Ruth · Chapter 2

A kinsman. A relative; he was the son of Elimelech’s brother. Our Rabbis of blessed memory said, “Elimelech, and Salmone the father of Bo’az, and the anonymous kinsman, and the father of Naomi, were all sons of Nachshon, the son of Aminadav. Yet the merit of their fathers was no avail them when they left the Land [of Yisroel] to go abroad.” — Notes: (1) Rus 4:21. (2) Ibid. 4:1. (3) Therefore Bo’az and Naomi were cousins. (4) Shemos 6:23 and Bamidbar 10:14. (5) Maseches Bava Basra 91a.

'Moda [kinsman]' — a close relative who is known, as in 'and call understanding a kinswoman' [Proverbs 7:4]. 'Le-ishah [of her husband]' — meaning, from her husband; and here the lamed is like [in] 'say of me, he is my brother' [Genesis 20:13]. 'Boaz' — our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that he is Ivzan, who judged Israel [Judges 12:8].

"And Naomi had a kinsman..." — It is fitting to note that this verse appears to be inserted in the midst of matters that belong together, right next to the end of the preceding verse, which said that they arrived at the beginning of the barley harvest. It would have been fitting for the verse "And Ruth said... let me go now to the field..." to follow directly, and only afterward should it say "And Naomi had a kinsman... and she went, and came, and gleaned... and her chance befell the portion of the field belonging to Boaz..." Second, if the verse were informing us of Boaz's relation to Naomi, it would be right to say "and to Naomi [was a kinsman]"; but it tells only of his relation to her husband, saying "a kinsman of her husband" — in which case it should have said "and to Naomi's husband was a kinsman..." Third, what is the point of the yod after the mem in the word "moda [kinsman]" of her husband? It should properly have a vav, or else the word should lack the vav altogether — similar to "is not Boaz our kinsman (moda'teinu)?" (Ruth 3:2). Fourth, why do we need to know that he was a mighty man of valor, and especially the word "man" — for who does not know that he is a man? Fifth, after saying "a kinsman of her husband," the verse should have stopped there — yet instead it goes on to say "of the family of Elimelech." However, I say that before Scripture relates Ruth's words, in which she said, "let me go now to the field," and Naomi's answer — which you found difficult, wondering how she could say "go, my daughter" — Samuel the Prophet came, by his holy spirit, to remove a stumbling-block from the path of Hashem's people, whose eyes would otherwise perceive this as an exceedingly strange thing, and who would open their mouths wide and stretch out their tongues to speak falsehood against the holy ones who are in the land. First, they would speak against Ruth, in that she said, "let me go now to the field," etc. — for it would have been fitting for her, befitting all her honor, to be like a king's daughter, remaining within, in the inner recesses of her house; yet instead of saying "let me go now to the field," she should rather have said to her mother-in-law, "Where are your kinsmen, the mighty men of the land? Let us settle together in one household with the great men who are in the land, the men of your family." Second, they would open their mouths against the righteous Naomi, curl their lips in scorn, and truly shake their heads, saying: what did she see that led to such a thing, and what happened to her, that she should answer and say, "go, my daughter"? For it appears to show a lack of propriety on the part of so great a woman as Naomi — how could she do something so improper as to send out a very beautiful young woman, whom all who saw her would be filled with impure thoughts, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding such a case, "[lest she] wander about eating in the fields among the reapers," and empty, wanton young men, day after day, from morning until evening, going about to eat and to feed Naomi, while she, being old, should be treated with honor and sit at home? This is not how it should be done; rather, the young woman should sit in the inner recesses of the house, lest she come to harm in one of the fields or valleys, and the old woman should go out to the field for food, to sustain herself. And they would also speak brazenly against Boaz, saying: what is it to so great and wealthy a man as he, that he should hide his face from them? It would have been fitting for him to gather in the daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law, so that they would come into his dwellings, and that these wretched widows would take refuge with him, to eat their fill and be clothed in a fine mantle. Therefore, in order to remove this stumbling-block from the leaders of the people of the land, Scripture comes and says "And Naomi had...," etc., before it reveals Ruth's statement and her mother-in-law's answer. And this is the resolution: there were, in fact, three possible courses open to them. One, for the women to part from one another — Naomi remaining in the house of her husband's kinsman, and Ruth going out to the field to glean. Or a second way: for both of them to go out to glean in the field. Third: to be treated with honor, and for both of them to dwell together in Boaz's house, which would bring them into its chambers according to their honor. Yet none of these is without difficulty. For the first way — that of separating from one another, one going out and the other being gathered into the house — is impossible, since, behold, "they came to Bethlehem" together, meaning in unity, and they would not separate — all the more so in light of Ruth's statement, "for death alone shall part you and me" (Ruth 1:17) — so how could they have found the resolve to separate? As for the second, it too has no basis, for to say that Naomi would go out with Ruth to glean in the field cannot be, since, behold, "Naomi had a kinsman of her husband" — meaning that Naomi herself had no need to go out, for she had a kinsman of her husband who would honor her and let her dwell in his house according to her honor. This is hinted at by the yod between the mem and the dalet of "moda," hinting that the house of the kinsman would be discreetly honored, like the small yod among the letters. And there is a further reason: that even if the aforementioned Naomi wished to go out with Ruth, she would not be able to, since he was a great mighty man of valor in Israel, and he would therefore not permit her, for it would be a disgrace to him and would profane his honor. And as for the third — that both of them should be in his house and within Boaz's walls — this too would not succeed, since, behold, he was of the family of Elimelech, who held the right of redemption (ge'ulah) to purchase the field and take Ruth, as he says later, "on the day you buy [the field]...," etc. — so how could she be in his house, with people saying that there they had struck up a romance and she had been married to him? Therefore Ruth said: "If so, then which path shall I choose? Let me go now to the field." Then she answered and said, "go, my daughter" — meaning: it is not because you are any less a daughter to me that I permit you to go, for even were you the daughter of my own womb I would send you out; and this is the meaning of "go, my daughter" — for this is a better path, one of honor, to be sustained from the gifts given to the poor, rather than to take anything at all from the hand of a man. And from this exposition there emerges, as well, a vindication for Boaz — for by the good reasoning of the two of them, Boaz is not to be faulted, as has been said. Naomi did one further thing: she was careful, accordingly, not to send her out, until she herself said, "let me go now to the field." Only then did she agree with her words and say, granting her permission, "go, my daughter." Alternatively, it may be said — as we prefaced above — that Ruth is the woman whom Hashem determined would bring forth from her the kingdom of the House of David, and that she is the good kernel destined to come from Moab, for the sake of the good intention of Lot's daughter; for from that time it was already ordained by Him, may He be blessed, to bring forth the good seed, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "I have found David My servant" (Psalms 89:21) — where did I find him? In Sodom, as it is said, "and your two daughters who are found here" (Genesis 19:15). Now, this reality was not hidden from Naomi, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said — which is why she said, "may Hashem grant that you find (u-metzena) rest" (Ruth 1:9), etc. — meaning, those very gifts and blessings that are destined to be given to Solomon shall be yours. And Ruth's ear heard these words of hers, and she understood them, and kept the matter in her heart, as we have written above, with Hashem's help. Now let us come to the matter at hand, and I say that, behold, He, may He be blessed, in His great providence, and Naomi, to the extent of her efforts, out of her suspicion that this was the woman whom Hashem had determined would come from the daughter of Lot to build the House of David — these were the ones who brought the matter about, so that this holy union would come to fruition. And this is what we wrote: that the Cause of causes, may He be blessed, brought it about that Naomi remained alive on those several occasions, as discussed above — namely, in order to bring Ruth along with her, so as to bring about, through her marriage to Boaz, the fulfillment in actuality. And this is the statement of the verse shortly afterward, where it says, "and Shaddai has dealt harshly with me... So Naomi returned...," etc. (Ruth 1:20-22) — meaning: behold, if I did not die along with my husband and my sons, it is because Shaddai — that is, He who says to my troubles, "Enough!" (dai) — dealt harshly with me, and I remained but a remnant of remnants. And should you ask, "If so, then how did she remain alive?" — the verse answers this: know why; it is for this purpose that "Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabite with her" (Ruth 1:22) — she who is destined to come from Moab, who at that time was her daughter-in-law, for through her would this fulfillment come, as will be discussed shortly. Behold, it was from Him, may He be blessed, that the providential arrangement came about, in that the daughter of kings arrived as she did — for He, may He be blessed, initiated it, and steered her, bringing her, and leading Naomi, until Bethlehem; and this is the meaning of "and they came to Bethlehem" (Ruth 1:22). And the Holy Spirit says: why did Hashem do so? Behold, it is because to Naomi He brought a kinsman of her husband, a mighty man of valor — this being the very means by which the kingdom of David would issue: he is called "a man," which denotes one of significance, as with every honorific use of "man" in Scripture; and also "a mighty man of valor," as is known, for this is one of the titles of that kingship from Judah onward, and it is one of David's own titles as well; and he was also the one fit for this yibbum (levirate marriage) and to redeem the field, since, behold, he was of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz. And should you ask: why should this be specifically through him, rather than through a goel (redeemer) closer in kinship — was there not Tov, the brother of Elimelech, rather than Boaz? Behold, the answer is this: we know that David was destined to come in the fourteenth generation, with Solomon after him as the fifteenth — Solomon being like the moon in its fullness. Now, had it been Tov the redeemer, who was the brother of Salmon (the tenth generation), then four more generations would have been required before David would come into the world. But now, since it is Boaz the son of Salmon — the eleventh — David would come in only three generations, as indeed happened: Oved, father of Jesse, father of David. Therefore Hashem chose Boaz over Tov. And this, I think, is hinted at by the yod in the word "moda [kinsman]" of her husband: for behold, the grammatical form of "moda" should properly lack the vav, as in "is not Boaz our kinsman (moda'teinu)?" (Ruth 3:2) — yet an extra yod (numerical value 10) was inserted into the word, to hint that beyond this tenth-generation kinship, there is an additional ten, making eleven — hinting that this is why Hashem chose this one over Tov; and also because this one was a mighty man of valor, head of the generation in the might of Torah, which was not so of Tov. And by this we have found good reason for Ruth's words, when she said, in the verse that follows, "let me go now to the field" — for behold, she did not take hold of the path of her honor as a king's daughter remaining within. And although we wrote, in the previous approach, another answer to this, behold, this present approach is more pleasing to the soul than that one. And furthermore, by this means let us come to the resolution of two difficulties in the verse that follows. One: her saying "let me go now to the field" — for what is the point of the word "na [please/now]," which seems unnecessary? Second: the verse refers to her by the epithet "the Moabite," saying, "And Ruth the Moabite said" — why, after all the righteousness of her conversion, does it revert to describing her by the disgraceful title of her former gentile status? But aside from yet another answer that we shall write in our commentary, please God, behold, these two difficulties may be reconciled together with the resolution we have offered by this approach. And it is this: Ruth sensed that, in Naomi's heart, there was the thought, "perhaps this is the woman whom Hashem determined would come from the daughter of Lot, for the branch of the stock of Judah" — as she had said to her, "may Hashem grant that you find (u-metzena) rest" (Ruth 1:9), which our Sages, of blessed memory, said meant she was telling her: "may it be His will that those gifts which the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give to Solomon, shall be from you" — and this was indeed fulfilled in one of them, as we have written, regarding the missing heh in the word "u-metzena." Therefore Scripture says "Ruth the Moabite" — meaning, she who comes from Moab, who is the good kernel destined to come from Moab — for since Orpah returned to her people and to her gods, presumably it must be fulfilled through Ruth, since she remained with Hashem. Therefore, since she suspected that perhaps she was that destined Moabite one, she said to her, "let me go now to the field," etc. — meaning: behold, was not the deed of Lot's daughter done in a field, and not in a settled place? As it is said, "and Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountain..." (Genesis 19:30) — and there the matter took place; and likewise Judah with Tamar — in a field he found her. So too now, Ruth said, "let me go" — meaning: now I too, perhaps, by this means, this root will come forth into the world in this way; and, along the way, I will glean to sustain myself, for I am poor. Then she said to her, "go, my daughter" — meaning, "go, for you have the readiness for this, for you may indeed be reckoned a 'daughter'" — this being because there dwelt within her a spirit from Machlon, and "spirit" (ruach) is described in the feminine gender. And this is the meaning of "go, my daughter."

"a kinsman of her husband's" — meaning, an acquaintance and relative.

"And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's" — this informs us that although, given her present poverty, it would have been good for Naomi had she sought the support of bread from Boaz, her wealthy relative, she chose rather that her daughter-in-law bring her bread from the gleanings of the poor, which the Torah had entitled her to — so that it would be as though her sustenance were a gift from Hashem in her time of poverty, rather than turning to receive kindness from a relative who had known her in her days of wealth, and being ashamed to reveal her want before him — especially since it was already in her heart that he would redeem the field and Ruth, her beloved. And lest one say that the reason she did not turn to Boaz was that she feared he would send her away empty-handed, Scripture prefaces this to show that Boaz would indeed have provided her with bread, both because he was a moda who knew and loved [them], both Naomi and her husband — therefore it says "and Naomi had a moda of her husband's" [moda meaning: one who loves her and knows her well, not a distant relative] — and also because he was of the family of Elimelech, and he himself was "a man of valor" (ish gibbor chayil), for I have already explained (on Parashat Yitro, Exodus 18:25) that the term "anshei chayil" (men of valor) includes all the good character traits, among them generosity and hatred of unjust gain. And he was a great man, well known by name, as it says, "and his name was Boaz" — and so surely he would not have hidden his eyes from his own kin.

Let me go now to the field. To one of the fields of the people of the city, after one of them, “in whose eyes I will find favor,” so that he will not rebuke me. And glean among the stalks, behind one in whose eyes I will find favor. After someone in whose eyes I will find favor. — Notes: (6) Alternatively, after I find favor in his eyes, i.e., I will not glean in a field until I know the owner allows it. (Malbim)

'After him in whose sight I shall find favor' — some say that the vav refers back to Boaz, mentioned [above], and the sense would be, 'perhaps it will be so.' But in my opinion, the vav refers to the owner of the field, even though he has not [yet] been named, on account of [the wording shortly after,] 'and her chance chanced' [Ruth 2:3] — its meaning accordingly being 'it was made to befall [her].' 'Hashem be with you' — to help you, since they were laboring. 'Hashem bless you' — that He grant a blessing in the harvest.

"And Ruth said, etc." — It is fitting to take note: why does the verse here call her by the epithet "the Moabitess," and what is more, what of her saying "now" (na)? And why did she not mention the forgotten sheaf (shikchah) and the corner of the field (pe'ah), but only gleanings (leket) alone? Furthermore, she says, "after him in whose sight I shall find favor" — for behold, this makes her appear as one clinging to whoever she finds favor in his eyes, which is not a good thing. And not only that, but Naomi did not protest against this — on the contrary, she strengthened her hand by speaking, saying, "Go, my daughter." Furthermore, in its saying "and she went, and came, and gleaned," it would have been more fitting to reverse the order and say, "and she went, and gleaned, and came." Now, our Sages of blessed memory said that she began by completing the paths, and thus the statement "and she came" fits well. Also, the verse's testimony that she went after the reapers seems, for one as modest as she, to be regarded as an oddity. Furthermore, it appears that this field, in which she gleaned after the reapers, is the very plot belonging to Boaz, as his servant said: "and she said, let me glean, etc., after the reapers"; "and she came, and has remained here from the morning until now, etc." — for from that time she was in that field. And she herself testified to this as well, saying, "the name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz," which indicates that she was there the whole day. If so, it would have been fitting to say, "and it happened that the plot of the field belonged to Boaz," and afterward to say, "and she gleaned in the field after the reapers." Furthermore, it says "vayikar mikreh" (and chance chanced) — but is she not female? It should rather have said, "vatikar mikreh" [in the feminine]. Also, the word "mikreh" (chance/happening) appears superfluous, which is why our Sages of blessed memory were compelled to say that it refers back to the male who saw her — that he experienced a keri (a seminal emission) upon encountering her, and therefore it uses the masculine form, "vayikar." There was also a doubling here, for the first word refers to the keri, and the second to his encountering her. Likewise, its saying, "of the family of Elimelech," is unnecessary, since it was already stated above, "Now Naomi had a kinsman... of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz." However, aside from what was said regarding the first two difficulties, it may be said that Ruth was concerned lest a listener reproach her, and she would appear to Naomi as one acting thoughtlessly, in saying to her, "Let me go now to the field, etc." — for a young woman like herself, since it is a place of young men and lads, who might perhaps harm her. And what is more, since many poor people would be gleaning there, she would find herself surrounded by many people, which is not fitting. Also, while she remained within the field itself, they would not molest her, since many reapers, those set over them, and the owners of the field are present there. But behold, when she went from one field to another within the valley, in a place where there are no people, a wicked man might contrive to be there with her; and what is more, among great rocks a man might find her and seize her, with no one to save her. And even within the field, it is possible that an impure incident might befall her, were she to go and glean the corner of the field (pe'ah) that remains after the entire harvest, when none of the men of the field would be there — for the owners, lads, and reapers would have withdrawn — and she would be there alone; and perhaps a man would come, whether one of the poor gleaning with her or some other young man of the people, who would see her there alone and molest her. Likewise, if she took a sheaf (omer) for herself in the field and kept it, perhaps the reapers would say it was not a forgotten sheaf (shikchah), and would come to take it from her hand, and it would become a disgrace, or they would become entangled in dispute — so she would not do this. And in this way, she might perhaps find favor in the eyes of one of the reapers, and he would set his eyes upon her and sin against Hashem — at the very least through the harm caused by his eyes gazing upon her as he looked at her. And what is more, according to our Sages of blessed memory, who said that whoever looked upon her immediately experienced a keri, which suggests that this was on account of his gazing at her. And what is more, even though she was righteous and modest, perhaps she would be seduced, for there is no righteous person on earth who can rely upon himself alone. Therefore she took care to arrange all of these matters together, one by one. And so she said, "Let me go now" — meaning: is it not that this is now the beginning of the barley harvest, and at the start of the harvest there are not [many] people; and what is more, at the start of the barley harvest there is not yet an abundance of poor people — not until they become occupied with the harvest, or until the more valuable wheat arrives. And also, since at the joy of the harvest, in its beginning, it is the way of the owners to be present there together with the members of their households, young and old alike, I need not fear being surrounded by many poor people, nor that the reapers and the attending lads would lay their hands against her. And so she said, "let me go now" — meaning now, since it is the beginning of the barley harvest, as stated; and it is indeed possible that she would not have continued in this way had Boaz's maidens not gone with her until the completion of the harvest, as will be explained, please God. And regarding walking between one field and another in a place where there are no people, there would be no fear, for I will not go to many fields, but to one alone, and I will not depart from it — and so she said, "the field" [in the singular]. And regarding the third [difficulty], she said, "and let me glean" — meaning: gleanings (leket) alone will I gather, and not the forgotten sheaf (shikchah) and the corner of the field (pe'ah), for the reasons mentioned; and this, too, among the standing stalks, and not among the sheaves, which would not be proper. And regarding the fourth [difficulty], she said, "after him in whose sight I shall find favor" — meaning: if I see a man in whose eyes I find favor, I will not position myself in a way that he could feast his eyes upon me, for I will position myself only behind him, not in front of him, and not beside him. This is because in large fields there is a reaper who begins from the head of the field, and one from its middle; and she said that when it happens that she finds favor in the eyes of the reaper in the middle, she would not go instead after the one at the head of the field, so as not to be in front of the one who found favor in her eyes, facing his face and his eyes; and also not beside him, gleaning from behind his hand, as is known from the law of gleanings (leket), which is that which falls behind the reaper's hand — rather, I will walk behind him. And so she said, "after him in whose sight I shall find favor." And within these words of hers, she also resolved the fifth matter — meaning: if it should fall out, in the manner of chance, that it is I who find favor in his eyes, but not that any of them find favor in my eyes — for I myself am not so inclined, nor would my heart go in the way of sinners, heaven forbid — then she said, "Go, my daughter," meaning: according to your words, you will walk in a wholly innocent way, and no sin will befall you. Or it may also be said that she was granting her permission to go out of her love for her, for behold, even had she been her actual daughter, she would have permitted her, as stated above. And regarding all of this, the verse called her "the Moabitess" for two faults — which we understand by paying attention to her saying to Naomi, "achar asher emtza chen" (after I find favor), whereas afterward it is stated, "acharei ha-kotzrim" (after the reapers), and not, "achar ha-kotzrim," as in the preceding verse. And this is a matter we know: that every instance of "acharei" [with the added yod] denotes something distant, like "acharei derech mevo ha-shemesh," which is distant from the Jordan, as noted by Rashi; whereas "achar" [without the yod] denotes proximity. And by this she spoke improperly, in saying to Naomi, "achar asher emtza chen," which implies remaining in close proximity behind him. And it is possible that Naomi hinted this to her in saying, "Go, my daughter" — meaning: go in such a way that you are regarded as a daughter to me, and not in a lack of modesty. And so she did, for when it came to the actual deed, it is stated, "vatelaket acharei ha-kotzrim" — at a distance from them, and not in close proximity. Therefore, because she had said "achar," the verse called her "the Moabitess"; but Naomi said to her, "Go, my daughter" — like a daughter to me, related to a Jewish woman (Yehudit), rather than like a Moabite woman who would walk in close proximity to him, as we explained by the second approach; and this is like the second matter, namely, not to walk in close proximity to them. But as for the going itself, she had granted her permission, by saying, "Go."

"after him in whose sight I shall find favor" — meaning, that after I find favor in the eyes of the owner of the field, I will permit myself to glean among the ears of grain.

"And Ruth said" — [this] relates the righteousness of Ruth and the excellence of her character: that although she had been "reared in scarlet" (i.e., raised in luxury) — and according to the Sages, she was the daughter of the king of Moab — she agreed to go and glean like one of the poor. Second, she did not want her mother-in-law to go with her too — the disgrace and shame was enough already, since she [Naomi] was known in this town as a lady and a wealthy woman — so she took it upon herself to go where she would not be recognized; therefore it says "And Ruth the Moabitess said" — meaning that she was from another country and would not feel ashamed, and she would support her mother-in-law with honor. And she said, "Let me now go to the field" — meaning, not to the vineyard, where there is danger in climbing the trees. And she said, "and glean among the ears of corn" — meaning that she would take only leket (gleanings), which the poor are not particular about, since there are many fields and each person gleans in a separate field — unlike pe'ah (the field-corner gift), where everyone snatches from his fellow, for the law is that if ninety-nine say to divide it [peaceably] and one says to seize it, we follow the one who says to seize it; so the poor would seize it by force of their strength, and if she wished to seize it too, bitter-souled men might harm her. And also, regarding the leket, she said "after him in whose sight I shall find favor" — meaning that if she saw the owner of the field looking at her with an evil eye, she would not glean there, until she saw that she had found favor, and that no disgrace would come to her from the reapers or the other poor people.

So she went, and came and gleaned in the field. We find in Midrash Rus [the question is raised], “Before she had even gone she returned?” For it states, “and [she] came” and afterwards “and gleaned” [i.e., she came back before she gleaned]? Rather, [the Midrash explains] she would mark the roads before she entered the field, and she went and came and returned to the city, in order to make signs and markings so that she would not stray in the paths and she should know how to return. — Notes: (7) Alternatively, Rabbi Eliezer said that she kept on coming back until she found decent people with whom to go. (Maseches Shabbos 113b). [And as Divine fate decreed] she happened. To come to the portion of the field belonging to Bo’az.

"and she went," etc. — Some say that so as not to walk carrying a burden both on the way out and on the way back, she did not want to walk and glean along her outward walk, lest she walk while carrying her load and also come [into town] with it; therefore she went out first, and only afterward did "she come" and glean on her way back in. Now this would be valid if her gleaning had been done in many fields, but it was only in one. Also, its saying "and she came" indicates that she came in completely, and only after completing her entry into the town did she begin to glean. Now it would not be far-fetched to say that Scripture hints to us here at the true nature of Ruth — that this is why this good chance befell her — and this is what we are going to state further on: that Ruth herself is [a reincarnation of] the elder daughter of Lot, and Naamah is [a reincarnation] of the younger one. And this is hinted at by its saying "and she went" — for she had gone long ago to her eternal home, and now she comes back in reincarnation (gilgul), and gleans the fruit of the deed that she had done for the sake of Heaven. However, this is only what the Holy Spirit hints at, while the plain meaning (peshat) does not move from its place. Let us return to the way of the plain sense of the verse. I think she was concerned that she might tarry in the field until evening, as indeed she did; and at evening time, arriving in a place she was not familiar with, she would go astray on the road, and darkness would fall upon her outside the town — and whoever is overtaken by darkness on the road, [misfortune] would seize her, and something impure would befall her. And even while it was still day, if a man were to find her wandering in fields she was not familiar with, she would be prone to mishap and harm. Therefore, what did she do? She went as far as the first field she came upon, and returned to the town, in order to acquire for herself a visual familiarity with the road, so that she would not go astray; and only afterward did she go to glean — for then, after these three legs [of travel — going out, coming back, and going again], her familiarity with the way would not be lost to her. And it is possible that all of this is included within the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory, who said that she began by "surveying the paths" — only that they spoke concisely, as is their way. And Scripture did not need to mention [explicitly] her going to the field, for who is such a fool as not to understand that after her coming [into town] she would not glean without returning a second time — for the intent of the verse is only to inform us that the act of gleaning did not occur except after her going and returning. And by this it is also possible that she had erred earlier, when she said, "Let me go now and glean," [implying] that immediately upon going she would glean, before returning to acquire for herself familiarity with the road. And also her saying "after him in whose eyes I shall find favor" — meaning after one [particular reaper] — whereas it is better to walk after many than after a single one, because of suspicion — all of this she corrected by her returning. Needless to say, what she had spoken of were the cautions fitting for her to heed, against [the fact] that she had not been careful the first time in securing familiarity with the road; now, [by contrast], she went and came before she gleaned. And what she had said at first as "after" [in the singular], now [the verse] says "after" in a form that is distinguished [i.e., in the plural]. And corresponding to her statement, which indicated "after one individual," she did not do so, but rather [went] after many — and this is [the meaning of] "the reapers." And regarding her being careful to go immediately at the start of the barley harvest, as she had said, "Let me go now" — it says "and she went," meaning immediately after Naomi said, "Go, my daughter." And regarding the statement that she should not go to many fields, it says "in the field" [singular], for she gleaned in one alone. And regarding her exclusion from [the gifts of] shikchah (forgotten sheaves) and pe'ah (the corner of the field left for the poor), it says "and she gleaned," meaning that she gathered leket (fallen gleanings) alone. So too with its saying "after the reapers" — for there are no reapers present at the time of gathering pe'ah. And corresponding to her statement about going after the one in whose eyes she would find favor, [the verse] adds to this that she went after all of them, and not after the one in whose eyes she found favor alone. And it says, "and her hap was" — for the match destined for her, to encounter and to marry Boaz, [is called chance] even though she was not [naturally] his intended mate in the way of every [ordinary] levir, and all the more so since she was not from Israel but from Moab, having converted by her own choice — therefore that match is called "chance" (mikreh). It states that the chance destined for her caused this incident, that she would encounter the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, for from this the match was drawn out and unfolded in stages — in such a way that the lot unique to her brought this about; and this is [the meaning of] "and her hap was." And it explains how the chance led to her encountering the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, by saying, "who was of the family of Elimelech" — for from there came to her the [provision for] levirate marriage (yibbum), and this is truly a "calling" (mikra, playing on the word mikreh, chance). And it is fitting in this regard that it says "vayikar" in the masculine, which refers back to "the chance" [a masculine noun] — and in this way there is also no redundancy; and it is likewise fitting that the yod bears a dagesh. And the proof is that this chance was drawn from there — therefore Hashem arranged that she take hold specifically of Boaz; immediately He, may He be blessed, arranged that "and behold, Boaz came," etc. And this is [the meaning of] "and behold" — an expression of [Divine] arrangement — as if to say: the chance-match destined to be consummated through levirate marriage [came] by way of the chance of [her being in] the portion of the field, etc. And how did it unfold in sequence? It was that "and behold, Boaz came," etc. And therefore it did not say "and her hap was... and she gleaned" [directly in sequence], so as not to interrupt between the hint of the chance — namely, the levirate marriage that was drawn out and unfolded through her coming there — and its completion, by stating "and behold, Boaz came," which is the indication of the matter.

"after the reapers" — this is the "leket" (gleanings) which belong to the poor, as mentioned in the Torah.

"And she went" — [Scripture] relates that she did not walk a long way, but immediately upon going, "she came [to the field]" and gleaned in the field, because Boaz's field was near her house, and she came there at once. And although it was morning, which is when pe'ah is distributed, as it says (in chapter 4 of tractate Peah) that there are three appeals (avi'ot) a day, she did not go to the place of the pe'ah, which is at the end of the field, but rather "she came and gleaned" — meaning she went at once to glean leket alone; and therefore she gleaned "after the reapers," not after the poor people who were gleaning [pe'ah], because she gleaned by herself. "And her chance chanced" — a mikreh (chance occurrence) is something not necessitated by the ordinary chain of causes, and Scripture relates that although it appears that her coming specifically to this field was pure chance, it truly was chance — meaning a chance specifically suited to her need — and accordingly this was a providential chance; for in matters in which Hashem wishes to bring about something for the benefit of the community as a whole, there [Divine] providence attaches itself to chance occurrences, as it says [in the words of Eliezer], "Please let it happen before me today" (Genesis 24:12) — meaning that he wanted Hashem not to wait until the causes that produce and necessitate the matter come first, but rather that the matter should come about by way of chance, unconnected to causes that produce and necessitate it. So too here it is said that this chance occurrence was providential, a chance directed specifically for her need — that Hashem arranged that the field she would come to first, and that she would choose to glean there, would be the field belonging to Boaz. And Hashem brought this about because Boaz was of the family of Elimelech, and was fit to be the redeemer (go'el) and to perform levirate marriage (yibbum) with her, so that from this the kingdom of the House of David would emerge.

"And behold, Boaz...," etc. — It would have been more fitting to say, "And Boaz came from Beth-lehem," rather than, "And behold, Boaz came." But we have mentioned above the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, on Naomi's words when she said, "May Hashem grant that you find rest," etc. [Ruth 1:9] — that she meant: all those good things and consolations which the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give to Solomon, as it is written, "And Hashem gave Solomon wisdom" [I Kings 5:26] — may they be from you. Now what did Naomi see, to bless Moabite women with the wisdom of Solomon, which has no connection to them at all, that it should be theirs? Likewise regarding Boaz: our Sages, of blessed memory, said that when he said, "May your wages be shelemah [complete]" [Ruth 2:12], one should not read it "shelemah" but "Shlomo" — [alluding to] the one from whom King Solomon would descend — for it was not for nothing that Naomi and Boaz chose this particular blessing for her. Likewise, regarding the verse "Come near here, and eat of the bread," etc. [Ruth 2:14], our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "Come near here" [alludes to] closeness to kingship, for "halom" [here] means nothing but kingship; and "eat of the bread" — this is the bread of kingship, etc. Likewise they expounded "six rows" [a six-fold enumeration] concerning David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Manasseh, the King Messiah, and Boaz. So too regarding his saying, "and he measured six measures of barley" [Ruth 3:15] — Rabbi Tanchum [said that] Bar Kappara expounded in Tzippori: What is [the meaning of] that which is written, "these six measures of barley he gave me" [Ruth 3:17]? What is [the significance of] "six measures of barley"? If taken literally [it would be an unreasonable burden], etc. Rather, it alludes to the fact that six sons were destined to descend from her who would each be blessed with six blessings, and these are: David and the Messiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. David — as it is written, "And one of the young men answered and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse..." [I Samuel 16:18], etc. [where six qualities are listed]. The Messiah — as it is written, "And [the spirit of Hashem] shall rest upon him," etc. [Isaiah 11:2, where six spirits are listed]. And matters of this sort are found among the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, both in Naomi's words and in Boaz's words. But it is as we said above: that they had a tradition from our Sages, of blessed memory, that two good young women were destined to emerge from the daughters of Lot, so that the kingdom of the House of David would be built from them — and this was not regarded by them as something foreign or unknown. Indeed, greater still is what we wrote above: that the daughter of Lot [herself] knew that the seed of the kingdom of Israel was destined to come from outside [her own household] — for this is how they explained, in Genesis Rabbah, the words of Lot's daughter when she said, "that we may preserve seed of our father" [Genesis 19:32] — meaning: that seed which is destined to come from elsewhere, we shall establish from our father. And on this they explained the verse, "I have found David My servant" [Psalms 89:21] — where did I find him? In Sodom. If so, one may now say: is it any wonder [that this should likewise hold true] regarding the seed of Nahshon son of Amminadab, which was no more hidden from the daughter of Lot [than David's origin]? Therefore there is no doubt that this was in the mind of Naomi and Boaz: that one good young woman was destined to emerge from Moab, so that the kingdom of the House of David would be built from her. Therefore, when they saw Ruth's deed, they recalled [this tradition] and said to themselves that it was very likely that this was the woman whom Hashem had proven worthy to establish through her the pillar of the kingdom of Israel. Therefore, from that moment, she [Naomi] blessed her, saying, "May Hashem grant that you find rest" — referring to the kingdom of the House of David. And as our Sages, of blessed memory, said, it is therefore written "u-metze'an" [may you (fem. pl.) find] with the heh missing, to hint that this blessing of hers was fulfilled through one alone, namely Ruth. And this is as we wrote: that this "rest" is none other than the spirit of Machlon rattling about within her innards, for from him the stock of Jesse was destined to come — all the more so according to the kabbalists [lit. "sages of truth"], who say that Machlon and Chilion were [the reincarnations of] Peretz and Zerah; therefore it is fitting that the kingdom of the House of David be founded from Machlon, who is Peretz. Therefore she [Naomi] opened her mouth in wisdom, saying to her, "may you find rest," as discussed above; and Ruth's ear heard it and understood it, and she kept the matter in her heart, as discussed above. Therefore, after hearing it, she was stirred and said to Naomi, "Let me go now to the field" [Ruth 2:2] — meaning: perhaps the woman standing with you [i.e., myself] is destined for that matter. Therefore, just as the beginning of that seed's emergence into actuality was in a field, as in the matter of Tamar and Judah — for it was in a field that he found her: "and he turned aside to her by the way, and said, Come, I pray, let me come in unto you" [Genesis 38:16] — so too [Ruth thought]: "Shall I too go now? Perhaps this matter will unfold for me in the same way, that it will come about for me in a field." This too she hinted at by saying "na" [please], echoing the "give, please" [havah na] stated in the matter of Tamar; and it would be, as it were, incidental, that she would go and glean among the sheaves, etc., to sustain a life — all as written above; and Hashem would accomplish His own purpose. And when Naomi heard this, she took the matter to heart and said, "Go, my daughter" — meaning: yes, go for this reason as well, for the spirit of Machlon is within you; and therefore she is called "my daughter," as though she were a daughter to her through him — meaning: go, for there He, may He be blessed, will prepare the way for you. And so it happened: for behold, "and her chance chanced" upon the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was the redeemer — for this was from Him, may He be blessed. For it was Ruth — within whom was Machlon, whose future issue was destined to come through Boaz — whom He caused to chance upon his place. And this is meant, in addition to what was written above, by "and her chance chanced": that the "chance" that befell her was the spirit of Machlon, which was within her by way of chance — for a holy spirit does not cleave to a non-Jewess except by chance. It was that same chance which caused and brought it about that she chanced upon the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech — so that, being of his family, he held the right of redemption to establish the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And it is possible that the word "mikreh" [chance] hints at the spirit of the dead within her innards, in that the word "mikreh," with its four letters, totals 349 [with the value added for each of its four letters], like the numerical value of "ruach Machlon" [the spirit of Machlon] together with the kolel [the additional one counted for the phrase as a whole]. Or one might say that "and her chance chanced" refers to what we are destined to say further on, and which we hinted at above: that the spirit of the Moabite woman, destined to bring forth from her the kingdom of the House of David, [came] in the merit of the daughter of Lot, on account of what she did for the sake of Heaven with her father — she being herself the daughter of Lot, as the facts will show. And also, the numerical value of "Bat Lot" [daughter of Lot] together with "Moav" equals, in the reduced reckoning [mispar katan], the same as "Hi Rut HaMoaviah" [she is Ruth the Moabite]. And by this it is meant, "and her chance chanced": that the same chance which befell her with her father now caused the portion of the field belonging to Boaz to chance upon her, so that the matter would come to actual completion, and to show that God hastens to accomplish it. Therefore He immediately arranged it, so that, behold, Boaz came from Beth-lehem and saw her worthiness, and therefore understood that this was the woman whom Hashem had proven worthy, as will be explained with Hashem's help. And this is [the meaning of] "and, behold, Boaz came" — rather than "and Boaz came," etc. And regarding this verse, it is possible that they [our Sages] instructed us by way of the incident that happened with Abba Chilkiya, which is related in the Gemara, tractate Ta'anit: that they went and found him working as a hired laborer in a field, and they greeted him, and he did not answer; and afterward, when they asked him why he had done so, he said that he was a day-laborer and could not interrupt his work. And it is possible, based on this account, to say: since Boaz was the master of their labor, when he said to them, "Hashem be with you," they answered him, "Hashem bless you" — for they knew that since it was he who had asked after their welfare, he would not be particular about their response to him, unlike [what would be the case with] someone else, as in the incident of Abba Chilkiya. And this is [the meaning of] "and they said to him" — for otherwise the word "to him" would be superfluous. Rather, it is because it was he [who had greeted them] that they said to him, "Hashem bless you"; and they also intended not to add to what he had said, which was two words only, and so [they replied] likewise. Therefore, seeing that they were insistent on not interrupting their work, he left the reapers and asked his young man who was stationed over them, since he [the overseer] was free to answer him about all his concerns, and said, "Whose is this young woman," as will be explained with Hashem's help. It is also possible that they taught us that one who returns a greeting must add to the words of the one who greeted him; and this is reflected in the fact that he blessed them that Hashem be with them, and they added and said that not only should Hashem be with him, but that He, may He be blessed, should Himself bless him — and this is "Hashem bless you." Or something similar to this may be meant: are you not worthy to bless us, that our blessing to you should be that Hashem be with us? But as for us, we are not worthy to bless you; therefore they said, "Hashem bless you," for He is the Master of blessings. It is also possible that they intended to say: you said that He is with us, though we are not worthy of it; but if He is with us, may it be so in order that Hashem bless you through the work of our hands, which is your harvest in your field. Now, according to these explanations, the narrative of the Megillah would still have no need to inform us of this exchange of greetings; but it is possible that its purpose was so that it should not appear that, because he was pursuing her and had set his eyes on her beauty, he therefore opened his words to them by asking, "Whose is this young woman" — therefore it informed us that he first asked after their welfare, and they answered him with a greeting, and only afterward did he ask "Whose," etc. It is also possible, if we pay attention to his saying, "and he said to the reapers" — for behold, regarding the young men who belonged to him, and regarding the one stationed over the reapers, it does not mention that he asked after their welfare; yet surely he did not fail to greet everyone. Rather, it must be said: in order not to be suspected in the eyes of the hired reapers who were reaping his harvest — were he to ask them directly, "Whose is this young woman" — therefore it says that in the matter of the greeting he made a greater point of [greeting] them than his own young men, who were born in his household; but he did not ask them about the young woman, lest he be suspected in their eyes. Rather, he slipped away from them and said to the young man — his own servant, born in his household — "Whose," etc., and in him his heart trusted, even though he was not his equal, as will be explained with Hashem's help. And according to this approach, he taught us that one does not greet a woman, even in the midst of a group of men; for even though she was behind the reapers, he greeted only the reapers, and not her. And regarding what our Sages, of blessed memory, said — that he inquired about her on account of her good character — it is possible to derive this from the fact that Scripture related that he hurried to ask: that as soon as he had finished greeting them, he immediately said to his young man, "Whose," etc. — and therefore it told us of the exchange of greetings.

"and said to the reapers, Hashem be with you" — meaning, may Hashem be with you to help you; and with this expression the angel blessed Gideon, saying, "Hashem is with you, mighty man of valor" (Judges 6:12).

"And behold, Boaz came" — wherever [Scripture] says "and behold" [vehinei], it indicates something new: that Boaz was not accustomed to come to the field, and this too was a new occurrence, through Hashem's providence, that Boaz came from Beth-lehem. "...and said to the reapers, Hashem be with you" — our sages said that Boaz and his court instituted that people should greet one another with the Divine Name, and this was done by the counsel of the Sanhedrin, as is stated in Berachot (63a): "And should you say that Boaz acted on his own initiative, etc." — for one may not invoke the Divine Name in vain, as is stated in the Sifra (Leviticus, section 14): "...one should not say, 'to Hashem, an offering,' etc." But when they saw at that time that there was theft of justice and righteousness among them, and that they would not even listen to their own judges, as it says, "And it was in the days when the judges judged" — when Boaz was appointed judge, he instituted that people should greet one another with the Divine Name, to fix in their hearts that Hashem looks down from heaven upon them and upon their peace; that the peace of the community is bound up with Hashem's providence, to the point that Hashem — who is called "Peace" — participates in the peace between one person and another; and also as an arousal that they should always set Hashem before them, even in matters between themselves and their fellows, and in seeking one another's peace and welfare. This is why it says, "And behold, Boaz came from Beth-lehem" — telling us that something new had happened in Beth-lehem, in the assembly of the elders, which the word "behold" indicates; and Boaz came from there with the new practice, saying to the reapers, "Hashem be with you." Accordingly they too invoked the Divine Name, that Hashem should bless him — as it is said, "Neither did those who passed by say, The blessing of Hashem be upon you..." — as is explained there.

To whom does this maiden belong. Was it the practice of Bo’az to inquire about women? Rather, [because] he saw her modest and wise behavior [he was curious about her. He observed that] two ears she would glean but three she would not glean; and she would glean the standing ears while standing and the lying ones while sitting, in order to avoid bending over. — Notes: (8) As prescribed by the Mishnah (Pe’ah 6:5). The Torah in Vayikra 19:9 awards the fallen ears of grain and forgotten sheaves to the poor. Thus her exemplary behavior and her knowledge of the law caught the attention of Bo’az and he therefore inquired about her. (9) Maseches Shabbos 113b.

'Whose damsel is this?' — He thought that she was a married woman. Perhaps he asked the young man [about her] because he saw that her clothing was like the clothing of her own land — for appearances also change on account of climate — and the way of the midrash is known [i.e., there is also a known midrashic explanation].

"And Boaz said," etc. — It is fitting to pay attention to his saying "whose" (le-mi) rather than saying "who is this girl" (mi ha-na'arah ha-zot). Furthermore, in the reply it would have been fitting to be brief and say "and he answered and said, a girl," etc., without telling us that the one who answered him was the one appointed over the reapers — for who does not know that the one who is asked will answer? Indeed, even the word "and he answered" (va-ya'an) appears superfluous, and it would have sufficed to say "and he said, a Moabite girl," etc. Also, his saying "a girl" told Boaz nothing new, since Boaz himself had already said "this girl"; and why then does he go on to say "she is a Moabite," etc.? Also the word "she" (hi) is superfluous. And also, why does he inform us that she returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab, when it would have sufficed for him to say that she is Naomi's daughter-in-law? Furthermore, in his saying "and she said, let me glean, please," etc. — this is expounding an answer to a question that was never asked. And also his saying the word "please" (na), which is a superfluous word. And also, does it not appear that he spoke an outright falsehood in saying "and I will gather among the sheaves," when the verse itself testifies that she was gleaning ears of grain — all the more so according to what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that one of the things Boaz observed about her was that she was gleaning from the ownerless [produce], and also not three ears but two, as the law requires, and not among the sheaves? And also his saying "after the reapers" — did not Boaz himself see her gleaning after them? What did this tell him that was new? And if it should be said that he said this in order to disparage her in Boaz's eyes, by saying that she walked after the men — if this was displeasing in Boaz's own eyes, he too would have been affected by seeing her walking after them himself; so why tell him something that was already right before his own eyes? All the more so since all the other gleaning women walk in just this way, and on the contrary, this was for her a sign of great modesty compared to the others, as our Rabbis said, that Boaz saw that all the women were joking with the reapers while she kept herself modest — all the more so according to what we have carefully noted regarding the word "after" (acharei), which by the true nature of the language is an emphatic term denoting great modesty, and all the more so since the essence of gleaning belongs properly beside the reaper, to gather what falls after his hand, and nevertheless she walked after them. Furthermore, in his saying "and she came and stood" — the word "and she came" is superfluous. And also, why should he tell something disparaging of her, saying that she tarried long and that this was [the extent of] her sitting in the house, a little? And also, his saying "this is her sitting" appears already included in his saying "she came and stood from the morning until now" — so why does it emerge as a separate statement? And also in his saying "this is her sitting," the word "this" (zeh) does not fit well; it would have been better to say "she sat in the house a little" or "for she sat," etc. Furthermore, at the beginning of the verse that follows, "Have you not heard, my daughter? Do not go," etc. — if the lad had spoken well of her, it would fit well to say "since you have heard, do not depart from here." But how can he say "have you not heard, my daughter" — when he is spreading a bad report about her — "do not go," etc.? On the contrary, she should then say, "I will go to another field and pass out of the sight of this lad." And if his intent is to say: even though you have heard, my daughter, something spoken badly of you, nevertheless do not go on that account, and do not be afraid, for so (koh) you shall cling to my maidens — if so, it should have said "even though you have heard, my daughter, do not go," and not said "have you not heard," which indicates that her not going follows from her having heard, when in fact it is the opposite. And also according to this, it should have said further below "ki khoh tidbaqun" ("for so you shall cling") and not "ve-khoh" ("and so"), as though stating an additional matter beyond what preceded, rather than giving the reason for it. And also his saying "and also do not pass from here" appears superfluous after his having already said "do not go." But now, Boaz was greatly troubled lest a listener suspect him — thinking, in his asking about the girl, that he was saying to himself, "perhaps he has set his eyes on her." This is why he did not ask the reapers, his hired hands and workers, but rather asked his lad, the one accustomed to being with him, as we have written. And furthermore, he did a second thing: he phrased it to him as "whose is this girl" rather than "who is this girl," so that the lad would understand that it was not in his heart to propose marrying her — for indeed it was meant to convey that in his own mind he assumed she was be'ulat ba'al (a married woman), under the authority of another. And this is [the meaning of] "whose is this girl" — that is, who is her master, whose wife is she? For then there is no doubt that it would not occur to the lad's mind that he had set his eyes upon her to take her, for surely he would not suspect him regarding a married woman — one should not suspect him to such an extent. Now, I have seen, after writing this, that the RI'A, of blessed memory, anticipated me in raising this question of "whose," etc. It is also possible [to explain this] in light of the fact that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, elaborated at length on the great modesty they saw in her, greater than in all the other women, saying: all the women bend over to glean, but this one sits and gleans; all the women hitch up their garments, but this one lets her garments down; all the women joke with the reapers, but this one keeps herself modest; all the women glean among the sheaves, but this one gleans from the ownerless [produce] — this is the language of Midrash Chazit. And the Yalkut adds: all the women glean three ears at a time, but this one two at a time — and this is known from the Mishnah, that two ears constitute leket (gleanings) but three do not. Therefore he said to his lad, born in his household, in whom his heart trusted, "whose is this girl?" — meaning: behold, I am not ashamed, in light of her tremendous and abundant modesty, to speak and say, "to whom is this girl fitting [to be married]?" — for who could be compared to her for marriage, since her merit is very great, and it is a wonder. And this is why he says "this girl" with the definite article heh — for since she is this one, singled out for modesty in the eyes of all, I ask this question. And it is astonishing that, being still a na'arah (young girl), she should possess all this modesty — and this is the force of "this girl." And the reason is that, as we have written, it was not hidden from Boaz that a peridah tovah (a good kernel of grain) was destined to come forth from Moab, from which a ruler over Israel would issue; but he did not yet know whether this one would be it, or another. And when he saw the perfection of her qualities, he considered in his heart: perhaps this is the woman whom Hashem has designated. But he could not escape a nagging doubt — perhaps before his arrival she had not conducted herself modestly, and something of a bad matter clung to her, or some impure trait, such that she would not be that good kernel after all. Therefore he said in his heart: who will tell me what occurred before I came to the field? For surely they would conceal it, so as to cover up for so poor and storm-tossed a woman. And his innermost counsel advised him to speak to the lad who was set over the reapers, whose eyes roamed about to observe everything that happened there — unlike the reapers, who were preoccupied with their work. And furthermore, secondly, he said in his heart: if I ask in a manner that does not show that I desire her fine character, but only appears to be to reveal the matter alone, then perhaps he might conceal something. But this I will do — I will say to him, "whose is this girl," meaning, "to whom is this uniquely [distinguished] girl fitting?" — implying that her modesty and fine character are great — for through this the lad will say in his heart: woe to her, to such shame, for my master, an elder, a prince of Israel, has set his eyes on a Moabite girl! And so, in order to remove her from his master's heart, for the sake of honor, he will reveal the secret of any bad matter he knows about her. And so it was: for then he opened his mouth without restraint, and from his disparagement of her Boaz learned her praise. For all his efforts could not find in her any sin that she had committed, for he told of no flaw or immodesty that he had seen in her, except that she was a Moabite girl who had returned with Naomi. For even though he hinted to him that it was not fitting for his honor to take her — these are matters that indicated, merely from reasoning, that she was not a fitting match for him — but it was not that he had seen in her anything unseemly to make him turn away from her. And likewise in his saying, "and she said, let me glean, please, and gather among the sheaves," etc., and his saying, "this is her sitting in the house, a little" — even in these he did not testify to any impropriety, and these are matters without substance, as will be explained, God willing. Therefore, then, desire for her fine character entered his heart, for he said: had he seen in her any bad blemish, he would not have concealed it from telling. On the contrary, he then spoke to her heart and commanded her not to depart from there, as will be explained, God willing.

"Then Boaz said to his servant" — when Boaz saw Ruth gleaning alone in the field, with many sheaves before her (for by evening she had gleaned about an ephah of barley), he thought she was one of the wives or daughters of the reapers, and thought that the reaper — her husband or her father — had driven off the other poor people so that she alone would glean, and had permitted her also to gather from the sheaves. He therefore asked the servant who stood over the reapers and supervised them, "Whose damsel is this?" — meaning, to which of these reapers does she belong?

Who returned with Naomi. The accent is at the beginning, under the shin, because it is the past tense, and not the present tense [of the verb]. — Notes: (10) See Rashi in Bereishis 29:6.

"And the servant answered," etc. — Now, the practice of field-owners is to appoint a man to stand over the reapers so that they not slacken in their work, and to station him in a high place from which he can see them all, so that no man among them who is out of his sight should shirk; and they choose for this, from among all their servants, a man who has the strength to raise his voice to those near and those far off. How much more so in the fields of a man like Boaz, who was great and mighty in wealth and possessions, for many were the reapers of his harvest who were with him. And [Scripture] tells us that in order to reply to him, [the servant] raised his voice to speak in disparagement of Ruth. This is [the meaning of] "and the servant answered" (va-ya'an ha-na'ar) — an expression of raising the voice, as in "you shall speak up and say" (ve-anita ve-amarta), and "Job answered and said: Let the day perish" (Job 3:2-3), etc. And some support for this is the cantillation mark set upon it from above, which is the revia, [placed] on this word "va-ya'an." He also said "who was set over the reapers," which, as we have said, is superfluous, in order to hint that he was stationed in a place suited for making himself heard by all, as one specifically appointed for that purpose. And therefore Scripture did not say "and his servant answered," as above, for [Boaz] assumed that since this was his own servant, he would not suspect him [of ill will] — therefore it says only "a servant," unspecified. And [the servant] did not act this way out of hatred for her, but out of love for his master. For when he heard [Boaz] ask, "Whose is this girl?" and [he knew] that [Boaz] was a widower and she was unmarried and exceedingly beautiful, he said to himself: this can only be that he has set his eyes upon her and desires to take her as a wife — and this thing was not good in the servant's eyes. Even granting that one might say it could not be helped, that the law is "an Ammonite, not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, not a Moabitess" [i.e., the prohibition excludes only Moabite males, not females, so she was permitted] — still it did not sit right in his eyes that a man as great as he in Israel [should marry her]. How much more so according to those who say that this Boaz was Ibzan, who was head of the entire generation, and who was also old, advanced in years — how could he marry a young woman, he being old, which is not fitting to his honor? And moreover, she was of the seed of Moab, when he ought rather to take for himself the daughter of the great men of Israel, as befits a prince and a great man in Israel. Therefore he raised his voice and told of her disparagement before all who heard him, as one reporting her lineage and informing of the incident in a wholly malicious way, like a madman shooting firebrands, in order to disparage her in Boaz's eyes — and he added on his own ugly things and faults that were not in her. This is [the meaning of] "a young Moabite woman," etc. — meant to hint to him that she is young and thus unsuited to him, and also that she is a Moabitess. And so that Boaz should not think to himself, "Even though she is a Moabitess, she has surely already converted, and a convert is considered like a newborn child, and she is to be reckoned an Israelite" — and all the more so since he knew the law that it is "a Moabite, not a Moabitess" [that is forbidden], as the end of the story proves, and also that he himself was a great man in Israel — therefore [the servant] said, as if to imply, she is still a Moabitess in her present condition. This is [the meaning of] "she is a Moabitess" — to say, she is still a Moabitess and has not attached herself to the religion of Moses and Israel. And so that Boaz should not say, "But surely she came from her birthplace and her father's house, following after Hashem" — therefore he said "who came back with Naomi," meaning, it was for Naomi's sake that she was drawn along after her, and not in order to seek Hashem. He hinted to him further, as if to say: see now, that she came back only with Naomi alone, for Mahlon and Chilion died, and this was for no reason other than that they had married Moabite women — so that Boaz should understand that the same thing would befall him too, were he to act as they did and take a Moabite woman for himself. He hinted to him further by saying "with Naomi, from the fields of Moab" — as if to say: see now that she is unfit for you, for she came back with Naomi alone, without the company of trustworthy men, all the way from the fields of Moab to here — meaning, there is no doubt that presumably some impure incident befell her. All the more so according to what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that when Orpah turned back from them toward the field of Moab, even though she had not gone very far, men accosted her and trampled her like the threshing of grain. And to magnify the matter, it is written "from the fields" (mi-sedei) with a yod, hinting that the two of them came alone from many towns of Moab — for it is known that wherever "the field of Moab" is mentioned with a yod, it refers to the city or towns of Moab, as stated above. And even though it is indeed true that Hashem was with them, and that the two of them came alone, as we have written above regarding "and the two of them went until they came to Bethlehem" — for until there they walked together, the two of them alone, which is why "all the city was astir concerning them" — the point being that since the road was very long, from the many towns of Moab all the way to Bethlehem, it is nearly certain that they would be accosted [along it] more than in Orpah's return, [which covered only] a short stretch of land, in a place where she was known. And this he hinted to him by saying "who came back with Naomi" — meaning, and not with others — "with her, from the fields of Moab," a place suited for calamity, all the way until here, as he says "who came back," meaning, up until the completion of Naomi's return to her original place. And lest you say: but surely her modesty appears great, in that she gleans in the proper manner, two ears [at a time] and not three, and also walks behind the reapers, as we have written, which is a great distance from their place — these two things being hinted at above in the verse, in its saying "and she gleaned," etc., meaning that she gleaned properly, and also "behind the reapers" — therefore he smoothed over his speech and said "and she said, let me glean, please," etc., meaning: let me inform you of what she schemed to do by deceit, to steal our minds. This is that her actual intention was to steal and gather sheaves, and she said to herself: what shall I do so that they will not scrutinize me and will give up watching what I do? I will begin at first by gleaning properly, two ears at a time — this I will do now, at the outset, so that they will be confident I am not stealing, and will not watch and observe me. And afterward I will gather among the sheaves with no one watching. And still, if I walk close to the reapers, even though behind them, it is possible they will notice and turn their faces and see me — therefore it is better for me to distance myself far from them. In this way, her gleaning properly is not done out of her own righteousness but rather to steal [our] minds, and her distancing herself from the reapers is so that she not be seen doing the wrong thing. This is [the meaning of] "and she said, let me glean" — meaning, let me glean gleanings, that is, ears of grain, now at first, so that afterward "I will gather among the sheaves" — and therefore she was behind the reapers, at a distance from them. And it is possible that this is the sense of his saying the word "please" (na) and his saying "behind the reapers" — meaning that in order to gather among the sheaves without it being easy for them to see her, she took care to walk behind the reapers, as stated. He added further to disparage her by saying "and she came, and has continued, from the morning until now," etc. — meaning that she has no way that is entirely respectable, for she stood in the field from the morning until now. And lest Boaz say: but by this you contradict yourself and undermine your own account, for if her intent and character were only to gather sheaves in secret, she could have done so in a short time and gone her way; but since she stood from the morning until now, this shows that it is precisely because she is scrupulous to take no more than one or two ears that she needed to delay from then until now — therefore [the servant] was cleverer still and said "this, her sitting in the house," etc., meaning: this last thing I said, "and she has continued," etc., is not meant to teach that her business is not the gathering of sheaves, on the grounds that she has not yet gone home — for it is not on account of that that she delayed, but rather this is from her poor character, that her time spent sitting at home is little. And along this line, he hinted further, saying that by her sitting until evening — perhaps in the evening, on the day she returns to the city, and she has had no experience along these roads — perhaps men would take liberties with her; and from her being unconcerned about this, it appears that she is not good. And lest a man say: perhaps she came and returned to the city before gleaning, so as to gain familiarity with the road, as we have written that she did, in the phrase "and she went and came and gleaned" — therefore, to conceal the matter, he said "and she came, and has continued," meaning, immediately upon coming she stood [in place] and did not return home since the morning — so that she has no familiarity with the road, and nevertheless has delayed until now. And it came to pass, when Boaz heard the evil words that the servant standing [over the reapers] spoke with deceit, that he then set his face to speak to her — something he had not done until now — in order to speak to her heart and extinguish the flame that the servant standing [over the reapers] had kindled in her heart. And he opened his mouth with wisdom, to say something she would understand and know in her heart, namely, that the servant's words had not entered his ears. For the essence of her shame is not on account of the servant himself, since the servant is [only] a servant, but rather what touches the soul and reaches to the flesh is the fear that his words might have entered Boaz's ears. Therefore he opened by saying, as though advising her, "have you not heard," etc. — as if to say to her: do not take it to heart, for I did not believe these things. Perhaps it occurred to her mind that his heart was not truly so, and that he was concealing the matter merely to set her mind at ease; therefore he laid this matter down as a premise, and, as one deriving from it a further conclusion, said: have you not heard the voice of this servant? From this I conclude and declare that you are considered to me like a daughter. This is because — behold, had she the strength of spirit in place of her natural feminine spirit, she would surely have sharpened her tongue against the servant standing [over the reapers], after the flame that burned within her, with smooth speech, saying: who are you, great mountain, that you have opened your mouth without restraint against me and made me out to be a worthless woman? Whom have you shamed and reviled, and against whom have you raised your voice? Did you imagine that I would be like you, evil in deeds, that you dared so brazenly to speak lies about me — I, who am a daughter of kings, while you are not even like the least of my servants' servants? And my complaint is not against you, for you are but a servant, but against the elder, your master, who has not struck you with a rod for your impudence. But she found nothing better than silence. Therefore the recognition of her righteousness became implanted in the heart of Boaz, and he answered and said, "Have you not heard, my daughter" — meaning: have you not heard — that is, you were not troubled, and you kept silent, my daughter — I consider you wholly righteous; therefore take heed for yourself not to go to glean in another field. This is because, in my eyes, you are to me like a daughter in every matter of holiness, for I did not give heed to the servant's voice, in that he cast false charges upon you, since I did not believe his words; but had you been in another field, and had a listener there heard a voice speaking words like this servant's, perhaps they would believe and heed his voice. This is [the meaning of] "have you not heard, my daughter, do not go" — for since you heard, you are to me like a daughter, and what follows from this is that you should not go to glean in another field, lest whoever hears the mouth speaking words like this servant's disgrace you, and you become an object of scorn. We find here a premise laid down: "my daughter, do not go" is understood within the words indirectly — in that by his saying "my daughter," [he shows] that she is worthy and precious to him, and since she is precious in his eyes, he draws the conclusion that she should not go to glean in another field, lest people there heed one who speaks evil of her. For on account of this she will say to herself that she is worthy in his eyes, so much so that he did not even need to state to her explicitly that he did not believe [the servant], but merely implied it — for this is how he counseled her, that she should draw from his words a further matter beyond what was stated. And lest she say, at least let me change my place within the field itself — therefore he said, "and also do not pass from here," meaning that she should not show that she was affected by his words. Or one might explain: "and also do not pass from here" means, do not pass over to another [field], for it is more to your honor to be in the presence of one in whose eyes you have not found favor than to be in the presence of one in whose eyes you find favor and who entices you with pleasant words, lest you become suspect. This is [the meaning of] "and also do not pass from here": for from what I have heard, the practical conclusion follows that you should not pass from here, and also that you should cling here (tidbaqin) with my maidens who are in this section [of the field]. Or it may be explained: [remain] here, in this section of the field, where you shall cling to my maidens, but in another field no maidens will be available for you to cling to, and you would become an object of scorn, at the very least because of the many [wagging] tongues. And as for his placing an extra letter nun in the word "tidbaqin" [written in a plural feminine form with a masculine-type ending] — this is because it also includes, as it were, the spirit of Mahlon, still stirring within her innermost being; therefore he said "tidbaqin" in the plural. Now, in his statement at the end of this verse, saying "and thus you shall cling to my maidens," [Scripture] demonstrates the righteousness of the righteous man Boaz, in that he was concerned for Ruth's honor, that no disgrace or scorn befall her — and it is astonishing, an act of ingratitude, that so righteous a woman as she should concoct a false charge against a perfectly righteous man, turning his kindness into emptiness and his modesty into licentiousness, by saying to Naomi, "also, because he said to me, 'with the young men who are mine you shall cling'" — how could she bring herself to speak lies to her [Naomi] and spread a slander about a prince and great man in Israel, in a matter so grave as this? Now, as for their statement, of blessed memory, that his saying "with my maidens" refers to the righteous, as in the phrase "ve-tikshereno le-na'aroteikha, nachah shoqetah" (a citation whose precise source is uncertain) — they spoke by way of hint (remez); but by way of plain sense (peshat), they [our Rabbis] noted this and were astonished, and said that this is why Scripture calls her "the Moabitess" where it says, "and Ruth the Moabitess said... also, because he said to me, 'with the young men,'" etc. — because she spoke falsely, in that he had said "with my maidens" and she said "with the young men." But in order to arrive at some substance of a reply, despite the shortness of our understanding, to vindicate that righteous woman's merit, let us pay attention to the verses that follow. First, in his saying, "let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them" — who are "them"? It must be that he meant she should walk after them, if this refers to the maidens — [but] why then did he retract from his earlier statement, "and thus you shall cling to my maidens," which came to lessen the closeness and to say "after them" instead — especially if "after" is to be understood in its plain sense as denoting a great distance? And moreover, what would it add or benefit her to walk among them rather than after them? And furthermore, it is later said, "and she cleaved to the maidens of Boaz," etc., and it is not said, "and she walked after the maidens of Boaz to glean" — and even if it should occur to one that her walking after them, too, is called "cleaving," why then did he change his earlier wording? Further, [consider] his saying, "Have I not charged the young men not to touch you?" — is it conceivable that, had she cleaved to Boaz's maidens, as [implied] in his statement "and thus you shall cling to my maidens," the young men would have dared in their hearts to touch her, such that he would need to say, "Have I not charged the young men," etc.? And further, in Naomi's reply to Ruth, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out (tetze'i) with his maidens" — why did she change the wording, mentioning an expression of "going out," rather than adopting the wording stated above, saying, "it is good, my daughter, that you cleave (tidbeqin) with his maidens," as it is said further below, "and she cleaved," etc., rather than "that you go out," etc.? And further, is it conceivable that Boaz's maidens were reapers, continually gleaning together with Ruth in every field belonging to Boaz until the completion of the wheat harvest and the barley harvest? For this is not the way of the maidens of the great men of the land, men such as Boaz — rather, they go out to the field for a day or two to stroll about at the beginning of the harvest, and even there they pitch the tents of their pavilions, and do not go out from there during the heat of the day, but only in the evening hours, or in the early morning before the sun comes out in its full strength — and even this only for a day or two, after which they return to the city, as is the practice of modest young women. But as for these maidens, it appears that their staying at home was minimal, for they were with Ruth until the completion of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest — which, according to our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Midrash Chazit (Song of Songs Rabbah), was some three months. And according to our approach, let us now consider what point there is in Naomi's statement to Ruth, when she says, "Is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maidens you were?" — what is the point of her mentioning that she was with his maidens, and what does it add or subtract? Now, it is indeed true that it is not the practice of the maidens belonging to a prince and great man of Israel — as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that Boaz used to run about on the hills from field to field — to go out of the town and dwell in the field, not for a month, nor for twenty days, but only for a very short while, to rejoice in the joy of the harvest in one of the fields, in the place where their master pitched his tent, and not to budge from there. And there is no doubt that Boaz's maidens did the same. And on the first day that Ruth went out to the field, Boaz's maidens were only in that particular section of the field where he himself was, and their hearts were not moved to roam about the other fields. Therefore Boaz's word to her was, "Do not go to glean," etc. — for surely in my fields no impure incident will befall you, since here, in this field, the maidens cling to my maidens for as long as the harvest of this section continues, since they do not go out beyond it. This is [the meaning of] "and thus you shall cling to my maidens." But in my other fields, where I cannot provide you a remedy as complete as this one, do not fear to walk after the reapers, for I have charged the young men not to touch you — only in this you must be careful, not to become entangled in conversation with them or have any dealings with them, as we shall explain, please God. This is [the meaning of] "let your eyes be on the field," etc. — meaning: is it not so, that is, in this [particular] field you shall cling to my maidens who are there, and I need not charge the young men here concerning you? But perhaps you will say, what benefit is this to me regarding the other fields? [To this he answers:] do not fear that you will be put to shame; rather, set your eyes on the field which the well-known reapers shall reap, and go after them, and pay no heed even though you are not clinging to my maidens, for I have charged the young men not to touch you. In this way, even though at the beginning of the harvest he told her to cling to his maidens, from then on, and thereafter, until the completion of the entire harvest, he told her she should walk after his young men and not be afraid, for once he has spoken, he will not go back on what he charged them, not to touch her. And is this not what she told Naomi: "because he said to me, 'with the young men who are mine you shall cling' until they have completed all my harvest" — meaning that until everything is finished she would cling to them, apart from [her clinging] to the maidens only at the beginning of the barley harvest, and only in that field. And it is possible that Scripture nonetheless calls her "the Moabitess" on account of her saying "cling," when he had in fact said only, "and she went after them." And Naomi answered her, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out," etc. — meaning: did he not command you to be with his maidens only within that [particular] field, but not that you go out from there, outside, with his maidens? But it is good, my daughter, that you also go out with his maidens, if possible, so that the young men will not accost you in another field where his maidens will not be present — as we have written, that it was not in the intention of either of them [Boaz or his maidens] that his maidens should go out into another field. So then what did she do? "And she cleaved to the maidens of Boaz," etc. — and Boaz did not prevent them from going out with her until the completion of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. And this is truly a wondrous thing, to send his maidens with her from field to field for some three months; but this is only because he desired her for the greatness of her modesty, and because he was a kinsman of her [deceased] husband — and perhaps he had already reasoned within himself that he was a redeemer (goel), and also that there was a redeemer closer than he, so perhaps she would fall to that one by lot — therefore he troubled his maidens to be with her, to guard her from anything untoward. And is this not what Naomi said to Ruth: "Is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maidens you were?" For by this she was emboldened to say to her, "go and lie at his feet," and she was not concerned that he might shame her — as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that King David, peace upon him, gave praise and thanks that Boaz did not curse her, but blessed her. And this is because she reasoned: surely, had Boaz not esteemed her and set his mind upon taking her, or at least had he been uncertain about the matter, why would he have troubled his maidens for three months with her, going up mountains and down valleys from field to field to accompany her? For had she been their mistress, the wife of Boaz, from the start, they would not have done such an improper thing, and Boaz too would have prevented them. And by this she found an opening to send her, as we shall complete the explanation further on. By this she persuaded her, and Ruth too heeded her voice when she said to her, "with whose maidens you were," hinting to her this very matter. And how much sweeter than honey is his saying "and you shall go after them" (ve-halakhta achareihen) with a nun [i.e., in a feminine form] rather than a mem [masculine form], along this line of reasoning. For in this scroll we have found — we have observed this several times — that it changes its grammatical gender, from masculine to feminine and from feminine to masculine, [using] a mem in place of a nun, and a nun in place of a mem: "would you refrain" (ha-lahen te'agenah) — these are two nuns in place of a mem; "and the two of them went until they came (u-vo'anah)" — the mem of "the two of them" (shteihem) is in place of a nun; and likewise earlier, "like Rachel and like Leah, who both of them (shneihem) built," where a mem is used in place of a nun. Along this same line it is said here, "and you shall go after them," with a nun in place of a mem — and these are not empty variations, but come to be expounded, along the lines of what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding "bring the kerchief" (havi ha-mitpachat) — which is written [in the masculine form] "bring" — teaching that he was speaking with her using masculine language. This is because in her saying "would they wait" (ha-lahen tesabernah), "would they refrain" (ha-lahen te'agenah), there is a hint — according to the words of one whom I heard say this — that she hinted within her words a concern lest they [Naomi's future sons] be female, and their hope be disappointed. And in the phrase "and the two of them went," we have written that they gathered strength like men to walk from the fields of Moab, the two of them alone, until they came to Bethlehem — and this was known between the two of them privately; but those who saw them arriving alone regarded them as nothing more than ordinary women, and therefore "all the city was astir concerning them," [written] with a nun, meaning, on account of their being women. And in the same way he says to her here, "and you shall go after them," with a nun, speaking of females — as if to say: you need not fear as [one might] when walking after women, for I have surely charged [the young men not to touch you]. And along this same line, too, is his later statement, "who both of them (shneihem) built," [where] a mem is used in place of a nun, as we shall explain there, please God. And upon concluding his assurance to her, he said, "and when you are thirsty," etc. — meaning: all this charge of mine will hold true only if you take care not to let your attention become entangled with them, and do not place a stumbling block before the blind. That is: when you are thirsty, do not let your heart entice you to say to one of them, "give me a little water to drink," or, if they have no water, do not approach one of them [and say], "draw for me from the well" — do not let your attention become entangled with them nor become caught up in conversation, so that the fire of their inclination burns within them and something improper results. Rather, "go to the vessels" — and also do not ask one of them whether there is water in the vessels, but go yourself; and if they are empty, wait until they draw, and drink from what they have drawn. This is why it does not say "from what is in the vessels" or "from what they drew," for it speaks of the future. And also do not draw water yourself, lest one of the young men come to help you, or say to you, "leave it to me, and I will draw," or take hold of the rope, saying, "I will draw" — lest you come to refuse, and both your hands become caught holding the rope of the bucket, and you become suspect in the eyes of onlookers, or become entangled in conversation with him — and this is not good. Therefore this is my advice: do not draw water yourself, but only drink from what the young men draw. And he also warned her not to go to drink because of the heat, that is, the heat of the day, in order to cool herself with cold water when not motivated by actual thirst — so as to minimize the contact between you and them — but only "and when you are thirsty," which refers to genuine, necessary thirst, [in which case] "go to the vessels." And also, in the opening of the verse's words, "let your eyes be on the field," etc., there is possibly a hint to her of modesty. This is because, once the reapers finish reaping that section of the field, she should not fix her eyes on them and follow after them until they reach another field which they wish to reap — for they would think she has set her eyes on them, and would find an opening to attach themselves to her and do wrong. Rather, she should do this: wait until they reach the place they desire, and only then set her eyes on the field where they are. And also she should not go before they begin to reap, in the idle time, lest they entertain her with false words; but [she should wait] until they are reaping and occupied with their work, for then they will not turn their attention to her. This is [the meaning of] "let your eyes be on the field which they shall reap" — and then, when they reap, "and you shall go," etc. Moreover, in his saying "let your eyes be on the field," there is a hint that even from a distance she should not fix her eyes on the reapers themselves, but on the field, and, in passing, she will see [the field] which they reap. And likewise in his saying "after them," there is a hint: after the majority of them, and not after a single one, on account of suspicion.

The questions (6-9): Why did the servant elaborate on matters he was not asked about, and unnecessarily so? And what Boaz said — "do not go to glean" and also "do not pass from here" — is a redundancy of language. And what is the novelty in her drinking water? "And he answered, and he said" — he answered his questions, and also told him things he had not been asked about. To his question, "Whose damsel is this?" he answered: she does not belong to the reapers; rather, she is a Moabite girl. And lest you ask, "How can I give gleanings to the poor of idol-worshippers?" — he said: she returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab, for she has converted, and gleanings are owed to her.

And she did say. To herself. Please allow me to glean. The gleaning of the ears. And gather among the sheaves. The forgotten sheaves. — Notes: (11) Devarim 24:19.

'And she came, and has stood/remained' — that she was constantly occupied with her task and nothing else, so that no one would suspect her because of her beauty. 'She has tarried in the house a little' — a short time. 'Shivtah [she tarried]' — that she sat/remained. And the sense of 'bayit' [house] — is like 'sukkah' [a booth].

"save that she tarried a little in the house" — this indicates her diligence and her industriousness in gathering her food whenever the opportunity arose.

"And she said" — this tells us what he had not been asked: that she took no share in the gifts of peah [the unharvested corner of the field] or shikhchah [forgotten sheaves], but only leket [fallen gleanings], alone. This is the meaning of her saying, "Let me glean among the ears of grain after the reapers, and gather among the sheaves" — meaning that the poor, after taking their share of peah, would go off to other fields, for there were many fields, corresponding to the number of the poor; and when they saw that there was already one gleaner in a given field, each would go to another field, to glean there alone. But she remained here to glean "after the reapers" (not after other gleaners, since there was no one else there). And she said, "and gather among the sheaves" — meaning, whatever she gathered sufficient to make a sheaf, she made into a sheaf; and you should not think she stole a sheaf from among the sheaves of the field, for she gathered after the reapers and close beside them, and they saw that she took nothing improper. And do not wonder that she has many sheaves, for [it says] "so she came, and has continued" — which is explained thus: "she came" from the morning, and "has continued" until now, meaning that until now she had not rested a single moment; only now, when Boaz came, did she sit to rest a little in the shelter that stood there in the field, where the workers eat and rest. This is what is meant by, "save that she tarried a little in the house" — this was the one brief moment that she sat to rest in the shelter that was there, and she sat only a little; and until now she had not rested a moment, and therefore she had gathered so many sheaves.

'Ta'avori [you should pass/go]' — with a shuruk [the vowel u] in place of a cholam [the vowel o], like [in] 'yishputu hem' [they shall judge]; and it is an unusual word, because it is milra [stressed on the final syllable]. Perhaps it is so because it does not occur elsewhere in a well-attested place. And the nun of 'tidbakin' [you shall stay close] is extra [i.e., a paragogic nun].

"but abide here fast by my maidens" — [said] to avoid suspicion of illicit relations (gilui arayot), for Ruth was to stay close to them; and he told her that just as she had done until now, staying close to his maidens, so she should do afterward.

"Then Boaz said, Have you not heard, my daughter" — meaning, [do you not hear] how they judge you here favorably? And therefore, "do not go to glean in another field," for it could be that the owner of that field would not be pleased with you. And also, "do not pass from here" — even to my own fields (for Boaz had many fields), do not pass to another field, for it could be that the young men there, and the one appointed over them, would hate you. And more than this: "but stay close with my maidens" — for even in this field there were, on one side, young men laboring, and on the other side, young women who were reaping the field; do not go to glean on the side of the young men, only on the side of the young women.

And when you are thirsty, go to the jugs. And if you are thirsty, do not be ashamed to go and drink from the vessels of water that the young men will draw.

'Ve-tzamit [and you are thirsty]' — it comes among the words with a heh at the end [III-heh verbs].

"Your eyes" — therefore, "let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them" — after the young women — and do not fear that your keeping your distance in this way will anger the young men, for behold, "I have charged the young men not to touch you." And not this alone, but "and when you are thirsty, go to the vessels" — for we find that David said, "Who will give me water to drink from the well of Beth-lehem that is by the gate" (II Samuel 23:15), from which it is clear that in that well there was very good water; and since the gate was the seat of the Sanhedrin, they did not allow young women there to draw water, and the young men would draw water there for drinking. And since it was a great effort to go there, they would not give the poor from that water, only other water that they had drawn from a place nearby. So he told her that she should draw from the water that the young men had drawn, for he had commanded them not to prevent her.

"Then she fell on her face," etc. — Now, her saying "why have I found favor" is not fitting, for the word "madua" (why) or the word "lamah" (why) applies only to one who complains about someone doing something improper, whereas it would have been fitting for her to say "how have I found favor," etc. Furthermore, this is not the way of one who finds favor to speak, saying "why have I found favor in your eyes" — rather, on the contrary, she should say, "Favor, favor! For I have found favor in your eyes," etc., and not say to him "why," etc. Also, her saying "to take cognizance of me" — for it is not fitting for one who praises herself that in recognizing her he would honor her. Likewise his saying "it has been fully told to me" (haggid huggad li) — what is this doubled telling? And why did he not say all this at the very opening of his words, when he said "have you not heard, my daughter," etc.? And why does he conclude with a time-marker, saying "since the death of your husband"? Likewise his saying "and you have left," etc. — what is the point of "your native land," after he had already mentioned "your father and your mother," who are closer to her than her native land? Likewise his saying "may Hashem repay your deed" — what sort of blessing is this? Is it conceivable that Hashem would not repay her deed? Likewise his saying "and may your reward be complete" — would it enter anyone's mind that her reward from Him, may He be blessed, would be incomplete? Now, in response to all the good that he spoke to her, she saw fit to bow low and to prostrate herself. We know that "kidah" (bowing) is on the face, while "hishtachavaah" (prostration) is the spreading out of the hands and feet. Therefore, regarding the "kidah" it says "she fell on her face," and regarding the "hishtachavaah" it says "and she bowed down to the ground." It is further possible that in this too [the text] indicated her modesty: for had she begun at once to prostrate herself all together, spreading out hands and feet, perhaps some of her legs would have been exposed. Therefore she fell on her face first, alone, and afterward completed the spreading-out gradually and modestly, in such a way that her heels were never made visible. And she said "why," etc. — this is because it would have been fitting for her to complain and cry out bitterly about the servant standing there, because of the flame that came out of his mouth, who had spoken slander against her, saying "she is a Moabite," etc., "and I have gathered," etc., "and she came and stood," etc. — falsehood, he lied, and spoke of her disgrace. Also, about Boaz himself she had grounds for great complaint, that he did not protest and did not rebuke his servant for speaking slander against her — so that she would have been justified in saying, "why did you act improperly; such a thing should not be done." But it says that, on the contrary, she turned the matter around and said: what is fitting for me is to be astonished and to say "why" about the fact that I have found favor in his eyes, that he should take cognizance of me, showing me some regard. And this is the wondrous part: that the opposite occurs — for regarding the matter of the servant standing there, he would be justified in speaking against me; anyone who sees me would think he should speak of me as the servant standing there spoke, since I am a foreigner. So I have no complaint against him or against you; rather, on the contrary, about you I am astonished and amazed — what is the reason for this recognition? And this is what she means by saying "why" — that is, what reason would dictate saying is: "why did the servant speak lies about me, and why did you not rebuke him?" On the contrary, instead of that "why," I reverse it and say "why have I found favor," etc. — meaning, it is only fitting to say that my "why" is not about the fact that I did not find favor in the servant's eyes, but about the fact that I have found favor in your eyes; for the absence of finding favor is natural, but finding favor is wondrous, seeing as I am a foreigner. Or it may be said: there is no doubt that the words of the servant standing there are, by nature and by the way of people, things that are readily accepted, one point following logically from another. Yet you not only did not believe these words, but you even spoke to my heart. Therefore I say that this can only be because perhaps I am the woman destined to come from Moab, and therefore I am astonished — what did you see in me, that you should take cognizance of me? And this is [the meaning of] "why," etc., "to take cognizance of me." And if it is because you saw in me signs of modesty — perhaps this is not proof of my fitness, but only that I am a foreigner; would that through the appearance of modesty I find favor, so that they not think of me as merely an ordinary Moabite woman — in such a way that there would be no proof from my modest conduct to my true inner fitness.

"that you should take cognizance of me, seeing I am a foreigner" — meaning, in doing kindness to me, though I am of a foreign people — even though she had converted.

"Then she fell, etc. Why have I found favor" — meaning, that your drawing me so near to you must be either because I myself have found favor, in that you saw something good in me, or because you recognize my family and are doing this for their sake. Regarding the first, she said, "Why have I found favor" — what good have you seen in me? And regarding the second, she said, "seeing I am a foreigner."

'Hugged huggad li [it has fully been told to me]' — a passive verb whose agent is not named. 'That you did not know' — meaning, to dwell with them.

"And Boaz answered and said" etc. — Note that it would have sufficed, and it would have been understood, to say merely "and Boaz said to her" — yet it says "answered" (va-ya'an), which implies that he raised his voice, so that those standing there would hear what he was about to recount of her good qualities, and also so that they would not think that the two of them were whispering together, sharing some secret in private. His words, at the outset, were a response to her question, and also an apology on behalf of the attendant youth — for he, too, had not driven her away out of hatred, but only because the matter seemed wrong to him: he feared that if Boaz were to marry her, he being the greatest man of the generation and of very advanced old age, people might say that his heart had gone astray after his eyes. And the intent of his statement is: indeed, it is true as you said, that it is astonishing that, seeing you are a foreigner, I should recognize you — but I have come to recognize you from what "has fully been told" (huggad huggad) to me. And with the sweetness of his speech, in saying "to me," he offered an apology for the youth, meaning: it was told to me, and not to him; and so I acted according to what was told to me, since it was told to me — but he, since it was not told to him, is not to blame. Now, since this matter was well known in the town, one might ask: how could he say that the youth did not know it? Therefore he indicated that two things were doubled in the phrase: one, that it was "told" (huggad) — meaning that the matter was recounted at length, in its full detail; and two, that it was told many times over, so that the matter would become firmly fixed in his heart. This is the meaning of "it has fully been told" — which was not so regarding the youth and others, for they heard only a fleeting rumor of words, and therefore it was in me that knowledge of your worthiness became firmly established. And this is why he did not say "it was said to me" but rather used the language of haggadah (recounting). And he opened his mouth with wisdom to refute the evil things contained in the attendant youth's deceitful report, so that they should not trouble her spirit — for he set his heart to answer, point by point, everything the youth had spoken against her, addressing one by one all the matters pertaining to her own person, while omitting those pertaining to Boaz himself, out of regard for his own honor — such as her youthfulness, about which the youth had said to him that this was no blemish in her, but rather in him, were he to marry her, seeing that he is old. And he said: now, against his statement "she is a Moabite," I say: "it has fully been told me what you have done for your mother-in-law" — for, on the contrary, you spent of your own for your mother-in-law, whereas the way of the world is that a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law do not love one another, as is well known, indeed reflected even in several laws of the Torah. And it should not occur to us to think that you did this to find favor in the eyes of your husband, for you did this after your husband's death — and moreover, not immediately after his death, before the dead is forgotten from the heart, but rather a considerable time after his death. And had you had the heart of a Moabite — a nation that did not greet Israel with bread and water — you would not have done so; thus his statement "she is a Moabite" is disproved. And as against his statement "who has returned with Naomi" — by which Ruth could not fail to understand that he meant she had not come for the sake of Heaven, but only out of being drawn after Naomi — he said, "and you left your father and your mother." For it would have been possible that you clung to her for one of these reasons, apart from the true reason: One, so that she would attend to your affairs and needs. Two, that your mind was also bound up with hers and intermingled with hers. Three, that in any case you had it in your heart to move elsewhere, seeing that misfortune had befallen you in that place, and seeing your mother-in-law leaving, you were simply drawn along after her. Four, that she would sustain you in return for the good you had done her, and that it was not for the sake of the religion of Moses and Israel that you came all this way. Yet, Boaz says, I see that this is not so. For as regards attending to your needs, who is greater and better for you than your own father who begot you — and not by means of some troubled woman? This is the meaning of "you left your father." And as for the intermingling of mind, who is closer to you in this than your mother? This is the meaning of "and your mother." And corresponding to the third reason, he said "and the land of your birth" — for had you wished merely to move elsewhere, would there not have been, in your native land, some other place besides the one you were in, without your having to come all the way here? And regarding the fourth reason, he said "and you went to a people" etc. — meaning: surely you did not rely on Naomi for your sustenance, but on the people — proven by the fact that you did not know, until this very day, that you are being sustained by the gifts to the poor. So there is no cause to suspect that you trusted in flesh and blood; rather, your heart was set only on the love of Hashem, and it was Him, blessed be He, whom you chose. And as for his insinuation that her coming alone on the road might mean that some impure incident had befallen her — Boaz said: this cannot be, for since she came for the sake of Heaven, as shown by "and you went to a people" etc. — evident from her having left father and mother — she was surely walking the road of a mitzvah, and so certainly came to no harm. And included in this matter falls also his insinuation that, on account of their marriages, they had all died — Boaz's answer is that now that you have come "to take refuge" etc., you are like a newborn child this very day. And as for the youth's brazen lie before everyone, that she coveted the sheaves and was scheming to steal, and that she was a promiscuous woman, like a harlot openly plying her trade, since she had stayed in the house so little — since this was a lie openly evident to all, he did not need to refute it, for from the morning she had taken no sheaves at all, and the reason she had lingered was only that she was scrupulous to take only two ears of grain, as the law requires, and not three. And he said, "may Hashem repay your deeds" etc. — meaning: pay no heed to all his words, and do not say in your heart, "he can neither bless me nor curse me" (i.e., it makes no difference) — for that is exactly why he said "may Hashem repay your deeds" — meaning: did you set your heart on receiving reward for your deeds from human beings? Without doubt this is not so, but rather from the Holy One, blessed be He; that is, therefore pay it no heed. This is the meaning of "may Hashem repay your deeds" — for it was for Hashem's sake that you acted, and from Him you shall receive the reward. And lest she think to herself, "even if I receive no reward from human beings, does that cancel my grievance against the youth? For even though I do not desire their honey, must I nonetheless taste their sting?" — therefore he said to her, "and let your wages be complete" etc. This is what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said in the Gemara: there was a certain man who would distribute charity to the poor. He was walking along, his students with him, and he gave to one poor man, who blessed him and showed him gratitude — and he went away sad. He then met another poor man, gave to him, and this one insulted him — and he went away glad. His students said to him: Rabbi, when you gave to the first, who showed you gratitude, you became sad, and now that this one has insulted you, you are glad? He answered them: when he showed me gratitude and blessed me, my merit was diminished; now my merit is complete, since this one showed me no gratitude. And this is Boaz's message to Ruth: even though this one insulted you, pay it no heed, for by this your wages will be complete, in that you have not consumed any part of your merit — which would not be so had he received you graciously and treated you well, for then some of your reward would already have been spent through their gratitude. For your having come to take refuge is under His wings, blessed be He, and for no other purpose, such as that people should feel gratitude toward you; therefore, pay it no heed. Close to this, it is possible that the meaning of the verse is: do not fear that you will consume your own merit through what I have done for you, for rather "Hashem shall repay your deeds" — even regarding the slander spoken against you — "and let your wages be complete," as stated. And if we examine precisely his words "and you went to a people" etc. — he did not say "to go" (la-lekhet) — this teaches that it was not only in your journeying from there that you left your father and mother, etc., but rather from the time you were still there, you had already left them, in that you rejected what they chose: their people was not your people, and their gods were not your God — and only afterward, "and you went" etc. And by this he means, regarding "who has come to take refuge" — that you gained nothing new by your coming, in changing from a Moabite to a Hebrew, for this status was already yours even before; rather, what you came for was in order to take refuge under His wings — that is, to come to the Land of Israel, where His wings, blessed be He, spread in protection above all the lands which He has allotted to the ministering angels (sarei ma'lah). In such a way that even though outside the Land it is also, in a sense, the shadow of His wings — for in His shadow, blessed be He, all creatures live, and by His word the ministering angels go out and by His word they come in — nevertheless, it is called "under His wings" only in the Land of Israel, as our Sages of blessed memory taught. And this is why he says, "in the shadow of His wings." Alternatively, one may explain "it has fully been told me" etc. by invoking what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: that the spirit of Hashem spoke through Boaz, and by his holy spirit he said "and let your wages be complete" (shelemah) — do not read it as shelemah, but rather as hinting at Shelomo (Solomon) — for he was prophesying that King Solomon was destined to descend from her. And likewise our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding his words to her, "come near hither (halom)" etc. — "come near hither" means "draw near to royalty," for halom means nothing other than kingship; and "you shall eat of the bread" — this is the bread of royalty, etc. And likewise, on the verse "and he measured six measures of barley," they said this hinted to her that six sons were destined to descend from her, who would each be blessed with six blessings, etc. And the Targum rendered, in this passage, "va-tomer" (and she said) as "and it was said of me in prophecy" — that kings and prophets were destined to emerge from her, etc. This is because our Sages, of blessed memory, expound according to their method by gezerah shavah (verbal analogy): here it is said "huggad huggad" (fully told), and there it is said, "but the matter of the kingship he did not tell him" — and that verse concerns the matter between Samuel and Saul, who are prophet and king. Now, this comparison means nothing other than that it was made known to Boaz that this was the good dove (peridah tovah) destined to emerge from Moab — and this was, without doubt, by way of yibbum (levirate marriage), through a spirit that stirred within his innards. Let us now come to the explanation. He said: behold, you were astonished only by the fact that I spoke well of you, and not by the fact that the attendant youth's words were not good — as shown by your own words, "why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me?" — for that you found no favor in the eyes of the young man is a natural matter and not astonishing, since indeed you are a foreigner, and his suspicions of you are justified. Therefore, behold, I tell you: it is I who spoke well, and not the youth — for two tellings (haggadot) were told to me, and not to him. And this is why he says "telling" (haggadah) twice: the first telling is "what you have done for your mother-in-law," that you did good for her; and the second is by the Holy Spirit — namely, that the spirit of Mahlon is within your innards. And this is the meaning of "your mother-in-law, since the death of your husband" — meaning, she is your mother-in-law even after the death of your husband, in that she is still your mother-in-law — and this can only be because Mahlon's spirit still remains with you. So do not be astonished at how you found favor in my eyes, while the words of the attendant youth did not enter my ears — for as to his statement, "she is a Moabite young woman," this is not so; rather, you were, in your essential nature, only described as a Moabite insofar as the spirit of Mahlon had not yet come to rest in you — for who can bring forth a pure thing from an impure one? But this can only be explained by the fact that even before, while you had not yet converted, a fitting spirit was already within you to receive the Holy Spirit — for you are the good dove (peridah tovah) that comes forth from Moab. Behold, from the two tellings there is proof that you are not, in your essence, characterized by the description "Moabite" — whether from the telling of "what you have done" etc., that you did good for her, the opposite of the character of a Moabite, as discussed above; or from the telling by the Holy Spirit, that the spirit of Mahlon rested upon you. And I also paid no heed to his statement, "who returned with Naomi" — meaning, that you did not come to seek Hashem, but only to be with Naomi, since "you left your father and your mother" — for it is not plausible that the life of your mother-in-law would be more precious in your eyes than the life of your own father and mother, especially since the way of a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law is ordinarily to bear hatred toward one another. And also, what is implied by his statement "who returned with Naomi" is that she returned only with Naomi, for she alone remained of Naomi's children and husband — and this could only be on account of the sin of their marriages, which by implication includes Ruth's own marriage — meaning, that even now no good would come to whoever marries her. To this too, the opposite is true: for there, in Moab, the essence of their guilt was that they had left the Land of Israel, whereas this one, Ruth, on the contrary, left her native land for the sake of the Land of Israel. And regarding what is further implied by his statement, "who returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab" — namely, that she came from afar with Naomi, from the fields of Moab to Bethlehem, the two of them alone, on roads where it would not be unlikely to encounter wicked men who might abuse her — this too, God forbid, is not so. For behold, "and you went to a people that you did not know before" means that those who travel the road of a mitzvah are not harmed; and you went to a people, etc., in order to cling to the faith of Abraham, the foremost of converts — that is the meaning of "that you did not know before" — meaning rather, it is that you knew before yesterday and the day before — namely, Abraham, whom you, in a former life, had known. And this is what we said above and further on, with the help of Heaven: that Ruth and Naamah the Ammonitess were the two daughters of Lot in a previous incarnation (gilgul) — Ruth being the elder, and Naamah the younger — such that they had known Abraham from that time. And this is the meaning of "that you did not know before yesterday" — but rather from earlier; and your soul knows this very well, and you longed for that former closeness. And should you ask: what relevance does this have to my coming here now? The answer is that now "Hashem shall repay your deeds" that you performed with your father, Abraham, for the sake of Heaven, in order to bring forth from you holy seed. Now, had you not come to convert, it would not have been impossible for Hashem to repay your deeds even in your gentile state; but now, "let your wages be complete" entirely, from Hashem, the God of Israel — to bring forth through you a complete soul, hewn from Hashem, the God of Israel — since you have come to take refuge under His wings, therefore it is from under His wings, blessed be He, that He shall bring it forth. And he was precise in saying "your wages" (mas'koretekh) and did not say "and let your reward be" (sekharekha) in the masculine — using the feminine "vatehi" to hint at the holy soul that you would bring forth from Hashem, the God of Israel. And the meaning of the verse is: "and let your wages be complete" — namely, one soul, hewn from Hashem — that is, a holy soul.

"And Boaz answered and said to her" — the reason you have found favor in my eyes is due to two things: 1) "It has fully been told me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law" — for this shows the goodness of your character and the goodness of your heart, since usually a daughter-in-law hates her mother-in-law, especially after the death of her husband, yet you were a helper and support to her. And the second matter is your conversion, which was for the sake of Heaven, not for the sake of any ulterior motive or external benefit you might gain thereby — for behold, "you have left your father and your mother" and gone "to a people that you knew not before"; and so your conversion was for the sake of Heaven.

'Maskurtekh [your wage]' — like 'matkonet ha-levenim' [the quota of bricks, Exodus 5:8], and it is a noun from the heavy augmented construction, on account of the mem [prefix].

"under whose wings you have come to take refuge" — meaning, by her converting and coming under the wings of the Shechinah, to walk in the Torah of God, may He be blessed, and in His commandments.

Questions (12): Why does he repeat "Hashem recompense your work" and "may your reward be complete"? "May He recompense" — in response to what you did for your mother-in-law, "Hashem recompense your work"; and in response to your having converted, "may your reward be complete from Hashem" — since He is the God of Israel and watches over them and over the converts who attach themselves to them. And in the Midrash, Rabbi Chisa said [this refers to] "you who have come to take refuge under His wings." This follows what I wrote in my commentary HaTorah VeHaMitzvah (Kedoshim, section 44), that there is a difference between sachar (a wage) and pe'ulah (payment for a task), and between a sachir (a laborer hired for a term) and a po'el (a laborer paid by the task): the po'el, or craftsman, receives payment for the work he performed — for example, the tailor made a garment and receives payment for his labor, and this is called pe'ulah, that he takes payment for his task. But the sachir is hired for a fixed period, for example three years, whether he does any work or not [during that time]. Now, for every individual commandment one receives payment separately, like a po'el, and so it says "Hashem recompense your work [pa'olekh]." However, regarding her coming to convert — for then she took upon herself to serve Hashem and fulfill all His commandments, and she becomes as one hired to Him for all the days of her life to perform His service — from then on she is entitled to the wage of a sachir, which pays her a constant wage whether she performs [a commandment] or not [for even if no commandment happens to come her way, she nevertheless receives her wage in full]. And so it says "and may your wage [maskurtekh] be complete" — meaning, this constant wage is in exchange for the fact that you came to take refuge, for then you became hired to Hashem for all the days of your life, and a constant wage is due to you. And on this Rabbi Chisa said "who have come to take refuge" — meaning that for this moment [of conversion] alone the constant wage is due to you, and beyond that, every time you actually perform a commandment in deed, a payment for that particular task is due, in addition to the comprehensive wage. Now, I have already investigated, in my discourses of Artzot HaShalom ("Lands of Peace"), that since the very fact that a person merits to perform the commandments of Hashem and to serve the great King, may He be blessed, is itself the greatest reward — whether from the perspective of the perfection of soul that one acquires through performing the commandment, or from the perspective that thereby one is the servant of the great King, Creator of all — if so, it is puzzling why the Torah, throughout, promises reward for the commandments; is not the performance of the commandment itself the greatest reward? [Compare the dictum, "the reward of a commandment is a commandment" — that the commandment itself is the greatest reward of the commandment.] And I said that, in truth, for one who has a heart to understand and a soul to feel the pleasantness of the commandment and its sweetness, there is no need to promise him any reward besides the commandment itself; but since most people do not grasp the pleasantness of the commandment and the great happiness they would acquire through it, it was necessary to promise a reward in this world, which they can feel, so that they would perform the commandment in hope of the reward, until they reach the level of feeling and understanding [enough] to perform the commandment for its own sake, on account of the commandment itself. And so it says "Hashem recompense your work" — meaning, that Hashem will give you payment for your task; but the truth is "and may your wage be complete from Hashem" — meaning, that the essential reward, in its completeness, will be this very thing — that you came to take refuge under His wings — for this itself is the complete reward, lacking nothing at all. And on this Rabbi Chisa said "who have come to take refuge" — meaning, that this itself is the essential reward.

I cannot even be considered as one of your handmaidens. I am not as worthy as one of your handmaidens.

'Though I be not' — I am not worthy to be as one of your maidservants.

"Then she said, 'Let me find favor,'" etc. — She said: indeed, I know that I am not worthy of all this good that you have spoken to me. But that for which I am grateful for all these words of yours is not that you have made me great and assured me of great fortune, but rather that you have at least comforted me. And should you say: if so, then why did you, a man who is a prince and a great one in Israel, turn your attention to comfort us and to speak to the heart of one so small in worth as I? To this I answer in my heart: that you spoke to me as a man speaks to the heart of his maidservant, who is lower in station than I. And should you say: if so, I should not be grateful to you, since you regarded me as nothing more than one of your maidservants — to this she said, "though I shall not be," etc., meaning: despite all this, I am grateful to you even though you regarded me only as fit to be spoken to as one speaks to the heart of his maidservant. For behold, even in this you have distinguished me today, for behold, I am not even as one of your maidservants. It is further possible, if we consider her saying, "let me find favor in your eyes, my lord," etc. — for she should have said "I have found favor in your eyes" (in the past tense), since she had already found favor in that he comforted her and spoke to her heart, and it would have been fitting to say "I have found favor in your eyes, my lord," etc. But rather she means: I do not believe that my finding favor in your eyes has already reached this point, on account of your having comforted me, etc.; rather, the measure of finding favor for all that you have said is yet to be completed, to an extent sufficient for all your words. For it is impossible that the favor I have attained reaches this full measure — I will find it only in the future. For behold, you have comforted me with your good words, in saying that I should not depart from here and that I should cling to your maidens, and that you also commanded the young men, etc.; and also in that you spoke to the heart of your handmaid, saying that my righteousness is great and that Hashem should repay my deeds and that my reward should be complete, etc. For behold, I am inferior to one of your maidservants — whether she immersed for the sake of servitude, or is herself a Jewess — for it would be preferable that they, rather than I, be maidservants to a man like you. And since, in truth, it would not seem fitting to you that the same designations of favor made to me should apply to them as well, they will regard me as a stranger. Or she means: your having gone to such lengths to speak good of me can only be one of two things: either you need to find favor in my eyes, and therefore you go to great lengths to speak your good words; or you wish to increase your kindness to me in the future, so that I should find favor in your eyes through your abundant kindnesses, and therefore you go to great lengths praising my merit, so that it should not seem strange for you to do good to me — since you do so for no personal desire or other reason, but only because my merit is great. And this is the meaning of "let me find favor in your eyes, my lord, for you have comforted me" — that this comfort is due to the second reason; for to attribute the matter to the first reason is not possible, for how could you hope to find favor in my eyes? For behold, I am not even as one of your maidservants — so who am I, that you should need favor from me? Or she means: "let me find favor" is future tense, as we explained above by the second approach, in her saying, "why have I found favor," etc. — that she said: had there been some reason for my having found favor in your eyes, for you to acknowledge me by telling me, "do not depart from here," and "cling to your maidens," etc., it would not have occurred to me that the young man's words had entered your ears, and that you were telling me these words of recognition merely to put my mind at ease; but I see no such reason, and this is the meaning of "why have I found favor" — that I should know that I am deserving of this. Therefore he answered and said: not from what I have now observed have I spoken well of you, but rather, "it has fully been told me," etc., and therefore I recognized you. Then she said, "let me find favor," etc., meaning: now I shall know that truly and sincerely I will find favor in your eyes for all that you have said you would do for my good — for behold, you have comforted me, etc., and I see that you spoke from your heart, and not merely to appease me with something beyond my station. For behold, "you spoke to the heart of your handmaid" — you spoke words that entered and settled in my heart, and had they not come forth from the heart, they would not have entered my heart. And this is the meaning of "and that you have spoken," etc., even though "I shall not be as one of your maidservants," so that by right they should not have entered my heart. But this can only be because you were not merely changing your words for the sake of peace, to put my mind at ease, but rather that you will truly do as you have spoken; for were it not so, you would not have gone to such lengths to comfort me thus and to speak to my heart with all these words. Or she means: behold, there are many ranks: first, being a foreigner (nokriyah); second, being an Israelite maidservant through immersion for the sake of servitude, without which she cannot be maintained as such; third, being fit to be the maidservant of a man who is a prince and a great one, like Boaz; fourth, being like a free woman, fit to cling to Boaz's maidens. Now let us come to the matter: behold, upon hearing, "and so you shall cling to my maidens," she was astonished and said, "why have I found favor," etc., "and I am a foreigner" — which is the lowest rank of all. And upon seeing that he continued and said, "it has fully been told," etc., "may Hashem repay," etc. — which, as we wrote above, is to announce to her the future kingship of Solomon, which is above all the aforementioned ranks — she then said: behold, I said, "and I am a foreigner," which is the lowest of all ranks, and now, after you have spoken, you have come to add even more than all these. Therefore I say: how awesomely wondrous you have been in your words! For behold, I would find favor in your eyes if you were to raise me up even to the third rank, that I should be a maidservant fit for you. And this is the meaning of "let me find favor in your eyes, my lord" — that is, that you should regard yourself in the category of being "my lord," meaning that I should be your maidservant. And so, as for your having raised me even higher than that, it is only by way of comfort, for you have comforted me by saying, "and so you shall cling to my maidens," and "you have spoken to the heart of your handmaid," in that you continued to say, "it has fully been told," etc., "may Hashem repay," etc. And do not think that when I say that you are "my lord" and I am "your maidservant," I say this out of humility alone; rather, my own estimation of myself in my heart is even lower than this. On the contrary, the opposite is true: "I shall not be as one of your maidservants" — not even the lowliest of them all, but singularly lowly, as in the phrase "like one of the worthless fellows" (2 Samuel 6:20), which singles out one as uniquely lowly among the worthless — for this is indicated by the vowel point of the chet with a patach.

"though I be not as one of your handmaidens" — meaning, that I am not on a level to be worthy of being like one of your maidservants.

"Then she said: let me find favor" — after he informed her why she had found favor in his eyes, she said: so may it be that I continue to find favor going forward. "For you have comforted me" — meaning: in his first statement, in which he informed her that he was drawing her near and that she would find her sustenance through gleaning in his fields, he comforted me for the fact that I had not found comfort over my husband's death, since I remained with no one to support me — for now I have found support for bread with him. And in his second statement, "you have spoken to the heart of your handmaid" — I see that I am considered in your eyes like one of your handmaidens who likewise accepted the religion of Israel, in accordance with the law of the handmaidens in the house of Israel; and you spoke to their heart, to let them know that their wage for their conversion is guaranteed by Hashem — so too have you spoken to me. And this, to me, is a great honor, for I myself would not consider myself equal to one of your handmaidens; in my own eyes I am lower and more lowly than they, yet you have raised me to this level, to be like one of your handmaidens.

And dip your bread in the vinegar. From here [we derive] that vinegar is good for the heat. — Notes: (12) Maseches Shabbos 113b. It is a popular and refreshing drink for those who toil in extremely hot climates. And he handed her some roasted grain. And he extended to her. There is no similar [word] in Scripture, but only in the language of the Mishnah, “the outside, the inside and the handle [= בֵית הַצְּבִיטָה.” — Notes: (13) Maseches Chagigah 3:1.

'In the vinegar' — because of the heat. 'Va-totar [and she had some left over]' — [occurring in this form] because it is the end of the verse, like 'remember the battle, do not do so again' [Job 41:8]. 'Va-yitzbot [and he handed her]' — it has no parallel [elsewhere in Scripture], and its meaning is like 'giving.'

"And he said to her," etc. — One should pay attention: if her sitting "beside the reapers" was the very place where he had told her, "Come here," why was the fact that it was beside the reapers not mentioned in his own statement, but only in the words "and she sat"? It also appears that she did not act properly in sitting beside the reapers. Furthermore, at first he told her, "eat of the bread and dip your morsel in the vinegar," but afterward it says "and he handed her parched grain," without his having mentioned the bread and vinegar when he spoke to her directly. Also, from the words of our Sages of blessed memory it appears that he did not give her more than a little of this parched grain, as they said: that with the small amount of parched grain he took and gave her with his fingers, Hashem blessed her so that she ate and was satisfied and had some left over — which shows that there was no bread and vinegar there, for if there had been, it would not be surprising that she had leftovers. And also, our Sages of blessed memory said: "Had Boaz known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write 'and he handed her parched grain,' etc." — why then do they not mention the bread and vinegar, which are better than parched grain? But in fact, Boaz intended in his heart to do a kindness for her, yet he feared the eyes of onlookers regarding the honor he would be showing her, lest they say that he had set his eyes upon her. So what did he do? From the time he first spoke to her — all the words stated above — he did not tell her to also come near him to eat bread as he ate, lest people say that his soul desired her. He therefore waited until mealtime, and only then said to her, "Come here," in a casual, offhand way — for then onlookers would say that this was nothing but distress on his part at seeing everyone eating while this poor woman sat there, tossed about and hungry for bread; so, as one among the general company of those eating, he told her offhandedly that she too should come near. This is the meaning of "and Boaz said to her at mealtime, Come here." Now, what happened to Boaz was like what happened to a certain pious man, as our Sages of blessed memory related: There was an incident involving a pious man who redeemed a Jewish girl from captivity. On the road, at the inn, he had her lie down at his feet. The next day he went down, immersed himself, and taught his disciples as usual. He said to them: "When I had her lie down beside me, of what did you suspect me?" They said to him: "We thought, perhaps there is among us a disciple who has not been fully proven to the master." "When I went down and immersed myself, of what did you suspect me?" They said to him: "Perhaps, because of the hardship of the road, an involuntary emission [keri] befell the master." He said to them: "So it was indeed. And just as you judged me favorably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favorably." End of quote. Now, precisely because not everyone was fully proven trustworthy before him, he brought her close to himself, for he knew of himself that he was a man of valor and would not entertain improper thoughts — but this was not so of others. For there is no doubt that the reapers would not have been so bold as to sit beside Boaz, since he was a lord and a great man; rather, he stood on one side, with all the reapers on the other side, facing him. He said to himself: if this woman sits on the side where the reapers are, perhaps whoever is near her might entertain improper thoughts and sin, since they had not been proven to him as Boaz had proven himself. He therefore told her, "Come here" — meaning, near to himself, at his own side — so that it would not appear that he did this out of desire for her. That is why he told her, "eat of the bread" — meaning: do not reach out for the fine foods before me, lest I be suspected of giving a lover's gift, but eat only of the bread; and if you wish to go along with the bread, "dip your morsel in the vinegar." But she said to herself: if I do this and sit at his side, I will be facing the reapers, and they will look and gaze at me and thereby sin against God through me; it is better for me to sit beside the reapers, facing Boaz, for he will not sin by gazing at me improperly, whereas the reapers — with me off to the side — will not find it easy to turn their faces to look at me, since they would be ashamed before onlookers; whereas if I sit facing them directly, they could look at me in their ordinary way without it being noticed if they gazed wrongfully. Therefore, "she sat beside the reapers" and not at Boaz's side as he had told her, for she saw that his suggestion was not a good one in this instance; and out of her wariness about this, she distanced herself a little from them. This is why the verse does not say be-tzad ha-kotzrim ("at the side of the reapers") but rather mi-tzad ("from the side") — because she was on that side, close to them, but not literally right next to them. And when Boaz saw what she had done, he said to himself: if I set before her a loaf of bread and a bowl of vinegar while she sits beside the reapers, it would not be unlikely that one of them would reach out his hand to the bowl to dip along with her, or that he too would break bread with her, and something improper would result. So what did he do? He reconsidered and decided not to give her bread and vinegar, but only "handed her parched grain" — giving her alone parched grain, which requires no dipping. The reapers, moreover, would say to themselves: why has he set aside something special for her alone, different from our own food, if not so that we should not mix with her? — and so they would take it to heart to keep their distance. He was likewise precise in saying "and he gave her" — that he gave her only what sufficed for her alone, no more than her need required — so that this too would stand before the reapers, that they not readily reach out their hands. And even though it was only enough to sustain her, "she ate and was satisfied and had some left over," for Hashem blessed her. And from its saying vatotar ("and she had leftover") rather than va-yotar ("and there was leftover"), it is shown that her own merit caused it, as though she herself brought about the leftovers and did so through her own agency. And in the Midrash: "'And Reuben heard' (Genesis 37:21) — the Torah has taught you proper conduct [derech eretz]: that when a person performs a mitzvah, he should perform it with a joyful heart. For had Reuben known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, 'And Reuben heard...and delivered him out of their hand,' he would have carried him on his shoulder and brought him to his father. Had Aaron known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, 'And also, behold, he goes out to meet you, and when he sees you he will be glad in his heart' (Exodus 4:14), he would have gone out to meet him with timbrels and dances. Had Boaz known that it would be written of him, 'and he handed her parched grain,' he would have brought fattened calves and fed her. In the past, when a person performed a mitzvah, the prophets would write it down; but now that there are no prophets, who writes it down? Elijah and the Messiah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, seals it through them, as it is written, 'Then those who feared Hashem spoke [one to another; and Hashem hearkened and heard]' (Malachi 3:16)," etc. — end of quote. In order to arrive at an explanation of this saying, let us attend to the difficulties that ought properly to be raised concerning it. First: its beginning does not match its end. For it should have said, "when a person performs a mitzvah, he should perform it completely" — with the example that had Reuben known, he would have carried him on his shoulder, etc., meaning that he would have completed it fully; or it should have said "he should perform it with a joyful heart," meaning that because Reuben performed it with a joyful heart, the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote of him afterward, "and delivered him out of their hand." Moreover, from where do we know that he performed it with a joyful heart? On the contrary, the very fact that he did not perform it completely indicates that his heart was not joyful. And if the intent is that one should perform it with a joyful heart, unlike Reuben — meaning that had he known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, etc., he would have carried him, but for lack of that knowledge his heart was not joyful and he did not perform it fully — this cannot be, for then the Midrash would be speaking in disparagement of Reuben, and one should therefore not act as he did — and moreover it would be the very opposite of the case of Aaron, of whom Scripture testifies that he was glad in his heart without any such reservation. Furthermore, if so, Scripture would not have credited him as though he had fully saved him, by saying "and delivered him out of their hand." Furthermore, the statement "had Reuben known," etc. would seem to indicate that he was seeking self-glorification [yohara], since it was only because he did not know that he failed to perform the mitzvah properly — and there is no greater fault than this; and the same difficulty applies equally to Aaron and to Boaz — heaven forbid that such great men of the world should engage in such grand and remarkable displays as this implies. Furthermore, why does this lesson in proper conduct need to be taught three separate times — with Reuben, with Aaron, and with Boaz? Furthermore, who told the Midrash's author that the verse intended to teach proper conduct, rather than simply to relate Reuben's praise alone? Furthermore, as for its saying, "In the past, a person would perform a mitzvah and the prophets would write it down, but now that there are none," etc. — what need is there for this preface about the past, in order to raise the question about the present? Furthermore, if it is referring to a heavenly writing above, who told him that such deeds are not written before Him, blessed be He, even without prophets? Did not the Tanna state in an explicit Mishnah, "and all your deeds are written in a book" (Avot 2:1)? And if it refers to a writing in this world, that too is difficult, for did the prophets really write down every single mitzvah performed on earth? Furthermore, as for its saying, "and now that there are no prophets, who writes it down?" — what sort of question is this? Is it beyond Him, blessed be He, to arrange who should write it? Furthermore, why were Elijah and the Messiah singled out from all others, and why were two of them required, and how is this derived from the verse "Then those who feared Hashem spoke," etc.? Now, what our Sages of blessed memory found difficult in the verse's saying "and Reuben heard...and delivered him out of their hand" is that this implies he saved him completely, when in fact he did not; he only prevented them from killing him with their own hands, while Joseph still remained in their power, in the pit among the snakes and scorpions that were there, or subject to their withholding him from being brought up, so that they might leave him there until he died of hunger and thirst — as was indeed their intention, were it not for Judah's proposal, "and we will hide his blood," as explained above. They therefore concluded that this can only mean that, because he performed the mitzvah with a joyful heart, Scripture credited him as though he had saved him — crediting him with reward as though the rescue had been complete. And had this been stated only once, one might have said that the intent of Hashem's Torah was merely to relate Reuben's praiseworthy intention, without teaching proper conduct to others, so that the matter would remain simply for the understanding of one who wishes to learn from Reuben's example. But since this very verse repeats itself, speaking again and saying, "in order to deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father," this is meant to teach a person to understand that he should act with a joyful heart — for because Reuben did so, Scripture credited him as though he had saved him and brought him to his father. And should you say: on the contrary, the fact that he did not exert himself to complete the matter and risk his own life to carry him and restore him to his father, but instead left him there half-heartedly, like one slacking in his task, shows that he was not truly joyful at heart in performing the deed with his whole heart and soul — to this the response is: the statement "had Reuben known," etc. means that the reason he did not complete the deed and carry him on his shoulder was only out of a certain worry, because he did not know that the Torah would write "and delivered him"; for had he known, he certainly would have done so. And the reason for his hesitation was that he said to himself: what shall I do, so that people not think I am acting not for the sake of Heaven? For if I insist on this matter with all my strength, will they not say: "Is it possible that he, the firstborn, would not be jealous of Joseph, who lords it over us more than him?" — suspecting that this was only to establish the truth of Joseph's dreams, which would benefit Reuben himself, since Joseph had said he saw in his dream, "eleven stars bowing down to me" (Genesis 37:9) — and this was good news for Reuben, that he would be included among the tribes and not rejected on account of the incident with Bilhah. He therefore strengthened himself to save Joseph, both out of love for this good news concerning himself, and so that by keeping him alive, they would be sustaining the fulfillment of his dreams and counting Reuben among the tribes, the tribes of Yah. However, had he known that the Torah would make known that his intention was solely to save him and nothing else, he would not have worried about being suspected, for the testimony of Hashem is trustworthy (Psalms 19:8) to dispel such suspicion; and if so, it would rightly be counted to him as righteousness, as though he had achieved a complete rescue, just as was truly in his heart. If so, how good it is for a man to learn proper conduct — to perform a mitzvah with a joyful heart — by an a fortiori inference [kal va-chomer]: if one who did not even complete the mitzvah was credited by Scripture, on account of the joy of his heart, as though he had performed it fully, how much more so one who performs it fully and with joy of heart — whose merit before Him, blessed be He, is beyond compare. It is also possible that they intended thereby to explain the phrase "in order to save him" — indicating that what is attributed to him is only that he made preparation "in order to save," whereas at first it says "and delivered him," as though he had already actually saved him; and it further says "to restore him to his father" — but this gives the reason why Scripture credited him as though he had delivered him from their hand: because of his good intention, that he would have carried him on his shoulder and brought him to his father. This is alluded to in its saying, "in order to save...to restore him to his father." And so too with Aaron: when Moses came to take up Aaron's position of authority, to become the intermediary and prophet between the King, Hashem of Hosts, and the people, Moses feared that Aaron might resent it, and he said before Him, blessed be He, "Send, I pray, by the hand of whomever You will send" (Exodus 4:13) — as our Sages of blessed memory said, meaning that he should send by the hand of Aaron, who was his own regular messenger. And He, blessed be He, gave him good tidings, saying: do not fear that he will resent it; on the contrary, "and he shall see you and be glad in his heart" (Exodus 4:14). Yet we do not find that Aaron actually displayed any sign of joy of heart. The Midrash says that the reason he did not go out with timbrels and dances was only because he did not know that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, "and he shall see you and be glad in his heart." This was because he feared being suspected by onlookers of flattery, who would say: "Is it possible he would not be jealous of his brother? This can only be flattery, heaven forbid, and not from the heart." But had he known that this would be written so in the Torah, he would not have worried about their saying so, for they would later see what the Torah testifies, and they would be humiliated and ashamed. But since he did not know this, he did not wish to give any opening to the one who suspected him, so that the suspicion might remain in his heart forever. And so too with Boaz: is it truly an act of kindness to give her only as much parched grain as two fingers could hold — to a righteous kinswoman who had come to shelter under his roof? Indeed Scripture even seems to diminish his merit by recording that meager amount. But truly this is not so; rather, Scripture looked only to the joy of his heart and the goodness of his intention. And lest you say: if there had truly been joy in his heart, why did he not give abundantly for her sake? — therefore it says: had Boaz known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him "and he handed her parched grain," he would have brought fattened calves and fed her. That is: had he shown great concern for her, feeding her rich, fattened food, it would not have been unlikely for onlookers to say, "has he not set his eyes on her? For he is unmarried and she is unmarried, and this is a lover's gift to her" — therefore he kept himself far from such disparaging talk. But had he known that it would be written, "and he handed her parched grain" — that Scripture would relate this in his praise, showing that Scripture testifies concerning him that he acted for the sake of Heaven and no other purpose — he would not have worried about their suspicions, for Scripture would remove the false notion from their hearts; since they would then say: had his intention been, heaven forbid, not for the sake of Heaven, Scripture would never have written of him in a way that shows the goodness of his intention through the joy of his heart. And as to why examples were brought from all three of them, it is possible to explain that mitzvot are divided into three categories: thought, speech, and action — and in each of these three, joy of heart is required, not only in a mitzvah performed through thought alone, without any accompanying act of speech or deed. Therefore it brought Aaron as the example for thought, since the whole matter there consists only in his being glad at his brother's greatness; for speech it brought Reuben, of whom it is written that he was credited with saving Joseph on account of what he said, "let us not take his life," etc.; and for action it brought Boaz, in that "he handed her parched grain" — except that it began with Reuben in order to present the examples in the order in which they actually occurred, mentioning first whichever came first in time. It is further possible, in bringing examples from all three, to explain that a person may be kept from performing any mitzvah whatsoever — or, if he does perform it, it will not be with complete joy — for one of three reasons: either lest onlookers say that it is not for the sake of Heaven, because it involves some element of selfish benefit; or, a graver concern than this, lest they say he intends flattery, since there is a prohibition against flattering another in order to deceive his mind; or third, gravest of all, that they suspect him of an actual sinful intention. The Midrash teaches that one should not refrain from acting with a joyful heart, and should not worry, once he himself knows that his heart is upright. For the first reason, it brought Reuben, who did not worry about his brothers suspecting that he was acting only for the benefit of Joseph's good tidings to himself. For the second, it brought Aaron, whose concern was that they might suspect him of flattery and of deceiving his brother's mind, yet he did not refrain, but went out to meet him with a joyful heart, and Scripture testifies to this. And for the third, it brought Boaz, who acted with joy and did not worry lest they suspect him of a lover's gift — all the more so for a man such as he, for whom this would have constituted a desecration of Hashem's name [chillul Hashem]. In this way, every person can learn from all these examples to perform every mitzvah with joy of heart — for the small amount that each of them did, on account of their good intention, is counted as much, precisely because they refrained from increasing it out of concern for onlookers; so too, every person should increase in performing mitzvot and not turn away because of any of these three concerns — he need not worry. And lest you say: but did you not yourself say, "had Reuben known," etc., "had Aaron known," etc., implying they lacked such knowledge, just as we do today? To this the response is: in the past, a mitzvah would be written down by the prophets in this world, and a person would be in doubt as to whether his own deed would be recorded, since not every single mitzvah was necessarily written down; and because of that doubt, he would refrain from performing it fully, lest he be suspected with no way to prove his innocence, since perhaps it would not be recorded and his good heart would go unknown. If so, how much more should this concern apply in the present time, when certainly nothing is written down except above, in the heavenly realm — on what basis could a person be confident that his good intention would be made known, so that he need not worry about any of the possible suspicions? To this it responds: "In the past, a person would perform a mitzvah," etc., "but now that there are no prophets, who writes it down?" And it answers: "Elijah and the Messiah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, seals it through them." And the matter is as we have written elsewhere concerning "and let her works praise her in the gates" (Proverbs 31:31): the very deeds a person performs are themselves what publicize his deeds and praise him. For the quality of holiness inherent in one's deeds, once performed, becomes forces of holiness, holy seraphim, and it is they that make the deed known and instill in people's hearts favor toward the one who performs the good mitzvah. Do we not see how many pious servants of Hashem, occupied with Torah and mitzvot in secret, nevertheless have their renown spread to every corner? This is only because their very deeds publicize them; and if one acts for its own sake [li-shmah], the goodness of their intention becomes known throughout the three worlds through this very means — and this is the manner of their becoming known, as expressed in the statement that it is written through the agency of Elijah and the Messiah. Now, to come to the matter of the heavenly writing — that all our deeds are written in a book — this indeed accords with what we know from the sages of truth: that every single mitzvah has a supernal root in each of the upper worlds, in each one according to the quality of its subtlety, as is known to those who understand this wisdom. For even though the essence of their roots lies far above, attached to Him, blessed be He, nevertheless the extension of His glory, blessed be He, unavoidably reaches into every single world, and together with it, all the roots of the mitzvot — for they cannot be separated, as is known. Therefore, when a person performs any mitzvah in the world of action, a quality of holiness ascends and is inscribed from world to world, all the way up above the World of Souls; and the impression made in the worlds, together with the shining lights, constitute the "writing" that endures forever. And what He, blessed be He, causes to flow down from above, out of the abundance of the supernal roots, in order to sustain the impressions made in all the worlds — this is called the "sealing," like a legal document that is validated and reinforced by its seals. And the lights inscribed through their seals are the angels created by the mitzvah, as our Sages of blessed memory said — they are the advocates [peraklitin] — for the light that is inscribed, together with what flows down from above, constitutes the angel and its vitality. With this the matter can be understood: the ascent of the deed of a mitzvah performed by a person occurs through Elijah and the Messiah. For Elijah has a connection to three worlds — the lower world, the world of the celestial spheres, and the world of the angels — raising the deed up through the end of all three, since he himself is called an angel, as is known. And the Messiah carries it further, since his soul belongs to the World of Souls; and the Holy One, blessed be He, seals it from the supernal world above, as has been said. Therefore, since the writing and the impression are made through these two, who together have connection to all four worlds, the matter spreads and becomes known through them in all the places to which they have connection. And by this, there is no cause for fear for a person who performs a mitzvah with a joyful heart in circumstances where he might be suspected of not acting for the sake of Heaven — his good intention will indeed become known, such that he has no reason to hold back on that account. This is just as happened to Abraham at the Binding of Isaac: even though no one else was present on that mountain besides them, it became known throughout the world that it was Hashem who had stopped him from slaughtering his son — for the very deed itself makes it known. And it brought proof from the verse, "Then those who feared Hashem spoke [ish el re'ehu, one to another]," etc. (Malachi 3:16). This is because Elijah is called "ish" [a man], as in the phrase, "a man came up to meet us... a hairy man" (2 Kings 1:6, 8), and here too it says "ish." And it is known that one of the methods by which Aggadah is expounded is through gezerah shavah [verbal analogy]; and the "re'a" [friend/fellow] of Elijah is the Messiah. Thus both are contained in the phrase "ish el re'ehu" — for Elijah, who is called "ish," speaks and raises the mitzvah up to his "friend," the Messiah, who raises it to the World of Souls; and from there, "Hashem hearkened and heard" (Malachi 3:16), and it is written in a book through Elijah and the Messiah, and afterward brought before Him, blessed be He, to be sealed. And what is written and sealed, and of whom do they speak? It is indeed "of those who fear Hashem and esteem His name" (Malachi 3:16) — these are the doers of the mitzvot, for it is their mitzvot that are written, and their book is called by their name. This is the meaning of "of those who fear Hashem and esteem His name."

"and dip your morsel in the vinegar" — for vinegar quenches thirst, cools, and strengthens the stomach, and all this is needed at a time of intense heat, for then the stomach weakens from great thirst. "and they reached her parched corn" — meaning, and he handed her parched grain. "and she did eat and was satisfied, and left some of it" — behold, he gave to her generously, in such a way that it was sufficient for her to eat to satiety, and some was left over for her.

"And Boaz said to her" — meanwhile the time for eating had arrived, and Boaz ate at one table together with the reapers. For laborers who work for wages recite only two blessings in Birkat HaMazon (Grace after Meals), but when the master of the house reclines together with them, they recite the blessings in their full form, as stated in Berachot (16a); and he surely reclined with them in order to obligate them in the full Birkat HaMazon. Boaz sat at the head and the reapers sat below, and he said to her, "Come here [halom]," that she should sit up, at Boaz's side [for the word halom always denotes a place higher than one's own rank, and so they said: "halom refers only to kingship"]. "And eat of the bread" — lechem is the whole loaf, and pat is what is cut into pieces (HaTorah VeHaMitzvah, Vayikra). He gave her a whole loaf that would be hers (which is why she took the leftover home with her), and he told her to eat from the whole loaf, while the piece [pat] that she cut from it to eat at this meal she should dip in vinegar. "And she sat" — yet she did not sit beside Boaz, but only lower down, alongside the reapers; and he further reached out to her roasted grain as a delicacy, and gave it to her in abundance, until she was satisfied and had some left over.

'Shol tesholu [surely pull out for her]' — from the root of 'shalal' [plunder, i.e., to strip out]. And some say it is like 'shegagah' [an inadvertent error], from [the phrase] 'al ha-shal.'

"And when she had risen up to glean," etc. — It is worth paying attention to why there was a need to mention her rising to glean: would it have entered anyone's mind that she would remain in her place forever? Second: it says, "Boaz commanded his young men," etc. — why had he not commanded so before, when she had been gleaning prior to the meal? Third: his saying "saying" (leimor) is a superfluous word. Fourth: if concerning the sheaves he commands, "let them not put her to shame," how much more so should this apply concerning the bundles (tzvatim)? Fifth: why did he not say, "and also pull out for her from the sheaves," rather than specifying the bundles? Sixth: his saying "do not rebuke her" — for if he commands that they pull out for her from the bundles, surely they would not rebuke her over that; so why need it be said? Now, in truth, to eat that roasted grain (kali) — the amount taken with the fingertips — she did not need to tarry long; and while Boaz, the young men, and the reapers were still at the beginning of their meal, she had already finished eating, was satisfied, and had some left over. Then she said in her heart: if I delay rising until they finish eating, are there not two evils that will result? First, that it will appear that I am waiting for them to give me more of their delicacies. Second, that they will suspect that, having finished eating and being idle, my eyes will wander to one of those reclining at the meal. And further, a third evil: lest they say that she is lingering so that they will look at her. Therefore, immediately upon eating, being satisfied, and having some left over, she rose to glean. Now, it is indeed true that no gossiping tongue could refrain from speaking and saying, "Why did she hurry to rise and glean while the reapers, Boaz, and his young men were all still reclining to eat?" — were it not that the words of the young man appointed over the reapers were true, in his saying, "Let me glean, I pray, among their ears, and gather among the sheaves." For this was his meaning: that she would not have hurried to rise except that, while the men of the field were sitting to eat and no one was watching in the field, she would then glean from among the sheaves and untie bundles of wheat, claiming that she had only gleaned loose ears. Therefore he said beforehand to his young men, as soon as they went, "Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not shame her" — meaning: it goes without saying now that you have not yet seen in her any pretext to suspect her except that she hurried to rise; rather, even if she should forsake the whole field where the gleaning of loose ears is done and glean instead among the sheaves whatever ears she finds there, do not shame her by saying, "Why have you abandoned the whole field to go glean among the sheaves?" — unless it should happen that, when no eye is watching, she takes for herself one of the sheaves. But it did not occur to Boaz that she would actually glean sheaves; rather, he said this only to remove such a suspicion from their hearts. This is the meaning of "and she rose to glean" — that is, her rising was immediately not to take sheaves at a time when no one was watching, but rather only "and she rose to glean," which is called leket (the gleaning of loose ears). And yet, even though he saw that her rising was only to glean, he was wary of quarrelsome tongues, lest they slander her by claiming that she gleans and gathers among the sheaves. Therefore he acted in advance to remove any pretext for speaking against her — even should they see her gleaning among the sheaves — and all the more so now, so that they would not pay heed to shame her by saying that, although she is not doing so now, she is scheming to do so later. Now, had Boaz raised his voice and said to the reapers and young men, "Also among the sheaves," etc., it would not have been beyond speakers of falsehood to speak against him, saying that he had set his eyes upon her and was speaking not out of moral principle but out of his love for her. Therefore he spoke to his own young men, those born in his household, who were well acquainted with his righteousness and would not suspect him — so that they, with their own mouths, would speak to the hired reapers in the field: "Also among... etc." This is the meaning of "Boaz commanded his young men, saying" — for he commanded his young men to say to the reapers, "Also among... and do not shame her" — so that through this the reapers would not think that Boaz had commanded this specifically regarding this particular woman, above other women, on account of the glory of her beauty, but rather that they, the young men, were generally commanded and stood ready to ensure that no woman at all be shamed. And he further commanded, saying, "And also pull out for her," etc. — meaning: perhaps even you, my own young men around me, will be among those who wonder, saying, "Behold, even in our own eyes we recognize our master's righteousness — it is astonishing why he shows favor to this one and did not do so for others," by commanding that she glean even among the sheaves and that they not shame her over it. Concerning this he added and said, "and also pull out for her," etc., meaning: this one is not like other women, for regarding her it need not even be said that she should not take sheaves; rather, also pull out for her from the bundles (tzvatim), which are small bunches, and leave them, to indicate that you forgot them — in order to test her. For I know that she will only glean what is called leket, that is, one or two ears, but she will not put out her hand to take one of the bundles upon seeing signs that they were forgotten and that it is only a small bunch — and all the more so will she not put out her hand toward the sheaves. This is the meaning of "pull out for her," etc. — and nevertheless, "she gleaned" only what is called leket, and not the bundle. And regarding this too I say, "and do not rebuke her" — meaning, do not say to her, "Why did you not take this forgotten bundle?" — so that she not be put to shame. Or, one might explain his saying "saying" differently: that his intent was to say that they should also pull out for her from the bundles and leave them for her to take; but he was concerned lest it be said that he spoke out of love for her, that his eyes had been set upon her. Therefore he began with a smaller measure than this, namely, "she shall glean even among the sheaves" — that is, that she glean only the individual ears found among the sheaves — "and do not shame her," meaning: do not say that she is seeking a pretext so that in a little while she will put out her hand and take one of the sheaves. And after he said this, seeing that none of the listeners suspected that he spoke out of desire for her, he then took heart to add further and say, "and also pull out for her," etc., "and let her glean from that bundle, and do not rebuke her." This is the meaning of "saying" — for in order to say afterward this further provision, "and also pull out for her," etc., he first said, "also among the sheaves," etc. And in both of these clauses he cleverly framed an argument that touched upon their own interest, by saying "do not shame her" and "do not rebuke her" — meaning: it is not for her sake that I am concerned, but for your own sake, lest you sin the sin of shaming her, which is far greater than bloodshed, for one who shames another has no share in the World to Come. This is the meaning of "do not shame her" and "do not rebuke her" — that is, if you do this, your punishment will be great and too heavy to bear.

"Let her glean even among the sheaves, and put her not to shame" — meaning, even though she gleans the ears of grain falling among the sheaves, to which the poor have no legal right, do not put her to shame.

Questions (15-19): Why does he repeat "and do not put her to shame" and "do not rebuke her"; and "she may glean" and "she gleaned"? Why does she repeat "Where did you glean?" and "Where did you work?" And what she said, "with whom I worked," has no [clear] sense. "And she rose to glean" — he relates that she did not wait until the laborers recited Birkat HaMazon (Grace after Meals), for women are not joined into a zimmun (the quorum-formula for communal Grace) on account of impropriety, and she rose immediately to glean. And then Boaz commanded his young men, saying, "Let her glean even among the sheaves" — meaning: if she gleans among the sheaves, do not go inspect after her [to see] whether she has not stolen some sheaf, for by doing so you would put her to shame, since she would be suspected as a thief.

And let [some sheaves] fall for her. שֹׁל תָּשֹׁלּוּ =] you should forget; pretend as though you are forgetting. The Targum for שְׁגָגָה [=oversight], is שְׁלוּתָא, and similarly, “because of this error.” Another explanation [of שֹׁל תָּשֹׁלּוּ is “let fall”], an expression [as in,] “your olive tree will cast off [= יִשַּׁל [its fruit].” — Notes: (14) The double verb indicates that the action was to be repeated many times. (15) Bamidbar 15:25. (16) II Shmuel 6:7. (17) Devarim 28:40. Bundles. Small sheaves, and there is a similar expression in the language of the Mishnah, “[If] he found them [tefillin] tied up in bundles or in packets.” — Notes: (18) Maseches Eruvin 10:1.

"And also pull out some for her of purpose from the bundles" — meaning, untie and let fall for her some ears of grain from the sheaves of grain that you have bound, and leave those ears of grain for her, and she will glean them, and do not rebuke her.

"And also pull out some for her of purpose from the bundles [tzevatim]" — that you should leave bundles under the category of shikchah (a forgotten sheaf, a gift to the poor) so that she may take them. And it says "and leave it" — for these bundles are in fact obligated in terumah and ma'aser (tithes), since in truth they are not actual shikchah; so it prescribes the remedy, that they declare them hefker (ownerless), and ownerless produce is exempt from terumah and ma'aser. "And let her glean, and do not rebuke her" — meaning: whatever way she gleans, do not rebuke her, even if she gleans in a manner not strictly in accordance with the law; and with this he included everything, that she could take as much as she wished, for his intent was to provide for her sustenance with dignity.

"And it was about an ephah of barley" — Once a man asked me what the reason was for [its being] an ephah of barley. I told him, there is no reason to ask this, for Scripture is simply reporting what happened. At this he thought little of me, and he told me that there was indeed a reason for it, and I kept silent and did not question him further. Then one day he came and told me that he had many reasons. The first is that Ruth saw through prophecy that one of her descendants was destined to erect a pillar named for himself [lit. "in the name of its owner" — referring to Absalom's monument, 2 Samuel 18:18], and the meaning of "eifah" is the ninety-six (96) pomegranates that were on the pillar [of the Temple, cf. Jeremiah 52:23], for this equals "eifah" in gematria. And the interpretation of "se'orim" is like "shi'urim" (estimates/reckonings), as in "as he reckons within himself" (Proverbs 23:7). And another reason: "vayehi" (and it was) is two words, Aramaic and Hebrew ["vay" + "hi"] — this being for when she foresaw that Absalom, who is one of her descendants, would be hanged; and behold, the kaf together with the alef [of "ke-eifah"] alludes to the years of Absalom at the time of his death. And further, "se'orim" [alludes to] hair (se'ar) — in the plural, because it grew heavy upon him [cf. 2 Samuel 14:26]. And another reason: that the first letter of "ke-eifah" together with the first letter of "se'orim" equals "Yishai" (Jesse) in gematria, who was a perfectly righteous man. Then he [the questioner] rejoiced and his heart was set at ease within him.

"And she gleaned," etc. — The verse tells us what we have already written, that her intent was not to gather bundles, nor to glean from among the sheaves, but only in the field itself, literally. This is the meaning of "and she gleaned" (va-telaket): that she gleaned among the stalks, which is called "leket" (gleaning), and not bundles; and also that she did not glean stalks from among the sheaves, but only in the field. And the proof is that she remained gleaning until evening, and nevertheless "she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley" — only that much — as opposed to had she stretched out her hand to the sheaves or the bundles, which would truly have been more; and not only that, but it was only "about" an ephah, and not a full ephah; and also, since it was barley, which has bulk, it was only as many as the number of the gleaned stalks she had gleaned — had it been wheat, it would have been even less [in bulk for the same amount] — and this is [the meaning of] "about an ephah of barley."

"and she beat out that which she had gleaned" — the "beating" is the striking of the ears of grain to bring forth the grain from them. "and it was about an ephah of barley" — behold, an ephah is three se'ah.

"And she gleaned" — however, she did not take handfuls of shikhchah (forgotten sheaves); rather, she gleaned leket (gleanings) alone, and she did not glean among the sheaves, only in the field, and she gleaned until evening; therefore she gathered a great deal. "And she beat out" — so that she would be able to carry it to the city, and not carry the straw and chaff [as well]. "And it was about an ephah of barley" — this being the leket that comes up from a field when it produces four and a half kor, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe'ah, that the measure of what falls [as gleanings] is four kav per kor.

"And she took it up, and went into the city," etc. — Behold, the verse informs us that she took it up and went into the city. This appears unnecessary, for who would not know that she would carry the barley and not leave it there, and that she would come to the city? It would have seemed fitting for the verse to inform us only of what Naomi said to her. Likewise, it says "and her mother-in-law saw" — but would we not know on our own that she would see what she had gleaned? And also, why does it inform us that she took out and gave her what she had left over after being satisfied? And why does it not say "that which was left over after she was satisfied," but rather "she left over," as though the leaving-over were an act that she herself performed, that she made a surplus? And if that is indeed what happened, it was already hinted at above — so why return to hint at it again here? But behold, after it informed us "and she beat out what she had gleaned," it is fitting to give a reason why she beat out what she had gleaned rather than carry it as it was; for there is no doubt that [Scripture] speaks of nothing superfluous, for if it comes to relate an event that occurred, it is not the way of Scripture to relate what serves no purpose. Therefore it says "and she took it up, and went," etc., to teach that by beating out what she had gleaned, the quantity and bulk were reduced, so that it came to about an ephah of barley only. Thus, "and she took it up" [indicates] that she carried it by herself and did not need a helper alongside her, as she would have if it had been in stalks, for then she would not have been able to carry it alone, and she would have feared that a man might approach to help her carry it — all the more so in light of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said, that that generation was utterly steeped in licentiousness, and it would have been a disgrace to her. It also followed from her having beaten out what she had gleaned that she was able to put it into a kerchief or sack sufficient for her load, so that what she brought would not be visible to everyone's eyes when she came into the city, and it would not be a disgrace to her; for otherwise people would see her — one who had gone down to the gates to glean stalks — and it is enough that she be ashamed before those in the field, without being so in the sight of all who saw her within the city. But had she not beaten it out, the kerchief could not have held all the stalks as they were in a way that they would not be seen outside, in view of everyone. This is [the meaning of] "and she came to the city," etc. — that through her having beaten it out, it became about an ephah, a small quantity — beyond the benefit that she was able to carry it by herself, as stated in "and she took it up" — it also benefited her in that thereby, "she came to the city, and her mother-in-law" alone "saw what she had gleaned," and no one else. Beyond what we have written, by placing "and she saw" immediately after the preceding words, [Scripture] means further to say that she [Naomi] was watching and gazing intently at what she had gleaned, because she had gleaned so much in a single day that she found about an ephah of barley. And when Ruth saw that she [Naomi] was gazing at her gleanings, she said in her heart: perhaps it will occur to her that one of the reapers desired me and gave to me out of love for me, and so I did not do well to take it from his hand — all the more so in those days, for our Sages, of blessed memory, said that they were steeped in licentiousness, and the reapers would give harlot's-hire from the threshing floors, which is why Boaz lay at the edge of the grain pile, so that the reapers would not stretch out their hands on his threshing floor to their harlot's-hire, on account of this matter. What did Ruth do so that Naomi would not suspect her? She acted cleverly and took out and gave her what she had left over after being satisfied, to hint to her that Hashem had blessed her — that the little which she had before her, she ate, and was satisfied, and had leftover — for this can only be from the blessing of Hashem which flowed through her. This is [the meaning of] "that which she had left over," as though she herself had produced the leftover through her righteousness, and it does not say "that which was left," so that Naomi would understand that had she not refused to accept a bride-price or gifts from illicit lovers, Hashem would not have blessed her — for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform miracles for liars. Or, [this hints] that just as Hashem blessed her with having leftover after being satisfied, so she should not wonder at her gleaning. And when Naomi understood her good intention — "and she saw that which she had left over after being satisfied" — then, "her mother-in-law said to her, Where..." etc., as we shall explain, please God.

"And her mother-in-law saw" — meaning that she saw and was astonished at this, because it was not the ordinary manner of gleanings gathered in a single day; and in addition to this, [she was astonished] that she gave her what she had left over from being satisfied.

Blessed be he that took note of you. [I.e.,] the owner of the field who showed you favor [and allowed you] to glean in his field. — Notes: (19) Alternatively, the person who takes note of you and marries you will be blessed because you are a gifted person. (Gra).

"And she said to her," etc. — Behold, her saying "Where did you glean?" is an insipid question, without salt, for what does it give her or add to her that she should say to her, "Where did you glean?" For the fitting question would have been with whom she had been that day — was he a proper person or not; that would have been a better question than this one of hers. Furthermore, her saying "and where did you work" — behold, this appears to be the very same thing she already said, "Where did you glean," so she would not repeat this twice, nor vary her wording. Furthermore, the term "working" (asiyah) does not properly apply to gleaning. Furthermore, she entered [her question] with "Where," etc., and "and where," etc., but came out [concluding] with a statement about the one who took note of her, saying, "May he who took note of you be blessed." Furthermore, [it is] like one who sued for wheat and the other admitted only to barley — for she [Naomi] asked "Where did you glean," yet she [Ruth] told her what she had done with him; and also, in saying "the name of the man with whom I worked," etc., this was not what Naomi had asked. Also, [one might say] that this was hinted to her in saying "May he who took note of you be blessed" — but if so, why did she not answer her question of "Where did you glean" and "where did you work"? Furthermore, it should have said, "And she told her mother-in-law what he had done with her." Furthermore, her saying "today," both in Naomi's words and in Ruth's words, is unnecessary, for she had gone out on no day but that one, and it is known that the two of them were speaking about that very day. Furthermore, it says "and she said" a second time in the midst of her words, as though she were still speaking. However, to arrive at the explanation, let us mention some of the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory. First, their saying [about] "the name of the man with whom I worked" — it does not say "with whom he worked with me today," but rather "with whom I worked" — this teaches that the poor person does more for the householder than the householder does for the poor person. Our Rabbis also taught us that the merit of one who feeds a poor person is far greater than one who gives him money, because in the former case the benefit is more immediate — and it was for this reason that the rain fell first on account of the wife of Abba Chilkiyahu, and only afterward on account of her husband; and likewise, [there was the story of] the man and his wife who used to go out at night to place money in the doorways of the poor, and a poor man went out to see who they were and they fled, and the poor man ran after them, and so as not to shame him they threw themselves into a fiery oven, and the man had to place his feet over her feet so that they would not be scorched — and our Rabbis said there that the reason [she was more exposed] is that her benefit [to the poor] was more immediate. Now let us come to the matter. Behold, Naomi saw two things: first, the ephah of barley that she had gleaned; second, the roasted grain that she had been fed. Now the merit of the roasted grain given her to eat is greater — since it is like bread, whose benefit is immediate — than the merit of what she gleans with her own hands, which she must still afterward grind, knead, bake, and only then eat. Thus the merit of what a poor person does for a householder, in receiving from his hand something whose benefit is immediate, is called an "act" (asiyah), which indicates the intensity of the working of the angel produced through that commandment. Therefore she said: "I see two things — one, the barley you gleaned, for it is a great deal for a single day; and also the roasted grain you received from a man's hand, which is an 'act.'" Now, here are my two questions. First: "Where did you glean today," that in a single day you were able to glean so much — that is, was it that the place was one of abundant blessing, such that there was a great quantity in the fallen ears, or perhaps some other reason? And she did not say "Where (anah) did you glean," but rather "Where (eifoh) did you glean" — hinting to her, in her own manner of speech, that it was an ephah of barley, for it is a great quantity. And concerning the roasted grain — which you did not glean but was given to you to eat, which is a greater merit, pertaining to "action" — I am concerned: "and where (anah) did you work" — who was the householder for whom you performed this great merit? For it is thus: if he is a righteous man who intended it for the sake of Heaven, then you performed a merit for him; but if he was not righteous, and intended merely to find favor in your eyes, since you are a beautiful woman, then it turns out that you performed a merit and a kindness for him in receiving from his hand, while he performed none — and this is [the meaning of] "and where did you work," that is, whether you acted in a proper place or the opposite. And regarding this second doubt, I say: "May he who took note of you be blessed" — meaning, would that he be blessed, and that you did not receive from a hand that is not blessed at all. Therefore she answered — "and she told her mother-in-law" — for she related to her a lengthy account, called a haggadah ("telling"), of everything that had happened to her with him, in such a way that she would understand that he was righteous. And this is [the meaning of] "and she told her mother-in-law what she had done with him" — meaning that through what she told her, she [Naomi] recognized that it was not as had occurred to her, that perhaps she had not received from the hand of a righteous man, in which case it would be she [Ruth] who performed the merit and not he, since he had not intended for the sake of Heaven; rather, "what she had done" was "with him" — that is, that she and he acted together — and this is [the meaning of] "she did with him": that he too intended for the sake of Heaven, and indeed, it was he who initiated the commandment, and she [merely] did her part with him. And all this was recognized from what she related of Boaz's piety, the pleasantness of his words, and his conduct toward her. And after she had brought proof from what had happened to her with him, she added — "and she said to her" [again] — a second proof, namely, "the name of the man," etc. This is [the meaning of] her saying "and she said" a second time. And this is by mentioning the words of the Targum, whose language is: "And Salmon begot Ivtzan the prince, he is Boaz the righteous, through whose merit the people of Israel were saved from their enemies, and through whose prayer the famine departed from the land of Israel." It appears that the Targum's intent is to explain why they changed his name from Ivtzan to Boaz, saying that it was on account of two things: his saving Israel from the enemy's sword, and from famine. Therefore, after Hashem visited His people, through his prayer, also concerning the famine, he was called Boaz — for it was through these two things that there was "strength" (oz) for Israel; the bet [ב] hints at the two matters, and the ayin and zayin [עז] indicate that through them there was strength for Israel. In light of this, it is possible to explain that she said to her: "Know that he was righteous, for the merit that I performed is to be attributed to the one who acted with me, and not to me who acted alone — for behold, 'the name of the man,' etc., today is Boaz, and it was not so from the beginning; rather, his other name was Ivtzan. And why did they change his name, if not on account of his righteousness in benefiting all of Israel? If so, where is my claimed righteousness in saying that I performed this with him — for it was with him that I performed the merit, and not I alone." And this is [the meaning of]: "the name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz." Then, upon hearing this, Naomi said: "Behold, I was uncertain whether he who took note of you was blessed or not; but now I say that this one is certainly blessed of Hashem." Or, one might say something close to this, by mentioning the words of the Zohar on the verse "and the days of Israel drew near" (Genesis 47:29) [and] "and the days of David drew near" (1 Kings 2:1) — that all the days in which a righteous person performs meritorious deeds acquire real existence (havayah) and a lasting spiritual reality, and they draw near at the time of his departure from the world, as living, enduring witnesses before Him, blessed be He. Now let us come to the matter. Naomi said: "Behold, 'where' (eifoh), in this world, did you glean today"; but my real question is, "and where did you work" — where did you perform that mentioned day: did you both intend, you and the one who benefited you, for the sake of Heaven, so that, with Hashem's help, you made this day into something substantial and enduring? Or perhaps the intent of the giver and the recipient was not for the sake of Heaven, but rather the day was made into something merely external. "May he who took note of you be blessed" — meaning: if it was that the one who benefited you was righteous, and it was because he recognized that you were righteous, with the intent — and the proof of this — being to build up a holy seed from her, that he benefited you, in such a way that he certainly intended it for the sake of Heaven, then may he be blessed. In response to this, she [Ruth] told her everything that had happened to her with him, in such a way that she thereby performed a merit together with him — for from the telling of the incident it was recognized that he was righteous and upright. Then "she said: Know, where — for the name of the man with whom I worked today" — meaning, I performed, I, with him — between the two of us, we made that very day into something enduring, such that we acquired in it real existence and endurance — Boaz. She was also precise in her wording that it was not merely some portion of the day — in giving her roasted grain — that they made this acquisition, but rather the entire day, completely; for from the beginning of the day he began to speak to her heart and comfort her, and afterward attached her to his young women, and also commanded the young men not to touch her, and afterward, at mealtime, said to her, "Come here," and handed her roasted grain, and afterward commanded his young men concerning her — so that throughout the entire course of the day he performed a merit with her, and she, in receiving the good from him, performed a merit with him, as has been said — and this is [the meaning of] "with whom I worked today." Along these lines, we have written concerning the matter of a nazirite who became impure and thereby voided his counted days — concerning whom it is said, "and the first days shall fall" (Numbers 6:12). For behold, it would have been fitting to say "and the first days shall not be counted," since his nazirite status became impure; but I think it rather means that the days of naziriteship that he had already accepted are all considered as one, an elevation and a greatness achieved through the commandment of naziriteship performed in them — and it says that now, when he becomes impure, the first days "fall" from the elevated status they had acquired, because his nazirite status became impure, and the naziriteship that had been sanctified in those days becomes impure — therefore they too fall together with it. Along these lines, it may be said here that she spoke with wisdom, to magnify the mitzvah performed between her and him — that through it they acquired "action" and "deed" within the very essence of the day. And this is [the meaning of] "the name of the man with whom I worked today" — that is to say, that we made the day itself, and we acquired in it a quality and an act — the name of the one with whom I, and he, performed it: Boaz.

"blessed be he who did take knowledge of you" — meaning, [blessed be he] who did kindness to you.

"And she said" — for from the food that they gave her, it is evident that she did not glean among the poor, but rather that she performed some work for a man, and he gave her bread and parched grain in exchange for her work; and the gleanings that she brought indicate that she gleaned all day and was not occupied with anything else. Therefore she said, "Where did you glean today" — which expresses astonishment at the abundance of the gleanings — "and where did you work" — for you must necessarily have done some task for a man, since he therefore gave you food, for one does not give food to mere gatherers of gleanings. In any case, it appears that a certain man did this for you out of kindness and took note of you, that you found favor in his eyes — "blessed be he who took note of you." "And she told her mother-in-law with whom she had wrought" — meaning, she told what it was that she had done with him. For he had told her that because she had done kindness with her mother-in-law, and because she had converted, she therefore found favor in his eyes, and therefore he gave her food, for this matter was, in his eyes, as though she had brought him satisfaction and something good in his eyes. And she explained the matter — for the name of the man (regarding whom these things are considered by him as though I had done him some good) is Boaz, who is a judge of Israel, and such matters concern him as though he had received from me some deed for his benefit.

With the living and with the deceased. That he feeds and sustains the living, and occupies himself with the needs of the deceased. — Notes: (20) The “needs of the deceased” refers to the kindness displayed by Bo’az to Elimelech and his sons. (Ibn Ezra) Alternatively, the “needs of the deceased” refers to the willingness of Bo’az to perform a levirate marriage and will thus do kindness to the memory of her deceased husband. (Alshich)

"Blessed be he of Hashem, who has not left off His kindness" — as a sign that He had already shown kindness to Elimelech and his sons at the outset, for he [Elimelech] had been a judge. "To the living" — Naomi and Ruth. "He is one of our redeemers" — the redemption spoken of here is not yibbum (levirate marriage); rather, it is a different path [of redemption].

"And Naomi said," etc. — It is fitting to note [several difficulties]: (1) Did we not already know, until now, that Ruth was her daughter-in-law? (2) In saying "who has not left off His kindness" — why does she praise Him for the absence of an abandonment of kindness, rather than stating it affirmatively and saying, "Blessed is He to Hashem, who has done kindness with the living and with," etc.? (3) In saying "with the living," etc. — is Naomi not a single person? How then does she say "the living" in the plural? (4) In saying "and with the dead" — what have the dead to do with this, seeing that their bundle [of life] has already come apart? All the more so since they [Machlon and Chilion] had married Moabite women, which was as if it had never been; on the contrary, how much [suffering] befell them on account of their marriages, as stated regarding the verse "for it is far more bitter for me than for you" (Ruth 1:13). (5) In saying "and Naomi said to her" in the middle of her own words — was not Naomi the one speaking all along, even until now? (6) In saying "the man is near of kin to us" — is it not that, while he is near of kin to Naomi, as regards Ruth there is no doubt at all that he is not near of kin to her? If so, it would have been fitting to say, "near of kin to me." (7) For from her saying, in general, "he is one of our redeemers," it is already understood that he is a kinsman — so why is it stated [separately]? (8) For he is a redeemer only to Elimelech and his sons — so how can she say "he is one of our redeemers," which refers back to Naomi and Ruth? Now, we have written above that the matter of Ruth with Boaz was in the manner of yibbum (levirate marriage), for the spirit of Machlon was stirring within her womb, as is learned from the sages of the true [wisdom, i.e., the Kabbalists]. And this is what we wrote — that Boaz intended, in saying "that which you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband" (Ruth 2:11) — that is, that she is still your mother-in-law even after the death of your husband, for even after her husband's death the spirit of Machlon is still within her. Now let us come to the matter: this too was not hidden from Naomi, as written above, and this is the meaning of the verse's statement, "And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law" — that is, to her who is still her daughter-in-law, on account of the spirit of Machlon that is within her — "Blessed is he to Hashem, who has not left off," etc. And this is because we know from our Sages, of blessed memory, who spoke of the obligation for a person to act on behalf of his fellow: they said, "If your relative has died, [the debt] is released; if the child of your relative has died, [one] is burdened [with it]" (a traditional saying). And therefore, now that his relatives Elimelech and his sons had died, it would have been fitting for him to be released and to abandon his kindness — all the more so since neither scion nor offspring remained of them except Ruth, whom he [Machlon] had married while she was still a gentile, for she was not [truly, in the fullest sense] his wife, nor was Machlon [truly] her husband, so that he [Boaz] should have abandoned [any such obligation]. Therefore she said it is fitting to credit him with the good that he did not abandon his kindness — for by [the rule that] "if your relative has died, [the debt] is released," he had grounds to abandon and be released from his kindness — and this applies to both the living and the dead. "The living" she called Naomi and the spirit of Machlon, which is still alive within Ruth, as stated; and "the dead" is the soul of Machlon, which did not remain [in the body], and his father and his brother. And with this she had already completed the intent of her reply. But since Ruth did not know of this matter — for in her father's house she had not learned of the spirit stirring within the womb, and all the more so since her marriage had been contracted while she was a gentile, a second statement was therefore necessary, to inform her of the essence of the matter. And this is [the meaning of] "and Naomi said to her: the man is near of kin to us" — to say: know how it is, that he is near of kin both to me and to you, for with you too he has kinship and affinity, on account of the spirit of Machlon that is within you — through which he is also near of kin to Ruth, by virtue of that spirit contained within her. And let it not enter your mind that I am speaking only of the good he has done for you — rather, also of [his] taking you as a wife, to quiet the spirit within you. For is he not one of our redeemers (goel)? For to you, too, he is a redeemer — for by virtue of the spirit of Machlon he is called a redeemer to you as well, so that he is called "our redeemer" with respect to this spirit, just as [he is called redeemer] with respect to the dead man's portion of spirit for redeeming the field. If so, in order to quiet the spirit stirring within you as well, he is called "near of kin," with intent to perform a manner of yibbum (levirate marriage).

"And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law" — first she gave him a blessing: "who has not left off his kindness to the living," for she understood that he did this in order to support, and thereby honor, Naomi and Ruth, who are the living and are of his family; "and to the dead," for she also understood that he would do kindness with the dead through yibbum (levirate marriage), for through this he would do a benefit to the soul of the deceased. And she explained her words: corresponding to what she said, "who has not left off his kindness to the living," [she said] "for the man is near of kin to us," and therefore he does kindness with his living relatives; and corresponding to what she said "with the dead," she said, "he is one of our redeemers (go'alenu)," for the redeemer (go'el) is required to perform yibbum, whereby he redeems the soul of the deceased so that his name not be blotted out from Israel. And she said "he is one of our redeemers," for there is yet another redeemer, and he is one of them.

"And Ruth said," etc. — It is fitting to pay attention to why [the text] calls her "the Moabitess," for it is now a disgrace to designate her so, after the time of her conversion. Now, there are among our Sages who interpret this unfavorably, [saying] that it is because she cast a pretext against that righteous man: he had said, "and thus you shall stay close with my young women," while she said, "[Indeed,] he said to me: You shall keep fast by the young men who are mine," etc. — so far [their words]. Now I, in my humility, will pursue and attain [a way] to interpret it favorably, without moving entirely away from their statement, of blessed memory, but rather to lighten from her the guilt of casting a pretext, with Hashem's help. Second [difficulty]: her saying "he even said to me" — for surely it would have been fitting to omit the word "that" [ki] and simply say, "and he also said to me." Third: that it appears as though she is spoiling all her pleasant words which she had spoken favorably about Boaz, and now she reverses herself and says that he said, "you shall keep fast by the young men who are mine," which appears as though she were teaching [Naomi] something improper. Fourth: why did she mention to her that he had said "until," meaning, "all the harvest," etc. — what need did she have for this? Now, regarding her changing the wording — that in place of what was actually said, "and thus you shall stay close with my young women," she said, "you shall keep fast by the young men who are mine" — behold, we wrote above that there were three categories: (1) Boaz's young women; (2) those around him, his young men, born in his household, good and fit; (3) the reapers, hired hands from among the common people. Now, the young women were those who had been with the mistress, Boaz's wife, who had died, and who were hoping to be with whoever would come in place of his first wife, to serve her as they had served the mistress who died on the day Ruth arrived, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said. Now there is no doubt that the young women were not reapers in the fields; rather, when [people] would rejoice at the start of the barley harvest, the master, his household, and his young women would come to see and rejoice in the joy of the harvest for a day or two, until the completion of the harvest of the first field that they had begun, and afterward they would return to their homes. But the young men who were his would remain continually, stationed over the reapers — one young man over one field, or over a given number of reapers — and some of them to draw water and prepare food for the reapers and for those stationed [over them] and for everyone who was with Boaz: the reapers, going to reap from field to field. Now, this is what Boaz's statement to Ruth was, saying, "and thus you shall stay close" — meaning: here, in this field, where my young women will be, in this first field, you shall stay close with my young women; but this will not continue, for when the reaping of this field is finished, they will return home. But if the harvest of this field is not enough for you, and your eye is still on the field which they will reap after this field, then my young women will not go [there]; but do not refrain from going — rather, "you shall go after them," namely, after those who will be reaping, that is, the reapers, and do not regard [this] as though you were behind females — and this is [why the verse says], "and you shall go after them," [written] with a nun [i.e., the feminine-plural form]. And, in passing, by saying "after them," he hinted that she should not walk among them as they go to reap from field to field, but only after those who are [already] reaping, who are already engaged in the harvest; then, "you shall go after them" — that is, after all of them have passed by. And should you say: if it should occur to the heart of one of the reapers to do evil, who would restrain him? Therefore he said: "Have I not commanded the young men who are mine" — who are the guards and overseers stationed over the reapers — "not to touch you." That is to say: if you should need to walk behind them at a distance, this applies to the reapers, but not to the young men who are mine, for they are good, such that even if you were to walk among them, and not behind them, you need not fear, for behold, "I have commanded the young men," etc. — for on the contrary, they will be your guards and your shade at your right hand. And in this, Ruth did not exaggerate her words very much, for she said: did not Boaz say that I should stay close with his young women only in that field, but regarding his other fields he said to me that I should go after the reapers and not among them, but with the young men who are his I would be among them, since he had commanded them not to touch me? And this is her statement, "he even said to me, 'with the young men who are mine you shall keep fast,'" and not with the reapers, but rather after them — and this is [the meaning of], "until all the harvest is finished," for what he had said about staying close with his young women applied only during the harvest of the first field of barley alone. And according to these words, she did not spread a false report about the righteous man, but only related his own statement — that after the harvest of that field, [she would be with] the young men who were his, who were specifically designated for him, who are fit men of her guard-detail, and to them she would draw near. But we should not come away empty-handed from the statement of Rabbi Yochanan, who says that she cast a pretext, for in some sense she did let something excessive come out of her mouth, in that she phrased the matter in terms of "clinging," by saying "you shall keep fast [tidbaqin]," rather than saying "you shall be" or "you shall go" — but she did not hang [the whole matter] on him entirely, as has been discussed. Behold, thus far we have spoken to offer a defense on behalf of Ruth the righteous, for it was not for naught that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought forth from her the root of Jesse, who stands as a banner for the peoples (Isaiah 11:10), unless she was a completely righteous woman. Now let us come to the resolution of the verse, which is this: when she heard Naomi's voice saying, "the man is related to us," etc., as we have written — that the relatedness is on account of the spirit of Machlon being within her, and that it is likely that he will marry her, for this is what she meant by saying, "he is our redeemer [go'el]" — then she opened her ear and opened her eyes, and she said: behold, your words are true, and behold, I have two proofs for this. The first: that he said, "with the young men... you shall keep fast." The second: he said, "until they have finished all the harvest," etc. And this is [the meaning of], "he even said to me" — that is, apart from his own statements, I too have proofs that this is so. And these are [the proofs]: "he said to me," etc. — namely, she said: were it not that the spirit of Machlon is within me, and that I am one made up of him, why would he have said, "with the young men who are mine, you shall keep fast [tidbaqun]," with a superfluous nun? Rather, it is because she is one who is [really] two — and this is why "tidbaqun" is phrased in the plural, referring to the spirit within her womb. And likewise, her saying "he is our redeemer" is to say that his intention is inclined toward marrying her. She stated the second proof, which is his saying, "until they have finished all the harvest" — and this is [based on] their statement, which we will transcribe shortly, with Hashem's help, that from the beginning of the barley harvest until the end of the wheat harvest is three months. And this is [the meaning of]: see that this is his intention, for why did he say, "until they have finished," etc., unless his intention was to take me [in marriage]? And therefore it is necessary to wait three months, like every female convert, to distinguish between seed sown not in holiness and seed sown in holiness. And therefore he desired that I remain, until that time, among his young men who are attached to him, as though placing a guard over me. And it is possible that this is what the verse intended by saying "the Moabitess" — to hint by it that, since she was a Moabitess and had converted, she herself was precise in determining that the three months were for the sake of this distinction. But she did not bring proof from what he said, "you shall keep fast with my young women," for he did not say that they would be with her until that time, but only during the harvest of that field, and it was temporary. Furthermore, [the verse] also intended, in saying "the Moabitess," [to allude to] what we mentioned above regarding the verse, "may Hashem repay your deed," etc. — namely, as per our introduction, that Ruth was the firstborn daughter of Lot herself, who had come in reincarnation [gilgul] to receive reward for having intended [her act] for the sake of Heaven when she lay with her father; and this is [the meaning of], "may Hashem repay your deed," as explained above. Now let us come to the matter, which is this: before the verse relates Ruth's two proofs to demonstrate that Boaz's heart had come to marry her, it removed a possible objection, lest a person say: how could she bring proofs for the matter and not have seen that, against this, a great difficulty stands, to uproot and demolish that very reasoning — namely, how could she say that the spirit of Machlon stirs within her womb, and that this would be a kind of levirate marriage [yibbum] for him? Could it possibly enter one's mind that, in marriage to a female convert [giyoret], the spirit of Machlon, an Israelite man, would cling within the womb of a Moabite woman? "And who can bring forth a pure thing from an impure one?" (cf. Job 14:4). Therefore, [Scripture] preceded and said, "And Ruth the Moabitess said," etc., to say: do not be astonished at the matter, for this is not like the rest of the nations, for this is the well-known Moabite, the good dove [peridah tovah], destined to bring forth from herself the root of Jesse, to receive reward for an act [performed] for the sake of Heaven; therefore it is not astonishing that the spirit of Machlon rested upon her. And she, too, knew this, from Boaz's own statement to her, saying, "may Hashem repay your deed," etc. And therefore it was not withheld from her to say, "he even said to me," etc., to bring proofs regarding the matter, as has been discussed.

"You shall keep fast by my young men" — behold, she abbreviated what he had said to her, "but abide here fast by my maidens"; and it is already evident from what Naomi said to her, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens," that Ruth had indeed told her what Boaz had said to her, "and stay close by my maidens."

"And Ruth the Moabitess said" — Ruth did not understand the matter of yibbum, only what had been said, that he is a relative and that he will therefore do kindness with them to sustain them. Regarding this she said, "Moreover, he said to me, You shall keep fast by the young men who are mine" — whereas in truth he had said to her, "and so you shall keep fast with my maidens." But since she was a Moabite, and there [among Moabites] one does not keep distance from young men, she did not understand to be precise about his words, and she thought that his intent was that she should keep close to his men, for the young men were the main thing to her, since she thought that one of them would marry her. [And this is why she is called "the Moabitess" here — for a daughter of Israel would have understood the difference between Naomi's statement, "with the dead," and Boaz's statement, "with my maidens."] In any case, from what he had told her — that she should glean with him until the end of the harvest days — she brought proof for her mother-in-law's words, that he does this because he is their relative.

"That you go out to glean with his maidens" — and not with the young men, that is, the servant who was stationed over the male and female reapers. "And that you not be encountered" — by men; and there are many similar [constructions] like this one.

"And Naomi said," etc. — Consider carefully what need there is for it to say "to Ruth her daughter-in-law"; who does not know that Ruth was her daughter-in-law? It would have sufficed to say, "And Naomi said to her." Second, its saying "It is good, my daughter, that you go out," etc. — for behold, if she [Naomi] believed her [Ruth's] words, that Boaz had said, "cling to the young men," how could she [Naomi] say, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens," without her heart considering that perhaps Boaz would not want his maidens to go out with her, but rather that they return to his house? All the more so, since until the completion of the entire harvest is about three months — and who would leave his maidens in the scorching heat and sun by day and the frost by night, for three months of harvesting? Third, by her saying "that you go out" it appears that she was concerned about going out from field to field; but from her saying "and that you not be met in another field" it appears that the concern was about the location of the field. Now, however, according to what we have written — that what Boaz said, that she should cling to his maidens, applied only while they were still reaping in that first field, but afterward he indeed commanded the young men, etc. [not to touch her], because it is a long time until the entire harvest is completed, and he would not leave his maidens so long a time out in the field. Now, from the substance of Ruth's words Naomi understood two things: first, that he would not have needed to say that she should cling to the young men who were his, except for the duration until the whole harvest was completed; but in that [first] field there was no need [to say so], since Boaz's maidens were there in any case. Second, she understood from all the parts of her statements that the matter was already settled on Boaz's part, that he would take her as a wife. Then she [Naomi] said: since I have seen that the matter of your being married [to him] is close at hand, I rule that what he said — that you should be with the young men who are his — applies even when you go out from that field; it would not be good [otherwise], lest an evil report go out about you and he come to hate you. It will also show his good will toward you, for it would not trouble him to leave his maidens with you for these three months, since you are pleasing in his eyes; and just as his maidens will be with you after your marriage to him, so they should be from now — and by this the sign of his intention to take you [as wife] will be complete, if he leaves his maidens with you until the whole harvest is finished. And this is [the meaning of] "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens" — for not only in this field, but even when you go out to another field, you should go out only with them, and not with the young men. For indeed, there is no need to distinguish between one field and another, except that also, if they find you in a field — which is a place where there are men — there is a fear that they too might do you harm. And this is [the meaning of] "and that you not be met in any other field."

"And Naomi said" — but Naomi understood with her own wisdom that it was not good for her to keep close to the young men, only to the young women who were reaping. So she said, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens" — meaning, not with his young men — and likewise, "that you not be met in another field," so that you should not come to be suspected.

"So she dwelt et (with) her mother-in-law" — [the word 'et' here functions] like 'im' (with) her mother-in-law.

"So she kept fast..." etc. — Boaz here showed that his whole desire and his whole wish was to take her for himself as a wife. This is because he said little but did much: for he had said, "and so you shall keep fast with my maidens" (Ruth 2:8), meaning that Boaz's maidens were distinguished, being those who had served the mistress, his wife, who had died. These were the young women, her companions, who remained after her, still hoping to be with whoever would reign in the place of the first [wife], following the custom they had with her. And they were not normally in the field — on the day Ruth arrived there, they happened to be there only because it was the very beginning of the harvest, but they did not remain continually in the fields all the days of the harvest, through the heat of the day. But when Boaz saw that Ruth was carrying out Naomi's instruction not to go out except with his maidens, he too then acted beyond the strict letter of the law and compelled his maidens to stay with her until the completion of the wheat harvest and the barley harvest. In this, he showed that it was in his heart to take her for himself, and that these maidens would be her personal attendants once she had been taken [in marriage]. Therefore, from now on, let them also be subject to her authority. Now it is still fitting to consider: what benefit is there in God's informing us of this — that she remained [gleaning] in the field until the completion [of the harvest], etc.? And likewise, the statement "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law" appears unnecessary, for whom did she have besides her mother-in-law? Now, this is the language of the midrash: '"And she kept fast with the maidens of Boaz" — Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said: from the beginning of the barley harvest until the completion of the wheat harvest is three months. "And she dwelt with her mother-in-law" — and Naomi her mother-in-law said to her: My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you? And now, is not Boaz our kinsman...' — end of quote. Now it is fitting to consider: why did [the midrash] inform us of the length of time from the beginning of the barley harvest until the completion of the wheat harvest, and what does this measure add or contribute beyond what [we would know] without it? And furthermore, after stating this measure of time, [the midrash] quotes the wording of two verses without explaining anything in them. Indeed, the following difficulties troubled him [Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman]. First: his statement "until the completion of the harvest," etc. — for who does not know that after the completion of the barley and wheat harvest she would no longer go out to glean, since the harvest was over? Second: the statement "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law" — for if she had no mother-in-law, whom would she have had? And it is obvious that she would dwell [with her]. Third: the statement "and now, is not Boaz..." etc. — for the word "and now" is superfluous, since nothing new had occurred now that had not existed before. Therefore Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said "from the beginning of the harvest," etc. — meaning that the intent of the verse is to give the reason for what happened: that from the time the two of them came to Bethlehem, she [Naomi] did not set her mind to seek rest for her [Ruth], from then until the completion of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. This he conveys by informing us that from the beginning of the barley harvest to the completion of the wheat harvest is three months. This is because, behold, it is known that a female convert is not fit to marry an Israelite until three months have passed since her conversion, in order to distinguish between seed that was planted not in holiness and seed that was planted in holiness. And his [Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman's] view, of blessed memory, is that this is the point of the verses in saying "and she kept fast," etc., "[gleaning] until the completion of the harvest," etc. — that this refers to the end of the period of distinction. For until that time she was not fit to marry, and therefore what appeared to be a delay in her marrying was not really a delay, since she was not yet fit for it. And this is [the meaning of] "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law" — that is, after the completion of the harvest, etc., when three months had already passed, from then on her remaining with her mother-in-law would be called a delay, for "dwelling" [yeshivah] means nothing but delay, as in the phrase "and you dwelt in Kadesh" (Deuteronomy 1:46). And therefore, "And Naomi her mother-in-law said to her," etc., "and now," etc., meaning: "Shall I not seek rest for you?" And the reason I am moved to say this now is that now, since three months have passed from when you converted on the way, when you came to Bethlehem — which was at the beginning of the barley harvest — until the completion of the wheat harvest, now is the time to seek what will be good for you. And the sense of the verses "and she kept fast," etc., "until the completion of the harvest," etc. is that these are the three months of the period of distinction. And therefore, from then on, "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law" — for from then she was, as it were, held back from marrying a man. And therefore Naomi said to her: "And now," since the three months were completed, "behold, I am seeking rest for you" — namely, "is not Boaz our kinsman," etc. And this is why Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman cited the wording of the verses "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law," etc. — to show that through this premise, that from the beginning of the barley harvest to the completion of the wheat harvest is three months, not only is the first difficulty resolved, but also resolved by it are the statement "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law" and the statement "shall I not seek..." etc., "and now," etc. — for what is difficult in those verses is also resolved through this premise, as has been discussed.

"And she kept fast" — and so she did, that she kept close to the maidens of Boaz until the end of the harvest of barley and wheat. And it is said in the Midrash that this period extended three months, which are the months of havchanah (the waiting period for determining paternity), in accordance with the law of a female convert, that she may not marry before then; and therefore, after this period had passed, she began to make efforts to be taken in yibbum. "And she dwelt with her mother-in-law" — meaning, although she kept close to the maidens of Boaz for a long time, this was only for as long as she needed to glean, as it says, "and she kept fast with the maidens of Boaz to glean"; but after there was nothing left to glean, she dwelt with her mother-in-law and did not visit the maidens of Boaz, for the love of her mother-in-law had risen in her heart above them all.