gadol (a rare, honorific trope reserved for words of special distinction); and also in its disclosure of his wife's name and the names of his two sons; and also in that it traces their lineage after Ephrath and after Beth-lehem, saying "Ephrathites, of Beth-lehem in Judah," even though it had already said "and a man went from Beth-lehem in Judah" — and all the more so according to the Sages of blessed memory, who said that "Ephrathites" refers to their descent from Miriam the prophetess, who was called Ephrath, as it says, "and Caleb took Ephrath [as a wife]" (1 Chronicles 2:19). And also, as we have noted, why in the first verse his wife and sons are not mentioned, and it does not say, "and a man and his wife and sons went from Beth-lehem," etc., but mentions them only in the second verse; and likewise the word "hu" (he), which is superfluous. To come to the matter, let us recall their statement, of blessed memory, in tractate Bava Batra: "Our Rabbis taught: One may not leave the Land of Israel for outside the Land unless two se'ahs of grain sell for a sela [i.e., the price has doubled]. Rabbi Shimon said: I have heard it stated explicitly — when is this? At a time when it cannot be found for purchase at any price," etc. "And thus would Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai say: Elimelech, Machlon, and Chilyon were among the great men of the generation — so why were they punished? Because they left the Land of Israel for outside the Land. Rabbi Yehoshua said in the name of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: Heaven forbid — even had they found only bran, they would not have left. So why were they punished? Because they should have prayed for mercy on behalf of their generation, and they did not, as it is said, 'When you cry out, let your collected wealth save you' (Isaiah 57:13)." So far their words. Now, it appears from their words that they were righteous men and great men of the generation, and that they died only on account of either their leaving for outside the Land, or their not praying for mercy. But is it not to be regarded as strange that their punishment should be death on account of either of these two reasons? For as regards their leaving for outside the Land, did they not find justification for it, since it is said, "When there is famine in a city, scatter your feet"? And moreover, it is said that even were there some guilt in it, there would be no death penalty for it — and all the more so according to the reasoning of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, which seems insufficient grounds to die for. But this is only because the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting with His pious ones to a hair's breadth. And this, it may be said, follows upon its saying "and a man went from Beth-lehem in Judah to sojourn," etc. — that is, his going out from the Land of Israel to outside the Land, that he went and did not seek mercy, troubled him: could it be that on account of this, that man would be put to death, since there is not enough in this sin to die for it? And all the more so if we consider its saying "a famine in the land," meaning the whole of the Land of Israel, etc. — that he could not find a place in the Land of Israel to be satisfied with bread. To this it answers: do not wonder at the matter, for he was indeed a great man. For "the name of the man" — that is, the renowned man, this being a term of "ish" (man) denoting one who is great compared to all the other men mentioned in Scripture — and also written with the heh of the definite article. And also "Elimelech," as the Sages of blessed memory said, that he would say, "To me shall kingship come" — for on account of the abundance of his perfection, he would say that there was none in Israel fit for kingship like himself; and to allude to his greatness is the reason for the cantillation pazer gadol. And also his wife Naomi — this is from what the Sages of blessed memory said, that she was called Naomi on account of the greatness of her righteousness, for she was pleasant (ne'imah) in her deeds. And also his sons — men of renown, described for their importance as "Ephrathite," a term of greatness, on account of their descent from Miriam the prophetess, as the Sages of blessed memory said, similar to "and David, the son of an Ephrathite man" (1 Samuel 17:12) — and traced in lineage after Beth-lehem in Judah, which was a city and a mother in Israel. It was on this account that the Holy One, blessed be He, was exacting with them, to the point that, because "and they were there," as has been said — that they acquired there a permanent establishment — they were judged with a sentence of death; and this is the meaning of "and Elimelech died," etc. And it was by way of a remnant that his wife and sons did not die together with him; and this is the meaning of "and she was left," etc. And the reason why they were left alive for a time is perhaps alluded to by Scripture in its saying, at first, "a man went," alone, rather than saying, "a man and his wife and sons went" — to say that since they were all dependent on him and drawn after him, they were not blamed in essence, for it is as though he alone had gone out. And it then clarified, saying, "he and his wife," to say that he was the essential cause, and she was his wife, and the sons were his sons, for he was primary and they were secondary to him and drawn after him. This is the meaning of its saying "he and his wife" — to say that he was the essential cause, and she was his wife, and they were his sons, as stated. And by this, the word "he" is not superfluous. It is further possible that Scripture comes here to teach us the measure of Elimelech's piety, this being why He, may He be blessed, was exacting with him. This relates to what is known from the Sages of blessed memory, that it is forbidden for a righteous man to have marital relations during years of famine, as it is said, "and to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came" (Genesis 41:50). And likewise the Sages of blessed memory said that Noah, too, throughout the time of the distress of the Flood, was forbidden marital relations, as it is said, "and come into the ark, you, and your sons, and your wife, and your sons' wives" (Genesis 6:18) — that he would be with the men, and his wife with the women. But upon his going out, it is said to him, "Go out from the ark, you and your wife" (Genesis 8:16), for then marital relations were permitted — and likewise "your sons and your sons' wives," who were permitted marital relations after the distress had passed. And this is what is said here: that Elimelech, too, was careful in this regard. And this is the meaning of "and a man went from Beth-lehem in Judah," and it does not say, "and a man and his wife went" — for he alone was there at first, since he was still in the midst of the distress. But when he went to sojourn in the field of Moab — then, in the field of Moab, where there was no famine — he and his wife went together, unlike in Beth-lehem in Judah, where there was famine, until his arrival at the sedei of Moab, a place of plenty. It is further possible that its saying "to sojourn in the field of Moab" alludes to the fact that his guilt in this matter was more severe than had he gone to some other land, other than these [Ammon and Moab], among the lands of the nations. This is because the Torah decreed, "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter [the assembly of Hashem]," etc. (Deuteronomy 23:4), and gave the reason for this: "because they did not meet you with bread and water" (Deuteronomy 23:5). And it is known that this matter was not due to any lack of bread among Israel, for they did not lack bread from heaven, nor water from Miriam's well; rather, it was on account of a deficiency in proper conduct, in that they did not remember the good that Abraham had done for Lot, their forefather. Therefore, how great would be the disgrace and provocation of wrath, that on account of the disgrace of famine, they should go to Moab to be satisfied with bread, for the Moabites would call them "ones wasted with hunger" (Deuteronomy 32:24) who are in need of the bread of their lies. And this is alluded to in its saying, "and there was a famine," etc., "and a man went," etc., "to sojourn in the sedei of Moab," etc. Now, from the outcome of what we have said concerning the righteousness of the man Elimelech, let us come to the intent of the allusion in the Masoretic note, namely, that "vayelech ish" (and a man went) occurs twice in Scripture as a single set: "and a man went from the house of Levi" (Exodus 2:1), the second being, "and a man went from Beth-lehem in Judah." Is this not to be regarded as strange? For since it is His, may He be blessed, way that even through the animals of the righteous He does not bring about mishap, how much more so through the righteous themselves! If so, then why was this not done for this man, that this misfortune should not have befallen him? For behold, concerning David, may he rest in peace, the Sages of blessed memory gave the reason that if an individual sins, they say to him, "Go to the example of David," so that he not despair of repentance. And this is their statement: "David was not fit for that deed, nor were Israel fit for that deed [with the Golden Calf]," etc., as is explained by us in its place — but rather, it happened so that if an individual sins, etc. And likewise concerning the matter of the tribes [Joseph's brothers], as the Sages of blessed memory said: "Why did he make him a coat of many colors (ketonet passim)? So that they would hate him, in order that he would split the sea for them — do not read 'passim' but 'pas yam' [a strip of sea]." This means, according to us: why did He, may He be blessed, not intervene to prevent mishap from coming about through them, but rather left them to hate him, leaving the choice to nature, in order that merit would emerge to prepare for the splitting of the Sea of Reeds? This is the statement of the Sages of blessed memory: "The sea saw and fled" (Psalm 114:3) — what did it see? Joseph's coffin, and by its merit it fled and went out. And likewise in Tanchuma they said: "Great is the sin of the righteous, which gave life to the whole world during the famine." And in this manner it may be said concerning Elimelech, that the reason He, may He be blessed, did not take care to safeguard his choice is that his case is similar to the going of Amram; for just as with "and a man went from the house of Levi," from whose going there followed the coming into the world of Moses, king and savior of Israel, so is the matter of "and a man went from Beth-lehem in Judah," from which there followed the coming into the world of David, king and savior of Israel, by way of drawing forth and bringing Ruth — for it was from Hashem that it came about that she should come and be wed to Boaz, in order to bring forth from her the kingdom of the house of David. And by this we have found and seen good reason for the survival of Naomi, as is written here, with Hashem's help: for twice it says "and the woman was left," etc. — because she did not protest to her husband about his dwelling outside the Land, nor to her sons about their marriages to Moabite women, she deserved that a hand be sent against her, that she too should die; except that she was left only by way of a remnant, as it is said, "and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons who were left" (Leviticus 10:12), which teaches that it would have been fitting for both of them to die as well, but they were left as a remnant by the merit of Moses. So why was Naomi left, after reaching the gates of death twice, on account of the sin of her husband and the sin of her sons? Is it not in order to bring about merit by means of a meritorious one — that is, to bring with her Ruth, to establish from her the kingdom of the house of David? And this is the meaning of the verse's saying, "and Naomi was left," etc., "and Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, with her" — this being one of the paths which we shall tread further ahead, with Hashem's help.

"And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Beth-lehem in Judah went..." — to the end of the Megillah. He says that this account took place in the days when the judges were judging Israel, and behold, because of the famine that was in the Land of Israel, he went from Beth-lehem in Judah to sojourn in the fields of Moab.

The questions: (1) Why does it relate that this happened "in the days when the judges judged"? It should have told us the name of the judge. (2) Why does it repeat itself — "and a man went from Bethlehem of Judah" ... "Ephrathites of Bethlehem of Judah" — and why does it add "and they came to the fields of Moab and were there"? (3) Why does it say "Naomi's husband"? And what novelty is there in "and she was left, she and her two sons"? "and it came to pass in the days when the judges judged" — He relates the cause that moved Elimelech to leave the Land of Israel for outside the Land, because it was in the days when the judges judged, about which time it is said (Judges 17 and 18), "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." And also, there was not then a single judge appointed over all Israel who would restrain the people, for these were the years between one judge and the next, when there were many judges [each in his own locality], and whoever wished could fill his own hand [appoint himself as leader]. And there was no fear of a judge upon the people, as it is said, "Were it not for fear of the government, a man would swallow his fellow alive" (Avot 3:2). And the Sages, in their rhetorical style, said: "Woe to the generation that judges its judges." That is the first [cause]. Second, "and there was a famine in the land" — for in days of famine the poor masses gather against the rich and force them to give them bread and grain, and if they do not, they take it by force, since there is no king to cast his fear over them. And therefore, "a man went from Bethlehem of Judah" to sojourn in the fields of Moab. Since he was a rich man, he feared that the poor would fall upon him and plunder all that he had. Yet even so, he did not go to settle permanently, only to sojourn in the fields of Moab until the anger passed, and also not to dwell in a city or town, only in the fields of Moab, like one temporarily dwelling in a field for the time being. Likewise, although it was a time of calamity and grief, only one man went out from there, and the rest of the rich did not join him in leaving the Land of Israel for outside the Land. And even the members of Elimelech's own household did not go willingly, for they did not want to leave the beloved land — only he, his wife, and his two sons went, for he was the primary [cause] in this, and they were compelled to follow after him. And so the Midrash says: "He was primary, and his wife was secondary [subordinate to him]." The Midrash also says: "Elimelech was the great man of the generation. He said, 'Now all of Israel will be rising early to my doorstep,' and he fled." It further says there that there were two famines: a famine of Torah and a famine of bread. That is to say, based on the teaching, "Whoever averts his eyes from charity is as though he worshipped idols," and further, "Whoever does not occupy himself with acts of kindness is as though he has no God." And Rav Hai explained that "averting his eyes" refers to a case where the poor man rises early to the rich man's doorstep and he does not give to him — this is as severe as if he worshipped idols. But one who does not occupy himself with charity — that is a case where the poor man does not rise early to his doorstep, but rather the giver must go pursue the poor man in order to fulfill the commandment of charity — this is not as severe as idol-worship, but is only like one who has no God. The Sages further said that one who dwells outside the Land [of Israel] is as though he has no God. Now, had the poor not been rising early to his doorstep, he would not have gone out to outside the Land. For although in not occupying himself with charity he would be like one who has no God — and one who dwells outside the Land is likewise like one who has no God — nevertheless, since the poor were rising early to his doorstep, then when he would not give to them he would be like an idol-worshipper; so it was better for him to go out to outside the Land, for in that he is only like one who has no God, not like an idol-worshipper. Now the Sages said: "It is a tradition that a disciple of the Sages does not become poor — but do we not see that he does become poor? Though he becomes poor, he does not go about begging at doors." Accordingly, had there not been a famine of Torah, they would not have gone about begging at doors, and it would only have been a case of not occupying himself with charity, which is like one who has no God, and he would not have gone out to outside the Land, which is likewise like one who has no God. But since there was also a famine of Torah, they therefore rose early to his doorstep, and so he fled.

Ephrathites. Important people, and similarly, “the son of Tochu, the son of Tzuph, an Ephrathite,” [meaning] an aristocrat. Look how important they were, for Eglon the King of Mo’av married off his daughter to Machlon, as the Master said, “Rus was the daughter of Eglon.” Another explanation of “Ephratites,” [they were from Beis Lechem,] because Beis Lechem is called Ephros. — Notes: (6) I Shmuel 1:1. (7) Maseches Sanhedrin 105b. (8) See Bereishis 48:7, “and I buried her [Rachel] on the way to Ephros which is Beis Lechem.”

'Mahlon and Chilion' — We do not know the events that occurred on account of which they were given these names, similar to [the naming of] Issachar, or Moses as well. And the midrash says that they are [the same as] Joash and Saraph, because they took Moabite wives (1 Chronicles 4:22), where it is written, 'who married into Moab.' Moabite women are permitted to Israel, for Scripture only forbade an Ammonite man and a Moabite man from entering the congregation, and from marrying the daughters of Israel. I will explain this fully in [my commentary on] the book of Ezra. And the reason 'from Beth-lehem' is stated a second time is to inform us that they were native citizens. And furthermore, because it says 'Ephrathites' — and this word sometimes denotes affiliation with the place called Ephrath, and sometimes the family of Ephraim. Ephrath was the name of the wife of Caleb son of Hezron, and the place was named after her, just as [Egypt is called] Mitzrayim [after a person]. And it could not be that Mahlon and Chilion took these women [as wives] until they had converted — the proof being '[to] her people and her god' [Ruth 1:15].

"Ephrathites of Beth-lehem in Judah" — behold, Ephrath is Beth-lehem, as it is said (Genesis 35:19), "on the way to Ephrath, that is Beth-lehem."

"and the name of the man" — He clarifies that he was a man renowned by name — and not he alone, but his wife and his sons were also people of renown. And this is the reason for his departure: he was therefore afraid of the masses, who would seek from him grain to relieve the famine of their households. And it is also the reason for the punishment that overtook him, for since he was a great man, his departure caused the heart of Israel to fall [discouraged them], as is said in the Midrash, and also that it constituted a desecration of Hashem's name [chillul Hashem]. "Ephrathites of Bethlehem of Judah" — Bethlehem was originally called by the name Ephrath, and afterward it was given the name Bethlehem, as it is said, "and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem" (Genesis 48:7). And it was also [the name of] a family of the most distinguished lineage of the tribe of Judah, who were called Ephrathites [after Caleb's wife, who was called Ephrath and was great and distinguished]. And therefore it repeats [the description], to indicate that he was among the distinguished and great men of Bethlehem of Judah. "and they came" — that is to say, although at first they went out only to sojourn in the fields of Moab temporarily, after they came to the fields of Moab, they "were there" — that is to say, they then resolved in their minds to remain there permanently.

Naomi’s husband. Why is this stated again? From here they derived, “A man does not die except for his wife [i.e., she feels the loss more than anyone]. ([Another interpretation:] And it states, “Naomi’s husband,” i.e., that because he was Naomi’s husband and ruled over her and she was subordinate to him, therefore the Divine Attribute of Justice struck him and not her.) — Notes: (9) Maseches Sanhedrin 22b. (10) See Rashi in Bereishis 9:20. (11) Because once he decided to leave, his wife and two sons were compelled to follow.

'And she was left' — alone, [bereft] of her two children and her husband. And Scripture mentions her [in the singular], for such is the rule: when two things are mentioned [together], [the verb] is stated according to the last one. Or, they are mentioned because of the greatness of her anguish over her sons, who were young men in their prime, whereas her husband was old when he died.

Behold, in the juxtaposition of these two verses, which come as one, we are taught how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in the presence of their father or their teacher, for they will be ashamed to sin, since their father or teacher did not sin, for the fear of them rests upon their heads — as is said concerning King Solomon, peace be upon him, that all the days of Shimei ben Gera, who was his teacher, he did not marry Pharaoh's daughter, as is expounded in its place from the juxtaposition of the verses. In this same manner it may be said: when it says "and Elimelech died," etc. — he who was a great man of the generation and a perfectly righteous man, as our Rabbis of blessed memory have stated — to the point that they said he was called Elimelech because he would say, "To me let kingship come" (elai yavo malkhut) — for this reason there is no doubt that they [his sons] were ashamed before him to marry Moabite women. But now that "Elimelech died, and she was left, and her two sons" — since it is not the way of sons to hold their mother in fear the way they fear their father over a son — for this reason, in the matter of reverence, Scripture placed the mother before the father, saying "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," [teaching] that it is not the way of a son to fear her the way he fears the father — therefore "they took for themselves Moabite wives." And by this matter we find a satisfying resolution, which serves well to answer the difficulty of the redundancy of "Naomi's husband" — namely, to say that even though Elimelech sinned by leaving the land, he did not, God forbid, become brazenly lax regarding the rest of the commandments, and all the more so regarding the marrying of Moabite women — meaning that for this reason [his sons] were not ashamed of him, for he was indeed exclusively "Naomi's husband"; but it would not have been fitting in his eyes for a man [i.e., a son of his] to belong to another besides her, from the daughters of Moab and their like. Therefore, until after the death of the holy man, he was vigilant regarding this matter, as is hinted by the phrase "Naomi's husband" — [meaning] they did not marry foreign women [while he lived]; but after his death, "they took for themselves," and she too did not persist in protesting against them, [perhaps hoping] that they would refrain out of deference [without her having to rebuke them outright] — for which reason Scripture punished them, as will be explained below, with the help of Heaven. And in this way [Scripture] hints to us how one transgression drags another transgression in its wake — similar to the safeguard which our Rabbis of blessed memory decreed, forbidding their bread on account of their daughters [i.e., out of fear of intermarriage]. Close to this was what occurred: they were drawn, by going to Moab, to eating bread there, to marrying from their daughters — even though they ate of their own bread [that they brought with them, they still came to intermarry]; how much more so had they eaten their [Moabite] bread, which is close to intermarrying with them. It is also possible that by saying "Naomi's husband" [Scripture] means to say: let it not enter a person's mind to say, did Elimelech die for nothing — [surely not,] unless he sinned mortally and his iniquities overtook him, for there were many [sins] attached to him besides the sin of leaving the land; for were this not so, this sin alone would not be enough to blot him out from this world and the next. Therefore it says "and [Elimelech] died," etc., to say further — that you should realize, regarding "Elimelech died": let it not enter your mind [to say] that his iniquities caught up with him, and that his death was not [merely] for leaving the land in such a way that his death would be his atonement, but rather that he remained in his wickedness on account of the rest of his sins — unlike his wife, for she was a completely righteous woman, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said; for this reason they called her Naomi — pleasant in her deeds. But know that this is not so! Rather, even after his death he is called "Naomi's husband," for he was a fitting righteous man, matched to her, since he died only for the aforementioned sin, and his death was his atonement. Now, we have expounded the phrase "Naomi's husband" favorably; but there are among our Rabbis who expound it disparagingly, in that they say: "It was taught: a man dies only to his wife, as it is said, 'And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died'" — end of citation. I would think that their intent was to give good reason for the necessity that Hashem, blessed be He, made known through the holy spirit that he was "Naomi's husband" — which had already been made known by saying, "and the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi." And considering carefully what Samuel the Prophet saw fit, through his holy spirit, to teach us here — that a man dies only to his wife — their opinion, of blessed memory, is that this comes to teach how much a person's sins can bring him low, down to the ground, down to the dust. For behold, he who is called "the man Elimelech" — for "the man" [ha-ish] is an expression of greatness that encompasses everything, as in the phrase "the man Moses," which is as if it said, "the great Moses." Now "the man Elimelech" is transformed into "Elimelech, Naomi's husband" — for at first he was significant in his own right and great in the eyes of the Jews, and had he died there in his own land, it would have made a great impression, and people would have said, "a prince and a great man of Israel has died"; but now they will say, "the husband of a single woman has died." And this is [the meaning of] "and Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died" — for now he had lost his stature, and he died only to his wife, and not to Israel his people. And regarding what we said, that there was also a measure of punishment for the wife and the sons, after they lingered outside the Land and put down roots there, it says "and she was left, and her two sons" — for they are called "remnant" [she'erit] and "that which remains" [noter], for by strict law a hand ought to have been sent forth against them too, in the manner of what our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding "and Ithamar, his remaining sons." It is also possible that [Scripture] intends, along these same lines, to show how he was diminished in stature — for at first his wife and sons were secondary to him, but after he acquired a [permanent] dwelling there, as we wrote regarding [the phrase] "and they were there," he then lost his stature and became secondary to them; so that she is no longer called "his wife," nor the sons "his sons," but rather, on the contrary, he became secondary and attached to her, and is called "Naomi's husband," while she is not attached [in name] to him — that is, it does not say "and his wife remained," but only "and she remained" — not secondary to another — "and her two sons," meaning, attached to her and not to him; and for this reason it does not say "his sons."

"and she was left of her two children and of her husband" — meaning, that none of them remained besides her, for they [Mahlon and Chilion] had no sons.

"and he died" — since he had resolved to remain outside the Land, he was punished immediately, and he died. And it explains why he was punished and not Naomi: because he was Naomi's husband and ruled over her, and the essence of the sin is attributed to him. And the Sages said that at first Hashem punishes with a person's money, for the Master of Mercy does not strike lives directly at first. And this is hinted at in the phrase "Naomi's husband" — for a great rich man like Elimelech was himself known by name on account of his wealth, and people would say, "Elimelech the rich man died"; and all the more so, had it been in the Land of Israel, they would have said, "Elimelech the leader [parnas] and great man of the generation died." But after he had lost all his wealth and was in a foreign land, he was not known by his own name, only as "Naomi's husband" — for she was known there more than he, and he was known only in that he was Naomi's husband. "and the woman was left" — that is to say, and nevertheless they did not take this as a rebuke to return to the Land of Israel, but remained there. And the Midrash says: "'and the woman was left' — she became like the remainder of the meal-offerings [she'yurei menachot]." That is to say, is it not that [the terms] "remain" and "was left over" are valid only if the majority was taken and the minority remained — so how can it be valid here, where only one died and three remained? And so it says: "like the remainder of the meal-offerings" — for although only the handful [komets] is taken from the meal-offering, the entire meal-offering is called by the name "remainder," since the handful is the essential part and the rest of the meal-offering is subordinate to the handful. So too here, he [Elimelech] was the essential one of the household, and therefore they were all called by the name "remainder."

"And they took for themselves..." — Now, in saying "and the name of the second was Ruth," one ought to pay attention and understand what purpose there is in telling us who the second one was; it would have been perfectly fine to be brief and simply say, "and they took for themselves Moabite wives, Orpah and Ruth." But indeed, let me speak from my heart, for the prophet spoke of a great matter here. Is it not that every truly wise-hearted person is astonished at this: what was it with Mahlon and his wife, that they rose up higher and higher and succeeded to royalty — after Mahlon had not done well in taking the wife he took while she was still a Gentile (bagoyut), just as his brother Chilion likewise did not? And who has ever seen a kilyon charutz — a "decreed destruction," playing on the name Chilion — such as befell Chilion, that he was forgotten from the heart like a dead man and was never again mentioned, and whose wife Orpah became defiled, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, for various reasons? Yet Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, merited to take shelter beneath the wings of the Shechinah, and from her came forth a cornerstone (pinnah) and from her a tent-peg (yated), to be built up — from her the kingdom of the House of David, a building forever, and Hashem gave as an inheritance a throne of glory at the right hand of King Solomon, as they, of blessed memory, said regarding "and he set a throne for the king's mother" (1 Kings 2:19) — meaning, for the "mother of the kingdom" — with a tenfold share in all this greatness. And all of this came to Mahlon, who sinned gravely just like his brother Chilion! And behold, He, may He be blessed, made His kindness to him wondrous — a wonder of wonders — bringing him back around into the womb of his wife by means of Boaz, the great one of the world, according to the view of the sages of truth [the Kabbalists], that his act was by way of levirate marriage (yibbum), and that Oved is Mahlon [reincarnated]; and from him was founded the kingdom of the House of David and Solomon, down to the Messiah King. Now is this matter not to be regarded as strange? For he did evil in the eyes of Hashem, in that he took a foreign wife — so how could one who did wickedness be built up into so high and lofty an edifice? For the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform miracles for liars. Therefore the spirit of Hashem spoke, and called out to the earth and to all its inhabitants, that we take a lesson of understanding (musar haskel), so that we might grow wise and know how very great a good it is for a person to restrain himself from doing evil, and how great — beyond bearing — is the iniquity of one who initiates a transgression. For the sin of one who did not restrain himself from committing it, but rather was the one who began it, so that his fellow learned from him to do as he did, hangs upon him — the one who began it. And is this not exactly what happened with these men who are named here? Look and see: brothers dwelt together, and now their time had come, the time to take a wife — which of the two ought to have married first? One would say that the elder should begin, and after him the younger. If so, then between Mahlon and Chilion, who should have taken a wife first, if not Mahlon, since he was the elder — as it is said, "and the name of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion" (Ruth 1:2), for there is no doubt that the verse begins with the elder and concludes with the younger. But the opposite happened: Mahlon's heart was not moved to marry from the daughters of the land until he saw his brother married to a foreigner — for Chilion began the transgression first, and afterward Mahlon was drawn along, for his soul desired her, and he too did as his brother did — such that the guilt-chain (kolar) for both of them hangs upon Chilion. And as they, of blessed memory, said: the light sins that Ahab committed are reckoned like the grave sins that Jeroboam committed, except that Jeroboam was the one who began the transgression first. How much more so here, for the sin that Mahlon committed added nothing beyond what Chilion had already done, such that Mahlon's iniquity is ten times lighter than Chilion's iniquity. And this is [the meaning of] "and the name of the second was Ruth" — that is to say, let not the weight of Mahlon's sin loom large in your eyes, for behold, Ruth — known to be the wife of Mahlon — was "the second," for he did not marry her until the younger one had already begun the transgression, and he learned from him. And this serves, from this point on, as a preface to all the good that is destined to be told concerning Mahlon and the wife he took. And it says "and they dwelt there about ten years" to indicate that, despite all this, their measure of guilt would not have been filled to the point of death, had they not tarried there outside the Land for so many days. And this is [the sequence]: "and they took for themselves...," "and they dwelt there...," and as a result, "and they died." And this is [the meaning of] "and the name of the second was Ruth" — that is, that Ruth, known to be the wife of Mahlon, was the second — and this is an inclusive extension (the word "also"), making their death an addition to the death of their father, and equating them with him — to say that they too bore some element of guilt. And it is possible that, in specifying the time by saying "about ten years," he intended that we not minimize their punishment on account of their having tarried there, attributing it solely to their having taken foreign wives — reasoning that such is the way of one who marries a wife in another land, to tarry with her at her father's house, and only afterward does she go with her husband to his own land and birthplace. Therefore it says, "and they dwelt there about ten years" — meaning, that if the delay were for that reason alone, it ought to have lasted only as long as Scripture writes elsewhere: "let the girl remain with us a year or ten [months]" (Genesis 24:55) — that is, a year, or ten months. But here it was about ten years, which shows that they chose to settle in that land and rejected the precious Land [of Israel]. And this is because, even at their original departure, the essential sin was attributed only to their father, as it says, "and a man went" (as discussed above), except that there was some small measure of blame upon the wife and her children, in that they did not correct him with good counsel beforehand — yet not so as to make them liable for death as he was, but only so that their remaining alive after Elimelech be attributed to their being a kind of remnant, as discussed. But after they had settled there about ten years, this sin was added on top of their having married foreign wives, until their death came to be attributed to both matters together. And this is why it juxtaposes and says, "and they also died, both of them" — for the word "also" extends to include the sin of their father as well, which was likewise added, as stated.

"And they took [wives]" — Now the sons continued to sin, in that they married Moabite women without converting them, as stated in the Midrash, and therefore it says, "the name of the one was Orpah," for upon their conversion they would have changed their previous name, but they retained their [Moabite] names. [And although Ruth's name was not changed even after she converted — as it is stated in Berachot (9): "What is [the meaning of the name] Ruth? — that David descended from her, who saturated the Holy One, blessed be He, with songs and praises" (a play on the root related to 'saturating') — for the question "what is [the significance of] Ruth" really means: why was her gentile name — the name she had before her conversion — not changed?] And this is also evident from the wording "vayisu" ["and they took/bore"], for regarding a taking through betrothal (kiddushin) according to law, the term "lekichah" [taking] is used, whereas the term "vayisu" is used, for the most part, regarding marriages to foreign women, throughout the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, and regarding a wife of secondary status, as stated concerning Rehoboam (II Chronicles 11), "he took eighteen wives and sixty concubines" — for only two were principal wives, of whom it says "vayikach" ["and he took"], and so on. And he explains that the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the second was Ruth for two reasons: 1) That Chilion, the younger brother, took precedence — "and he took Orpah" — and began the transgression, which indicates the deficiency of morals among the brothers, in that the younger one married before the firstborn, and that the elder brother did not protest against him. 2) That had Mahlon been the one who married first, there would have been somewhat of a merit found for both of them: for Mahlon, in that he recognized Ruth's righteousness, as her end proved concerning her beginning; and for Chilion, in that he thought that he too would find a good wife like his brother. But the truth was the opposite: Chilion took precedence in marrying the wicked Orpah; his other brother should have recognized how the younger brother had stumbled with an evil woman, yet he added transgression [by doing the same]. They sinned further in that they dwelt there about ten years, which shows clearly that they had completely given up hope of returning to the Land of Israel.

Both. What is the meaning of “also” גַם? First they were struck by financial loss and their camels and their cattle died; afterwards they “also” died. — Notes: (12) When God punishes man He first deprives him of his property, and if he does not repent, God smites him in person. Alternatively, “also” indicates that their death was punishment “also” for having remained outside of Eretz Yisroel.

"And both of them died, etc." — It is fitting to pay close attention: why does it repeat their names, since when it says "both of them," who does not know that they are Mahlon and Chilion? Second, its statement "and the woman was left" is superfluous. Third, why does it call them "sons" while they lived, but at the time of their death does not bring them to the mashber (the crisis-point of birth) of "sons," turning back instead to call them "children," as in "of her two children"? Fourth, why does it put the sons before the father, and not say "of her husband and of her two children" — which would have accorded with their honor and with the order of their deaths? Indeed, first it teaches us to understand that one who dies through his sin does not return from it, for the garments of his consummate glory that were his before he sinned regarding the soul are stripped from him. For behold, before they sinned, Scripture clothed them in a garb of glory, attributing them to their land, as it says "Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah"; but when they became corrupt, their adornments were removed from them — all the more so since among their transgressions was their rejection of the beloved land, as has been said, for "they dwelt there about ten years." Therefore, at their death it says "and both of them died, Mahlon and Chilion" — that is, their bare names, but not "Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah" as at first, for their sin stripped their glory from them. And this is a kal vachomer (an a fortiori inference) from Moses, of whom our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: because Moses heard the daughters of Reuel say "an Egyptian man delivered us" and did not say "I am a Hebrew, from the land of the Hebrews," he was not buried in his own land — how much more so these men, now, who rejected the land, that they should no longer be described by its name. Second, [Scripture] also intended to indicate that they married them [the Moabite women] while they were still gentiles, and their union was not accorded the status of [true] marriage. This is why they differ from their father: concerning him it says "and Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died," but not so concerning his sons, for it does not say concerning them "and Mahlon and Chilion, the husbands of Orpah and Ruth, died," but only "Mahlon and Chilion," since a Moabite woman has no [halachic status of] marriage. Likewise it does not say "and Naomi and Orpah and Ruth were left of their husbands," but rather "and the woman was left," for her daughters-in-law were not joined to their husbands in the sense of "male and female He created them ... and called their name Adam" (Genesis 5:2) — such that their wives could be called a "remnant," as is the case with Naomi in relation to her husband and sons. And this is the meaning of "and the woman was left" — that is, she who had truly been a wife — but not those who had no [halachic] marriage, for they cannot be called a "remnant" in relation to their husbands. This is the reason it says "the woman" and not "she." Furthermore, [Scripture] intended by this to resolve all the difficulties raised above. It is as follows: after they had settled there about ten years, their father's sin also grew great upon them, and for two evils that they committed they became liable to death: because they married into Moab, and because they rejected the beloved land. This is the meaning of "and both of them also died" — that is, they too, like their father, for they too died through sin. And not only that, but even though Mahlon's sin in his marriage was lighter than Chilion's, nevertheless he died first, as is known, for the attribute of judgment strikes the more righteous first, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding the verse "If fire breaks out and finds thorns, and a stack of grain is consumed" (Exodus 22:5). And this is why it lists "Mahlon and Chilion" [in that order] — because it began with Mahlon, the elder, even though he was better than Chilion. And Scripture says that just as they committed two evils, for which reason both of them also died, so too their mother sinned somewhat in these same two matters, in that she did not protest against them — such that she too deserved to have a hand sent against her, for not protesting her husband's sin of dwelling outside the Land, and also for not protesting her sons' marriages. This is the meaning of "and the woman was left of her two children and of her husband" — to say that she was left as a remnant twice over: with regard to her sons' sin and with regard to her husband's sin. And lest one say that she should not be called a remnant with regard to her sons, since perhaps in the heat of their youth they would not have listened to her — therefore it says "her children," not "her sons," to hint that in her eyes they were considered young children. This is the force of "and was left," etc. — she can be called a remnant with respect to them, in that she did not die along with them, since they were her children and obedient to her. And since her guilt regarding her sons was greater than her guilt regarding her husband — for he would not have listened to her as they would have — it therefore places "her children" before "her husband," and does not say "of her husband and of her two children." As for why He, may He be blessed, left her as a remnant these two times — even though He is exacting with His pious ones to a hairsbreadth — I think this is hinted at in the continuation of the matter mentioned in the coming verses, namely, her bringing of Ruth, who was destined to come from that time, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding "your two daughters who are here" (Genesis 19:15) — that merit is brought about through one who is meritorious. The Holy One, blessed be He, wished this righteous woman to be left, in order to bring Ruth about through her. And the sense of the matter is this: after she had been made a remnant these two times, why was she left? Is it not because through this it followed that "she arose, with her daughters-in-law" (Ruth 1:6), etc. — the continuation being that through her, her daughters-in-law set out, and Ruth clung to her, from which followed the emergence of the kingdom of the House of David from her. This is what the verse states further on, in saying "so Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her" (Ruth 1:22). This is because — it had already stated several times that they came to Bethlehem, and that Naomi spoke with the people of the place — why does it then go back and say afterward, "and Naomi returned, and Ruth," etc.? Rather, it is because after her statement "and Hashem has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me" (Ruth 1:21) — as its explanation will come, with God's help — there was room to object to her words and say: if Hashem has testified against you and the Almighty has afflicted you, why then are you here, alive, and death did not strike you as it did your husband and your sons? Therefore the Holy Spirit comes and says: do not wonder at the matter — how she was left and returned to the land of Judah, unlike her children and her husband; she was left a remnant of remnants, twice over. For know: the reason Naomi returned and did not die in the field of Moab is because "Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, [was] with her" — that is, in order to bring her along and convert her on the way. And the proof is that the two of them traveled the road together, alone, in the manner of men, and were not harmed. This is the force of its saying "and they [masculine form] came to Bethlehem," rather than "and they [feminine] came" or "and behold they came" — it means to hint that they came alone like men, which other women would not have dared to do; but this was only because Hashem was with them. And if we attend to the words "and she was left," stated twice, which appear superfluous — it is possible that in saying "vatisha'er hi" ("and she was left, she"; Ruth 1:3), there is a hint of her being left in order to bring about the one called "the mother of the kingdom," who is Ruth, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding "and a throne was set for the king's mother" (I Kings 2:19) — "the king's mother" is [to be read as] "the mother of the kingdom," who is Ruth. And likewise, the numerical value of the letters of "vatisha'er hi," when the two words are combined, equals the numerical value of "lehavi imah shel malchut" ("to bring the mother of the kingdom"). And since Mahlon had not yet married Ruth at this point, she is not yet hinted at by name; only after her marriage and her widowhood is it hinted, explicitly, in the remnant of Naomi — for in saying "vatisha'er ha'ishah" ("and the woman was left"; Ruth 1:5), its numerical value rises to that of "lavo be-Rut kallatah imah" ("to come through Ruth her daughter-in-law with her"), counting the total including the added word. For since Ruth was by then already known by name, her name "Ruth" is what is hinted at; but after her actual arrival, when the matter came to be in fact, it was then no longer concealed in a hint but stated in plain words: "and Naomi returned, and Ruth her daughter-in-law with her," as has been said. Furthermore, it is possible to explain the matter of the verse "and both of them also died," etc., by prefacing two premises. First: that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding the verse "I went out full" (Ruth 1:21) — that she went out pregnant, to the fields of Moab, and that child also died, like his brothers. Second: that the sages of truth (the Kabbalists) taught us that the union of Boaz with Ruth was by way of yibbum (levirate marriage), for Oved is [in fact] Mahlon — for his spirit came as far as Oved. This is the essence of their premise: that his spirit remained in the womb of the woman, and from it the child was built up through the union of the levir with her. If so, then indeed there was a spirit within Ruth that Mahlon had left in her, and the remaining of the spirit of an Israelite man in the womb of the woman he had taken while she was a gentile should not be regarded as belonging to a stranger — for Ruth is different, since she is the woman whom Hashem designated to bring forth from her the kingdom of the House of David, and our Rabbis, of blessed memory, called her "a good separation." Now let us come to the matter. It states "and both of them also died" — the word "also" serves to include the son of her womb, for that child also died, whom Naomi had gone pregnant with, from him [Elimelech]; and those who [actually] died were Mahlon and Chilion, like him. And although all three died, she [Naomi] is not described as bereft of her sons except with respect to the two younger ones — Chilion, together with the second child — but not with respect to Mahlon. And this is the meaning of "and the woman was left of her two children" — that is, the younger ones, who are called "children" relative to Mahlon the elder — "and of her husband," but not of Mahlon, for indeed his spirit remained within Ruth, to return by means of her. And this is the meaning of "and she was left," etc.

"And they died" — Therefore they too were punished, and Mahlon died first, before Chilion, because it was incumbent upon him to protest against his younger brother, and he died both for his own sin and for not having protested against his brother. And our Sages said that Scripture used the word "gam" ["also"] to indicate that first their wealth went down the drain, and only afterward did they die — for the Accuser (lit. "master of harm") does not strike against lives first. "And the woman was left" — because she did not participate in their sin, and her intention was always to return to the Land of Israel.

'And she returned from the field of Moab' — in thought/intention [i.e., she had already resolved to return, though not yet in deed], like [the phrase] 'Israel fought with Balak' [cf. Joshua 24:9, where Balak never literally waged war against Israel].

"She arose, she and her daughters-in-law..." — Behold, mentioning the "rising" (kimah) appears unnecessary, since it is already included within the "going." Second, it should have said "vayakumu" ("they arose," plural); and likewise, in saying "vatashov" ("she returned"), it should have said "vayashuvu" ("they returned"). And you might object that "returning" (shivah) applies only to Naomi and not to Ruth, who had never been in the Land of Israel — for afterward it says "and they went in the way to return," etc., which uses this term on Naomi's account, in the manner of "only, you shall not bring my son back there" (Genesis 24:8), as Ibn Ezra, of blessed memory, wrote there — that this is because it is dragged along after Abraham. Third, its saying "vatashov" ("she returned") in the past tense, and afterward saying "and she went out," etc., "and they went to return," etc. Fourth, why did it vary within a single verse — the first time saying "misdei" (מִשְּׂדֵי) with a yod, and the second time "bisdeh" (בִּשְׂדֵה) with a heh. Fifth, that it gives a reason that seems discreditable in saying "for she had heard," etc., for it appears that she returned only for the sake of bread alone, when she ought to have returned solely out of love for the holy Land of Israel, even amid a lack of bread. Sixth, in saying "and she went out from the place where she had been" — is it conceivable that they would go to another land without going out from the place where they had been? Seventh, its saying "and they went in the way" — for it is obvious that they would not arrive in the land unless they went by way; and also, what is this, that until now it had not mentioned that they were returning to the land of Judah? However, behold, the verse hints at Naomi's wisdom, that she did not linger there to speak to their heart before separating from them, in the manner of women who part from one another, saying to them, "Behold, I am going to my people and to my land, and I grieve for you, for you know that I have loved you with an everlasting love; now, remain here, each in her mother's house," and words to that effect. But the verse comes and testifies that she did not do so; rather, immediately after the death of her two sons, "she arose" and "set her steps to the road." For she, seeing with the goodness of her intellect that if she were to say this to them, they too would answer her, saying, "Please do not leave us, for you have been as eyes to us, and we are better to you than ten sons, and we will not move from sheltering in the shadow of your wings; and as an eagle stirs up its nest, so you hover over us. Please do not become a disgrace — a poor woman driven about among the nobles of your people — instead of remaining exalted and lofty among the great ones and counselors of the land. And it will be that when the Hebrews who see your honor and the honor of the man Elimelech see you, they will say, 'Is this his wife? All who see you will be appalled and will hiss, and from before you they will not withhold spittle' " — for by the sweetness of their words they would detain her, strengthen their hold on her, and not let her go. Therefore she did not tell them what was in her heart, and she arose all at once, suddenly, and set her steps to the road, so that the matter would not become known until she was well underway. And when her daughters-in-law saw her going out, they too went out with her and joined her, even though they did not know where she was heading. And this is the meaning of "she arose" in the singular, with her two daughters-in-law drawn along after her. And it says "she returned" in the singular, because she alone was the one "returning" at this time, not they — and therefore it says it in the past tense. Now, the Holy Spirit has taught us here one of the faithful kindnesses of Hashem toward His people Israel: that for Israel, the Holy One, blessed be He, joins a good intention to the deed. And this it demonstrated and taught by saying "she returned" — meaning that from the moment she arose to return, the verse attributed to her as though she had already returned, and this was because she was an Israelite woman. But afterward, in saying "and they went in the way to return" — which refers also to Orpah and Ruth, who had not yet converted, so that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not join their intention to the deed — therefore it says of them "to return" (as not yet accomplished), even though Naomi too is included with them in that phrase, since she is the minority there. Now, Naomi's departure, if one does not judge it favorably, could be attributed to one of two reasons: either that, seeing she was not prospering in that place, she should change her location, as is known from the counsel of our Rabbis, of blessed memory; or out of her fear that she too would die, like her husband and her sons, on account of having lingered in the Diaspora — in which case she set her heart to return, and her coming to the Land would turn out not to be for its own sake. And the proof for this second claim is that she did not return until their death, and immediately upon their death she arose and went — which would indicate that she feared the same might happen to her as happened to them. Therefore, to teach that her heart was not so, but that she directed her intention solely for the sake of Heaven, it says "vatashov misdei Moav" ("she returned from the fields of Moab") with the yod of multiplicity, meaning that she uprooted herself entirely from all the towns of Moab completely; for had her intention been because she saw that she was not succeeding in that place, and not out of love for the Land, she would not have needed to uproot herself from all of them, but only to change her dwelling from one city to another among the cities of Moab. And to dismiss the second reason as well, it says "ki shama'ah bisdeh Moav" ("for she had heard in the field of Moab") — that is, in the one city where she had been — "that Hashem had remembered," etc. For the fact that she went now, at the death of her sons, and not before, was not out of fears of death that had fallen upon her, lest she die as they did; rather, it was because she heard that "Hashem had remembered," etc., and it was upon hearing this that she now set out, and not before. And the matter is this: had she gone at the time of the famine, while in her poverty she was hungry and also thirsty, Israel would say, "Behold, when good abounded in your house you were sparing, lest those who ate of it multiply and impoverish you, and so you fled so as not to support the poor of your people" — as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said — "and now you have come to us when it is hard for you, so that we should support you in famine" — and this would be a shame and a provocation. Therefore it says that she did not go until she heard that Hashem had given them bread, for then, by the work of her own hands she would manage to sustain herself, or from the gifts to the poor given graciously, without the disgrace of famine. He also intended, in saying "that Hashem had remembered His people" — that the reason her alacrity in rising up immediately was so great was that she heard that this "remembering" was for the sake of His people, and not for the merit of the Land — in the manner of what is written, "Then Hashem was jealous for His land, and had pity on His people" (Joel 2:18). For even though she was not one who had remained in the Diaspora, the reason she rose up immediately was that it was for the sake of the people; for had the sustenance been on account of the Land, she would not have merited it, since she had sinned against it by lingering outside it. But since it was by the merit of the people, she too, being among the people, would be reckoned with them and blessed together with them all — as in the words of the great woman to Elisha the prophet, "I dwell among my own people" (II Kings 4:13). And this is the meaning of "to give to them" — that is, that even though what Hashem gave was to them, and He had not remembered me individually, there is no concern, for in their peace there will be peace for me, and I shall be blessed together with them all. He also intended, in saying "latet" ("to give") — to say that she did not wait until there was already bread for them; rather, as soon as Hashem visited them and made preparation to give them bread, she went immediately. And this is because it happens that after a stretch of years of famine, Hashem visits the land and the produce of the ground is blessed within the earth, and people rejoice to see that Hashem has visited them and prepared food for them, even though they are still lacking bread. So it happened with Naomi: before bread had yet come forth from the ground, she began to go to the Land of Israel, seeing that Hashem had visited them to give them bread, even though it had not yet been given. And the proof is that when she arrived there, it was at the beginning of the barley harvest, which is the very start of the harvest season; hence, at the time of the report she heard, and by the time she arrived — before she could have delayed there — it was not yet the time of the harvest of the field at all. Thus, at the time she heard, there was not yet bread, only the preparation for it — and this is the meaning of "latet" ("to give"), etc. He also intended to teach that she did not set her sights on delicacies and luxuries; rather, upon hearing merely that there was bread for them — even though she had not heard that Hashem had visited them with all the other fruits and the richness of the land — she was content with this, more than with all the goodness of the fields of Moab, for on bread alone she would live in the land of the living.

The Questions (6): Why is it repeated — "and she returned," "and she went out from the place," and "they went on the way"? "Then she arose, she and her daughters-in-law" — Now, all of them agreed to leave this place, for they thought that the fortune (mazal) of the place was the cause [of their misfortune]; accordingly, with regard to the leaving from [the place] they were all equal, but with regard to the going to [a destination], only Naomi alone had resolved in her mind to return from the fields of Moab. For [the term] "return" (sheivah) denotes returning to a place where one had already been; only Naomi agreed to this. Therefore it says "and she returned from the fields of Moab" — that she had resolved this in her mind while she was still in the fields of Moab, but they [the daughters-in-law] did not agree to this while they were [still] in the fields of Moab, but only afterward, as will be explained. "For she had heard in the field of Moab" — meaning, she did not return because of the evil fortune of the place, nor because of fear of death — for in that case it would have been enough for her to leave this place for another place within Moab — rather, she returned because she had heard in the field of Moab that Hashem had remembered His people, to give them bread. And since she had left [Judah] only because of the famine, and only to sojourn there until the famine ceased, therefore when she heard that they would no longer bear the disgrace of famine, she returned to the Land of Israel. And in the Midrash: from whom did she hear this? From peddlers who went about among the towns. And what she heard was "that Hashem had remembered His people" — one verse says, "For Hashem will not forsake His people, neither will He abandon His inheritance" (Psalms 94:14), and another verse says, "For Hashem will not forsake His people, for His great Name's sake" (I Samuel 12:22). How so? At a time when Israel is meritorious, He acts for the sake of His people and His inheritance; and at a time when Israel is not meritorious, He acts for the sake of His great Name. That is to say: since it uses the wording that she heard "that Hashem had remembered His people," this could not be that she heard this from the men of Moab — for even though they were close to the Land of Israel and knew what was happening there, it was not their manner of speech to say the phrase "that Hashem had remembered His people," since they did not believe in Hashem, nor in the bond that [Israel] has with Him as "His people." Therefore it says that she heard it from peddlers who went about among the towns, who brought goods from the Land of Israel to sell in the field of Moab, and this was a sign that the famine there had ceased. And he explains further that on account of the famine's ceasing alone, she would not yet have returned, for since the famine had come about because of the evil of their deeds, as it says, "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine," and it is explained in the Midrash that the famine came because there was no justice among them, and they judged their judges, while their judges themselves were in need of judgment — if so, as long as they had not improved their deeds, she could not be certain that the famine would not return a second time. Rather, she heard that Hashem had remembered/attended to His people, meaning that He did not do this for the sake of His Name [alone], but for the sake of the people, who had improved their deeds and were worthy of being attended to, since they were His people and His inheritance, and therefore He attended to them to give them bread, in a manner that would be a permanent and enduring provision.

She left the place. Why is this stated? It is already stated, “and she returned from the fields of Mo’av,” and from where could she return if not from the place where she had been? Rather the phrase tells us that the departure of a righteous person from a place is noticeable and makes an impression; its splendor departs, its glory departs, the praise of the city departs. And similarly, “And Yaakov left Be’er Sheva.” — Notes: (13) Above, verse 6. (14) Bereishis 28:10.

"And she went forth, etc." — It is possible to resolve what we raised as a difficulty here: that initially, when she arose to leave, it was not her intention to return to Bethlehem of Judah, lest the evils of shame and disgrace attach to her — that those who had known her honor in former years would now see her in her poverty. Therefore she did not set her intention on going to the place of her birth, but only on being found among the people of Hashem in the desired land. This is [the meaning of] "and she returned from the fields [of Moab], etc., for she had heard that Hashem had remembered His people" — for in general terms her intention was to return from the fields of Moab to dwell among the people of the Holy One, blessed be He. However, when she went out from the place and territory where she had been, and saw that her two daughters-in-law were still with her, she then said, "Certainly their intention is not [merely] to accompany us and then return to their original place, for behold, they have gone far along the way and left the boundary of the city, and have not turned back." This is [the meaning of] "and she went forth from the place," etc. Therefore she said in her heart, "If they come with me, I will need to be a help and benefit to them, for they will rely on me in the land of their estrangement; and if so, I will need to go to a place of my acquaintances and those known to me, through whom I will be able to manage to benefit them even in my poverty" — as she indeed did afterward for Ruth through Boaz, for he was the brother of Naomi's father, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said. Therefore, after they had gone out from that territory and she saw that her two daughters-in-law were [still] with her, then on the way she resolved in her heart — she and they — to return to the land of Judah, to the place of her birth, for the reason we have written. This is what it means: "and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah." Or, it is possible according to what we wrote above: that she concealed from them her intended destination, and it was only that she suddenly arose to leave, and they, in their innocence, went along with her without knowing where she was headed. There is no doubt that at first their intention was only to accompany her, since they had grown up with her, while she alone was the one returning from the fields of Moab to go to her people, for she had heard, etc. — according to the plain sense of "and she returned," etc. However, when she went out from the place where she had been and became detached from the boundary of the city, her two daughters-in-law were then with her in her plan, and their minds too agreed to return to the land of Judah with her, once they recognized her intention. This is [the meaning of] "and they went on the way to return," etc. — for in their going on the way, their minds agreed to return to the land of Judah.

"And she went forth" — he explains his previous words: that with regard to the leaving from the place, she went forth, and her two daughters-in-law with her — in this, all of them were equally agreed at once that they must leave this place, where their fortune had turned bad. But with regard to her having resolved at once to return to the land of Judah, they were not equally agreed at once, for their intention was to sojourn in the field of Moab. Rather, "and they went on the way" — after they had continued on the way and reached the border of the land of Moab, which is the road leading only to the land of Judah, then they too agreed to return to the land of Judah.

'With the dead' — they are her sons.

"And she said" — it is fitting to pay attention to its saying "to her two daughters-in-law" — who does not know that there were two of them? Second, its saying "to them, go back" [lechenah shovnah] — which appears to be a repetition of the same idea, since the second time it says "go back" [shovnah] alone, and the third time it says both words together, and reverses their order to "go back, to them." Third, its saying "each woman to her mother's house" — why did it not say "her father's house," as in the matter of "and she shall return to her father's house as in her youth" (Leviticus 22:13)? Fourth, why did it first say "each woman to her mother's house" and afterward say "each woman [to] her husband's house"? Fifth, that it first used a term of doing/action, and afterward a term of giving/gift. Sixth, why do we not read the heh of "ya'aseh" [He shall do]? Seventh, its saying "with you" [imachem] in the masculine form, and likewise its saying "Hashem grant you" [yiten Hashem lachem]. Eighth, that it would have been fitting for the phrase "as you have done," etc., to be said after the second blessing — which is in the second verse, "Hashem grant," etc. — rather than placed between one blessing and the other. Ninth, its saying "and may they find rest" [u-metzena menuchah] with the heh missing. Tenth, why did Naomi kiss them — for if it is a kiss of parting, even Orpah had not yet agreed to turn back from following her. However, so that she should not appear to be chasing after them to convert them — for one should not do so, lest conversion be treated lightly in their eyes; on the contrary, the left hand must push away first, by saying to them, "What did you see that made you come to convert?" etc. — therefore she began as though it were an already-known matter that they would turn back from following her, since they had only come to accompany her. Thus she said, "to them, go back," meaning: had you converted long ago, would it not be considered strange for you to return to your father's house? For you would have no father or mother to return to, since from the time of conversion your former bonds are severed, as is known — that one who converts is like a newborn child. How then could you return to your father's house or your mothers', after your kinship has been nullified and your spirit has become foreign to them — so that, aside from the trouble of the journey to the city, you would also have no father or mother, brother or sister, and the whole people would be strangers to you. But now it is not so, for your trouble and burden is only the journey to the city, for immediately you would return, each woman to her mother's house, as at first, and it is the joy of your way, like to like. This is [the meaning of] "to them, go back, each woman to her mother's house" — and she did not say "to her father's house." By this she indicated that she walked in the way of Hashem, who rejected the males of Moab and Ammon, for [the law excludes] "a Moabite" but not "a Moabitess" — therefore she too rejected them and mentioned only "her mother's house." Or for another reason — namely, that she said: behold, you have two matters that make your parting from me difficult. First, that I was to you like a mother to daughters. Second, that you will be like one who withers — "a woman [returning] to her mother's house" who is bereaved and desolate and sorrowful of spirit, for before her bread comes her sighing, like a poor woman storm-tossed, exiled and turned away, wandering from her nest for bread — where is it? For you will even eat the bread of your father's house, bread of hardship for you, in place of your having been princesses and rulers — even ruling as "a woman in her husband's house" with wealth and riches in her house. How much more so if, in eating the bread of your father's house by way of charity, they should open their lips and say to you: "Here, this is for you, in place of your having abandoned the children of your own nation — now you must rely on the children of the Hebrews" — you were meant for men, but from the children of the Hebrews this is what you get! Therefore, concerning these two matters, she opened her mouth in wisdom and spoke to their heart, saying to them: regarding the first, that I was to you as a mother — behold, your true mothers would treat you tenfold better than I — and this is [the meaning of] "a woman to her mother's house" — and therefore she did not say "her father's house," for she intended those who would fill her place. And regarding the second, that you would be ashamed to eat by way of charity — of this, do not fear, for behold, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the reward of any creature, and I am confident that Hashem will deal kindly with you and treat you well, so that you will not need to be supported by your mothers — as you have done with the dead and with me, as our Sages of blessed memory said, that they attended to their [husbands'] shrouds with garments of their own and forgave the marriage-contracts (ketubot) owed to Naomi — since that was a kindness involving money, correspondingly Hashem will without doubt do a kindness in return. This is what Hashem will do of Himself, regarding the reward due to you, and you do not need my blessing for this matter. But what I have commanded — my blessing, and my request of Him, may He be blessed — is that He grant you a gift beyond the reward due to you, which is "and may you find rest, each woman in her husband's house" — for a woman finds no peace of mind except in her husband's house, and this is for two reasons. First, that you should be married to husbands, and not [remain] in your mothers' house, so that you find peace of mind. Second, that peace of mind and rest are not complete except with "the husband of one's youth," as our Sages of blessed memory said: a woman only makes a covenant with the one who made her a vessel. And she said "that which Hashem will grant you" specifically, unlike other women, [namely] "and find rest" — for it would be an unnatural finding for you to have rest, "each woman in her husband's house," even though it would be a second [husband, not the husband of your youth], for you. And in order to remove the veil of shame from their faces at parting from her, she kissed them, as one beginning to part — which she had not done before hearing from their mouths that their intention was good, to convert — so that she would not appear to be pushing them away with her own hands and parting from them, but rather that the left hand pushes away and the right hand draws near, as will be explained, please God. And therefore Orpah afterward needed to initiate the parting, as it says "and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law," etc., and it does not say "and she kissed Orpah." It is further possible that all these observations stated above may be settled and reconciled, fitting together like a fine, well-received garment, by prefacing three premises found in the words of our Sages of blessed memory. The first is the received tradition of the Sages of Truth in the Zohar, who say that this is the elevated status of the soul of a convert: that it becomes a garment for the soul of a perfectly righteous person in the upper world, etc., rising up from the lower Garden of Eden to the upper one at appointed times — and by analogy, the soul of a female convert likewise becomes a garment for the soul of a righteous woman. The second is that Naomi was a woman of great righteousness, as our Sages of blessed memory said, stating that she was therefore called Naomi ("pleasant") because she was pleasant in her deeds — to the extent that she told Ruth not to fear that she would lose honor by going at night to the place where Boaz was lying down, and to uncover his feet and lie beside him to be with him — for behold, her merit would descend with her. This is [the meaning of] "and you shall go down to the threshing floor" — "and I shall go down" is written [in the Ketiv], [meaning] "my merit shall go down with you" — and had her merit not been very great, she would not have assured her of this. The third is that she attained not only the level of fitness, but even the level of the holy spirit — this is what our Sages of blessed memory said: that it was not hidden from Naomi that one good offshoot was destined to emerge from Moab, by the merit of Lot's daughter, her ancestress, who had intended her act for the sake of Heaven — for from her the kingdom of the House of David was established. And not only that, but our Sages of blessed memory said that even at that time, when Lot's daughter lay with her father, her eyes were opened to this great matter. And this is the language of our Sages of blessed memory: Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel: "'That we may preserve seed [zera] from our father' (Genesis 19:32) — it is not written here 'that we may preserve a son from our father,' but rather 'seed' — that seed which comes from another place. And which is this? The Messiah King." Behold, she had in mind not only the matter of David and Solomon, but even the ultimate good outcome — that the kingdom of the House of David would be the Messiah King. And this too was in the heart of Naomi, as our Sages of blessed memory said: "'Hashem grant you' — Rabbi Yosei said: all those benefits and consolations that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give to Solomon, as it is written, 'and Hashem gave wisdom to Solomon' (1 Kings 5:26) — shall be from you." Behold, Naomi knew that an offshoot was destined to come from Moab, from whom a ruler over Israel would emerge — the kingdom of Solomon. And according to our approach, let us pay attention to this statement of theirs [the Sages] — for how did she say "it shall be from you" [plural] when it was fulfilled only through one [of them]? And let us come to the matter — for behold, I have reasoned as follows: that Naomi spoke a great thing in these words of hers. For behold, our Sages of blessed memory have revealed to us that the verse "ya'as Hashem," etc., speaks of conversion, saying that "ya'as" is written deficiently [without the vav] because sufferings come upon converts. And likewise they have revealed to us that the verse "yiten Hashem lachem" speaks of the kingdom of David, saying that she intended by "yiten Hashem" the future benefits destined for Solomon, as we have written their language just above. And the matter is that three levels of good things were destined [for Ruth and Orpah]. First, the mere fact of conversion — but not that righteous women would merit having their souls become a garment for the souls of the righteous women of Israel. Second, the attainment of a level of righteousness after their conversion, reaching the level of their souls becoming a garment for the soul of a very great righteous woman. Third, that the kingdom of the House of David would also be established from them, as happened through Ruth. Now these three levels she opened her mouth in wisdom to state one by one, and with one she began, saying "to them, go back," etc., meaning: "to them" — and if you wish to return to my people, which is conversion, "go back." And to hint at conversion she said "to her mother's house" and did not say "her father's house," for there is no conversion for males, since [the law excludes] "a Moabite" but not "a Moabitess" — but "her mother's house" would be valid to some degree, though not completely, for even though it is "a woman [returning] to her mother's house," you would not be able to do so well in righteous conversion with your mothers, since they are Moabite women. But this is the blessing that I bless you with: that "Hashem deal kindly with you," etc. — this is the second level. And in the blessing of this level, it is possible that both of you would be included, according to your choice. And therefore it says, "And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, 'To them,' etc., 'Ya'as,' etc." — meaning: behold, I am saying one thing to both of you in general terms, and this is [why it says] "to her two daughters-in-law," namely "to them," etc., as explained. And this blessing too is a general one from me to both of you, namely "ya'as Hashem," etc. — and this is the second level that we mentioned. And this is by mentioning their statement, of blessed memory, that the words "as you have done with the dead" [refer to the fact] that they gave them shrouds of their own — and this is to be understood, according to our approach, as: "ya'as Hashem imachem chesed" [Hashem shall deal kindly with you] — and what will the kindness be? Behold, it is "as you have done with the dead" — meaning, just as you made garments for the dead, so you shall become garments for righteous women, whose souls will be clothed from your souls — which is exactly like what you did with the dead, whom you clothed. This is the first premise. And also, included in the blessing is that your souls should become a garment for my soul — and this is [the meaning of] "ve-imadi" [and with me] — that their souls should be, along with her soul, garments unto her — and this is a great blessing, for she was a woman of abundant righteousness — and this is the second premise. And therefore she used the masculine form in saying "imachem" [with you], because the term "garment" [malbush] is grammatically masculine. And in saying "ka'asher asitem" [as you have done], she used the masculine form because they acted in the manner of men in attending to the shrouds. Now, at this point, Orpah too was prepared to convert, only that she later retracted — therefore the word "ya'aseh" has a heh but it is not read, to hint that although both of them were still prepared, it was fulfilled only through one of them. And she said: behold, thus far I have spoken a blessing that would apply to both of you; but behold, there is another blessing — and this is the third level — which applies to only one of you alone, namely "yiten Hashem lachem u-metzena menuchah" [Hashem grant you that you may find rest] — [meaning] rest for one of the two of you. And this is [the meaning of] "u-metzena" [and may they find] with the heh entirely missing — as our Sages of blessed memory said, that the missing heh refers to the one [singular] — although they expounded it regarding another matter. And therefore this heh was not [merely unread] as with the word "ya'aseh," where it is present but simply not pronounced — but here it is uprooted entirely — because from the very outset she intended [it for] one of the two of them, namely, regarding the rest of royalty, which is called a "finding" in the context of Lot's daughters. This is their statement, of blessed memory, in Genesis Rabbah: "'I have found David My servant' (Psalms 89:21) — where did I find him? In Sodom, as it is written, 'And your two daughters who are found' (Genesis 19:15)" — meaning, they found David within Lot's daughters, to emerge from among them. And this is what is meant by "u-metzena menuchah" [and may they find rest] — that same "finding" of rest, as in the phrase "I have found David My servant," would occur through one of them — namely, that from you would come the woman destined to emerge from Moab, from whom a ruler over Israel would come forth. And she called this "rest," because the woman among the two of them who would be prepared for this could only come about through her being taken by a close redeemer (goel), and her union being in the manner of yibbum (levirate marriage), to establish the name of the dead upon his inheritance — as indeed happened — for a Moabite convert woman to be married to one of the nobles of Judah, and from her would emerge worthy offspring fit for eternal kingship, such that he, or his great-grandson, or his grandson, would be a holy and great king like David — this is beyond the power of a mere convert woman to achieve; for even if she were righteous, she would inevitably remain external to this. But it would come about that Machlon had planted within her a spirit from his holy soul, deposited there, stirring within her innards, until another spirit too would join with it — namely, when she would be united with the redeemer — then the spirit of Machlon that was within her would be aroused and join with the spirit of the redeemer, together with her own spirit as well — and from the combined standing of these three, that child would acquire holiness and be fit for kingship. And all this was necessary until the shoot from the stock of Jesse emerged, namely David, and Solomon his son after him — after these had emerged, there was no further need for Naamah the Ammonite for all this, only that she convert and be united with Solomon. Now, according to these words, it is inevitable that there was within her a spirit stirring in her innards, and it would come to rest through her being taken by the redeemer destined to bring forth from her the king of Israel. Therefore Naomi phrased it well when she said "u-metzena menuchah" [and may they find rest], for the finding of David's emergence from her, through the rest of the stirring of her innards, would occur for her. And also, it should not seem strange that she used the masculine form in saying "lachem" and the plural form, even though in truth she was speaking of one — for this is why the heh is missing from the word "u-metzena" — because the one woman together with the spirit within her, which is masculine, are two; and to both of these she said "lachem," in the plural form and the masculine form, for that was the main point. And since Naomi was righteous and wise, therefore "and she kissed them" — and this is as known from the book of the Zohar, that a kiss on the mouth is to bind spirit to spirit. Therefore I think that after she said that from one of the two of them would emerge the glory of Israel, and within her the spirit of her deceased husband stirring within her, as discussed — therefore, upon finishing speaking these words of hers, she saw that they stood [silent] and did not respond further — what did she do? She opened her mouth in wisdom and kissed them — because whichever of the two of them had the holy spirit within her would be stirred and cling to her spirit, and her conversion would come to fruition, emerging from her, and through her the kingdom of the House of David — unlike the other, for Naomi's spirit would not cling to her spirit, since "who can bring forth a pure thing from an impure one?" (Job 14:4). But nevertheless, the point they had in common was that they were both stirred to feel her parting, and they lifted up their voices and wept; but only Ruth alone actually clung [to her] in essence, through Naomi's kiss to her, for like found its like, and her spirit and the spirit of Machlon within her were awakened — which was not the case with Orpah, for the reason stated. And this is what the verse says shortly afterward: "And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law," etc. — meaning that although the kiss is meant to bind spirit to spirit, and Orpah's kiss was doubled — once as [included] in "and she kissed them," and a second time in "and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law" — nevertheless she did not cling to her, for "what has straw to do with grain?" (Jeremiah 23:28). But Ruth had already clung to her from the time Naomi kissed her, to bind her spirit to the holy spirit within her — and this is [the meaning of] "but Ruth clung to her" (Ruth 1:14).

"And Naomi said" — Naomi thought at first that their walking with her on the road to the land of Judah was intended only to escort her, so that she would not walk alone, and that their intent was to accompany her (as an escort) as far as the land of Judah, and afterward they would return from there to the land of Moab. Therefore she said to them "lechna" [go/turn] — meaning that they should go on their own way, which is to the land of Moab, since she does not need an escort. And since, in going to settle in the land of Moab, they had a choice — to settle in one of the cities of Moab on their own, or to return to their mother's house — she gave them her advice: "return, each woman to her mother's house," for just as you clung to me because I was like a mother to you, it is better that you return to your true mother. Now she explained her words as against what she had said, "lechna" [go] — namely, that they should not trouble themselves on the road for her sake in order to escort her. Therefore she said, "may Hashem deal kindly with you" — meaning: you have already done me kindness, enough and to spare, both toward the dead — since while they were alive you were good to your husbands — and toward me. And our Sages explained "toward the dead" to mean that they gave them burial shrouds, and "toward me" that they waived their ketubah [marriage-settlement payment due them from the estate]. For according to the laws of the state of Moab, burial expenses were required to come from the estate of the deceased, and their ketubah also had to be paid to them, yet they relinquished all of this of their own accord — which is not a matter of law but of kindness. And you have already done kindness enough and to spare, so that surely Hashem will likewise deal kindly with you, for He will not withhold the reward due to you in accordance with your kindness. Therefore she said "may Hashem deal" — meaning, this will certainly come to pass, in keeping with His way of repaying a person according to his deeds.

'Hashem grant you' — a husband.

"Grant" (yiten) — and beyond His dealing with you in the kindness that is due you, He will also give you a gift [even though it is not payment for a prior deed]: "and may you find rest, each woman in the house of her husband." And this corresponds to what she said, "return, each woman to her mother's house." For widows who have no desire to remarry make themselves a house of their own, like a woman who is mistress of her own domain; but a widow who intends to remarry returns to her father's house — and among gentiles, who have no lineage traced through the father, she returns to her mother's house until she is married. Concerning this she blessed them, that they should find rest, each in the house of her husband — that they should no longer experience bereavement and widowhood, but dwell in tranquil rest — and this would be a gift from Hashem. "Then she kissed them" — a kiss of parting.

"And they said" etc. Now the word "ki" (for) at the beginning of their words of reply — behold, you see that it does not fit; and also, what did they add to her thereby, beyond what she had already understood from their words at first? And what did she see now, that she called them "my daughters," something she had not done until now? And further, what sort of question is this, "Why should you go with me?" — did she not know that their intention was to go with her in order to convert? And further, in her saying, "Have I yet more sons in my womb..." also "I were this night with a husband..." — behold, these words appear empty and unnecessary; would it enter anyone's mind that it occurred to them to marry her, to be wed to sons she would bear after her old age? And further, that she said one and the same matter three times: her saying "Have I yet sons" etc., and her saying "for I am too old to have a husband" etc., and also "I were this night" etc. — it is all one matter, words that would not [need to] occur to anyone's mind [to state]. And further, why did she break off the matter by saying "Return, my daughters," when immediately upon saying "Have I yet sons" etc. she should have said also "I am too old to have a husband"? And further, the doubling of her words "would you wait for them," "would you be chained (as agunot)" — why is the matter stated doubly, and why in different words? And also, why did she not place them next to each other, saying "would you wait... would you be chained," but instead said in the one, "until they grow up," and in the other, "so as not to have a husband"? And further, what sort of reason-giving is this in her saying, "it is very bitter for me on your account" — the fitting thing to say would have been, "my daughters, for you will grow old"; and also her saying, "the hand of Hashem has gone out against me" etc. — it appears she comes to give a reason, but it does not fit. And as for the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, that she said to them, "it is very bitter for me on your account," meaning that it is because of you that my sons married you — behold, this would be considered like an affront, [in the sense of the saying]: "he came to comfort them, [but instead] he causes them pain." Indeed, they said to her: [in response] to this request of yours, that we part from you — see, you did not pay attention to our intent, and you erred in our words when we agreed to return to the land of Judah, for you understood that our intention was only to go with you to the land of your birth, and not to convert. But it is not so; for what we said, "to return to the land of Judah," the intent was not to return to the land to which you are going, but rather, "with you we will return to your people" — for it is for the sake of the people and their faith that we are going. And this is [the meaning of] "ki ittach" (for with you) — that is, "for with you we shall return," which we said to you, refers to your people and not to your land; and this is the sense of the word "ki" (for), to reveal to her the meaning of their words. And therefore, when it now became clear to Naomi that their intention was good, to take shelter under His wings, blessed be He, she then grew fond of them and called them "my daughters" from then on, which she had not done until now; and this is [the meaning of] "Return, my daughters." And everywhere that "benotai" (my daughters) is written defectively [without a vav], it is because only one of them, in fact, went with her, and the intent of the verse is to say: did you not say, "for with you we will return" — and this is true, for their intent is that your return is unto Hashem? But in saying "to your people," and not saying "to your people and to your land," it is possible [that she means]: "with me you shall return to my people who are in the land of Judah, and there you shall return to Hashem through my people." Or the interpretation is: "with me you shall return to the religion of my people" in this manner, without going to the land of the Hebrews, but that afterward you will go to your own land. If the intent is "to return to my people" — that you return to my people, to them literally, and to their religion, that you go to convert through them — if so, this is [the meaning of] "Return, my daughters," to Hashem, to convert through my people. But why should you go with me? What benefit is there for you in my company? For if this were like the deed of Tamar, who, in order not to leave the house of Jacob empty-handed, clung to her father-in-law — this would not apply in the case of your fathers-in-law; even had your marriages been of the ordinary kind, as might occur to your mind, it would still not apply to you — unless I had sons in my womb. And this would follow from your own words, that your union [with my sons] was not through [halachically valid] marriage, since you were foreign women; and all the more so [would this apply to] your being wed to sons I might bear, for the prohibition of a brother's wife applies only where the deceased's union was through [valid] marriage, but not in the case of an Israelite man who married a foreign woman. But this cannot be, for [she said] "would they be husbands to you?" — meaning, perhaps they would not consent to be husbands to you; and this is what she meant by "would they be" — to say, is it certain that they would be husbands to you? And although it was not hidden from her that this was not truly their intent, she spoke this way in order to draw out from their hearts whether their good intention to convert was sincere, to see what they would answer to her reproof — whether they would say that they had not sought to go with her merely to learn from her good deeds, or whether, if their heart were not whole in this, they would not reject these arguments of hers, so as to find a pretext to return to their land on account of the lack of sons to marry. And so it was: Orpah shut her eyes, as though these were sufficient arguments to remove the veil of shame from returning, "and she kissed her mother-in-law, and returned to her people and to her gods." But Ruth did not even give thought to rejecting these arguments and saying that she no longer intended marriage; rather, she sealed the matter decisively and said, "Do not entreat me." And if what I said, "for with you we will return to your people," follows the second interpretation — that with me, between me and you, you should return to the religion of my people, but afterward go to your own city — then this is [the meaning of] "Return, my daughters," to Hashem through me, and go afterward to your own land. And this is [the meaning of] "shovnah venotai lechnah" (return, my daughters, go) — that is, "return" to my people and their religion, as you said, and "go" to your own land, and there return and serve Hashem. And she did this so that [her] right hand would draw them near, so that she should not appear to be pushing them away with both hands from being accepted for conversion, even though she knew that in their own land they would worship their gods like the rest of their people. And she said: for the reason that I stated, "Have I yet sons" etc., it is enough that you return and go; and all the more so, since there is not even hope for the future, for "I am too old to have a husband" — meaning she is not fit to bear children — even if I said, "I still have hope to bear a child," and even if "I were this night with a husband" to hasten the birth, and even were I to give birth from that very union; and even were there to be sons, that is, two — [enough] for the two of you — and were they male, so that there is provision enough for the two of you — it still could not be, for "would you wait for them until they grow up" — meaning to say this is impossible, since you would grow too old to have a husband before they grew up. And lest you think in your hearts that you would be chained [as agunot], prevented from marrying outside to a strange man because of a bond to a son of mine, should I bear one — this is [the meaning of] "would you be chained, so as not to have a husband" — "my daughters, for you are not chained on their account." For [the law is that] even had you been converts from that time, behold, the wife of a brother who was not yet in the world [at the time of the husband's death] is not bound to levirate marriage with him, and she is forbidden to him [as a brother's wife]. And this is [the meaning of] "my daughters," etc. — for the law is not as [you fear]; for even had your marriages been of the ordinary kind, as might occur to your mind, you would not be chained, and it would be forbidden for you to marry [such a future son]. And I would not act so as to cause you to sin by taking you where there is no mitzvah [reason], even had there been a law of being chained applying to you. And this is in the manner of our Sages, of blessed memory, who explained "it is very bitter for me on your account" as referring to the trouble that came upon her because of them. Or she might mean: even though it would be permitted for you to marry sons I might bear, since your marriages [to my sons] were not [valid] marriages, for you did not convert — nevertheless, "my daughters," for indeed, it is very bitter for me on your account — on account of you, that not through my own fault, in the taking of you [as wives], I remained bereaved and desolate. And also, even though what was then forbidden would now be permitted, I see that "the hand of Hashem has gone out against me" to strike me, and I was condemned to die, only that by way of afflictions I was delayed, in such a way that the hand of Hashem has, in effect, already gone out against me to strike, and the matter is easy to complete; and therefore how could I make another marriage, given the attachment to my previous marriage bond, which would seem as though I had not yet recovered from my former iniquity, when a light matter would suffice to complete the evil? And this is [the meaning of] "for the hand of Hashem has gone out against me." And our Sages, of blessed memory, said, in these words: "for the hand of Hashem has gone out" — against me, and against my sons, and against my husband. Now their statement is the opposite of the verse, and from where did they find room to interpret her word "bi" (against me) as meaning "against her, and her sons, and her husband"? And let us pay attention to their wording — why did they conclude by saying "the hand of Hashem" unnecessarily, since they are not thereby interpreting anything new in these two words, but merely repeating the words of the verse? Rather, I think the word "yatz'ah" (has gone out) was difficult for them, for on the contrary, it would have been fitting to say "ba'ah" (has come) or "naga'ah bi" (has touched me); and also the expression "hand" [was difficult] — therefore they said that it means that in her the hand of Hashem was completed [fulfilled in full]. This is by recalling the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, on the verse "I went out full" etc.: "this teaches that she went out pregnant, and that child, too, died"; and let us also recall their statement, of blessed memory, on the verse "and Israel saw the great hand" etc. — for they said: how many plagues were they struck with by "a finger"? Ten plagues, as it is said, "and the magicians said unto Pharaoh, this is the finger of God"; and concerning the sea it says "the great hand" — they were struck with fifty plagues. Behold, they interpret that, regarding troubles of wrath, wherever "hand" is said, it refers to five kinds of blows, corresponding to the number of fingers on a hand. Now let us come to the matter: this is what our Sages, of blessed memory, meant here — that the intent of saying "the hand of Hashem" is that it corresponds to five plagues. And therefore, beyond the previous difficulty, it was also difficult for them how there were five kinds of blows in her case, regarding the intent of "hand." Therefore they said: "against me, and against my sons, and against my husband, [went out] the hand of Hashem" — to say that in my own personal trouble, in that I am bereaved and desolate, as she says afterward, "for Shaddai has dealt very bitterly with me," five troubles were completed — that the entire fulfillment of the "hand," which are the five forces of wrath likened to the five fingers, went out into actuality. And this is her saying "against me and against my sons," who are three sons — Machlon, Chilion, and the child in her womb, of whom she said "I went out full" — and "my husband" makes four; and she herself, in her own trouble, makes five — behold, "the hand of Hashem," which is five fingers. And the sense of the verse, according to their view, is: "the hand of Hashem has gone out against me," meaning, in the plagues that struck me myself, in that "Shaddai has dealt very bitterly with me," the hand of Hashem was completed together with [what had already gone out against] my husband and my sons who preceded me [in dying]. Now, although she spoke in a manner indicating that she was addressing both her daughters-in-law, Samuel the Prophet — through his holy spirit, he who wrote for us this scroll — hinted to us what was in Naomi's heart, that in her, too, the holy spirit sparkled, as discussed above. This is seen in that, above, in her saying "lechnah shovnah" (go, return), "lechnah" is written in full [with a heh], while at the end of her statement it is written "shovnah venotai lachen" without a final heh. But this is in addition to what we wrote above, that the word "shevnah" and the word "bilti" lack a vav. Rather, this is because after she kissed them, as we wrote — which was to bind spirit to spirit [through the intimacy of the kiss] — from that point on she recognized the difference between Ruth and Orpah: that Ruth clung to her by means of the kiss, as discussed above, whereas this was not so with Orpah. Therefore, the good addition she made in calling them by the name "daughters" was written with the vav lacking, for it applies primarily to Ruth; and likewise the word "shevnah" lacks a vav, for it refers to the return to Naomi's people, which was her [Ruth's] intent — therefore it is written lacking a vav, for it is [true of] one alone, namely Ruth. But in saying "lachen" (to you), she was speaking within her own heart of the one who is going back — therefore she said "lachen" lacking a heh, for it is one alone who will go, namely Orpah. And this is [the meaning of] "shevnah venotai lachen" — in which "shevnah venotai" lacks a vav, hinting that it is one who [truly] returns and is called her daughter, while in saying "lachen" it hints that it is one who is going to her mother's house — only that she spoke in the plural so as not to touch upon the honor of either one of them.

"for with you we will return to your people" — meaning, that they would not separate from her people, that is, Israel, and therefore they would return with her even though she had no [more] sons. Now it appears that they had converted when Mahlon and Chilion married them, and this is why we do not find that Ruth needed to convert when Boaz married her; and for this same reason they, too, were returning with her, and therefore they said, "For with you we will return to your people." But Naomi wanted to test whether they had converted out of love of Hashem, may He be blessed, or had converted on account of their attachment to her sons.

"And they said to her" — then they revealed their intent, that they were not going with her merely to accompany her until the land of Judah and then to return from there to the land of Moab; rather, "with you we will return to your people" — meaning, our intent is to remain among the members of your people. And they did not yet say "to your God," meaning to convert, but only "to your people," meaning to dwell among the members of your people.

'Have I yet sons?' — Many of our colleagues thought that this was [Naomi's] answer to the deniers [i.e., the Karaites], not realizing that our ancestors had [already] transmitted that levirate marriage [yibbum] applies to brothers from the father's side, and not from the mother's side. Rather, she said to them only this: 'If I had sons in my womb, I would give them to you in place of the dead ones' — and this was said as an expression of affection, not as a matter of levirate law.

"And Naomi said" — Regarding this, Naomi gave them her advice: "Turn back, my daughters, why should you go with me?" — meaning: surely the members of my people will not intermarry with you; and if you hope that I myself would enter into a marriage tie with you, since you were already my daughters-in-law, [she said,] "do I yet have sons in my womb, that they should be your husbands?" Now, I have already explained (HaTorah VeHaMitzvah, Tazria, section 4) that the term "sons," precisely, applies only to sons who have [already] been born, not to fetuses in their mother's womb. Yet here she said, "do I yet have sons in my womb," which would seem to contradict this rule. However, here she spoke by way of rhetorical figure (derech melitzah): at first she began, as it were, [asking] whether she has grown sons fit for marriage right away, to the point of "that they would immediately become your husbands" — meaning, that they would at once become husbands. But by way of rhetorical figure she said, as it were, do I have such grown sons and have I hidden them away in my womb — that is why you do not see them, for they are concealed and hidden in my womb, and I would bring them out from my womb and they would immediately become your husbands. And this is said by way of rhetorical figure, for at the outset of the reasoning it would not occur to anyone that they [the daughters-in-law] would want to wait until I marry and bear sons and the sons grow up — for by then they [the daughters-in-law] would be old women, and no longer fit for sons who are younger than they by many years.

For I am too old to have a husband. That I should marry him and bear sons, that you would marry them, for they would not be forbidden to you [to marry] and you would not be forbidden to them as far as [the prohibition against marrying] the wife of an older brother who died before he was born, for she [the widow] does require a levirate marriage because Machlon and Chilyon were not [halachically] married to them because they were gentiles and had not converted, and now they were coming to convert as it is stated, “We will return with you to your people.” From now on we will become one people. — Notes: (15) Had they converted before, their marriage would be binding and Rus would be prohibited from marrying Machlon’s yet unborn brother. The law of levirate marriage does not apply to a person born after his brother’s death. Marrying one’s brother’s wife constitutes incest when levirate marriage does not apply. However, since there was no binding marriage, Rus would be permitted to marry Machlon’s yet unborn brother. (16) Above, verse 10. Even if I could say, “I have yet hope.” For even if my heart told me that I have hope to marry again and to bear sons. Even if I were to have a husband tonight. And more than this, even if I were to conceive male offspring tonight. And even if I were to bear sons. Or even if I had already borne sons.

"for I am too old to have a husband" — meaning, and therefore it is not fitting for you to wait until I have sons, and marry them. "for I said, I have hope, etc." — meaning, that even if I were to say that I have hope of having sons within me, and not only that but even more than this — that I should have a husband tonight and become pregnant — and not only that but even more than this — that I should bear sons tonight — would it be fitting for you to wait until they grow up? Would you remain agunot (women bound, unable to remarry) all this time?

"Turn back" — now she added the second side [of the argument]: even if it should occur to you that you wish to wait until I marry a husband and bear sons and the sons grow up, there are two difficulties in this: first, because I am too old to have a husband; second, because of the sons to be born, in that you would have to wait until they grow up. And in the Midrash it is said: "even if I were tonight with a husband, and even if I bore sons" — now, would it be that if I were tonight with a husband, I would bear sons? Our Sages explained the verses in accordance with the principle that a woman who has gone ten years without a husband no longer bears children; and they raised the difficulty: but the daughter of Rav Chisda was a widow for ten years and afterward bore children! And they answered that her intention was to remarry, and in such a case she is able to bear children even though she went ten years without a husband. Now here it is written, "and Elimelech died... and they dwelt there about ten years" — so it emerges that Naomi remained a widow for ten years after her husband's death. Given this, it is no longer possible for her to bear sons except in one of two ways: first, if throughout all the days of her widowhood she did not despair of marrying, and her intention was to remarry — in that case she could bear children even after ten years; or, even if her intention was not to remarry, there is a way she could bear sons if she were to marry specifically on this particular night — for this night was the last night of the ten years. And so she said, "turn back, my daughters, for I am too old to have a husband" — meaning, after having remained a widow for ten years, it is not possible for her to marry a husband and bear him sons. However, she said, "for I said, I have hope" — meaning, that throughout the entire ten years that I sat as a widow, I always said that I had hope of remarrying, and I did not despair of marriage; for in this way she could bear children even after ten years. And the second side is expressed in, "should I even have a husband tonight" — if I were to marry a husband on this very night, which is the last night within the ten years. And concerning this the Midrash said, "if I were tonight with a husband, I would bear sons" — meaning, specifically on this night. Then [she continued to ask them], "would you wait for them," etc.

Would you wait for them. This is a question posed in wonder, “Would you perhaps wait for them until they grew up?” This תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה is an expression similar to, “whose hope שִׂבְרוֹ is in Hashem his God.” — Notes: (17) The feminine form of them [להן] is used, because Naomi was hinting that perhaps she would bear daughters instead of sons, so why wait for “them”? (18) Tehillim 146:5. Also, see Megillas Esther 9:1. Would you shut yourselves in. An expression of עוֹג, being bound and imprisoned, as in, “He made a [confining] circle and stood within it.” Others interpret it as an expression of עִגּוּן, anchoring [i.e., being unable to marry], but that cannot be, for if so the nun should have been punctuated with a dagesh or it should have been spelled with two nuns. — Notes: (19) Maseches Ta’anis 19a. (20) See Maseches Bava Basra 73a and Rashi’s commentary there. For against me is directed the hand of Hashem. Rabbi Leivi said, “Wherever it mentions “the hand of Hashem,” it refers to a plague of pestilence, and the classic example is, “Behold the hand of Hashem is directed [at your livestock ... a very heavy pestilence].” — Notes: (21) Shemos 9:3.

'Would you wait for them?' — the nun stands in place of a mem [i.e., 'lahen' with the feminine nun appears where 'lahem' would be expected], the reverse of [what is said further on], 'for it grieves me much for your sakes' [where a masculine form appears where a feminine one would be expected]. And [as for] 'they came to Beth-lehem' — the word 'teshabbernah' [would you wait] is construed with the letter lamed or with the word 'el' [to/toward], as in 'the eyes of all wait upon You' [Psalms 145:15]. 'Te'agenah' [would you shut yourselves away] — from the nif'al construction, and it has no parallel [elsewhere in Scripture]. 'So as not to belong to a husband' — meaning each one of them belonging to a husband, like [the phrase] 'and they hanged both of them on a tree' [Esther 2:23, understood distributively, each on his own tree]. 'No, my daughters' — that is to say, do not go with me. 'For it has gone forth against me' — a decree of Hashem that went forth from before Him; or, that it was being delivered and went forth against me until it became manifest. 'The hand of Hashem' — a plague, for [the expression] 'by hand' is Scripture speaking in the language of men. 'Your sister-in-law has returned' — from the root of 'yevamah' [levirate sister-in-law]; we have already explained it in [our commentary on] the Torah. 'To her people, and to her god' — proof that they had converted.

"Would you tarry (תשברנה)?" — [The definition of "sever" (שבר, hope) is looking forward to something certain, where reason dictates that one's hope will be fulfilled in its proper time — as in "his hope is upon Hashem his God" (Psalm 146:5); and likewise, if the hope is realized in its due time — as in "on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to rule over them" (Esther 9:1); and "they all hope in You, to give them their food in its season" (Psalm 104:27).] That is to say: is there not doubt whether they would grow up at all, since it is possible that they might die while young? But even if they were to grow up, "would you shut yourselves in (תעגנה)" so as not to have a husband? "Nay, my daughters" — the Midrash explains the word אל ("nay") as related to "wail (אלי) like a virgin" (Joel 1:8) and "woe (אללי) is me" (Micah 7:1) — meaning, woe and alas to me more than to you. "For the hand of Hashem has gone forth against me" — the phrase "hand of Hashem," which denotes a blow, is not found together with the expression "has gone forth," but only with the expression "was" — "let Your hand be against me," "the hand of Hashem was against me." But the expression "has gone forth" used here indicates that all His blows against her have already been completed, to the point that it is no longer possible to strike her again. And so the Midrash comments on "has gone forth against me": "against me, against my sons, and against my husband" — meaning, after He had struck them all, nothing remained for Him to strike a second time; but against you the hand of Hashem was, yet it did not "go forth."

"And they lifted up their voice [vatisenah]" etc. — One should pay attention to [several difficulties]: first, the absence of the letter alef from the word "vatisenah" [normally spelled with an alef, ותשאנה]. Second, its saying "again" [od], which is a superfluous word, for who does not know that this weeping is in addition to what was mentioned above? Third, why did it not mention how Orpah parted and returned, but only the kiss that she gave her? Fourth, its saying "cleaved to her," rather than saying "and Ruth remained with her" — "cleaved to her" being an imprecise expression. Now, as for the absence of the alef from the word "vatisenah" — some of our Rabbis say that this is so that it should retain the sense of "teshut koach" [depletion of strength], for their strength was spent from their going back and forth. And it is possible to intend that in the raising of the voice to weep, one of them did not [truly participate] — for Orpah did not really raise her voice at all, but Ruth alone did. This is also indicated by the fact that the word "vatisenah," lacking the alef, comes out, by the reduced numerical value (mispar katan), to 23 — matching the numerical value of "Ruth" alone. It also intends that Orpah's weeping did not continue beyond the extent of the raising of the two voices together, and immediately she kissed her mother-in-law with a kiss of parting and distanced herself from her. And this is [the meaning of] "they lifted up their voice" — which was one voice — "and wept again," which is another [instance], to the extent of the aforementioned raising of the voice — the two voices — and immediately "Orpah kissed her mother-in-law," to part from her. It is also possible, in [the verse's] saying "and they wept again," to say that a love as strong as death, bound to Naomi's offspring, and their heart's moan over their having gone out empty of her seed, had been pent up within their heart; and now, when they heard the sound of Naomi's words, saying, "Have I yet sons in my womb, that they should be your husbands?" — this fire of their anguish was aroused and burned within them, and they could not restrain themselves until they broke out in weeping. And this is [the meaning of] "and they lifted up their voice and wept again" — for they raised their voice, and they wept over the word "yet" [od] that their mother-in-law had said: "Have I yet sons in my womb, that they should be your husbands?" And this too — its essence was in Ruth, and not truly in Orpah — which is why the alef is missing from the word "vatisenah," as has been said. And in the Midrash, our Rabbis of blessed memory said, regarding "and they lifted up their voice" etc.: "Two women gave themselves over for the tribe of Judah — Tamar and Ruth. Tamar would cry out, 'Let me not go out empty from this house!' Ruth — every time her mother-in-law said to her, 'Go, my daughter,' she would weep, as it is said, 'and they lifted up their voice and wept again.'" End of citation. Now, one should pay attention to this teaching: what need was there to mention the matter of Tamar here? Furthermore, from the verse it cites [as proof], it would appear, to the contrary, that both Orpah and Ruth wept, yet [the Midrash] states that it was Ruth alone. Furthermore, they said, "every time she said to her, Go, my daughter, she would weep" — but did she not say "go" only once, and that was when she sent her to glean in the field, and at that time there was no occasion for weeping, nor would that constitute giving herself over for the tribe of Judah, for she did not yet know that she would encounter Boaz, had she not had a sign. But indeed, three things troubled them [the Sages]: first, the absence of the alef from the word "vatisenah"; second, its saying "again," which is superfluous; third, how could both of them have wept, when from that weeping one came to separation and the other came to cleaving? Therefore they concluded that the missing alef — itself now absent — hints that the "one" who raised her voice in a manner like Ruth's is one who is not present here, namely Tamar; while both of them are included in "and they wept." And it also teaches us that Ruth did not weep only on this occasion, when Naomi grouped her together with Orpah, but every time thereafter that Naomi would repeat and say to her, "Go, my daughter, after your sister-in-law," she would [weep] etc. And this is [the meaning of] "again" — that besides their weeping together, she returned again and wept by herself. Now, we wrote [above] that it would have been fitting to say, "and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law and returned to her mother's house, and Ruth cleaved to her mother-in-law," rather than concealing the return in between. But it is possible to intend, [by the order actually used], to distinguish between Orpah's turning and Ruth's turning: for Orpah gave heed only to the consideration that she [Naomi] was her mother-in-law, and not to the consideration of her quality as a Jewess and her worthiness — and this is [the meaning of] "Orpah kissed her mother-in-law" — therefore she kissed her with a kiss of separation. But Ruth had a different spirit within her, for "and Ruth cleaved to her" means that she cleaved to her in her essential quality, in what she was in herself, not because she was her mother-in-law. And therefore [the text] did not interrupt in between with the account of [Orpah's] turning back. And the correct [understanding] is that our statement above intended that [the text] is recounting the praise of Ruth, which was not so with Orpah. For behold, the kiss that Naomi gave them [earlier] was "le'adbaka rucha berucha" [to bind spirit to spirit], to see whether the separation that comes from Moab was present in them, so as to bring forth from her the splendor of Israel — for whichever of them was fit for this, her spirit would cleave to [Naomi's] spirit, all the more so if the spirit of Machlon stirred within her, as mentioned above, for then it would be determined, by means of Naomi's kiss, and she would be sanctified, becoming filled for her [Naomi] with the spirit of Machlon, and would essentially cleave to Naomi. And this is the meaning of the verse's statement, "Orpah kissed" etc. — to say: behold, in addition to what Naomi had kissed them both, to bind spirit to spirit, Orpah returned and kissed her mother-in-law [again], yet did not cleave to her despite the repeated kisses. But Ruth, from the moment her mother-in-law kissed her, cleaved to her, even though that kiss was given only once. And therefore [the text] did not interrupt, in the account, [by mentioning] Orpah's return in between her kisses — that she did not cleave even in this — in order to say "and Ruth cleaved to her," which serves to distinguish [between them] as has been said; and also because the words recounting Ruth's righteousness are precious to him [the narrator]. It also intends, by not mentioning her [Orpah's] departure until what it later states, "and she said, Behold, your sister-in-law has returned," etc. — to say that immediately when Orpah kissed her mother-in-law with a kiss of parting, before she had distanced herself from her — while she was still in her presence — she [Naomi] said to Ruth, "Behold, your sister-in-law has returned," etc., so that her words would enter Orpah's heart: that she would hear from her [Naomi's] own mouth that it was to her [Orpah's] people and to her god that she was returning, and not that she should continue to conduct herself in her land according to the law of Moses and Israel. This is because, from the words of Orpah and Ruth above, they had indicated that even in their own land they would serve Hashem — only that their desire was for this to be through Naomi, in their own land. And likewise Naomi had said to them, "Return, my daughters" — meaning, "return to Hashem, but let it be in your own land — for why should you go with me?" etc. Therefore now, as she was departing from her, she [Naomi] said [this] lest it enter her [Orpah's] mind that she could still serve Hashem in her own land, as she had understood from [Naomi's earlier] words, in such a way that afterward, when she served a foreign god, she would place the blame on me [Naomi]. Therefore, as though speaking to Ruth, while Orpah was still before her, she said: "Behold, now your sister-in-law has returned to her people and to her god" — for in returning to her people, she inevitably also returns to her god. That is to say: from the implication of this statement, Orpah would understand that just as she returns to her land, so she returns to her god — [Naomi said this] in order to alert her, so that if she supposed there remained some Jewishness in her heart that would keep her from it, her heart was not truly so. And for this reason her departure was not stated in between [the verses], so as to place the statement "behold, she has returned" etc. directly next to her kiss to her mother-in-law — to indicate that immediately, while she was still with them, Naomi said, "behold, she has returned," etc. And Naomi did not say to Orpah directly, to her face, "behold, you have returned to your people and to your god," so as not to shame her by saying to her directly that she had returned to idolatry. Therefore she made it as though she were speaking with Ruth, and in this manner added a further warning and exhortation to Ruth as well.

"and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law" — meaning, to part from her; and by this she revealed her mind, that she had converted only on account of her attachment to Naomi's son. But Ruth clung to her nonetheless, for she had chosen the religion of Israel and did not want to exchange her religion, and therefore she said, "Where you go, I will go; your people shall be my people, and your God my God."

"And Orpah kissed" — a kiss of parting, for her intention was only toward what was beneficial (to herself); but Ruth, whose intention was for the sake of the good, clung to her.

See, your sister-in-law has gone back. In this [word], the accent is at the beginning [on the first syllable] under the shin, because it is in the past tense. [But,] “and in the morning she would return,” the accent is at the end [on the last syllable], on the bais, because it is in the present tense, and so it is in all similar cases. — Notes: (22) Megillas Esther 2:14. (23) See Rashi in Bereishis 29:6.

'Do not entreat me' — the meaning is appeasement, and it is always construed with the letter bet, as in 'and entreat Ephron for me' [Genesis 23:8]. And it is not a rare word; rather, [as with] 'I will not strike a person' — I will explain it in its place. 'Your people shall be my people' — [meaning:] I will never abandon the Torah of Israel and the oneness of Hashem.

"And she said," etc. — Since it was possible that she [Ruth] was ashamed to part from her [Naomi], and that this was the reason for her clinging [to her], therefore, in order to test her, she [Naomi] said: "Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back," etc. — meaning: from now on the mask of shame has been removed, since she [Orpah] has already begun [to leave], and not you. By this method she intended to draw her close, and to eliminate a possible argument that she [Ruth] might use in answering her mother-in-law — namely, that she could go away from her [Naomi], yet still worship Hashem in the midst of her own people and in her own land, together with Orpah her sister-in-law. For this reason she preempted her and said, "Your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her god" — meaning: going to her people and going to her god are one and the same, for it is impossible to go and dwell among them and still worship Hashem — hinting to her that she may return if she wishes, but she would then also have to return to her own god. "And if you desire to return, return after your sister-in-law" — meaning: that if you delay there, you will afterward find no one with whom to accompany yourself on the road. Or, it may be understood: I am not telling you "return to your god" as she did, but rather "return after her" — not that you too should go astray.

"your sister-in-law is gone back to her people, and to her god" — this is a sign that she had already, prior to this, separated from her god.

"Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back" — meaning: is it not so that after she returned to her people, she also returned to her god? As the Midrash states: once she returned to her people, she returned to her god, for it was never her intention to enter the religion of Israel; and presumably your intention is the same as hers — so therefore, "return after your sister-in-law."

Do not urge me. Do not press me. For wherever you go, I shall go. From here our Rabbis of blessed memory derived that if a [prospective] proselyte comes to convert, we inform him of some of the punishments [for violating the commandments] so that is he decides to renege [from his intention to convert], he can renege; for out of the words of Rus, you can learn what Naomi said to her. [Naomi said.] “We may not venture outside the boundary [of 2000 cubits beyond city limits] on Shabbos.” She [Rus] replied to her, “For wherever you go I shall go.” [Naomi then said,] “We are prohibited to allow a woman to be secluded with a man who is not her husband.” She [Rus] replied, “Where you lodge, I will lodge.” [Naomi said,] “Our nation is separated from other nations by 613 commandments,” [and Rus replied,] “Your people are my people.” [Naomi said,] “Idolatry is forbidden to us,” [to which Rus replied,] “Your God is my God.” [Naomi then said,] “Four [types of] death penalties were delegated to Beis Din [to punish transgressors],” [and Rus replied,] “Where you die, I will die.” [Naomi continued,] “Two burial plots were delegated to Beis Din [to bury those executed], one for those stoned and those burned, and one for those decapitated and those strangled.” She [Rus] replied, “And there I shall be buried.” — Notes: (24) In Maseches Yevamos 47b. (25) Alternatively, just as you are going to Eretz Yisroel for the sake of your religion, so it is my purpose to go there in order to be able to keep the Torah’s commandments. (Malbim) (26) Although idolatry is forbidden to Noahites, they are forbidden to worship idols only if they do so exclusively, but not if they worship God in conjunction with their idolatry. (Torah Temimah)

"And Ruth said," etc. — Its saying "to leave you" and its saying "to turn back from following you" appear to be an unnecessary repetition. Also, its saying "for where you go" does not appear to give a valid reason that fits well with what precedes it. Also, her saying "your people shall be my people, and your God my God" ought properly to have been said at the beginning or at the end of her words. Also her saying "where you die" appears unintelligible, and likewise her saying "and there will I be buried" — and even according to what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that this refers to the graves of those executed by the court, this appears strange, for informing a convert about the graves of those stoned and burned — that they are buried separately by themselves — does not belong among the informing of the lenient and the stringent laws to a convert. It is possible to explain: she said, in effect: Behold, you have pressed me several times now to return to my people, and there is no doubt that this is only to test me — whether Hashem is within me or not — so that I should turn back, as Orpah turned back in accordance with your words. But "entreat me not" — meaning, this entreaty of yours does not rightly apply to me as it did to Orpah, for I have a different spirit within me, to wholly follow after Hashem. For know and see: the entire point of your pressing me to return to my people amounts to nothing — unless it would mean that I forsake Hashem — but "to leave you, to turn back from following you" alone, and not from following Hashem, even were I to turn back from following you. For what I am asking for the future is "where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge" — that pertains to the future; but as for the faith and the divinity, that is already true now: "your people shall be my people, and your God my God" — and not, as you supposed, that the return to my God and my people is made contingent on returning to my land. And lest you say: if so, why then do I press to go to your land, seeing that even in my own land I could attain this same singular devotion? — to this she answers: "where you die, I will die" — meaning, I wish to die in the Land of Israel, which is the meaning of "where you die," as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: one who expires in the hands of her own mother is not comparable to one who expires in the hands of her rival. "And there will I be buried" — and lest you say that I might go to the land but not by way of you — "so may Hashem do," etc., "for death will separate" — death alone will be the separator. And in the Midrash our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said as follows: She [Naomi] said to her: We are forbidden the Sabbath boundary [techum Shabbat] — "where you go, I will go." We are forbidden seclusion [yichud, being alone with a man] — "where you lodge, I will lodge." We are commanded in the 613 commandments — "your people shall be my people." We are forbidden idolatry — "and your God, my God." Four modes of execution were given over to the court — "where you die, I will die." Two kinds of graves were given over to the court — "and there will I be buried." End of quotation. It is fitting to consider why these particular commandments were singled out to be set before her ahead of all the other commandments. And further, why did she specify two commandments alone, and afterward all 613 commandments, and afterward idolatry and the court-imposed executions — when surely all of these are already included within the 613? And further, she ought to have mentioned the 613 either at the beginning or at the end, and not two commandments before them and idolatry and the court-imposed executions after them. Rather, it must be that in order to set before her the lenient and the stringent matters in order, she directed her mind to two considerations. First, to confront her at the outset with the things that would obstruct the very possibility of going with her, and after these, the things that would arise after her marriage into Israel. Second, she intended to hint to her at the three cardinal sins — namely illicit sexual relations, idolatry, and bloodshed. Now let us come to the matter. Naomi said, in effect: Know and consider what you will do — for behold, you are now to go out from your town and dwell in the open country, in a place where there is no one but wicked and sinful men, until we arrive at a settled land. And it will happen that when they see you, perfect in beauty — and all the more so according to what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that all who looked upon her would experience a seminal emission [keri] — then, being one marked for plunder, what will you do? Now, had you still been a gentile, there would be no harm in this; but once you convert and take upon yourself the yoke of the law of Moses and Israel, you will need to guard against the forbidden sexual unions, and you will not be able to, for a band of wicked men will assault you to abuse you, with no one to save you, since they will find you in the open country. And this stumbling-block will indeed be found specifically in your observance of the laws of the Sabbath boundaries, for you will need to establish an eruv (a legal "resting place") and not depart from that boundary from evening to evening, and you will become like an antelope caught in a net, in the hand of those who defile your honor. And if we suggest that you seek out a mighty man to accompany you, then once you come into the house you will forget the prohibition of seclusion. Therefore, regarding these two matters she began: concerning going on the road she said, "We are forbidden the Sabbath boundary," and concerning coming into the house she said, "We are forbidden seclusion." And to the first, she [Ruth] answered, "where you go, I will go" — meaning, I will keep the Sabbath boundary and stand my watch so that they should not stumble through me; and to the second she said, "and where you lodge, I will lodge" — in a place where no man will be present. Now, after mentioning the matter pertaining to illicit sexual relations, she [Naomi] wished to mention idolatry; but so that it should not appear that she suspected her of still holding on to idolatry, she therefore mentioned first all 613 commandments, and only afterward idolatry, as if in passing, and afterward all the remaining court-imposed executions, which include also bloodshed. And in order to make the matter weigh more heavily upon her, she also told her of the distinction between graves — that even after death, for transgressors the mark of their guilt is not entirely erased, but is recognizable to some degree in the distinction of graves. And in this light, the statement "for death will separate," etc., means: Behold, you told me of the executions entrusted to the court, and of the distinction of graves; therefore, concerning the court-imposed executions I say, "so may Hashem do to me," etc., and concerning the graves I say, "for death will separate," etc. — meaning: death alone will separate, for every righteous person has a compartment [mechitzah] of his own, unlike transgressors, of whom it is said that their deeds during their lifetime cause separation even after their death, each in his own place, in their graves. It is also possible to explain along the lines of peshat (the plain sense), and this requires several preliminary points. Behold, man's life in this world is characterized in terms of "walking/going," as the verse states, "for man goes to his eternal home" (Ecclesiastes 12:5), and as we have said regarding the Mishnah's statement, "and to where are you going," etc. (Avot 3:1) — namely, that from the day of his birth onward, man's vitality continually diminishes toward the day of death. A second preliminary point, written above from the book of the Zohar: that the soul of a male convert becomes a garment for the soul of a righteous man, and by the same reasoning, the soul of a female convert becomes a garment for the soul of a righteous woman. And as we have said above, this is what Naomi intended by saying, "may Hashem deal kindly with you," etc. — meaning, measure for measure, may Hashem deal kindly with you as you have dealt with the dead: just as you attended to the dead, clothing them in shrouds, as is known from our Rabbis, of blessed memory, so through that same kindness may Hashem deal with you, that you too should become garments for a righteous woman, and "be with me" — meaning, that you should be with me as a garment to me. And this was fulfilled only in Ruth alone, as discussed above, and this is why the word "ya'aseh" ("may He do") was written defectively, lacking the letter heh. A third preliminary point, the introduction of the book of the Zohar, Parashat Vayechi: that when a man departs to his eternal home, all who belong to the category of his own compartment come to greet him, and they gather him in and accompany him to his compartment. And this, to my mind, is the meaning of the verse's statements, "and he was gathered to his people," and "and you shall be gathered to your people" — namely, that those who belong to the category of the place of his honor are called "his people," and they come and gather him in and join with him, to gather him in among themselves until his honored resting place. A fourth preliminary point, known to all: that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not attach His Name to a righteous person until after his death. A fifth preliminary point, the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: that although there is great honor for one who is buried in the Land of Israel, nevertheless there is a still greater advantage for one whose soul also departs there — that is, who actually dies in the Land of Israel — for one who expires in the hands of her own mother is not comparable to one who expires in the hands of her rival. Now let us come to the matter. She said, "entreat me not," etc., meaning: behold, the practice of pushing away a convert at first, by saying to him, "What did you see that led you to come to convert," and the like — the intent in this is not to push him away entirely, but rather, "the left hand pushes away while the right hand draws near," to see whether he comes with his whole heart or not. Therefore one does not push him away excessively — only three times — and if he says he still wishes to convert despite this, then he is received graciously. Now let us come to the matter. She said: Behold, up to now you have pushed me away three times, and it is possible that this was to test whether my heart was sincere, but not to determine decisively my rejection, that I should be repelled from conversion. But from now on, if you go back to pressing me and saying that I should go off to my own land, this can only be understood as intending that I abandon conversion altogether. And this is the meaning of "entreat me not" — "to leave you" — that from now on it should be understood only as entreating me with the intent that I abandon conversion and turn back from following you. And this, too, would only happen if you knew of me that I had been of evil deeds, and that it is not fitting for your honor that I convert through you, lest I revert to my old ways. But I am not so; rather, "where you go, I will go," etc. Meaning: behold, I am confident in myself, for on the side of the soul that goes to its eternal home, as in the phrase, "for man goes to his eternal home" — "where you go, I will go" — for my soul will become attached to and cling to your soul from now on, all the more so once I convert through you, which is as though you were the one who gave birth to us; for on the path of Hashem on which you will go to the World to Come, I too will go on it. This is the first preliminary point. "And there, where you lodge, I will lodge" — meaning in the Garden of Eden — for my soul is not distant from your soul the way the soul of Moab is distant from the soul of Israel; rather, it clings to you. This is the second preliminary point. For behold, the members of your compartment who will come to lodge you in your place of honor in the Garden of Eden are called "your people," as it is said, "and you shall be gathered to your people" — this is the third preliminary point — and that same "your people" is my people, and also whatever gathers you in will gather me in. And after my death — just as then Hashem will be designated as your God, per the fourth preliminary point — then, too, He will be designated to me as God, and this is the meaning of "and your God, my God." And all this concerns the soul; and also as to the body: "where you die, I will die" — that is, in the air of the Land of Israel, and not on impure soil — for it is not comparable, as they said, that one who expires in the hands of her mother, etc. — meaning: for I am not like a foreign woman who dies in the Land of Israel, for what does the Land of Israel give her, or add for her, since it is not her mother? And also, "and there will I be buried" — in such a way that there will be no hindrance to the soul upon its departure in an impure place, or to the body's burial in impure soil, so that my soul would mourn over me and not cling to you. For since I will be righteous and will die in the air of the Land of Israel — "where you die, I will die" — and also "and there," in the Land of Israel, "I will be buried" — in such a way that even my soul there will not be lacking from what I said: "where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge." And the reason I am confident that Hashem will do thus for me, because of what I have said — "where you go, I will go," etc. — and will further add that "your people shall be my people," that the members of your compartment will be the members of my compartment, and that your God will be called my God, is only because I know within myself that death will separate between me and you. And this is what we wrote above on the verse "and Ruth clung to her" — that through Naomi's kissing them, as it says, "and she kissed them," which served to bind spirit to spirit, and the matter was fulfilled in Ruth: through that kiss Ruth clung to her, and her soul became bound to her soul, and they became as one. And this is her statement: Have I not told you — "where you go" from this world to the World to Come, I will go; and "where you lodge," I will lodge in your compartment; and also "your people" — through which you will be gathered to your people — that will be my people too; and afterward, "your God," which will be designated over you, will after your death be designated over me as well. She said further: But will you not say, how did I embolden my heart to make myself equal to you? Behold, it is because: know and see that thus will Hashem do to me, that "where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge," and here it will further add that "your people shall be my people, and your God, my God," for behold, my soul has clung to your soul and they will become as one, for spirit has bound to spirit all the days of our lives, and only death will separate between me and you — for we will not die together, so that whichever of the two of us survives the other, death will separate us until the death of the second, for then the bond will become firm. Or one might say something close to this: "so may God do to me" — that "where you go," etc., and further add that "your people shall be my people" — for what I trust in this is that I know the goodness of my own heart, that I am righteous, in such a way that when death separates us, it will be only between me and you — that is, between my body and your body, that I shall not be buried in the same grave as you — but with respect to the soul there will be no separation at all; rather, my soul is bound to you, spirit to spirit, from now on, and all the more so after death, as discussed above on the verse "may Hashem do," etc., that I will become a garment for the soul of Naomi. This is because I shall not be like a wicked person, whose wickedness separates him from the righteous, such that although this one is alive, that one is considered as dead. But I am not so; rather, it is death that separates, and not sin. Therefore I said, "where you go, I will go," etc. Or, in a manner close to the preceding, "so may Hashem do to me," etc., may mean: Have I not stated two things? One, that we should merit righteous conversion and become a garment for a righteous soul — and this was fulfilled only in me and not in Orpah, as we have written, for this was already hinted at by the letter heh not being sounded in the word "ya'aseh" ("may He do"). And likewise, you added, saying, "may Hashem grant that you find rest [menuchah]" — and this, as discussed above, concerns the kingdom of the House of David, which she called "rest," since the matter was destined to come about through levirate marriage [yibbum], to quiet the spirit of Machlon that was churning within her innards, as stated above; and this too was fulfilled only in one of them, and therefore the letter heh of "u'metzena" ("and find") was omitted there, and it was written "u'metzan." And this came to pass through Ruth. And this shall be her statement, meaning: Behold, I am prepared to convert, so do not push me away, for behold, thus will Hashem do to me, as you said, "may Hashem do," etc. — that righteous conversion will be fulfilled in me; and so, too, will He add what you added in blessing, "may Hashem grant that you find rest" — this too will be added to me from Hashem, that I will merit that the kingdom of the House of David will issue from me, in such a way that death will separate between me and your son [Machlon] — that is, that his birth will come about through levirate marriage, so that the son I shall bear will be considered yours, since he will be from Machlon — found continuing, whether while his spirit was still churning within me, or afterward — a bond and attachment will be found between me and you. This would not be so were I to marry someone else without levirate marriage, for it is possible that through him the spirit of your son who is in my womb could be driven away from me, and I would become separated from you before I die.

"Entreat me not (אל תפגעי בי)" — [In the Midrash, she said to her: "Do not sin against me, do not take your plea away from me" — meaning that the term פגיעה serves in three senses: killing, as in "and he struck him and he died"; meeting, as in "and it met Jericho"; and supplication, as in "and they entreated for me with Ephron." And according to the Midrash, supplication and meeting share one meaning: one who requests and hopes that his fellow will come out to meet him willingly, to fulfill his request. And therefore she used the term פגיעה — whether in the sense of killing, meaning that through her leaving her she would die the death of the soul, and so it says "do not sin against me"; or in the sense of meeting and supplication, meaning: do not think that my heart will resist you with this request, and let my heart be as your heart — and "take," meaning, take your plea away from me.] "To leave you, to turn back from following you" — meaning: not that I would leave you, for I do not wish to be parted from you; nor even to turn back from following you — for even if I were forced to leave you, I would not turn back from following you to the land of Moab, for despite all this I would go to the land of Judah and convert there through others [and so it is in the Midrash: "to turn back from following you" — nevertheless, my intention is to convert, but it is better through you than through others]. "For wherever you go, I will go" — meaning: do not think that the purpose of my going is different from the purpose of your going — that you are going there for the sake of your religion, so that you may keep the commandments that depend on the land, and the Torah and the commandment, while I am going only to attain some benefit — for the purpose of my going is the very same purpose to which you are going. And likewise, do not think that I hope for some temporary gain, such as marrying a wealthy man or the like, for "wherever you lodge, I will lodge" — I will lodge as a stranger (ger) in the land, and as the righteous do, for whom this world is only like a wayfarers' inn. For the aim of my going is because "your people are my people, and your God is my God" — for I have already taken hold of the Torah of your God and the customs of your people, and I am as one of your people.

So may Hashem do to me. As He has begun to afflict [me], for His hand has gone forth against me to kill my husband and to cause me to lose my possessions. And even more. If anything but death separates me from you.

"where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried" — meaning, in the Land of Israel; and her intention in this was that even after Naomi's death, she would not return to her people and to her god.

"Where (באשר)" — the primary aim of my going is: "where you die, I will die" — that I will die the death of the upright, just as you will die, so that the spirit will return to the bond of life; and so that I be buried there, in the place where you are buried, in the Holy Land and among the graves of the righteous who are prepared to arise in the resurrection. "Hashem do so to me" — she swore an oath to fulfill her words, for this is her essential intention: "if death separate between you and me" — meaning that the purpose of my going with you is because I have seen and understood that death creates a great separation between us. For although in life I clung to you — and although religion separated between us, we were nevertheless joined together in love — after death we would be separated, for you would cling to the God of spirits while I would be cast off among the company of idol-worshippers. Therefore I seek to convert, so that then we will not be separated even in death. And in these words she revealed that all the foundations of faith were already established in her heart: the existence of Hashem and His unity, as she said "your God is my God"; the Torah of Israel and its customs, as she said "where you go, I will go" — meaning that I will walk in the way of the good and in the ways of the Torah — and so she said "your people are my people"; and she likewise believed in the survival of the soul, and in reward and punishment in the World to Come, and in the resurrection of the dead, as she said "where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried." And our Sages also expounded from this that she accepted the practical commandments, and that this is why she said "where you go, I will go" — referring to Shabbat; and they said: whatever mitzvot and good deeds you are able to acquire, I will acquire together with you in this world, but as for the World to Come — "for death will separate between me and you."

She refrained from further discussion with her. From here they derived, “we neither overburden him [a prospective convert], nor are we meticulous with him.” — Notes: (27) Maseches Yevamos 47b; i.e., we neither persuade nor dissuade him too much.

'Steadfastly minded' — from the hitpa'el construction.

"And when she saw, etc." — It does not say that she "hit'ametzah" (had strengthened herself, past tense), but rather "mit'ametzet" (was strengthening herself, ongoing), meaning that she went on strengthening her resolve more and more each time they spoke to her — the opposite of the usual pattern, in which a person weakens as more arguments are multiplied against the position he held. Therefore she [Naomi] chose to refrain from speaking to her any further, lest she [Ruth] grow quiet of her own accord. Alternatively, it may be saying what we wrote above: that Naomi did not remain alive — despite the sin of her husband and sons [for which they had died] — except so that she would come together with Ruth, in order that He, may He be blessed, bring forth from her [through Ruth] that which He had spoken concerning her. Accordingly, "and she saw, etc." means that she perceived, with her good understanding, that Naomi herself was straining to go along with her [Ruth]; for what she had been reinforcing — despite being "a daughter of death" [aged, near death] — on these two occasions, was only [a means] to go with her. For she reasoned: since she [Ruth] so greatly desires to cling to Hashem, she [Naomi] understood in retrospect that all her own straining and reinforcing was only in order to go along with her. Therefore "she ceased speaking to her," for she judged in her heart, through her own exertion on Ruth's behalf, that this is the one destined to emerge from Moab. Or, it may mean: "and she saw" that she [Ruth] was resolved to go with Naomi alone, without the company of other people, for she was strengthening herself with courage of heart — and this is [the meaning of] "to go with her." Therefore she [Naomi] recognized that the matter had proceeded from Hashem, and "she ceased," etc. Or, it may be understood in light of what we wrote regarding "and she kissed them" — that it was "le-adbaka rucha be-rucha" [to bind spirit to spirit]. And how is it known that her soul was bound [to Naomi], if not that she was resolved to go with her? Therefore "she ceased speaking to her," for [she recognized] that she was certainly a righteous convert, and there was no need to test her any further. 19 "And the two of them went, etc." Now, it should have said, "and they came to Bethlehem," since it is already known that it was the two of them. Also, why does it say "shteihem" (the two of them) with a final mem, and afterward say, "and the whole city was astir concerning them (aleihen)" with a final nun? Furthermore, who did not know that this was "until they came to Bethlehem"? Furthermore, why was there any wonderment at all concerning both of them, as stated, "and the whole city was astir concerning them," and in their speaking they said, "Is this Naomi?" — and their wonderment about Ruth is not valid either, since they did not know her beforehand [so there was nothing surprising to remark on]. Also, this whole matter of disputing her name, whether they should call her Naomi, makes no difference one way or another. And if this is merely a narrative about women meeting their acquaintances and a recounting of an event that occurred, it is not the way of the books of the Torah to relate stories that serve no purpose, God forbid. There is also a noticeable redundancy in her words, and it is even more difficult in light of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said on "full I went" — that she went pregnant and returned empty of the child — for it is not the way of wise women to complain of the lighter matter and pass over the graver one, namely the death of her sons and her husband. Also, at first she said, "do not call me Naomi," as a request, and afterward she said, "why do you call me," as though protesting against them. Now, Scripture is relating the greatness of their devotion, and the wondrous thing that He, may He be blessed, did for them: namely, that they did not wait to go in the company of men and women to accompany them on the road and shelter in their protection from harmful mishaps, as is the way of [traveling] women. And Hashem also dealt well with them in that no one who might wish them harm encountered them. This is [the meaning of] "and the two of them went" — that is, alone — "until they came to Bethlehem." Therefore a mem was used in place of a nun [in "shteihem"], because they adopted the manner of men, going alone on the road; but those who saw her/them coming alone did not suspect in them the character of men, but rather that of women, as they indeed were. Therefore, "the whole city was astir concerning them," with a nun, referring to their being women. "And it was, when they came to Bethlehem, the whole city was astir" — upon seeing two women coming alone on the road; and there was also a specific wonderment about Naomi, and they said, "Is this Naomi?" And it is possible, by paying attention to the two extra letters heh in the words "ad bo'anah" (until they came) and "va-yehi ke-vo'anah" (and it was when they came) — rather than saying "ad bo'an" and "va-yehi ke-vo'an" — [to understand] that upon seeing themselves alone on the road, a place suited for wicked men — and all the more so, since our Sages of blessed memory taught that even within the mere Sabbath limit that Orpah walked back toward the city, she was violated repeatedly like grain threshed on a threshing floor — how much more so now, walking for several days! — therefore it is possible that they wore men's clothing. This is [the meaning of] "shteihem" with a mem and not a nun, regarding their walking in the appearance of men; but this they did only while still on the road. However, when they came to Bethlehem, where there was no [more] danger, they removed the men's clothing, so that all who saw them in the settled town would recognize that they were women. This is [the meaning of] "ad bo'anah" and "va-yehi ke-vo'anah," with the addition of the two letters heh, to hint that upon their coming to Bethlehem, the mem of "shteihem" became a nun — for the two letters heh (each numerically five, totaling ten) were added to the mem (numerically forty), becoming [fifty, i.e.] a nun, which indicates their being female. This is [the meaning of] "and the whole city was astir concerning them," with a nun — for indeed they saw two beautiful women coming from afar, and so they wondered, as has been said. Now, our Sages, of blessed memory, said [regarding] "Is this Naomi?" that she had been pleasant in her deeds, and yet this calamity came upon her. And I think that, according to this, her response, "do not call me..." etc., means to say: there is no doubt that, in your wondering "Am I, Naomi, pleasant in my deeds?" and in your seeing that I alone remain, [bereft] of my two children and my husband, you would conclude that I am righteous and worthy, and deserving to be called Naomi on account of the pleasantness of my deeds, and that the calamity that came upon me was brought about by my husband and my sons themselves, so that they perished for their own sin, while I alone escaped by virtue of my righteousness. Therefore she spoke in the manner of the pious, who justify the [divine] judgment upon themselves and do not credit themselves with merit, nor regard themselves as unworthy of the calamity that befell them: "do not call me Naomi" — [that is,] do not regard me as pleasant in my deeds — "for Shaddai has dealt very bitterly with me," for the matter has touched me directly, for He has brought upon me many and evil troubles, and the Holy One, blessed be He, is not suspected of executing judgment without [due] cause. And there is a further, conclusive proof: "for full I went," as our Sages of blessed memory said, that she had been pregnant [when she left] — meaning to say that if I had been meritorious and worthy, even had my merit not sufficed to protect my husband and my sons, it ought at least to have protected the fruit of my womb — who was not yet born at the time we left the land — from dying as well, like his brothers and father. Yet I must conclude that the death of the fruit of my womb was caused by the sin of my own soul. And with this conclusive argument she went on to say, "why do you call..." etc., meaning: by virtue of this proof, I do not say "do not call me..." as a mere request, but rather I complain of your calling me pleasant in my deeds, and I say, "why do you call..." And should you answer me, "how can you deny what is evident? We know you to be righteous and worthy — how can you say that Hashem has visited [judgment] for your sins?" — this is no proof, for behold, "Hashem has testified against me," for Hashem, who examines the heart and searches the innermost parts, has testified concerning me, for man sees with the eyes, but Hashem sees into the heart. And if you answer me, "if so, then how is it that I alone remained and was not stricken like my husband?" — to this she said, "and Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me," and this is in the manner of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding "and may El Shaddai grant you mercy," etc. — that Jacob said: may He who said to His world, "Enough" (dai), say to my troubles, "Enough." So too did Naomi say: by means of this Name, which alludes to [His saying] "enough" to troubles, "Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me" — therefore He said, "enough" to my troubles, and did not kill me, and I remained after my children and my husband.

"and when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, etc." — we learn from this that once the lenient and stringent laws of the Torah have been conveyed to a convert, and he still desires it, one should refrain from speaking to him about it any further.

"And when she saw" — after she saw that she was converting with a whole heart [for the verb אמץ denotes the strengthening of the heart and the continuation of that strength — and this is the difference between חזק ("strong") and אמץ ("steadfast")] — she ceased speaking to her, as the law requires.

So the two of them went on. Rabbi Abahu said, “Come and see how dear the proselytes are before the Holy One, Blessed Is He. As soon as she decided to convert, Scripture compared her to Naomi [by stating, “the two of them...”]. — Notes: (28) Despite leaving her home and family, Rus’ determination was so strong that Scripture ranks her equally with Naomi. The whole city was astir. The whole city became astir. They had all gathered to bury the wife of Bo’az, who had died that very day. — Notes: (29) Apparently the people of the city were gathered together because “the whole city” learned so quickly of their return. Rashi therefore explains why they had gathered. Is this [really] Naomi. The hai is vowelized with a chataf because it is in the interrogative. Is this Naomi who was accustomed to travel in covered wagons and with the mules? Have you seen what has befallen her because she went abroad [i.e., outside Eretz Yisroel]? — Notes: (30) Because of the affliction and the hunger that she endured, Naomi’s appearance changed so drastically that they were hardly able to recognize her.

'Vatehom [was astir]' — from the nif'al construction, of the geminate verbs [roots whose last two letters double]. 'Is this Naomi?' — because Elimelech and his wife were among the great ones of Israel.

"So the two of them went" — in the Midrash: once she resolved to convert, Scripture made her equal to Naomi — meaning that the word "the two of them" is superfluous and comes to indicate their equality, as stated in the [exegetical] rules that expressions such as "the two of them," "the two of you," "the three of them" indicate equality. And it may also be said that the word "the two of them" is stated in order to explain what follows, "and all the city was astir concerning them" — for Naomi always had servants, maidservants, and members of her household, and when she went out from her house she was surrounded by a great retinue; but now they saw that only the daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law had come, the two of them alone, like forsaken paupers — therefore it says, "and all the city was astir."

'Call me not Naomi, call me Marah' — even though it is written with an alef, it follows the pattern of words with a hidden heh at the end that appear instead with an alef; 'Mara' stands in place of [a form with] heh. And similarly [is] 'ke-eglah dasha' [like a threshing heifer] (cf. Jeremiah 50:11), according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah. But in my opinion, no'am [pleasantness] refers to delight, and mar [bitterness] is the opposite of delight; and no'am specifically means food that is sweet.

"call me Marah" — behold, "no'am" (pleasantness) is the opposite of bitterness, just as sweetness is its opposite, for "no'am" is used of sweetness, as it says (Proverbs 9:17), "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant (yin'am)."

The Questions (20-22): Did they not call her Naomi based on her former situation, that in the time of her prosperity she was [called] Naomi? If so, why did she say "Do not call me Naomi" — for even though it would be correct to say that in the earlier time her name was Naomi? And why does she say both "do not call me" and "why do you call me" — for "the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me" and "the Almighty has afflicted me" are all a repetition of language? And why does it repeat "and Naomi returned" (1:22), which does not belong here? "And she said to them, do not call me Naomi" — behold, a man who had great wealth, wealth unmatched, like the wealth of Ahasuerus, and lost all his wealth, and there remained in his hand only a thousand gold coins, and it is said of him that he became reduced from his possessions and became poor — we cannot say this unless we mention the value of his former wealth, that relative to the great wealth he had at first, he is now poor and destitute. For if we do not mention the value of his former wealth, behold, a man who has a thousand gold coins would be called rich. But if this great rich man lost all his possessions, so that not even a single penny remained in his hand, nor a piece of bread to satisfy his hunger, then we can call him poor and needy even without mentioning his former standing. Now, the people of the town, seeing that she and her daughter-in-law arrived on foot, with no man attending them, knew that they had lost the wealth they formerly had; yet nevertheless they thought that she still had some gold and jewelry remaining, [enough] that an ordinary person would be happy with such a portion if he had it. Therefore they said — the cause of their astonishment and wonder is expressed in "Is this Naomi?" — for in this they invoked her former standing, meaning that relative to her former wealth she had descended wondrously. "And she said to them" — she informed them that it is not as they think, that it is impossible to call her by the name Marah except by mentioning her former name — that formerly she was called Naomi, so that relative to the fact that her name was Naomi on account of her great wealth, it would be fitting to call her Marah, for she had descended from her rank. She said that there is no need at all to mention her former standing, for she is now so poor that nothing at all remains in her possession [since indeed her daughter-in-law had to glean among the poor] — and therefore you can call me by the name Marah even without mentioning at all that formerly my name was Naomi. And this is what she said: "Do not call me Naomi, call me Marah" — meaning, that you can call me Marah without calling me Naomi, that is, without mentioning my former name and standing, "for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me." For even though...

I had gone forth full. With wealth and sons. Another interpretation [of “full”] is that she was pregnant. Has testified against me. Has testified against me that I had sinned before Him. Another explanation is that the Divine Attribute of Justice has humbled me, as in, “And the pride of Yisroel shall be עָנָה humbled.” — Notes: (31) Hoshe’a 5:5.

'Full' — with sons and wealth. 'And Hashem has testified against me' — some say it is from the root meaning 'to be afflicted before' [cf. Exodus 10:3], but in my opinion it is from the root of 'you shall not bear [false] witness against your neighbor' [Exodus 20:16], in the sense of 'You renew Your witnesses against me' [Job 10:17]. 'And the Almighty has done evil to me' — like an affliction. And similar to it is 'and creates evil' [Isaiah 45:7]. Or, [it means] He has done evil to me because of my transgressions; or, this is Scripture speaking in the language of men, and that is the correct [explanation]. 'The heh of hashevah [i.e., of heshivani, 'has brought me back']' — the heh of da'at [a heh of definiteness/certainty], as in 'ha-nimtza poh' [is one to be found here]. And the reason 'va-tashov Naomi' [and Naomi returned] is stated a second time is to connect the timing — that they arrived at the beginning of the barley harvest — for the sake of Ruth's gleaning.

"and Hashem has testified against me" — meaning, He testified against me concerning my sins, on account of the wondrous punishment that He brought upon me.

"That I went out full" — yet nevertheless "Hashem has brought me back empty," and nothing at all remains in my possession; and so you can call me by the name Marah, poor and needy, even without mentioning my name Naomi which I had formerly, in the time of my prosperity. "Why do you call me Naomi" — behold, until now she had answered only that there is no need to mention the name Naomi that she had formerly; but now she introduces something new, and says that it has now been revealed to her that it was never fitting at all to call her by the name Naomi — and this is why she said "Why do you call me Naomi," as if to say: even what you say — that I was formerly called by the name Naomi — is false. This is in accordance with what has been explained by us many times, that sometimes, when Hashem wishes to punish with a very great punishment, He raises a person up to a lofty rank and to the height of prosperity, so that when He then brings him down from there to poverty and destitution, he will feel his pain and sorrow more, and his downfall will be greater — as it is written (Job 20:6), "Though his excellency mount up to the heavens..." "like his own dung he shall perish forever." And it says (Obadiah 1:4), "and though you set your nest among the stars" — this is so that "from there I will bring you down," so that the downfall will be greater. So too she thought that the fact that Hashem had made her prosper in the earlier time with great wealth and honor was in order that He might bring her down from this great rank to poverty and lowliness, so that by this the descent would be harder and her downfall greater. And so, since the former great prosperity was only in the nature of a warning that she should return to Hashem — for He had raised her up in order to cast her down from there into the depths of a pit — therefore the name Naomi by which she was called at that time was not rightly [given], for that very prosperity was itself very bitter, since it was a rise for the purpose of a [coming] fall. And this is what she said: since "I went out full" in order that "Hashem would bring me back empty" — and so the fact that I was full then makes the sorrow all the greater now — therefore, "why do you call me Naomi?" Also, what you called me — that I was originally called Naomi — is false, for "Hashem has testified against me," meaning that the former prosperity was only a warning, in that He hereby warned me that I should improve my ways, for He would cast me down from the height of this prosperity to the depths; and so it was, that through this very prosperity "the Almighty has afflicted me," for through this my sorrow and my downfall are doubled. And in the Midrash it says: "Is this Naomi?" — formerly she used to walk in isqafita'ot (fine sandals/shoes), and now barefoot; formerly in fine woolen cloaks (militin), and now in rags — "Is this Naomi?" And she says to them, "Do not call me Naomi, call me Marah" [it is clear that this is the Midrash's explanation of "do not call me Naomi" — directed against the fact that they had needlessly mentioned the past]. Bar Kappara says: [it is like the parable of] an ordinary cow that its owners stood up in the marketplace. Someone said, "Is this a redinit (plow-cow)?" [explanation: a cow that plows] They said, "If it is a plow-cow, then what are these bruises that are on it?" So too Naomi: "Why do you call me Naomi, seeing Hashem has testified against me" [this explains why she said a second time "why do you call me Naomi" — namely, that even before this she was not Naomi, for she was already destined for bruises and poverty].

At the start of the barley harvest. The verse speaks about the harvest of the Omer. — Notes: (32) The barley for the omer was harvested on the second night of Pesach and offered on the following day.

"So Naomi returned..." — Mentioning the return of Naomi and Ruth here is superfluous, since it was already stated above [that they were on their way back]. Likewise, saying "the Moabitess" states something already known, and would appear to touch upon her honor [in a negative way]. Likewise, saying "her daughter-in-law" is superfluous. And also saying "and they came to Beth-lehem" is superfluous, for it should have said "and they [vayavo'u] came to Beth-lehem," since it is already known that they are the ones coming. Furthermore, at first the verse makes Naomi the principal subject, saying "So Naomi returned...," and makes Ruth secondary to her by saying "and Ruth her daughter-in-law with her," but afterward it equates the two of them, saying "and they [both] came." How is this to be understood? The intent of the verse is to make known the advantage and elevated status that Ruth acquired by coming to Beth-lehem, over what she had had before. For at the outset, when she went out with her from the fields of Moab, Naomi was the principal one, while Ruth was secondary to her, since she was still a Moabitess and had not yet converted, and had no closeness with Naomi except by virtue of being her daughter-in-law. But after she converted along the way, Ruth too rose in stature and became equal to Naomi by the time they came to Beth-lehem. This is the meaning of the verse "So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her" — to say that at first it was Naomi, to whom the "returning" properly applied, who returned, while Ruth — insofar as she was a Moabitess with no attachment [to the land] other than being her daughter-in-law — therefore came along with her. But afterward, when they entered Beth-lehem, since she had by then already converted, the two of them were now equal — and this is [the meaning of] "they [both] came to Beth-lehem," meaning: the two of them together, in one equal standing. Alternatively, it may be said that this verse continues directly from what precedes it. For behold, the Holy Spirit itself attests that she [Naomi] had been spared on these two occasions through God's kindness: she too deserved to die for her husband's sin, yet she remained; and likewise she was the remnant left afterward for her sons' sin — "and the woman was left" [Ruth 1:5] — in that she did not protest their sin; and she herself testified to this in saying "Hashem has testified against me" [Ruth 1:21], as discussed. Therefore, after these words of hers, the verse, as it were, asks: If so, then why did she not die, and why did she merit to return? To this it answers: know why — "So Naomi returned" — she too did not die, like her husband and her sons, even though she was liable, just as the verse states "and the woman was left" — she was left as the remnant of a remnant, similar to the term "those who remained [ha-notarim]" said regarding Eleazar and Ithamar (cf. Leviticus 10:12,16) — and the reason was so that Ruth the Moabitess, known to be destined to enter the congregation, would come along with her. This is [the meaning of] "So [Naomi] returned... and Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her" — for merit is brought about through a meritorious person (cf. Shabbat 32a): because she [Ruth] was with her, it followed that "they [both] came to Beth-lehem" — meaning, not only did two women come to Beth-lehem, but also one male came with them, namely Mahlon, for his spirit too came within Ruth's womb. This is why it says vehemah ["they," with a mem, masculine], and not vehenah [with a nun, feminine] — on account of the male, who is the primary one, with the women who brought him being secondary to him in this matter; and therefore, incidentally, the coming of all of them is stated in the masculine form, for such is the way with any action performed by a group comprised of both males and females — it is stated in the masculine. And this, I believe, is what our Rabbis of blessed memory intended by their statement: "'the return from the fields of Moab' — this is [truly] the return from the fields of Moab" [end of citation]. Now these words appear vapid and insipid, but they mean to say what we have said: they were troubled by the word "return," since "returning" cannot properly be said of one who had never been here at all. Also, what is the point of the definite article in [the word] "the return" [ha-shevah], as though there were some other Ruth who did not [truly] return? To this it answers: "This is the return from the fields of Moab" — meaning: this one, even though she had not [previously] been in the Land of Israel, it is nonetheless valid to say of her "the return from the fields of Moab," because within her was the spirit of Mahlon, who had gone out from there and had now returned, within Ruth, to the land from which he had gone out. Furthermore, our Rabbis of blessed memory said in the Midrash, as follows: Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said: Wherever it says "barley harvest," the verse is speaking of the omer harvest [end of citation]. And so the Targum rendered: "and they came to Beth-lehem on the eve of the festival of Passover, and on that day the Children of Israel began to reap the omer of the wave-offering, which was from barley" [end of citation]. Now it is worth knowing what this gives us and adds for us — namely, that we should know that she came on the eve of Passover, which is the time of the barley harvest, and that it was on the eve of Passover, at the time of the omer harvest. And it is even more worth paying attention to the words of the Targum, since he specifies the matter still further, saying "and on that day the Children of Israel began..." etc., rather than simply saying that it was at the time of the reaping of the omer of the wave-offering. To arrive at the point, let us recall the statement of our Rabbis of blessed memory, that just as a female convert or captive is counted three months to distinguish between [seed sown in] impurity and [seed sown in] holiness, so too Israel, from the Exodus from Egypt until the giving of the Torah, [waited] three months — as we explained in our commentary on the Torah, that this was until the receiving of the Tablets, had they merited to receive them [then]. This is the intent of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman, and it is Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman's own statement on the verse "so she stayed close to the maidens of Boaz, to glean, until the end of the wheat harvest" (Ruth 2:23): "From the beginning of the barley harvest until the end of the wheat harvest is three months. 'And she stayed with her mother-in-law' — and Naomi said to her, 'My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you...'" (Ruth 3:1) etc. [end of citation]. And we shall write further on this statement, please God, that his intent is to say: after the end of the wheat harvest, when the three months had been completed from the conversion she had undergone along the way, her mother-in-law spoke — after the three months for distinguishing between seed sown in impurity and seed sown in holiness had been completed — "now, shall I not seek rest for you..." etc. This is the law for any female convert: that she requires three months from her conversion until marriage. Now, the very matter that Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman spoke of there is the same matter he speaks of here, in saying "wherever it says 'barley harvest,' the verse speaks of the omer harvest" — for he sensed the need for this specific notice that it was at the beginning of the barley harvest; and furthermore, that it would have been fitting to say "vayavo'u [and they came] to Beth-lehem at the beginning..." etc., rather than saying vehemah ["and they"], which indicates that there was some [special] significance attributed to their coming at that particular time. Therefore he said that the verse intended to indicate that just as Israel's conversion-like process leading to the receiving of the Tablets of the Covenant was likened to a female convert who requires three months, so it was with Ruth: she came at the beginning of the barley harvest, precisely from the day of the omer harvest, for at that point she is like Israel — since from then the three months began, until the end of the wheat harvest, as [the verse] states afterward. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman and the Targum further hinted at how He, may He be blessed, devised plans to purify the defilement at all the wellsprings and roots of the faithful of Israel: just as He, may He be blessed, devised to purify Israel from the serpent's filth [contracted] through the idolatry of Egypt — likening us to a menstruating woman who counts seven clean days after the cessation of her blood-flow, after which she becomes pure for her husband — so too He, may He be blessed, commanded us to count seven weeks in order to be purified from the impurity of Egypt, as our Rabbis of blessed memory stated in the Zohar. And this is why the Counting [of the Omer] began with the barley omer — to hint that before the purification we were reckoned like cattle, whose food is barley, whereas after her purification the Two Loaves are brought from wheat, for then all are [reckoned as] human beings. In just this way, He, may He be blessed, hinted to Israel in bringing Ruth, so as to bring forth from her the splendor of the kingship of Israel — lest they say in their hearts, "What was this, that out of the strong came forth sweetness" (Judges 14:14)? Would it not have been much better had it come from a daughter of Israel? Therefore the hint hinted, as if to say to Israel: "Do not wonder at this matter. For just as it happened with you — you who were sunk in the impurity of the idols of Egypt, and He, may He be blessed, purified you and you converted, and I devised plans to purify you just as one purifies a menstruating woman from the flow of her impurity — so I did with Ruth, to bring forth from her the root of Jesse. Therefore I brought them [to Beth-lehem] at the time of the omer harvest, which was [the time] to begin your purification through it — to hint to them that this was their food before the purification, so that you should take to heart that what happened to you happened to her as well." This is Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman's view as to the intent of the verse in saying that it was the omer harvest. And the Targum sweetened the matter still further, in saying "and on that day the Children of Israel began to reap..." etc. — for this was to hint to Israel that she was like them, as discussed; for this is why she came in those days and at that time, from Him, may He be blessed.

"So Naomi returned" — meaning that when she left Beth-lehem, she had abandoned her fields [and it is possible that in the meantime others took possession of that portion of the field, just as happened with the Shunammite woman, who, when she went out to the land of the Philistines, had to cry out to the king about her house and her field] — and she made an effort until she returned to her inheritance. And it says "and Ruth her daughter-in-law was with her" — for she too had a claim in the field, through her husband, who was heir to his father. And therefore it states a second time, "who returned from the fields of Moab" — for had she remained in the fields of Moab she would have forfeited her share, especially according to what the Sages said, that she had waived her ketubah; but now, since she had returned from the fields of Moab, she had a claim in the field, as it will state below (chapter 4). And the Midrash says: this is "she who returned from the field of Moab" — meaning that she was the first woman who came from the fields of Moab to convert, for until then the law had not yet been expounded that [Scripture bars only] "an Ammonite man, but not an Ammonite woman" [i.e., that a male Ammonite or Moabite may not enter the congregation, but a female may]. "And they came to Beth-lehem at the beginning of barley harvest" — this is an introduction to what will be told, that she went to take the gift for the poor even though she had a share in the portion of the field, because they arrived at the time of harvest, when it was not then possible to sow the field, and there were poor people at that time.