diff --git "a/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship/English/Rabbi Chaim Jachter. Teaneck, NJ, 2022.txt" "b/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship/English/Rabbi Chaim Jachter. Teaneck, NJ, 2022.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship/English/Rabbi Chaim Jachter. Teaneck, NJ, 2022.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,994 @@
+Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship
+מגילת רות; ממהומה למלוכה
+Rabbi Chaim Jachter. Teaneck, NJ, 2022
+https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Kingship-Depth-Exploration-Megillat/dp/B0B14ZP8N2/ref=zg_bsnr_15755581_2/146-1040282-3903825?pd_rd_i=B0B14ZP8N2&psc=1
+
+Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+
+
+Introduction; Extracting Golden Apples
+
+
+
+Perek 1
+
+
+
+Section 1
+
+Introduction
When we scrutinize the opening phrase of Sefer Rut — וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים — we notice a major problem with the formulation of this four-word phrase. The words shefot and vayehi both seem unnecessary; it could have simply said בִּימֵי הַשֹּׁפְטִים and the story would have been placed into its historical setting. What do these words teach us?
+Three Explanations — Chazal, Ibn Ezra and Malbim
Various explanations have been set forth throughout the generations, which for the most part are variations on the same theme. Chazal (Bava Batra 15b) explain as follows: מאי דכתיב (רות א) ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים דור ששופט את שופטיו אומר לו טול קיסם מבין שיניך אומר לו טול קורה מבין עיניך. When the judges criticized the people, the people would respond with a stronger reprove of the judges. In other words, it was a time when corruption was rampant throughout society, and no one was able to set proper standards.
+Ibn Ezra (to pasuk 1) writes that this was a time when Hashem was judging the judges for their poor deeds. The famine, Ibn Ezra explains, is a result of the misdeeds of the judges. Malbim (to pasuk 1) explains that Megillat Rut transpires during one of the frequent interludes in Sefer Shofetim during which we did not have a strong leader guiding our people.
+We suggest a variation on Malbim that embraces the entire period of Sefer Shofetim. Our variation stems from the concluding pasuk of Sefer Shofetim בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו, יַעֲשֶׂה — in those times there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what is fit in his own eyes. This description serves as a defining characteristic of the entire time period. Consider, for example, when Devorah issues a call for help to Am Yisrael for help fighting Sisera, very few shevatim respond, reflecting a severe lack of cohesiveness. Sadly, Sefer Shofetim is replete with civil wars amongst our people that emerged due to the dearth of widely accepted leaders. Accordingly, בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים refers to the time of Sefer Shofetim, which was a time of weak leadership.
+A Negative Introduction
The common denominator of Chazal, Ibn Ezra and Malbim is that they understand וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים in a negative light. This negative understanding is supported by the interpretative tool of davar ha’lameid mei’inyano, interpreting in light of the broader context, looking at the rest of the pasuk which speaks of a famine.
+Another indication is the seemingly unnecessary introductory word וַיְהִי. There are four times in Tanach (in addition to Rut 1:1) where וַיְהִי בִּימֵי introduces an episode:
+1. Bereishit 14:1 א וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ-שִׁנְעָר, אַרְיוֹךְ, מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר; כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם, וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם. ב עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה
+2. Yeshayahu 7:1 א וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אָחָז בֶּן-יוֹתָם בֶּן-עֻזִּיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, עָלָה רְצִין מֶלֶךְ-אֲרָם וּפֶקַח בֶּן-רְמַלְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל יְרוּשָׁלִַם, לַמִּלְחָמָה, עָלֶיהָ; וְלֹא יָכֹל, לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ.
+3. Yirmiyahu 1:3 ג וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי יְהוֹיָקִים בֶּן-יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, עַד-תֹּם עַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, לְצִדְקִיָּהוּ בֶן-יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה--עַד-גְּלוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי.
+4. Esther 1:1 וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ
+In each occurence, the phrase וַיְהִי בִּימֵי introduces a negative episode, as noted by Chazal (Megillah 10b).
+The Overall Theme of Megillat Rut — From Chaos to David
Based on our understanding of the introduction of Megillat Rut, we may draw a conclusion about its overall theme and purpose. But first, a Tanach interpretative technique. In many sefarim of our holy Tanach, a contrast of the beginning and end of the sefer sheds light on its theme. This seems true regarding the following sefarim:
+1. Sefer Shemot — begins with avdut and ends with the shechina entering the mishkan.
+2. Sefer Shmuel (Chazal say Shmuel authored Megillat Rut!) — begins with shofet and the mishkan and ends with David HaMelech taking the first step to build the Beit HaMikdash.
+3. Sefer Melachim — begins with David HaMelech and ends with the Churban.
+4. Sefer Yechezkel — begins with Yechezkel receiving nevuah during galut Bavel and ends with a description of the future Beit HaMikdash.
+Now, let us compare the beginning and end of Megillat Rut in order to better understand its overall theme. The sefer begins with a period of corruption and negativity and concludes with mention of David HaMelech. Thus, we may argue that Megillat Rut teaches about how our people made the transition from the failures of the period of the shofetim to the successes of the times of David HaMelech. Self-centered interest would not bring us to the strong national entity that was developed during the times of David. Only once we coalesce as a community of giving can a sense of national unity and identity ultimately emerge.
+Megillat Rut — The Reward for Chesed
Now let’s analyze a famous but very difficult Midrash – Rut Rabbah 2:14 "אמר ר' זעירא:
+מגילה זו אין בה לא טומאה ולא טהרה ולא איסור ולא היתר, ולמה נכתבה? ללמדך שכר טוב לגומלי חסדים
+In other words, Megillat Rut does not teach us any Halachot. Rather, it is written to teach us the reward bestowed on those who engage in kind deeds.
+There are two major difficulties with this Midrash. First, Megillat Rut is a veritable treasure trove of sources for a wide variety of Halachot. These include Halachot regarding geirut, marriage, inheritance, and kinyan suddar. Second, the Tanach — in sections much earlier than Megillat Rut — teaches the reward for gomlei chasadim. For instance, Sefer Bereishit records how Rivka is chosen as one of the Imahot due to her extraordinary chesed.
+In light of our discussion, we can suggest a deeper meaning of this Midrash. The Midrash teaches that the primary message of Megillat Rut is not the many Halachot that we derive from this rich story. Rather, the central theme is that of reward and punishment — the reward for those who are giving and the punishment for the self-centered. Megillat Rut begins with a searing description of the terrible downfall of Elimelech, Machlon and Kilyon due to self-centered and self-serving behavior. It concludes with the great reward ultimately bestowed upon Rut, who is characterized by Chazal as the mother of royalty and whose kindness to her mother-in-law Naomi is astounding. Her ultimate reward in this world, teach Chazal, is her presence at the royal inauguration of her great-great-grandson Shlomo HaMelech (Bava Batra 91b).
+Conclusion — Chesed: The Recipe for Success in Life
The lessons for us run deep and wide. Any community, from the smallest to the largest, must follow the recipe set forth in Megillat Rut — fostering the willingness to give and eschewing self-centeredness — in order to achieve success. A marriage must be characterized by ani le’dodi ve’dodi li, with each partner looking to give to the other. One who enters marriage with a self-centered attitude, thinking “what’s in this for me?” is doomed to fail. A community composed of people solely focused on what the community can do for them will not flourish. Rather, in order to succeed, a community needs its members to think, “what can I do for the community?” The same applies for a larger community — the people must be devoted to each other as well as the leadership and the leadership must be devoted to serving the people.
+
+Section 2
+
+Understanding Elimelech's Death
Chazal and the classic mefarshim presume that Elimelech died prematurely due to sin. What prompts this understanding? The interpretative techniques — middot she’haTorah nidreshet ba’hem — of davar ha’lameid mei’inyano and semichut parshiot are possible answers. The context and connection of the pesukim are ones of unusual suffering (famine) and premature death (Machlon and Kilyon dying childless). This leads us to conclude that Elimelech’s death is also premature. But what did Elimelech do that prompted such severe punishment?
+Answer #1 — Abandoning Eretz Yisrael
Bava Batra 91b cites Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Rashbi) as explaining that the reason for Elimelech’s premature death is that he abandoned Eretz Yisrael.
+Interestingly, one might consider the time period in which Rashbi lived. As one of the five “new” talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, Rashbi lived in the aftermath of the brutal Roman suppression of the Bar Kochva revolt, when life in Eretz Yisrael was extraordinarily difficult and Jews were leaving Eretz Yisrael for Bavel in droves. In pointing to Elimelech’s sin of abandonment of Eretz Yisrael, might Rashbi have been sending a message to the Jews of his time, warning them not to leave Eretz Yisrael due to the difficult circumstances?
+We must consider, though, whether this contextual perspective is a valid way to look at Chazal and later mefarshim. Many argue that we should understand the timeless teachings of Chazal independently from their specific life circumstances.
+Elimelech vs. Avraham Avinu
Of course, the major question that emerges is how Elimelech differs from Avraham Avinu, who left Eretz Yisrael due to famine. Ramban (Bereishit 12:10) considers this act of Avraham Avinu to be sinful, which seems to be in line with Rashbi’s understanding that Elimelech’s sin was that he left Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, this suggests that Sarah Imeinu's captivity by Pharaoh is a punishment for leaving Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, Avraham and Sarah’s safe exit from their encounter with Pharaoh, in good health and great wealth, leads most mefarshim to conclude that it was not sinful when Avraham Avinu left Eretz Yisrael.
+The mefarshim endeavor to distinguish between Avraham Avinu and Elimelech. Some note that Devarim perek 11, the second parasha of k’riat Shema, teaches that if we perform mitzvot then we receive rain and if we abandon Hashem and do not perform mitzvot then we do not receive rain. Thus, Elimelech as a leader should have led an effort to end the famine by rallying our people to improve their devotion to Hashem instead of leaving Eretz Yisrael. Avraham Avinu did not have this option.
+Answer #2 — Abandoning His People
One may argue that this parasha of k’riat Shema is irrelevant to Avraham Avinu, since it was presented long after his lifetime. It is relevant for Elimelech, though. Rashbi notes that since Elimelech was the gadol ha’dor, it was his responsibility to recognize that the famine was a result of the people’s sinful behavior — “bi’yemei shefot ha’shofetim.” Elimelech should have rallied the Jewish people to teshuva, which would have ended the famine. He is therefore punished for abandoning his responsibility and leaving Eretz Yisrael at a time when he should have instead led B’nei Yisrael to teshuvah.
+This relates to the response given by the Lubavitcher Rebbe when asked why he did not make aliyah: The captain does not leave the ship. In the case of Elimelech, he was punished for leaving his ship. Thus, Elimelech’s death was not due to his leaving Eretz Yisrael per se, but rather the sin of abandoning his flock during their hour of greatest need[2].
+We should note that in contrast to the selfish Elimelech, Rav Shimon Shkop, the great Rosh Yeshiva, returned to war-torn Europe in the late 1930’s after a fundraising trip to the United States, so as not to abandon his talmidim in their time of greatest distress. The same is told of Rav Yitzchak Herzog, Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi, who returned from America to Eretz Yisrael in 1943 when the then-undefeated Nazis were a mere ninety miles away from Eretz Yisrael.
+Answer #3 — Anti-Chesed
The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 1:4) explains Elimelech’s punishment as follows:
+Elimelech was one of the leaders of the generation. When the years of famine arrived, he said that now Jews will besiege his home demanding financial support. Elimelech then escaped to Moav.
+From where in the pesukim might the Midrash derive this idea? One clue is Elimelech’s puzzling choice to move to Moav. The climate in Moav is identical to that of Eretz Yisrael; Elimelech would not achieve relief from the famine in Moav. Mitzrayim, with the dependable overflow of the Nile to the neighboring farmlands, would make a far better choice of destination during a famine. Moreover, during the period of the Shofetim, Moav and the Jewish people were at war (Eglon Melech Moav vs. Ehud ben Geira), all the more reason not to choose Moav.
+The answer lies in the reason we are forbidden to marry people from Moav (Devarim 23:4) — their failure to provide us food when we passed through their land. It seems irrational to permanently shun this nation due to poor behavior during one episode. However, Moav’s refusal to share water typifies this nation’s character. Moav emerged from Lot and his daughter, refugees from Sedom. This nation, therefore, perpetuates the evil legacy of Sedom, the shunning and even forbidding of chesed. Elimelech saw Moav as a haven for those fleeing pressure to engage in chesed, and chose to move to this bastion of anti-chesed in order to avoid pressure during a time of need.
+Furthermore, the psychological concept of projection, whereby one projects his own deficiencies onto others, explains why Elimelech feared the Jewish people would besiege his home. Besieging a home and making demands is a Sedomite behavior, as seen in Bereishit perek 19. Thus, Elimelech harbors a Sedom character and projects Sedom-like behavior upon others.
+Le’lamedcha Sechar Le’Gomlei Chasadim
As discussed above, the major theme of Sefer Rut is the reward conferred upon those who deal kindly and the punishment visited upon those who reject kindness. This is furthered by the approach that Elimelech’s severe punishment stems from fleeing his responsibility to help his community in a time of great need.
+Combining Both Reasons
The two approaches we have outlined may be seen as fundamentally identical. Both revolve around the idea that punishment is meted out to one who shirks his responsibility. Indeed, Rashi (Rut 1:1 s.v. “Va’yeilech Ish”) does appear to combine these two reasons, as he mentions both that Elimelech left Eretz Yisrael and that he refused to help the many people in need.
+Conclusion
The ethical legacy of Am Yisrael from the time of Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu is one of chesed. In contrast, the ethical legacy of Moav is the Sedom-like rejection of chesed. Elimelech was a Jew who, in both ideology and lifestyle, becomes a Moabite and fails miserably. Rut, on the other hand, is a Moabite woman, who by dint of her extraordinary chesed becomes a Jew — not only in name but in ideology and lifestyle — and achieves great success.
+
+Section 3
+
+Machlon and Kilyon Sickness and Destruction
Who would name their sons sickness and destruction? Yet, this is precisely what Naomi and Elimelech did when they named their sons Machlon and Kilyon — Machlon is derived from the word machala, meaning sickness, and Kilyon is derived from the word kalah, which means destruction! Obviously, an explanation is needed.
+While the names sickness and destruction do reflect the untimely deaths of these men and that they died childless, why would they be given such a name at the outset of their lives?
+Explanation #1 — Not Their Real Names
Sometimes, names in Tanach do not seem to be the peoples’ actual names. For example, in Sefer Bereishit the name of the head of the city of Shechem, Chamor, does not seem to be his name. It is, rather, what Tanach’s author — i.e. Hashem — thinks of him (and perhaps his constituents as well). Another example is Eglon Melech Moav of Sefer Shofetim. Eglon, meaning fat bull, is unlikely to be his true name. However, it does reflect what the author of Sefer Shofetim (Shmuel HaNavi, according to Chazal) wants us to think of him.
+According to this approach, the actual names of Naomi and Elimelech’s two sons were not Machlon and Kilyon. Rather, these are the names assigned to them by the author of Sefer Rut (Shmuel HaNavi, once again, according to Chazal).
+Explanation #2 — A Choice of Destiny
Da’at Mikra, though, notes that Machlon and Kilyon need not necessarily mean death and destruction. Machlon might derive from “mechol,” meaning joyful dance, and Kilyon may derive from the word “va’yechal,” meaning completion. This leads us to an enticing explanation of these names, especially according to the Kabbalistic tradition that ru’ach hakodesh impacts parents when they name their children. (See the Ari’s Sha’ar Hagilgulim, hakdama 23, and also the Gemara, Yoma 83b, which states that a person’s name expresses his essential character.)
+In Sefer Yonah perek 3, Yonah tells the people of Nineveh that in forty days they will be “nehepachet.” Rashi to Yonah 3:4 explains that the word “nehepachet” in Yonah’s very brief address to Nineveh can mean either destroyed or reformed. In this address, he conveyed the divine message that they have a choice to either change their ways or be destroyed. You decide, Hashem says. You write the script of your life.
+Similarly, by giving names that can mean either happiness or tragedy, Hashem gives a choice to Machlon and Kilyon — you choose your destiny. It is up to you. The dual meanings of their names convey that they were not destined to fail — they could either have a joyful life or a life of destruction. Unfortunately, they chose poorly, which led to their downfall.
+Sadly, Shevet Shimon wound up failing miserably in Sefer Bamidbar, with the culmination of their leading roles in the terrible sin with Midianite women at Pe’or. Shevet Shimon were stripped of their status of a shevet, as evidenced by the absence of a bracha for them in Parashat V’zot HaBracha. Likewise, Sefer Yehoshua records that Shimon received no independent portion in the Land of Israel, and they lived merely as an adjunct to Shevet Yehuda.
+Conclusion
Hashem sets forth similar choices for each of us. He provides us with options as to whether we will succeed or fail — it all depends on us. We can bend the scripts of our life stories to either the positive or negative side. Machlon and Kilyon sadly set a bad example of exercising poor judgment in their life choices. Shevet Levi (see footnote 2), on the other hand, set a much more positive model of shaping their lives in a way that brings rousing success.
+Postscript
Bava Batra (91b) describes the name Machlon as condemning both brothers for “asu chulin b’gufan”, secularizing their bodies, and the name Kilyon signifies that they both, therefore, deserved destruction. A major goal of the Torah is for us to sanctify our body by creating a proper partner for the Neshama (see Sanhedrin 91 for a creative depiction of the partnership of the body and soul). I therefore perceive Jews who leave the Torah path as desanctifying their bodies, and this desanctification is manifested in their appearance (see Ta’anit 11a).
+Sadly, I have witnessed a large portion of those who have left the path, whose lives have been ones of waste and self-destruction. Their pursuit of happiness by searching for supposed greener pastures did not bear fruit. “Shuva Yisrael ad Hashem Elokecha, ki chashalta ba’avonecha.” I have witnessed many failures on the part of those who have left the Torah.
+
+Section 4
+
+Why Did Machlon and Kilyon Die?
Now that we have explored the reason for Elimelech’s premature death, let us turn our attention to Machlon and Kilyon. Chazal and the classic mefarshim all agree that their death was premature and punitive. The fact that they both died childless at a young age is what seems to lead them to this conclusion. We can discern that they died young from the fact that their widows were still of childbearing age after their death, as is apparent from the dialogue with Naomi.
+Approach #1 — Intermarriage
A straightforward reading of perek 1, pesukim 1-5 indicates that their marriage to non-Jewish women caused their premature deaths. Indeed, the Targum to pasuk 5 ascribes the deaths of Machlon and Kilyon to their intermarriage. Malbim to pasuk 5 adopts this approach as well.
+Malbim believes that the fact the word “vayis’u” is used in connection to this marriage and not “vayikach” indicates that these were illicit marriages. “Vayikach” is the word used in Tanach to describe proper marriages, whereas “vayis’u” is the term used in the context of intermarriages, as is found in Sefer Ezra and Sefer Nechemia.
+Approach #2 — Shirking Responsibilities
Ibn Ezra to pasuk 2 sets forth a very surprising position. He insists that Rut and Orpah converted before they married Machlon and Kilyon, citing Rut 1:15, which describes Orpah as returning to her gods as a ra’ayah to his approach.
+Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 5:9) seems to agree with Ibn Ezra, as he ascribes the premature deaths of Machlon and Kilyon to their leaving Eretz Yisrael and not to their marriage to non-Jewish women. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Bava Batra 91a) also seems to agree, as he attributes their premature deaths to their leaving Eretz Yisrael and not to intermarriage.
+We can explain the premature deaths of Machlon and Kilyon in light of the story of the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon (Ketubot 66b-67a). Nakdimon ben Guryon was a famous, mega-wealthy figure who appears frequently in the Gemara. The Gemara relates the shocking outcome of his daughter (William Davidson translation of the Talmud):
+The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him.
+Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai posed the following poignant question to her:
+My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [cḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together.
+The Gemara asks:
+And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a beraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his attendants would spread underneath him to walk on, and with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind him for themselves? Clearly, he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.
+The lesson of this story is the misfortune that will fall from a leader who shirks his responsibility. If Hashem graces someone with great wealth, great responsibility comes along with it. Hashem will hold the beneficiary of great wealth to a high level of accountability if he fails to properly execute these responsibilities.
+According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Machlon and Kilyon were exceptionally wealthy, and therefore they had a great responsibility towards their people, especially during a time of famine. The consequences for a captain abandoning his ship in time of distress are severe. Machlon and Kilyon, as Nakdimon ben Guryon, pay a steep price for their failures to live up to these expectations.
+Evidence for this approach may be derived from the fact that Machlon and Kilyon died ten years after their marriages to Rut and Orpah. Had their sins been their marriages, they should have, it would seem, died much earlier. By contrast, according to the second approach, ten years were given to Machlon and Kilyon as an opportunity to develop into leaders independent of their father Elimelech.
+After they maintained their father’s poor choices into adulthood, Hashem held them accountable. Interestingly, the pasuk describes their death as “they also died,” indicating (as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai teaches) that they died of the same sin as Elimelech. They all paid the same steep price for their stinginess at a time when their generosity was most in demand.
+Rut as a Source for Geirut Le’Chumra
Let us consider: According to Ibn Ezra, Rambam, and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Rut and Orpah converted before their respective marriages to Machlon and Kilyon. Why, then, did Rut have to convert again when she returned to Yehuda with Naomi?
+Apparently, even if one believes Rut converted before her marriage to Machlon, the conversion was subpar and required an upgrade upon her arrival in Eretz Yisrael. This is not an uncommon scenario in our time, where people undergo a geirut le’chumra after having previously undergone a less-than-stellar conversion.
+Conclusion
The reasons offered for Machon and Kilyon’s early demise are fundamentally identical. Marrying Moabite women while living in Moav represents marriage to Moabite values, such as refusal to extend help to the poor in their time of need.
+The lessons that emerge from this tragic episode are stark and grim. The consequences for rejecting chesed are severe. On the other hand, we witness the beginning of the great rewards for the chesed exemplified by Rut and Boaz in the coming chapters of Megillat Rut.
+
+Section 5
+
+Evaluating Naomi
In Judaism, we do not try to explain the suffering of others. However, the suffering of the people mentioned in Tanach is recorded by Hashem and His Nevi’im for us to derive critical lessons.
+Naomi — A Tzadeket
On the one hand, Rashi to pasuk 7 and to pasuk 3 s.v. “Ish Naomi” (especially the portion in parenthesis) endorses the view in Chazal which regards Naomi as a tzadeket. The Midrash (Rut Rabbah) frequently refers to Naomi as a tzadeket.
+The are many proofs to this assertion. First, we may contrast the description of the marriage of Naomi’s sons to non-Jewish women in pasuk 4 with the marriage of Shimshon in perek 14 of Sefer Shofetim. Unlike Shimshon’s parents who facilitated his marriage to a Pelishti woman, Naomi played no role in Machlon and Kilyon’s marriage to nochri women.
+Moreover, we can derive more evidence from a careful examination of pasuk 7 by distinguishing between the following three words which describe living in a locale: la’gur, la’shevet and haya. La’gur denotes a temporary dwelling, la’shevet a permanent dwelling and haya refers to simply existing. The first seven pesukim of Megillat Rut never describe Naomi using the root shin-vet-tav, indicating that Naomi was not a willing participant in her husband and sons’ abandoning of Eretz Yisrael. Rather, pasuk 7 describes the time that she was — or “hayeta” — in the fields of Moav. It sounds like she merely existed in Moav, since for Naomi dwelling in Mo’av is not true living.
+In addition, a careful reading of Rut 1:1 also defends Naomi. This pasuk states that Elimelech went to Moav and that his wife and sons came with him. This pasuk depicts Elimelech as taking the initiative, and that Naomi merely came along with him, as Rashi asserts.
+Finally, the fact that pasuk 5 records “va’tisha’er ha’isha” supports Rashi’s assertion. Malbim interprets these words:ותשאר האשה, כי היא לא השתתפה בחטאם והיה דעתה תמיד לחזור לא"י”. In other words, the very fact that Naomi, unlike Elimelech, Machlon and Kilyon, survives is evidence for her innocence in the eyes of Hashem.
+Naomi’s Suffering
Nonetheless, Naomi does suffer terribly. We can attribute this suffering to the principle of oy le’rasha, oy le’shcheino, as the good people suffer due to being in the company of the wicked. Alternatively, this situation is a sad example of inexplicable tzadik ve’ra lo, suffering of the righteous.
+However, Chazal (Shabbat 55b) teach “אין מיתה בלא חטא ואין ייסורין בלא עון” there is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity. This teaching prompts us to search for some misdeed for which Naomi deserved such a desperate fate. The Midrash, Rut Rabbah 2:10, says וַתִּשָּׁאֶר הָאִשָּׁה, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא נֶעֶשְׂתָה שְׁיָ��ֵי שְׁיָרִים, describing Naomi as having become “leftovers of leftovers”, which might indicate some sin on the part of Naomi.
+Let’s introduce this approach with the story of the grandmother of a TABC graduate. When she and her husband arrived in the United States in the early 1950’s, there was great pressure to work on Saturdays, as America functioned on a six day work week in those years. Her husband could not find a job other than one that demanded chilul Shabbat, and out of desperation he took the job. She, in turn, told her husband in no uncertain terms that if he worked on Shabbat, she would not permit him to enter the family home! Her husband quit the job and managed to find a job that did not trespass on Shabbat. I officiated at her funeral and this story featured prominently (the grandfather had predeceased the grandmother). The grandmother saved her family’s Jewish identity, and this was noted with great honor.
+On the other hand, I know of many stories that had the opposite process and result, in which the husband resolutely refused to send his children to Jewish schools and the wife felt she had no choice but to acquiesce to her strong-willed husband. The wife eventually paid a steep price for her lack of insistence that the children attend Jewish schools. The tragic result was that the family fell into the American melting pot and dissolved therein. The couple has no Jewish progeny!
+Naomi could have told Elimelech that she refused to go to Moav. However, Naomi, following her pleasant nature (as indicated by her name, noted in the Midrash, Rut Rabbah 2:5), lacked the fortitude and grit to stand up to her husband at the defining moment. The bitter result of this failure is the loss of Elimelech, Machlon and Kilyon.
+One may respond that the women in the Tanach were expected to submit to the will of their husbands. This presumption, however, is far from the truth. Sarah Imeinu and Rivka Imeinu are celebrated for standing up to their husbands at defining moments when their husbands were about to make a grievous error that would endanger the Jewish future.
+The Gemara (Sanhedrin 109b-110a) describes the power of a wife to shape her family’s character and destiny. The wife of Ohn ben Pelet is celebrated for manipulating her husband in order to remove him from the Korach rebellion and spare him from the resulting severe punishments meted out to its participants.
+The Gemara concludes by citing the pasuk in Mishlei, which teaches that a woman’s wisdom builds her home or can destroy her home. The psychological power that a wife wields over her husband is evident from Sefer Bereishit perek 3. Much space is devoted to how the Nachash convinces Chavah to eat from the Etz HaDa’at, while no space is devoted to explaining how Chava managed to convince Adam HaRishon to eat from the Etz HaDa’at. No explanation is needed for this!
+Naomi sadly suffers for her failure to muster the courage to resist her husband. Still, we are in no way excusing Elimelech for his poor choice. He should have been eager to hear the opinion and wisdom from his wife. Chazal (Niddah 45b) teach that Hashem endows women with Binah Yeteira, an extra dose of wisdom. Woe to the husband who fails to avail himself of this wisdom!
+Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah (Brachot 27b -28a) consults with his wife before assuming the mantle of leadership. The Gemara (Bava Metzia 59a) advises husbands to lower themselves and heed their wives' advice. In contemporary times, I heard Rabbi Mordechai Willig advise a young husband to follow his wife’s advice, and although he avoided carrying a cellular phone for many years, Rabbi Willig began to carry one when his wife advised him to do so after he reached the age of seventy.
+A Supporting Midrash
Based on our approach we can explain the following Midrash (Pesikta De’Rav Kahana 17:6): “At first their horses, camels, and donkeys died. Afterward, he died, as it says, ‘Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died.’ Afterward, the two sons died, ‘And the two of them also died, Machlon and Kilyon.’ And afterward, she died.”
+Of course, Naomi’s death occurred many years after the deaths of Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon. After all, Naomi remains alive even towards Megillat Rut’s conclusion. However, her death serves as kapara for her failure to resist Elimelech. Her sin hardly approaches the severity of the misdeeds of Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon, and so Naomi does not die a premature death. Nevertheless, she does bear some responsibility and thus requires a measure of kapara.
+Conclusion — Keys to Success in Life
One of the most important life skills, for all aspects of our lives, is the ability to both give and receive mussar. Although it may not be pleasant or comfortable at times, it is absolutely necessary, to the extent that one will pay a steep price for failure to speak up. On the other hand, one must be comfortable and receptive to constructive criticism.
+The fates of Elimelech and Naomi teach all generations that ashrei to one who knows how to both gracefully and effectively give and receive mussar, and woe to one who does not.
+
+Section 6
+
+Was Naomi a Frontrunner?
The Torah severely dislikes frontrunners. The classic example is Haran, brother of Avraham Avinu. He calculates that if Avraham wins in his confrontation with Nimrod then he will side with Avraham, and if Nimrod emerges victorious then he will side with Nimrod. After Avraham was saved, Haran told Nimrod that he was on Avraham’s side. Nimrod then threw Haran in the fire and, unlike Avraham Avinu, Haran died.
+Rut perek 1 pasuk 6 seems to depict Naomi as a frontrunner! She goes to Eretz Yisrael in good times and abandons it in bad times — does this not sound Haran-like? To intensify our problem, consider that Lot is Haran’s son, and that Moav comes from Lot and Haran!
+Malbim
Malbim writes that Naomi returns to Eretz Yisrael only because there is plentiful food there. His approach substantiates our question and does not yet solve our problem.
+Solutions of the TABC Talmidim
Several solutions were suggested by the TABC talmidim.
+We may solve this problem based on Rashi and Chazal’s recording that Aharon insisted that Tziporah, Gershon, and Eliezer do not return with Moshe Rabbeinu to Mitzrayim (Shemot 18:2). He reasoned that one should not introduce people into a distressed environment.
+Similarly, Naomi refrains from returning until the famine ends, since she did not want to add to the burden of the nation. Had she returned during the famine, she would have made things more difficult for the poor, as they would have to share with Naomi the precious little food that was available.
+Alternatively, perhaps the people of Eretz Yisrael would be more receptive and less hostile to her if she waited until their stressful times ended.
+Lastly, it may be that Naomi hoped her daughters-in-law would return with her to Beit Lechem, and she figured that they would only be receptive to this option if she waited until the famine was over.
+Another Solution — Naomi Returns to Hashem
We suggest a different explanation based on a careful reading of Rut perek 1 pasuk 6. Why is Naomi returning? The word “pakad” is loaded with meaning, such as redemption and renewed interaction (see, for example, Bereishit 21:1-2, Bereishit 50:24, Shemot 3:16, and Rashi to Shemot 3:18).
+A careful reading of Rut 1:6 reveals that the “bread,” or productivity, of Eretz Yisrael was not Naomi’s motivation. The pasuk states that Naomi heard that “pakad Hashem et amo.” Had she only been interested in the bread, the pasuk would not have mentioned Hashem, let alone before the bread, only that she had heard that there was bread in the land. Rather, Naomi wished to be close to Hashem! Naomi lost her sons and her husband, but she felt that she would not be alone if she is with Hashem. The return of bread is a symbol of the reason she returned, but it is not itself the reason she returned. An almana (widow) once cried to the Lubavitcher Rebbe that she felt terribly alone. The Rebbe responded that a Jew is never alone — they always have Hashem with them!
+Two Proofs to the Sincerity of Naomi
As evidence for Naomi’s sincerity, we marshal the following assertion of the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 2:10) that Rut and Orpah were daughters of the king. Accordingly, Naomi has deep connections to the royal family of Moav. Thus she did not have to return to Beit Lechem to obtain food. She had access to abundant food while still in Moav.
+A second proof of Naomi’s sincerity is the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 2:12) that states that Naomi walked barefoot to Eretz Yisrael. This degree of dedication to arrive in Eretz Yisrael cannot merely be for food. It can be motivated only by a deep-rooted wish to draw near to Hashem.
+Conclusion
Through various explanations, we see that Naomi seemed to be sincere in her dedication to Hashem and Eretz Yisrael. This sets the stage for our next chapter, where we will see that Rut followed Naomi's example and sought to connect with Hashem. Orpah, however, did not grasp Naomi’s drive to return to her native land.
+Postscript: A Poignant Midrash
The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 2:11) teaches that sometimes Hashem returns to Eretz Yisrael because we merit the return of His presence, whereas in other times He returns not due to our merits, but rather for His sake (as expressed in Yechezkel perek 36). Rabbi Yehuda Amital often remarked that Hashem restored much of Eretz Yisrael to Am Yisrael in 1948 for His sake. The terrible chilul Hashem of the Holocaust required the kiddush Hashem involved in the manifold miracles of the creation of the Jewish State.
+However, the return of Hashem’s presence for His sake is not a long-term plan. Instead, we aim to “up our spiritual game,” both on an individual and communal level, so that we merit Hashem’s presence in Eretz Yisrael due to our good deeds and not only out of His pity for us or the need to correct a chilul Hashem.
+
+Section 7
+
+Naomi Encourages Avodah Zarah?!
Many are bothered by Naomi’s encouragement of Rut and Orpah to return to their mother’s home, thereby encouraging them to worship avodah zarah and be immersed in the deplorable Moabite lifestyle. This seems to be a blatant violation of לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר, לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל — the prohibition to encourage sin (Vayikra 19:14; this prohibition applies even to encourage Nochrim to violate their seven mitzvot, as stated in Pesachim 22b). Pasuk 15 seems to be especially problematic, as Naomi explicitly tried to convince Rut to return to avodah zarah!
+To intensify the question, we note several points:
+1. It is especially problematic according to Ibn Ezra, who argues that Rut and Orpah had undergone a conversion. Although this conversion is substandard, it still seems wrong to encourage Rut and Orpah to return to their Moabite ways.
+2. Naomi seems to violate much more than lifnei iver — Naomi seems to violate meisit– a very severe prohibition! Lifnei iver refers to facilitating sin, while meisit refers to convincing people to sin. In Devarim perek 13, we see that meisit is depicted as a heinous sin of the highest order.
+3. Moreover, every generation follows the model set forth by Naomi (Yevamot 47b), by discouraging others from joining our people. Why? If they do not join, they will likely serve avodah zarah — so why do we not focus our efforts on rescuing people from sin?
+Finally, the extreme spiritual descent of Orpah after she left Naomi leads us to question the wisdom of Naomi in encouraging Orpah to leave and return to the depraved culture of Moav.4.
+Background for an Answer
The Gemara (Yevamot 109b) makes a remarkable statement that “evil after evil will befall those who accept converts.” Tosafot (ad. loc. s.v. “Ra’ah”) limit the Gemara’s declaration to a beit din that either seeks to convince Nochrim to convert or converts individuals indiscriminately or impulsively. If, Tosafot continue, the candidate is persistent in his desire to convert, like Rut, then we should accept him.
+Tosafot support their assertion by citing examples of outstanding batei din, such as those of Yehoshua and Hillel (Shabbat 31a), who accepted sincere geirim. Although the individuals who came to him were hardly viable candidates for conversion at first — one of them denied the validity of the oral law — Hillel was confident that with patience and wisdom he would be able to shepherd them to full acceptance of Torah, an expectation that he fulfilled. Moreover, Tosafot cite the example of Timna (Bereishit 36:12), who, according to Chazal (Sanhedrin 99b), was unjustifiably denied conversion by our Avot (forefathers). Out of bitterness, she agreed to be a concubine to Eisav’s son Elifaz and bore Amaleik, who perpetually inflicts great pain upon Israel.
+Accordingly, although batei din must not reject those with genuine commitment to become successful geirim who will lead fully observant lives, they must exercise caution and not hastily or indiscriminately convert candidates for geirut. Indeed, this Gemara records a shocking teaching of Chazal that converts are as difficult for the Jewish people as skin disease! This assertion, Rashi explains, refers to converts who do not adequately prepare for conversion and subsequently fail to integrate into the Jewish people after conversion (unlike Rut who integrates magnificently).
+Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:35) writes that converting someone who will not observe Torah U’Mitzvot, itself violates lifnei iver, since now Hashem holds him accountable for not observing the 613 mitzvot. Thus, it is critical that rabbis of each generation exercise prudence and admit only converts who are, like Rut, thoroughly committed to the Jewish people and Torah life. Acting otherwise runs counter to the best interests of the Jewish people and the convert.
+A Ruling of Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch
Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:483) was asked by a newly-observant man if he was permitted to invite his parents to Shabbat evening dinner knowing that they would drive home after the meal. Rabbi Shternbuch permits the invitation, especially given that the child told his parents that he was upset with them driving on Shabbat.
+Rabbi Shternbuch makes a bold assertion regarding the prohibition of lifnei iver. He argues that this restriction applies only if one seeks to harm the other individual. However, one does not violate lifnei iver if his intention is to help the other person. Rabbi Shternbuch argues that lifnei iver is analogous to the prohibition to wound (chavalah) in this regard; just as it is permitted to “wound” for therapeutic purposes, such as a surgeon performing a needed operation, so too one is permitted to cause another Jew to sin in order to benefit them. Since the man intended to help his parents by inviting them to a Shabbat meal, and thereby bringing them closer to Torah observance, he does not violate lifnei iver. Rabbi Shternbuch notes that in the case in question, the parents were positively disposed towards being drawn closer to Torah life, and the Shabbat meal invitations were indeed part of the process of supporting their return to religious observance.
+Although Rabbi Shternbuch does not cite any precedent for his view, we can garner support for his approach from a suggestion made by Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Yoreh Deah 181:6). Some background information is needed to understand this suggestion. First, we must note that a man is forbidden to shave his face with a razor (makif) and is forbidden to be shaved by a razor (nikaf; see Makkot 20b). A woman is not included in this prohibition (Kiddushin 1:7), but violates lifnei iver if she shaves a man’s face with a razor (Shulchan Aruch ad. loc.).
+Rabbi Akiva Eiger suggests that if a man is determined to shave with a razor and cannot be persuaded to refrain from such activity, it is better for a woman to shave him than for him to shave himself. He reasons that had the man shaved himself, he would violate two prohibitions, shaving and being shaved. If the woman shaves him, though, he violates only one prohibition, that of being shaved. Even though the woman herself seemingly violates the prohibition of lifnei iver by shaving the man, Rabbi Akiva Eiger permits her to shave him. This suggestion supports Rabbi Shternbuch’s approach that one is not in violation of lifnei iver if in the bigger picture he is helping that person.
+Choosing Between Bad and Worse
We see from Rabbi Akiva Eiger that one does not violate lifnei iver if, when one is faced with a choice of bad or worse, he chooses the bad option instead of a worse option. A woman shaving a man is a bad option. However, the man shaving himself is a worse option. Thus, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, one does not violate lifnei iveir when choosing bad over worse since his intentions are to help and not to harm.
+In Rabbi Shternbuch’s case, while it is bad to encourage Jews to drive on Shabbat, it is worse to allow people to spiritually founder and lose connection with Torah life. Thus, he permits choosing the less bad option over the even worse alternative. Although one is encouraging a bad option, in the bigger picture he is helping, since the alternative is worse.
+Defending Naomi
Naomi faced a similar dilemma. Just imagine what would have happened had Naomi not discouraged Orpah to return to Moav. Naomi and her daughters-in-law were desperately poor and heading to a society that seethed in resentment towards Naomi’s family’s abandonment of Beit Lechem during desperate times. Orpah would never have withstood such a challenging situation.
+Orpah, who loved her mother-in-law and possibly even Jewish values, lacked the grit and fortitude to remain steadfast in her commitment to Naomi and Jewish life in the face of enormous challenges. Once she would have confronted the challenges of Beit Lechem, Orpah would have likely turned around and headed for Moav. Such a reversal would have constituted a massive chilul Hashem, had Naomi failed to warn her.
+Worse yet, Orpah could have felt trapped and unable to return to Moav. Orpah would seethe with resentment and likely would have negatively impacted Naomi and Rut, as well as other Jews. She would likely be a convert who is seen by the Gemara as comparable to skin disease, a separate part of the body that does not assimilate into the body. Instead, it remains a festering sore, negatively impacting those in the broader environment. Thus, Naomi encouraging her daughters-in-law to return to their Moabite families, while a bad option, is a better choice than encouraging them to travel with her to Eretz Yisrael.
+The Necessity of Full Disclosure
When a young man approaches seeking advice as to whether to volunteer for the Israeli army, a similar approach must be adopted. While it is important to note the positive aspects of enlistment, one must not shy away from mentioning the serious challenges involved. The same must be said about those considering the rabbinate or medical school. While the rewards are great, there are formidable challenges involved in these commitments. Hiding the inevitable challenges serves no one’s long-term best interests. Negative results will likely ensue if one enters a challenging situation without being warned of the difficulties that lie ahead. If one is forewarned and makes the commitment to forge ahead despite the difficulties, he is positioned to succeed and manage the challenges.
+A convert must be forewarned about the challenges involved in Jewish life. When I brought a candidate for conversion before a beit din in 2019, the beit din more than once raised the issue of the high cost of Orthodox life in the United States. The beit din also did not shy away from mentioning the Holocaust. While raising these issues causes many to flee to a lifestyle that includes avodah zarah and the deplorably low moral standards of much of contemporary western society, it is a better option than allowing someone to convert absent full disclosure. Failing to inform the conversion candidate would harm the candidate, those close to the candidate, and the broader Jewish community.
+Conclusion — Naomi Sets the Model of Full Disclosure
Our choices are sometimes not between bad and good, but between bad and worse. Naomi’s dilemma is identical to the dilemma faced by batei din for giyur (conversion) in all generations. While it is a bad option to encourage return to a decadent society, it is better than refraining from properly preparing to successfully deal with Jewish life. Naomi sets the model of testing for commitment. Those who follow in the path of Rut and display a commitment to overcome adversity are to be enthusiastically welcomed. However, those unable to make such a commitment are better off not joining the fold.
+
+Section 8
+
+Rut's Motivation to Convert
Boaz praised Rut as an ideal convert. In perek 2 pasuk 11, Boaz described Rut’s decision to leave her homeland and family in the same terms as Avraham Avinu leaving his homeland for Eretz Yisrael. In fact, a convert is identified in Halachic documents as ben or bat Avraham Avinu. It is indeed a very high honor to be identified as a child of Avraham Avinu.
+Moreover, in the next pasuk, Boaz described Rut as coming under the wings of the Shechinah. This describes the very essence of geirut (conversion). Milah and tevilah (immersion in a mikvah) are merely acts of conversion, external manifestations of the convert’s inner experience of seeking shelter under the comforting wings of the Almighty. Rambam (Hilchot Dei’ot 6:4 and Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:4) describes the essence of conversion as coming beneath the wings of the Shechinah, following Boaz’s perspective.
+A Problem — Did Rut Love Hashem or Naomi?
Over the years, TABC talmidim have noted that Rut in perek 1 pesukim 16-17 did not utter any iconic Jewish expression of devotion to Hashem, such as “Hashem Hu ha’Elokim” or “Shema Yisrael”. Rather, she couched her devotion to Torah in terms of her devotion to Naomi: “Your nation is my nation, your God is my God, where you will go I will go, where you will sleep I will sleep, where you will die I will die and there I will be buried.”
+Rut seemed to be devoted to Naomi, rather than to Hashem! In the words of one talmid, “had Naomi worshipped sea monsters, Rut would have become a devoted sea monster worshipper.” Why, then, do Chazal (Yevamot 47a) view Rut’s declaration to Naomi as an ideal expression of Torah commitment?
+Basis for Our Answer – A Teshuvah from Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
The following situation is described in Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (volume 9 Even Ha’Ezer 14). Rabbi Moshe Feinstein responded to an inquiry from Brazil regarding the daughter of a non-Jewish woman (and a Jewish father) who was raised Jewish, attended Jewish schools, and was observant of Halacha. This woman only discovered that she was not Halachically Jewish upon becoming engaged to marry a fully observant Jew. The question posed was whether the beit din should be wary of converting such an individual. Rabbi Feinstein answered that the beit din should not hesitate to convert her. Even though one might have argued that such a conversion should be deemed a conversion for ulterior motives (i.e., to be able to marry the man to whom she was engaged), that was not the case here, as the reason she was interested in marrying a fully observant Jewish man was because of her Jewish upbringing and commitment to Jewish life.
+Explaining Rut
Just as the bride in Rabbi Feinstein’s case was interested in the observant Jewish man because of his values, so too Rut loved Naomi and was so devoted to her because of the Torah values Naomi represented. As much as Rut loved Naomi, no healthy minded individual (and it is clear from the conversations recorded in Megillat Rut that Rut is a self-assured healthy minded person) would have joined Naomi in her journey to Eretz Yisrael if her commitment to Naomi had not been grounded in the love of Hashem. It is for this very reason that Orpah returned to Moav.
+Rut’s love for Naomi brought Rut to love Hashem, which then emerged as independent of her love for Naomi. Boaz, in turn, is deeply touched by Rut’s devotion to her mother-in-law and the Jewish people. He sees how hard Rut works, her willingness to collect among the poor, and her dogged determination to help her mother-in-law and herself. Were it not for Rut’s deep devotion to Hashem, she would have left this miserable existence and returned to Moav.
+Sanhedrin 99b
+Rabbi Moshe Feinstein suggests that this is precisely the criticism Chazal offer regarding the Avot’s handling of Timna’s attempt to convert (Sanhedrin 99b). They viewed Timna’s interest in conversion as being motivated by her interest in marrying a member of the families of the Avot, and so they rejected her. While it was true that she was interested in marrying into the family, her primary motivation was altruistic, and her interest in marrying into the family was solely because those were the people who shared her belief system.
+Menachot 44a
+In the case recorded in Menachot 44a,
+[A Torah student] heard that there was a woman of ill repute in a faraway city who charged four hundred gold talents for her services. He sent her the exorbitant fee and set an appointed time to meet her. When he arrived at the appointed time... as he was unclothing himself, the four fringes of his tzitzit slapped him in his face. He immediately slid off the bed on to the floor, where he was quickly joined by the woman. “I swear by the Roman Caesar," the harlot exclaimed, "I will not leave you until you reveal to me what flaw you have found in me!" "I swear," the Jew replied, "that I have never seen a woman as beautiful as you. However, there is one mitzvah that we were commanded by our God, and tzitzit is its name. Concerning this mitzvah the Torah twice states 'I am the Lord your God' — 'I am the one who will seek retribution, and I am the one who will reward.' Now the four tzitzit appeared to me as four witnesses, testifying to this truth. "I still will not leave you," the prostitute said, "until you provide me with your name, the names of your city, rabbi and the school in which you study Torah. "He wrote down all the information and handed it to her. The woman sold all her possessions. A third of the money she gave to the government (as a payoff so that they would allow her to convert to Judaism), a third she handed out to the poor, and the remaining third she took with her — along with the silver and gold beds — and she proceeded to the school which the man had named, the study hall of Rabbi Chiya. "Rabbi," she said to Rabbi Chiya, "I would like to convert to Judaism." "Perhaps," Rabbi Chiya responded, "you desire to convert because you have taken a liking to a Jewish man?" The woman pulled out the piece of paper with the information [and apparently related to Rabbi Chiya all that transpired with the Jew she had encountered]. "You may go and claim that which is rightfully yours," Rabbi Chiya proclaimed. She ended up marrying the man. the woman’s incredible sacrifice clearly demonstrates that her interest in marrying the Jewish man was motivated by her desire to marry a man with a similar belief system. For this reason, the great Rabbi Chiya felt she was entitled to convert.
+Conclusion – The Discerning Beit Din
There is a subtle difference between one who converts for marriage and one who is interested in marrying an observant Jew due to his or her Torah values. It takes a discerning eye to draw such a distinction.
+Beit Yosef (Yoreh Dei’ah 268) argues that “all depends on the judgment of the beit din.” Beit din may perform a conversion when the candidate has a Jewish marriage partner if it is convinced that the candidate’s conviction is sincere and resolute. If the candidate demonstrates he or she is following in the footsteps of Rut, then he or she will be accepted with open arms into the fold and counted as a proud successor to Rut, Avraham Avinu, and all the many outstanding geirim among our people.
+
+Section 9
+
+Chazal's Astoundingly Harsh Appraisal of Orpah
If you were asked to rate the spiritual level of Orpah on a scale from 1 to 10, I would imagine that you would regard Orpah as being average, or in the language of Chazal (Rosh Hashanah 16), a beinoni(t). She is not great like Rut, but she is not a bad person for not joining Naomi. After all, Nochrim are not expected to convert to Judaism. Even the promises of Mashiach in Yeshayahu 2:2-4 and Zecharia 14:9 do not depict non-Jews as accepting all the mitzvot.
+Chazal: Orpah was an Extreme Degenerate
Nonetheless, Chazal (Sotah 42b) adopt a shockingly harsh stance towards Orpah, attributing exceedingly degenerate behavior to her and asserting that Golyat was her descendent (please forgive the indelicate nature of this discussion!)
+רב ושמואל חד אמר הרפה שמה ולמה נקרא שמה ערפה שהכל עורפין אותה מאחריה וחד אמר ערפה שמה ולמה נקרא שמה הרפה שהכל דשין אותה כהריפות (שמואל ב כא) ואת ארבעת אלה יולדו להרפה בגת ויפלו ביד דוד וביד עבדיו מאי נינהו אמר רב חסדא סף ומדון גלית וישבי בנוב ויפלו ביד דוד וביד עבדיו דכתיב (רות א) ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה אמר רבי יצחק אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבואו בני הנשוקה ויפלו ביד בני הדבוקה.
+Chazal are connecting Orpah with Harapah of Shmuel II 21:20-22.
+What caused Orpah to be so bad, according to Chazal? After all, Chazal (Bava Metzia 62a) teach that one’s own interest takes precedence over the interest of others. Rut acted in an exceptional manner; Orpah acted in an average and reasonable way. Why do Chazal evaluate Orpah so harshly? In addition, why is Goliat attributed to Orpah, when Orpah returned to Moav and Goliat is a Pelishti? Pelishtim and Moabites are entirely different peoples!
+The classic mefarshim do not address these issues, so we are left on our own to resolve these as best as we can. One beginning thought — the shoresh of Orpah, Ayin-Reish-Peh Sofit, meaning neck, often has negative connotations in the Chumash. Examples include Am Keshei Oref (stiff-necked people, Shemot 32:8), Eglah Arufa, the axed-in-the-neck heifer (Devarim 21:1-9), and a first-born donkey, which, if not redeemed with a sheep, is axed at its neck (Shemot 13:13 with Rashi s.v. “Va’arafto”).
+Thought #1 — Constant Improvement is Essential
Chazal seem to be teaching that even a beinoni, an average person, can sink into a spiritual abyss if he does not constantly improve. The mizbei’ach (Temple altar) is ascended using a ramp, and this is often understood as a lesson that either you are improving or you are sliding downwards. Tehillim 24:3 describes spiritually successful individuals as ascending the mountain of Hashem — “מִי-יַעֲלֶה בְהַר-ה.” Note Rambam’s words regarding a beinoni:
+כשם ששוקלין עוונות אדם וזכייותיו, בשעת מיתתו--כך בכל שנה ושנה, שוקלין עוונות כל אחד ואחד מבאי העולם עם זכייותיו ביום טוב של ראש השנה: מי שנמצא צדיק, נחתם לחיים; ומי שנמצא רשע, נחתם למיתה. והב��נוני, תולין לו עד יום הכיפורים: אם עשה תשובה, נחתם לחיים; ואם לאו, נחתם למיתה.
+According to the Rambam, if the beinoni improves, he is judged favorably, but if not he is assigned death by the divine court (Hilchot Teshuva 3:3). One has a choice of being a tzadik or rasha — being a beinoni is not a viable long-term option. The choice is stark — either choose to be a tzadik or you will become a rasha! Mediocrity is not an option.
+Thought #2 — The Horrific Impact of Moav
Perhaps Orpah was initially mediocre but descended into a spiritual abyss after she returned to the moral decrepitude of Moav. Orpah’s story teaches the impact of environment, especially upon beinonim. As referenced earlier, Chazal famously teach oy le’rasha, oy le’shcheino — the good people suffer due to being in the company of the wicked. The Mishna in Sotah (1:4) similarly teaches how negatively impactful bad neighbors can be.
+Shmuel I perek 17 depicts the behavior of Golyat that prominently displays Moabite traits — acting totally self-absorbed and failing to taking Hashem into consideration in his life. David HaMelech contrasts harshly with Golyat — he primarily focuses on Hashem and not on himself. No wonder Chazal see David’s encounter with Golyat in light of the contrast between Rut and Orpah!
+Thought #3 — Missed Tikkun
No less than three times (towards its conclusion) does Megillat Esther include the following phrase: וּבַבִּזָּה--לֹא שָׁלְחוּ, אֶת-יָדָם (they did not take from the spoils). Esther and Mordechai’s forces, who fought Haman’s supporters, did not take from the spoils despite the explicit permission granted by Achashveirosh.
+Haman is repeatedly described in Megillat Esther as Agag, who is the king of Amalek, and Mordechai descends from Kish, which is also the name of Shaul HaMelech’s father. Thus, refraining from collecting the spoils of the war against Amalek corrects the inappropriate behavior and sin of their ancestor Shaul HaMelech taking spoils from his battle with Amalek.
+Let us also consider the big picture of Rut coming to Beit Lechem. Why in Rut 1:22 is she described as returning? Consider the parallel between Orpah and her ancestors Lot and Haran. Haran could not commit to Avraham Avinu’s way of life and neither could Lot. Lot, a beinoni, moves to morally depraved Sedom and he sinks into the same moral abyss with his daughters.
+Rut seizes the opportunity that Naomi presents for her to correct the misdeed of her ancestor Lot. Rut's journey to Eretz Yisrael represents Lot returning to Eretz Yisrael. Orpah, sadly, misses out on this once-in-generations opportunity to correct Lot’s sin. Thus, her failure to join Naomi in her journey to Beit Lechem is far worse than a choice not to convert.
+Thought #4 — Off the Derech Hatred towards Torah
Sadly, sometimes those who abandon the path of Torah adopt a militantly aggressive anti-Torah attitude and behavior. I suggest that this extreme behavior is reflective of a deep disappointment they may feel with themselves. Orpah’s upset with herself for not making the proper choice, and this manifests itself in extreme anti-Torah behavior. Golyat’s enmity towards the Jewish people may reflect his upbringing with over-the-top hatred of Am Yisrael that began with his ancestor Orpah. By contrast, David’s unselfish and deep dedication to the Jewish people reflects the pristine values of his ancestor Rut.
+Concluding Thought
Chazal teach אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבואו בני הנשוקה ויפלו ביד בני הדבוקה — may the descendant of the one who gave a kiss (i.e. Orpah) fall by the hands of the one who cleaved (i.e. Rut). Orpah loves Naomi, but she does not commit to her. Chazal detest love without commitment!
+
+Section 10
+
+Did Naomi Lash Out at Hashem?!
Naomi in perek 1 pesukim 19-21 is seen by many as speaking very harshly about Hashem. The peak of her anger is recorded in pasuk 21, where Naomi cried that Hashem “עָנָה בִי.” With this phrase, Naomi seemed to be saying that Hashem tortured her, recalling the pasuk (Shemot 22:21) ” כָּל אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם לֹא תְעַנּוּן,”forbidding the affliction of a widow. It seems that Naomi implied that Hashem (chas ve’shalom!) violated His own commandment! How are we to understand Naomi, repeatedly described by Chazal as a tzadeket, speaking in such a harsh manner about Hashem?!
+Approach #1 — Softening Naomi’s Words
Ibn Ezra to pasuk 21 (s.v. “Ve’Hashem Anah Bi”) understands עָנָה בִי not to mean torture, but rather to testify, as we find in Shemot (20:12): לֹא-תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר, do not testify falsely. Rashi (to pasuk 21 s.v. "Anah Bi") also understands the word “anah” in this context to mean testify. Ibn Ezra similarly softens Naomi’s words “ve’Shakai heira li,” explaining that it means to punish (and not to have acted in a wicked manner towards me).
+Approach #2 — Hashem Has Not Abandoned Naomi
However, the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 3:7) presents a shocking approach, which neither Rashi nor Ibn Ezra have cited — דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַה' עָנָה בִי, כָּל עִנְיָנֶיהָ לָא הֲוָה אֶלָּא בִי, לְפִי שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וַה' עָנָה בִי, אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא מַה כְּתִיב (ירמיה לב, מא): וְשַׂשְׂתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם לְהֵטִיב אוֹתָם. Naomi claimed that Hashem targeted her. However, according to the Midrash, she exclaimed that there is a positive side to this: It indicates that in the future, Hashem will extend great help.
+This is reminiscent of the famous story presented at the end of Makkot, regarding Rabbi Akiva’s reaction to seeing a fox scurrying along Har HaBayit. Rabbi Akiva famously exclaims, עכשיו שנתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה בידוע שנבואתו של זכריה מתקיימת, that the fulfillment of the negative nevuah heralds the fulfillment of the positive nevuah.
+Based on these mekorot, we can grasp why the Gerrer Rebbe and other Chassidic rebbes viewed the Holocaust as yad Hashem rather than hester panim, despite all of the hashkafic and theological difficulties involved with such an assertion. The advantage of this perspective is its presumption that Hashem has not abandoned us. If Hashem has not abandoned us, then we can be assured that in the future He will involve Himself in helping us!
+Naomi, in her harsh words in pasuk 21, insisted that Hashem had not abandoned her. By this insistence, she says that Hashem will intervene on her behalf in the future — which in fact He does, as we see in the rest of Megillat Rut.
+Approach #3 — Embittered by a Bitter Experience
A third approach is articulated in Rut Rabbah 3:6:
+וְאוֹמֶרֶת לָהֶן, אַל תִּקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי קְרֶאןָ לִי מָרָא, בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר לְפָרָה הֶדְיוֹטִית שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּעָלֶיהָ בַּשּׁוּק, אָמַר, רַדְיָנִית הִיא, וּמַשְׁוָה תְּלָמִים תְּלָמִים הִיא. אָמְרִין אִין רַדְיָנִית אִילֵין מַכּוֹתֶיהָ דְּאִית בָּהּ מָה אִינוּן. כָּךְ אָמְרָה נָעֳמִי, לָמָּה, וַה' עָנָה בִי וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי. [2] Bar Kapara said, "Like a normal ox which they have brought into the market, he says "she is a plow ox and she plows sure furrows." They reply, "If she is a plow ox, why are there whip marks on her?" Thus, Naomi said, "Why? Hashem has afflicted me and Shakai has made my lot very bitter.” This approach defines the word “anah” as torture. We return to our question about how Naomi, a tzadeket, could speak so harshly against Hashem.
+To solve our problem, we must contrast pasuk 21 with the manner in which we have seen Naomi reflect on Hashem in pesukim 6, 8 and 13. Naomi did not speak so harshly about Hashem in these earlier pesukim. Pasuk 13 records Naomi saying that the Hand of Hashem has gone out against her, but this is still a far milder statement than her biting words recorded in pasuk 21. What moves Naomi to speak so harshly in pasuk 21?
+An answer emerges from pasuk 19, which records that the entire city reacts to Naomi’s return. Ibn Ezra (to pasuk 19 s.v. “Ha’zot Naomi”) explains, following his usual peshat-oriented approach, that since Naomi is from a prominent family, her arrival aroused the attention of the entire city.
+The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 3:6), however, understands that the entire city happened to be present at the time of her arrival. The Midrash offers a variety of explanations as to why this happened. Rashi (to pasuk 19 s.v. “Va’teihom” and s.v. “Ha’zot Naomi”) adopts the approach that it was the time of the burial of Boaz’s wife. We suggest that perhaps it was the reaction of the women of Beit Lechem that prompted Naomi to react harshly in pasuk 21. Although one might see the words “Is this Naomi?” as mild, the Midrashic explanation suggests otherwise. Naomi must have felt thoroughly humiliated by the women contrasting Naomi’s exalted state upon leaving and her wretched state upon return.
+Consider the Halachot regarding ona’at devarim presented Bava Metzia 58b. The Mishna and Gemara articulate the prohibition to inflict verbal abuse. An example of verbal abuse is accusing a suffering person of suffering due to sinning.
+The Torah way is to warmly greet a starving and ragged person, and to offer food, proper clothing and support. Even though the people of Beit Lechem harbor deep resentment of Naomi and her family for abandoning Beit Lechem during their hour of great need, the Torah prohibits taking revenge. Still, even if the women of Beit Lechem did not intend to taunt Naomi, they failed miserably in extending emotional and material support to Naomi at the time of her great need.
+We must also consider that Tanach teaches that we can detect Hashem’s involvement when we witness amazing timing. Megillat Esther is full of such situations. A famous example is that Achashveirosh read about how Mordechai saved him just as Haman enters the palace to ask permission to kill Mordechai. Another is that Achashveirosh reentered the palace just as Haman fell on Esther’s bed.
+The fact that all of Beit Lechem attended the funeral of Boaz’s wife just as Naomi and Rut enter Beit Lechem compounds Naomi’s humiliation. She recognizes that Hashem clearly orchestrates this confrontation. This “coincidence” and the gross insensitivity of the women of Beit Lechem explain Naomi’s harsh reaction. Naomi exclaims that Hashem tortured her by bringing all of Beit Lechem to see her at her lowest point, and to humiliate her by contrasting her former grandeur with her current pitiful state.
+Conclusion
The astounding coincidence of Naomi and Rut arriving at a time when the entire Beit Lechem takes notice ultimately is what brought about Naomi’s yeshua (salvation). The concept that Hashem is makdim refuah le’makah, embedding a solution before the problem arises, is most relevant to this circumstance. Rut is the refuah to Boaz’s makah, and Boaz is the refuah to the suffering of Naomi and Rut. The convergence of the funeral Boaz’s wife and the arrival of Naomi and Rut elegantly expresses this point.
+Naomi's painful reunion with the women of Beit Lechem is certainly a most bitter pill to swallow. On the other hand, it sets the stage for her redemption. This meeting serves as a the first introduction of Boaz and Rut, where Boaz hears about the return of Naomi together with her devoted daughter-in-law, who traveled the difficult journey with her. Naomi’s darkest hour is also the dawn of her deliverance.
+
+Perek 2
+
+
+
+Section 1
+
+
+
+Section 2
+
+
+
+Section 3
+
+
+
+Section 4
+
+
+
+Section 5
+
+
+
+Section 6
+
+
+
+Section 7
+
+
+
+Section 8
+
+
+
+Section 9
+
+
+
+Section 10
+
+
+
+Section 11
+
+Introducing Boaz!
Boaz’s name means “in him is oz/az,” meaning strength and boldness. These meanings are relevant to Boaz’s role in Megillat Rut, as he needed to be a bold and out of the box thinker in order to marry Rut. The social and age gaps between Boaz and Rut were great, and the Torah’s prohibition to marry a Moabite woman was a formidable concern. Boaz boldly, despite considerable pressure to act otherwise, adhered to Torah values and married Rut, creating a union that led to the birth of David HaMelech and eventually the Melech HaMashiach.
+Moda Le’ishah
+The opening phrase describing Boaz as Naomi’s “Moda Le’ishah” is difficult to translate. Ibn Ezra and Rashi (to pasuk 1 s.v. “Moda”) explain this phrase to mean that Boaz was Naomi’s relative. Rashi quotes a very important assertion of Chazal (Bava Batra 91a) that Elimelech, Boaz’s father, and Naomi’s father were all brothers.
+There is, though, a problem with Ibn Ezra and Rashi’s explanation of “Moda Le’ishah.” The pasuk states explicitly that Boaz was a relative of Elimelech. Why would this be stated twice? According to Rashi, “Moda Le’ishah” teaches that Elimelech was specifically a close relative. Malbim (s.v. “Moda”) explains that this phrase to mean that Boaz had a particularly close relationship with Elimelech.
+An Enormous Problem
In light of the glowing presentation of Boaz in perek 2 pasuk 1, many have wondered: why did he not immediately assume financial responsibility for his newly arrived relatives? Why did Boaz meet Rut for the first time only due to a “chance” encounter in the field? Considering that Naomi was Boaz’s aunt by marriage (and cousin by blood), and that Naomi is suffering on many levels, how could Boaz not connect with her? We must especially consider the Torah’s mandate for relatives to take care of poor family members (Vayikra 25:49).
+Answer #1 — Malbim
Malbim to pasuk 1 (s.v. “U’le’Naomi Moda”) addresses the issue by saying that Boaz did not help Naomi since Naomi did not reach out for help. Boaz, Malbim argues, thought that Naomi was more comfortable with putting food on the table relying on the Torah entitlements to the poor such as leket, shichechah, and pei’ah (portions of the harvest the Torah designates for the indigent).
+A problem with this answer is that a family that lives by Torah values would never relate to an aunt in this manner! Granted that Naomi preferred to sustain herself through the Torah welfare system, Boaz could have at least invited Naomi and Rut over for a Shabbat or Yom Tov meal.
+Furthermore, Rambam (Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 10:4) teaches that we must provide emotional as well as financial support to the needy. Why did Boaz fail to provide emotional support to his aunt?
+Answer #2 — Boaz Mourning His Recently Deceased Wife
An answer emerges from Chazal’s (Bava Batra 91a) teaching that Boaz had been burying his wife as Naomi and Rut returned to Beit Lechem. Perhaps Boaz’s aveilut can explain his inexplicable inaction. Chazal (Sanhedrin 22b) teach that a husband suffers the greatest loss upon the death of his wife. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, in the 1970’s (after his wife died), noted that Avraham Avinu accomplished little after Sarah Imeinu died.
+However, Boaz in perek 2 seemed to be in a happy and “chipper” mood. He did not seem to be reeling from the loss of his wife and children. Thus, it is far from clear we have solved our problem.
+Answer #3 — A Mistake
We set forth a bold option based on the fact that, amidst the positive description of Boaz in perek 2, the phrase “ish tzadik” is absent. Perhaps Boaz is, at this point, wrongly participating in Beit Lechem’s shunning of Naomi, angry that she abandoned Beit Lechem in a time of deep crisis. While at one time he may have been close with Elimelech, it is possible Boaz felt deep betrayal when Elimelech “went rogue” and abandoned his people.
+Eventually, Boaz is led by Rut to correct his ways and support her and Naomi. Rut Rabbah 2:14 famously teaches that chesed is the core theme of Megillat Rut. Boaz, the people of Beit Lechem, and all generations of Jews learn not only to meet the material needs of the poor, but their emotional needs as well.
+Conclusion — Meeting Emotional Needs of the Poor
The people of Beit Lechem did not reject Naomi or deny her entry to Beit Lechem. They were not evil like Sedom and Moav. However, they lacked sensitivity to a woman who was clearly suffering.
+Poor people were provided for in Beit Lechem. Leket, shichechah and pei’ah were available for the poor, as must be in any and every Jewish community. However, the emotional support component seems to be missing.
+By the end of Megillat Rut, Naomi was warmly blessed by the women of Beit Lechem. Perhaps this is part of the gemilut chasadim that Megillat Rut teaches us, that it is insufficient to merely feed the poor — we must meet their emotional needs as well.
+
+Section 12
+
+A Whole Lot of Chesed in One Little Pasuk
Midrash Lekach Tov teaches that every pasuk in Megillat Rut communicates chesed: “Megillat Rut kulah chesed.” In light of this insight, we will try to understand Rut perek 2 pasuk 2. Of course, the way to uncover deeper meanings is through analysis with compelling questions, and we, proverbial midgets standing on the shoulders of the giants of prior generations, will try our best to answer these questions.
+Why did Shmuel HaNavi (the author of Megillat Rut, as taught by Chazal), with Hashem’s approval, believe this pasuk was necessary? Pasuk 3 could have begun by recording that Rut went to gather food. What lasting lessons emerge from this seemingly ordinary and not unexpected conversation between Rut and Naomi?
+A close examination of our pasuk reveals many chesed lessons, as we shall set forth through the upcoming questions.
+What’s With the Permission?
Why did Rut ask permission from Naomi to gather food? There does not seem to be much choice — if Rut did not gather food, they would die. Furthermore, the phrase “Elchah na — I will go, please” appears to be an odd formulation, an unusual way to request permission. A more appropriate choice would seem to be “Ha’elech — may I go?” as Miriam asked when she requested permission from Bat Pharaoh to bring a Jewish woman to nurse baby Moshe (Shemot 2:7): “הַאֵלֵךְ וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת.” Why did Rut use these words?
+The answer can be linked back to Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe Rabbeinu used similar words in speaking to his father-in-law, requesting permission to return to Mitzrayim (Shemot 4:18 with Rashi) — “וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-יֶתֶר חֹתְנוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֵלְכָה נָּא וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל-אַחַי אֲשֶׁר-בְּמִצְרַיִם”. A great challenge arises when a child becomes the provider for, or more powerful than, the parent. (This happens in particular regarding elderly parents.) The challenge is how to maintain kavod despite the power shift. In the case of Moshe Rabbeinu, he was elected by Hashem to lead Am Yisrael from Mitzrayim, but he still respectfully requested permission to leave from his father-in-law. Similarly, Rut assumed responsibility for feeding herself and Naomi, but nonetheless Rut requested permission to gather food in light of the power shift challenge. This gesture is yet another way in which Rut allowed Naomi to retain her dignity.
+Note how both Moshe Rabbeinu and Rut used the same phrase “אֵלְכָה נָּא” — “I will go, please.” On the one hand, they both used the assertive word “אֵלְכָה,” since the need to leave was extremely urgent and there really was no choice. Nonetheless, they both used the word ”נָּא” to express kavod to a parent-in-law.
+Why Did Rut Go Alone?
Why didn’t Rut request, or even demand, that Naomi come and join her? After all, Chazal (Bava Metzia 32a) understand Shemot 23:5 as teaching that the recipient of chesed cannot expect his benefactor to do all the work for him. Additionally, why does the pasuk describe Rut as “hamoaviah,” if, according to Chazal, Rut had already properly converted?
+Malbim (to pasuk 2 s.v. “Va’tomer Rut”) explains that Rut realized it would be severely humiliating for Naomi to collect leket, given her former stature in Beit Lechem. Malbim marshals Chazal’s teaching that Rut is the daughter or descendent of Eglon Melech Moav to further his approach, explaining the use of the word “hamoaviah" to emphasize her ancestry. He notes how difficult it must have been for someone of royal lineage like Rut to summon the inner strength to collect with the poor. Moreover, Rashi to pasuk 3 cites Chazal’s teaching that Rut left signs on the road, le’havdil Hansel and Gretel style, in order to know how to return home. It took great inner strength for Rut to travel alone in Beit Lechem, an area entirely new to her, yet she mustered the courage to do all this in order to preserve the dignity of Naomi.
+Was Rut Being Picky?
Why does Rut say that she will go to the field “where she will find favor” — “אַחַר אֲשֶׁר אֶמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו?” After all, beggars cannot afford to be choosy. Moreover, the threat of starvation loomed large over Rut and Naomi. It was hardly the time to be fussy about where to obtain food!
+Rashi and Malbim explain that Rut proclaimed that she would work in a field only if its owner will graciously accept her presence. Despite the tremendous pressure of the situation, Rut did not want to compromise her dignity. No wonder Chazal say Rut descended from royalty! In this manner, Rut showed chesed not only to Naomi, but also to herself. Her high self-esteem would not tolerate mistreatment.
+Chazal (Shabbat 113b) teach that Rut even refused to collect in a field unless the people working there are of high quality, presumably regarding tzniut. Even in dire circumstances, Rut would not compromise her high standards of tzniut. Note how this attitude, with Hashem’s help, brings her to the field of Boaz. This, of course, leads not only to the geulah of Rut and Naomi, but ultimately to all Jews and all of humanity. Apparently, self-esteem, dignity and high standards of tzniut bring redemption to the world.
+How Did Rut Know Halacha?
Recognizing that Rut was a recent convert, the question seems obvious: how did Rut know the Halachot of leket?
+Chazal (Yevamot 47b) teach that two of the introductory mitzvot that are presented to potential geirim are leket and pei’ah. Rashi explains that teaching the ger about matnot aniyim is intended to teach the ger not to prevent aniyim from taking from their property. In light of Rut 2:2, we can add that the Torah’s commandments of leket, shichechah and pei’ah are foundational mitzvot that express core values of chesed and care for others. Hence, they are the central mitzvot of which we must apprise converts at an early stage in their journey.
+Conclusion
One little pasuk surely does teach us a world about chesed. Chesed consists not only of kind actions, but also of thoughtful and well-chosen kind words. Moreover, kindness extends to oneself, in addition to others. No wonder Boaz finds Rut to be an appropriate mate; she may be collecting matnot aniyim, but her bearing and comportment is one of royalty.
+
+Section 13
+
+"Hashem Imachem!" "Yevarechecha Hashem!"
Megillat Rut’s recording of the exchange of greetings between Boaz and his workers in pasuk 4 is most interesting in terms of the vital lessons of Megillat Rut. It has an extra special importance due to being reenacted by many Sephardic Jews prior to reciting the bracha upon receiving an aliyah.
+Megilla 14a teaches a most basic message: Anything recorded in Tanach teaches lessons for each generation. Why is this exchange recorded for the generations?
+Approach #1 — Ibn Ezra
Ibn Ezra notes that Boaz, the field owner, offered a hearty blessing in the name of Hashem to his workers, and the workers reciprocated. Note the significance of an employer and his employees wishing each other well; often, there is tension between these natural rivals. However, when Hashem is incorporated into the relationship, the tensions are overcome. Recognizing that we are children of Hashem, of equal worth, breaks down social barriers and summons us to act our best, even with natural competitors.
+This is also related to Naomi and Rut’s beautiful relationship. As noted earlier, tensions often reign between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law. However, the shared commitment to Hashem between Naomi and Rut served to unite them and succeeded in overcoming this unfortunate natural tendency.
+The positive and healthy relationship of Boaz and his workers is part of the process of correcting the pervasive negative energy prevalent at the time of the Shofetim, to which the beginning of Megillat Rut alludes (“Vayehi bi’yemei shefot ha’Shofetim,” etc.) It also shows Boaz’s willingness to transcend social barriers, which facilitates his marriage to Rut and ultimately leads to the birth of David HaMelech and Melech HaMashiach.
+Chazal stress the importance of offering chizuk to others. Chazal (Shevi’it 5:9) promote encouraging others at work, even Nochrim — for example, saying “It should be b’hatzlacha!” It seems that this is a fulfillment of “ve’halachta bi’derachav,” imitating Hashem’s ways. Hashem is described (Tehillim 147:6) as “מְעוֹדֵד עֲנָוִים,” One who encourages people engaged in a proper and constructive activity. Likewise, we should follow Hashem’s ways — and the example set by Boaz and his workers, with their kind and encouraging words to each other — by regularly encouraging others involved in constructive and positive activities, and certainly avoiding encouraging negative ones.
+Approach #2 — Malbim
The Mishna (Brachot 9:7) records that Boaz made a takanah, enactment, for people to greet each other using Hashem’s name. Based on this, Malbim understands pasuk 4 as Boaz coming from Beit Lechem and informing his workers of the enactment of this takanah. Through this, it seems that Boaz sought to rectify the negativity and disrespect of the time of the Shofetim by requiring people to warmly greet each other using Hashem’s name.
+Boaz’s enactment is reminiscent of a story about a family that was constantly embroiled in fights. One day, the wise grandmother came to visit and insisted that everyone use the words “please” and “thank you” when speaking to each other. Soon, the unending bickering and squabbling came to an end. Showing respect is the remedy to many societal ills. Boaz insisted on invoking Hashem’s name as a reminder and warning that Hashem monitors our behavior. Including Hashem into our mindset raises awareness that Hashem holds us accountable for poor behavior and rewards positive behavior.
+Approach #3 — the Vilna Gaon
The Vilna Gaon explains that Boaz inquired as to whether the Shechinah was present in his fields, because of the mixed presence of genders. The workers responded that despite the mixing of the genders, Hashem’s presence remains in full force.
+Let us consider the implications of this insight. Note, on the one hand, the concerns relevant to the mixing of the genders. On the other hand, the mixed environment facilitated Rut and Boaz meeting in a “natural setting,” and for their relationship to begin to grow. Without this meeting, their marriage would not have happened — no one would have made this against-all-odds shidduch! Consider that if not for this coed environment, David HaMelech (and Mashiach) would not be born! Likewise, recall how Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imeinu also met in a nonorchestrated coed setting.
+Rambam (Hilchot Yom Tov 6:21) forcefully sets forth the need to separate the genders during times of celebration, especially when wine is being served. However, Rambam in Hilchot Matnot Aniyim does not mention a requirement to separate the genders when collecting leket, shichechah and pei’ah. Nor does Rambam in Hilchot Sechirut mention such a requirement in regards to the workplace. Apparently, a mixed environment is appropriate in a work or chesed setting, but not in a party-like setting.
+In this light, young men and women of marriageable age that are working together in kiruv and chesed projects seems most appropriate. However, we must also consider Rut Rabbah 4:6 — “כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מְשַׂחֲקוֹת עִם הַקּוֹצְרִים, וְזוֹ מַצְנַעַת עַצְמָהּ,” all of the women “flirted” with the male workers except for Rut. Even in a permitted coed setting, tzniut must be observed. Rut, the Midrash teaches, did not “flirt” with the reapers as many of the other women did. Rather, she engaged in a meaningful conversation with a select member of the opposite gender, Boaz, with whom there was a prospect of marriage.
+Approach #4 — Based on Rabbi Yehuda Bachrach’s Ima Shel Malchut
Rabbi Bachrach understands that Boaz visited the field primarily to oversee the aniyim taking their leket, shichechah. and pei’ah from his fields. He explains that Halacha regards this as the responsibility of the field owner (Pei’ah 4:5 with Rabbi Ovadia Mi’Bartenura and Tiferet Yisrael). Based on these mekorot, “Hashem Imachem” can be read as a question (as in the Vilna Gaon’s approach). Boaz was asking, Is Hashem with you? Are you observing His laws regarding gifts to the poor?
+We can similarly understand the reapers’ response of “yevarechecha Hashem” based on Devarim 24:19, which teaches that Hashem blesses those who honor the mitzvot of leaving the various gifts to the poor. Accordingly, the reapers were saying that the Halachot were being fully observed, to the extent that the bracha promised by Hashem would be forthcoming.
+Conclusion — The Sephardic Practice
“מנהג ישראל תורה היא” — the minhagim of the Jewish people is Torah. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik understands this phrase, often used by many Rishonim and Acharonim, to express that we have an obligation to learn and understand our people’s minhagim.
+Based on these approaches to pasuk 4, we can explain the Sephardic minhag. Whether a reminder of Hashem’s presence like the approach of Malbim, an exchange of pleasant greetings like Ibn Ezra, or a question as to whether one is adhering to Hashem’s laws as Rabbi Bachrach explains, Boaz’s takanah remains in full force in Sephardic congregations. Maintaining Boaz’s takanah reminds us of its many crucial lessons.
+Ultimately, Boaz’s greeting paved the way to the birth of David HaMelech and Mashiach. Those following Boaz’s path bring geulah, redemption, to the world.
+
+Section 14
+
+Rut Catches Boaz's Attention
Rut perek 2 pasuk 5 records that Rut caught the attention of Boaz in the field. Why does Rut catch Boaz’s attention? Presumably there were many poor people, both women and men, in the field at that time. Why does Boaz inquire specifically about Rut?
+Malbim
Malbim writes that Boaz noticed that Rut had collected a large number of sheaths, amorim, as indicated by pasuk 7. Mishna Pei’ah 6:5 teaches: “Two sheaves [left lying together] are ‘forgotten,’ but three are not ‘forgotten.’ Two ears of grain are deemed ‘gleanings,’ but three are not ‘gleanings.’ All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel.”
+This Mishna explains that the poor are only entitled to one or two ears of grain, shibolim, that fall in the same spot. Boaz wondered how Rut had assembled amorim when leket applies only to shibolim, and recognized that she must have had an effective strategy and be a hard worker to be able to collect such a large amount from leket. According to Malbim, Boaz initially had no romantic intentions regarding Rut, and he did not know Rut before this encounter. Thus, Boaz spoke so kindly to Rut in pesukim 8-9 because he was impressed with her industrious collecting of grain and discovered her identity. He recognized her need and made sure she could provide for herself and Naomi.
+Ibn Ezra and the Targum
According to Ibn Ezra (to pesukim 5 and 7), Boaz did have romantic intentions. Ibn Ezra understands Boaz to be inquiring as to whether Rut was a married woman.
+The Targum to pasuk 5 explains that Boaz wished to know which nation Rut belongs to, seemingly agreeing that Boaz already harbors romantic intentions towards Rut at this point.
+Rashi
Rashi to pasuk 5 articulates a very different approach. According to Rashi, Rut’s modesty and fidelity to the Halachot of leket impress Boaz. Rashi understands that Boaz did not know Rut before this encounter, and that he did have romantic intentions in approaching Rut. It is important to note how tzniut is attractive to a high-quality person, as it is an expression of self-respect and self-esteem.
+Rashi understands Boaz’s kind words to Rut in pesukim 8-9 as the beginning of building a connection with Rut. On the other hand, Rashi might see the response of the reaper’s foreman to Boaz as discouraging this relationship.
+Interestingly, the Vilna Gaon (in his comments from pesukim 4-8) understands the foremen and workers as encouraging this shidduch!
+Rut Rabbah
+Rashi cites Rut Rabbah (4:6) “Whose maiden is this?" And he did not recognize her? Rather when he saw that she was pleasant and her demeanor modest, he began to ask about her. All the women bent to glean, but she sat and gleaned. All the women raised their dresses [to work], but she let down her dress. All the women laughed with the reapers, but she was reserved by herself. All the women gleaned between the sheaves, but she gleaned from the public leavings.
+According to the Midrash, unlike the mefarshim, Boaz did already recognize Rut. However, after the encounter in the field, he began to relate differently to Rut than he had related to her previously.
+The Midrash compares Boaz’s reaction when seeing Rut in the field to Shaul HaMelech’s reaction to David HaMelech, in the wake of David’s victory against Golyat. Why does the Midrash make this comparison? Apparently, both Shaul and Boaz misjudged: Shaul misjudged David and Boaz misjudged Rut. After David defeated Golyat, Shaul asked, “Ben mi zeh hana’ar — Whose son is this young man?” As David had been playing the harp for Shaul before the battle with Golyat, Shaul already knew who he was. It seems that Shaul was remarking that he did not truly know this side of David. Similarly, Boaz knew who Rut was, as they were related, but when he saw her behavior in the field and how she conducted herself in a dignified manner, he realized that he did not know this side of her.
+Individuals who are not married should consider the implications of these pesukim that teach us that, at the appropriate time, we should be open to date someone slightly “out of the box.” Apparently, when we judge someone by their character and actions rather than by their reputation and first impression, we bring geulah to the world. It is often worth at least one date, and often even a second date, to make sure that one has properly assessed an individual before dismissing the possibility of pursuing a relationship. This lesson fits well with the Midrash Lekach Tov that Megillat Rut is “kulo chesed.”
+
+Section 15
+
+Unfulfilled Expectations
All seemed perfect: Hashem placed Rut in Boaz’s field. Hashem placed Boaz in the field when Rut was present. Rut caught Boaz’s eye. Boaz reached out with kind words to Rut, But let us consider Rut’s response. It seems that Rut presents herself quite negatively. While modesty and humility are core Torah values, these values must be distinguished from self-denigration. Hashem is humble and modest, but never utters self-deprecating words.
+Why was Rut so negative about herself? So far, we have seen Rut as a highly self-assured individual. Why did she belittle herself in pasuk 10? There are numerous possibilities.
+Peshat Suggestions
+Beit Lechem’s shunning of Naomi and Rut may have had a serious negative impact; discouragement can be damaging. This horrific impact underlines the urgency of encouraging others and avoiding at almost all costs the discouragement of others.
+There is also the possibility that Rut was giving subtle mussar to Boaz. Perhaps she was hinting, why are you being so nice to me now, but treated me and Naomi like strangers before this point?
+The Targum
The Targum to the end of pasuk 10 states that Rut invoked the pasuk in Sefer Devarim that hovers over Megillat Rut — the prohibition to marry a Moabite woman. How could you approach me, Rut asked Boaz, if you are forbidden to marry a Moabite?
+The Targum to the beginning of pasuk 11 presents Boaz as responding that the Halacha has recently emerged that this prohibition does not apply to female Moabites. The foreman’s words, recorded in pasuk 6 mentioning that Rut was a Moabite woman, might serve as the basis for the Targum’s Midrashic approach.
+Peshat vs. Derash
+Peshat may sometimes convey what people are saying, but the derash is what people are thinking. For example, after Hashem meted out Kayin’s punishment, Kayin proclaimed (Bereishit 4:12) “gadol avoni me’neso”, my sin is too great to bear. Ibn Ezra and Ramban explain that according to the peshat, Kayin was confessing his guilt. According to Rashi (citing the Midrash), though, Kayin was thinking, why is my sin too great for Hashem to bear?
+Consider how this approach to peshat and derash might apply here. In the peshat, Rut verbally expressed that she was a foreign woman, a “nochriyah,” putting herself down. On a derash level, she may have been thinking of the Moabite restriction and giving mussar to Boaz for pursuing a relationship with her, as she was a Moabite woman. Thus, the derash approach to Boaz’s kind response to Rut is that he confirmed the sincerity and validity of her conversion and eligibility to marry within the Jewish People, even comparing Rut to Avraham Avinu. Rut left her homeland and was no longer a stranger to the Jewish nation. Boaz thereby confirms that Rut was a most worthy individual to marry within the fold of Am Yisrael.
+Conclusion
Chesed and respect are the cornerstones of Boaz’s outreach to Rut. These represent the core values communicated by Megillat Rut. They should be our core values as well!
+
+Section 16
+
+Chesed With the Living and the Dead
Rut perek 2 pesukim 18-20 records Naomi’s great excitement about Rut’s new connection with Boaz. According to Malbim (s.v. “V’et Ha’meitim”) to pasuk 20, Naomi even hinted at Boaz performing a quasi-yibbum, which Ramban explains is referred to as geulah.
+Why Did Boaz and Rut Not Marry at This Point?
After returning to Naomi, Rut then went back to Boaz’s fields and remained there until the end of the barley and wheat harvest. Recall that in Eretz Yisrael, the barley harvest occurs around the time of Pesach, and the wheat harvest occurs around the time of Shavuot. This is one of the reasons why many communities read Megillat Rut on Shavuot.
+The perek ends with Rut’s return home to Naomi. What is missing, though, looms large: The yibbum/geulah did not happen! While the threat of starvation had been staved off, the redemption of the family had not materialized! With the sweet, sensitive and caring conversation between Boaz and Rut that is recorded in perek 2, why — during the many days and weeks of harvesting — did their relationship not blossom?
+Malbim’s Answer
Malbim to pasuk 23 presents an answer based on the following Midrash (Rut Rabbah 5:11): וַתִּדְבַּק בְּנַעֲרוֹת בֹּעַז, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן מִתְּחִלַּת קְצִיר שְׂעוֹרִים עַד כְּלוֹת קְצִיר הַחִטִּים - שְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים — there was a pause of three months. Malbim explains that three months is the time mandated by Halacha for a convert to wait before she marries, called havchanah. The Halacha to which Malbim refers, which is followed until today, appears in Yevamot 42a: גר וגיורת צריכין להמתין ג' חדשים להבחין בין זרע שנזרע בקדושה לזרע שלא נזרע בקדושה — both a male and female convert must wait three months after conversion before marriage.
+A careful examination of the dialogue between Rut and Naomi recorded in pesukim 20-22 (and see Malbim to pasuk 21) explains why this waiting period was very much necessary and appropriate. As noted by Malbim, Rut in pasuk 21 believed that Boaz wanted her to stay with his young men. Naomi, in pasuk 22, gently corrected Rut, explaining that Boaz wanted Rut to stay with his young women, which we see in pasuk 23 that Rut then indeed did. Rut had not yet absorbed the Jewish way of life, in that she would stay with the men, which is not in line with Torah values of modesty. For this reason, explains Malbim, in pasuk 21 she is identified as a “Moaviyah,” since she stills thinks like a Moabite. Thus, Rut was very much in need of three months to adjust to Jewish living before she could move ahead with marriage. In perek 3 pasuk 1, Malbim explains, Naomi encouraged Rut to approach Boaz, since three months had passed since the conversion and Rut was finally ready to marry a Jewish man.
+Rabbi Bachrach’s Answer
Rabbi Bachrach explains that Boaz was not ready for yibbum/geulah based on Chazal’s teaching (Bava Batra 91a) that Boaz had recently lost his wife, and that he had lost all of his sixty children during his lifetime. After experiencing these terrible losses, Boaz was not ready for marriage just yet since he was still grieving his losses.
+TABC Talmidim
Perhaps Boaz did not have a romantic interest in Rut. Instead, what he felt was a fatherly connection. This may be seen in pasuk 8, where Boaz referred to Rut as “biti,” my daughter. In fact, Chazal teach that Boaz was eighty years old at the time.
+However, this might not be a compelling response, since later, during the romantically charged atmosphere in the granary, Boaz again referred to Rut as “my daughter” (perek 3 pasuk 10). This might have been an expression of romantic love, judging from the context. Boaz referring to Rut as “my daughter” also rejected Rut’s self-deprecating words that she was a foreigner; Boaz emphasized that Rut was part of the Jewish family. By referring to Rut as his “daughter,” Boaz spurned Beit Lechem’s rejection of Naomi and Rut.
+A New Suggestion
I suggest that while Boaz initially had romantic interest, it stalled when Rut sold herself short by saying (2:13) “וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אֶהְיֶה, כְּאַחַת שִׁפְחֹתֶיךָ — and I am not even worthy of being your maidservant.” These self-demeaning words caused Boaz to lose romantic interest. Rut presented herself as a recipient of chesed rather than a marriage candidate. While the Torah extols modesty, one must never degrade oneself. Only after Rut’s bold actions of perek 3 was the romance between her and Boaz reignited.
+Conclusion
However one explains why Boaz and Rut did not marry by the end of perek 2, it seems that at least one of them, if not both, was not ready for marriage at the time. Shir Hashirim expresses no less than three times (2:7, 3:5, and 8:4) “אִם תָּעִירוּ וְאִם תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ” — love must be expressed only at the appropriate time. Chazal (Brachot 64a) similarly teach that הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני השעה שעה נדחת מפניו — one should not prematurely pursue an opportunity; we must wait for the appropriate time. If we do not, negative consequences will ensue. The Gemara (53b) counsels us to take what appears to be the long road. While it may take a longer time, maintaining a long-term perspective and approach will often yield far better long-term gain.
+
+Section 17
+
+Midrashic Guide to Superlative Gemilut Chesed
Naomi’s great grief was transformed into joy when, as recorded in pesukim 19-20, she saw the great bounty of grain Rut brought home. Naomi was overwhelmed with joy when Rut told her that it was none other than Boaz who had helped her.
+A Double Entendre
Naomi in pasuk 20 exclaimed, “Baruch hu la’Hashem,” who has not abandoned His chesed to the living and the dead. Who was Naomi blessing — Boaz or Hashem? Rashi seems to say that this refers to Hashem, whereas Malbim believes it refers to Boaz.
+I suggest that Naomi was deliberately ambiguous, to refer to both Hashem and Boaz. Naomi thanked Hashem for orchestrating Rut’s arrival at Boaz’s field, and also Boaz for his chesed. She overlapped the chesed of Hashem and of Boaz, reflecting that our acts of chesed stem from our obligation to imitate Hashem. Just as Hashem does acts of chesed, such as visiting the sick and burying the dead, we must follow the stellar example He sets (Sotah 14a).
+Chesed With the Dead
As we have noted, the primary focus of Megillat Rut is to teach us the nature of chesed. By referring to Hashem’s chesed to the living and the dead, Naomi’s statement in pasuk 20 teaches us that chesed is not limited to the living, but is applicable to the dead as well. This idea is also expressed by Boaz in perek 4 pesukim 3 and 5.
+Besides for the great mitzvah of burying the dead, and sons reciting Kaddish in memory of the dead, the broader community can also do chesed for the dead. For example, community members can learn Mishna (Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Dei’ah 376:13) for the departed and can also arrange Kaddish recital for someone that does not have a family member to say it for them.
+Conclusion
Naomi’s dramatically improved mood at the conclusion of perek 2 sets the stage for a bright future ahead. With a positive attitude that spills over to Rut, Naomi masterminds a brilliant plan that will do chesed in the broadest sense for all the living, dead and not-yet-born members of Am Yisrael.
+
+Perek 3
+
+
+
+Section 1
+
+
+
+Section 2
+
+
+
+Section 3
+
+
+
+Section 4
+
+
+
+Section 5
+
+
+
+Section 6
+
+
+
+Section 7
+
+
+
+Section 8
+
+
+
+Section 9
+
+
+
+Section 10
+
+
+
+Section 11
+
+
+
+Section 12
+
+
+
+Section 13
+
+
+
+Section 14
+
+
+
+Section 15
+
+
+
+Section 16
+
+
+
+Section 17
+
+
+
+Section 18
+
+Introduction to Perek 3; Defining Geulah
As seen earlier, the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 2:15) writes that Megillat Rut’s primary goal is to teach gemilut chesed. Two beautiful Midrashim to Megillat Rut set high goals for gomlei chasadim:
+Midrash #1 — Boaz vs. Rav Kook
The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 5:6) states:
+אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מַרְיוֹן בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאִם אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה יַעֲשֶׂנָּה בְּלֵבָב שָׁלֵם, שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה רְאוּבֵן יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו (בראשית לז, כא): וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּילֵהוּ מִיָּדָם, בִּכְתֵפוֹ הָיָה מוֹלִיכוֹ אֵצֶל אָבִיו. וְאִלּ��ּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ אַהֲרֹן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו (שמות ד, יד): הִנֵּה הוּא יֹצֵא לִקְרָאתֶךָ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחוֹלוֹת הָיָה יוֹצֵא לִקְרָאתוֹ. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בֹּעַז שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו: וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָלִי וַתֹּאכַל וַתִּשְׂבַּע וַתֹּתַר, עֲגָלוֹת מְפֻטָּמוֹת הָיָה מַאֲכִילָהּ.
+Scripture came to teach us that if a man is going to do a mitzvah, let it be done with his whole heart. Now, if Reuben had known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write about him, "And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand (Genesis 37:21),” on his shoulder he would have brought him to his father. And if Aaron had known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write about him "And also, behold, he comes forth to meet you (Exodus 4:14)," with tambourines and dances he would have met him. And if Boaz had known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write about him "And they reached her parched corn, and she did eat and was satisfied, and left thereof,” he would have fed her with fattened calves.
+The Midrash continues and teaches that when we do not have a navi to record our special deeds, Eliyahu HaNavi records them, and the Mashiach and Hashem sign his writings.
+On a simple level, the Midrash teaches us about two things:
+1. We should do mitzvot wholeheartedly — comparable to the full-hearted hachnasat orchim performed by Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu, and unlike the limited meal provided by Boaz to Rut, as recorded in Rut perek 2 pasuk 14 according to the Midrash: “they pinched a bit with two fingers.”
+2. The concluding portion of the Midrash teaches that our actions are all recorded by Hashem, as taught in the Mishna (Avot 2:1) הסתכל בשלושה דברים ואין אתה בא לידי עבירה, דע מה למעלה ממך--עין רואה, ואוזן שומעת, וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבין.
+However, to unlock a deeper meaning of the Midrash, let us pose two questions.
+There are many examples of good people who likely would have done better had they realized their words would be recorded in Tanach. Yaakov Avinu would have most likely treated Leah Imeinu much better and Shmuel HaNavi would have anointed David HaMelech with much more enthusiasm. Why does the Midrash specifically list the deficiencies of Reuven, Aharon, and Boaz?
+Furthermore, why are Eliyahu HaNavi and the Mashiach, and not just Hashem, mentioned by the Midrash as recording our positive actions?
+A Message of the Midrash
Let us ponder the common denominator of the actions of Reuven, Aharon, and Boaz. All three of them overcame the yetzer hara for jealousy and vengeance to support the person involved. However, despite overcoming great challenges, the Midrash argues that their actions fall short of Torah excellence.
+The Midrash teaches us to consider these examples and improve on them; since our actions may be written down as well: Eliyahu HaNavi and Mashiach are in the process of recording the actions that trigger their arrival! When we overcome jealousy or irritation, we are tempted to think that even a bit of kindness suffices, considering how difficult it is to show even a small amount of kindness in such a situation. The Midrash teaches us that even in such circumstances we must be “all in.”
+As additional motivation, the Midrash explains that our story may be included in the future Sefer HaMashiach V’Eliyahu HaNavi. This is because if we are “all in” while immersed in such challenging circumstances, we will be instrumental in bringing the full geulah to our people, a geulah even greater than that of the time of Yetziat Mitzrayim and David HaMelech!
+The rejection of mediocrity is a recurring theme in Megillat Rut and its primary commentaries. Chazal’s condemnation of Orpah, as we discussed, and their harsh appraisal of Peloni Almoni’s stance in perek 4 are two other examples.
+Rav Kook’s Extraordinary Overcoming of the Yetzer Hara
Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook exemplifies extraordinary kindness worthy of recording in the sefer of Eliyahu HaNavi and Mashiach. I, together with Rabbi Moshe Snow of Brooklyn, New York, heard the following story from Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt zt”l, a leading talmid of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who grew up in Jerusalem in the 1930s and 1940s.
+Rabbi Greenblatt tells of a “pious” Jew who relentlessly and mercilessly ridiculed Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook for his religious-zionist worldview. When this Jew needed to visit the United States to raise money to finance his daughter’s wedding, he needed a letter from Rav Kook vouching for his legitimacy. Not only did Rav Kook write this Jew a glowing letter, but he also gave him his “frock” (rabbinic cloak) so that the man could visit America wearing respectable clothes.
+Midrash #2 — Chesed Benefits the Donor More Than the Beneficiary
The second Midrash, although primarily communicating a vital lesson about chesed, serves as a great example of how peshat is comparable to a song’s melody and derash to its harmony. It adds another dimension of understanding to the pasuk.
+First, let us carefully examine Rut perek 2 pasuk 19.
+וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ חֲמוֹתָהּ אֵיפֹה לִקַּ֤טְתְּ הַיּוֹם וְאָ֣נָה עָשִׂית יְהִ֥י מַכִּירֵ֖ךְ בָּר֑וּךְ וַתַּגֵּ֣ד לַחֲמוֹתָהּ אֵ֤ת אֲשֶׁר־עָֽשְׂתָה עִמּוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר שֵׁ֤ם הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי עִמּ֛וֹ הַיּוֹם בֹּֽעַז׃
+When Naomi asked Rut where she did leket, why did Rut describe her taking leket as “הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי עִמּ֛וֹ הַיּוֹם” — the man with whom I worked today? She should have described it as Boaz helping her, or the place where she obtained her food. Rather, it sounds like Rut was saying she worked with Boaz. Rut took from Boaz; she did not work with him!
+Let us begin with a peshat explanation. Consider the Torah’s goal of preserving the dignity of an indigent individual. The Torah does not just give him or her a handout, but rather requires him work to obtain his leket. Rut describes herself as working with Boaz because she worked for her food instead of simply receiving a handout.
+Malbim offers a different interesting peshat approach to Rut’s words. He explains that the kindness she showed Naomi was what she “provided” to Boaz, and in exchange she was able to amass such a large amount of food.
+Now for the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 5:2):
+תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה עִם הֶעָנִי, הֶעָנִי עוֹשֶׂה עִם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, שֶׁכֵּן אָמְרָה רוּת לְנָעֳמִי שֵׁם הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי עִמּוֹ הַיּוֹם, וְלֹא אָמְרָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה עִמִּי, אֶלָּא אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי עִמּוֹ.
+More than what the master of the house does with the poor man, the poor man does with the master of the house, and so Ruth said to Naomi “The man’s name with whom (‘imo’) I worked today (Ruth 2:19)" and she did not say "the man who worked with me (‘imi’)"; rather "with whom I worked":
+This Midrash adds a beautiful harmony to the melody of the peshat. The Torah way of tzedakah fortifies the needy individual with the awareness that his receiving chesed benefits the benefactor as well as, if not even more than, himself. This idea fits with the overall theme of Megillat Rut of teaching the great benefit from bestowing chesed upon those in need.
+Conclusion
Megillat Rut emphasizes the need for extraordinary actions and chesed. Mediocrity is roundly condemned as we saw in regards to Orpah and as we will see in regards to the goel of perek 4. Our Midrashim fit into this broader theme of Megillat Rut, inspiring us to elevate ourselves from good to great. Hashem has high expectations for us; He knows we are capable of greatness, and as a strict and loving Father, He will not settle for anything less! When we live up to Hashem’s high expectations, we bring geulah to ourselves and to the entire world.
+
+Section 19
+
+Naomi and Rut's Approach to Boaz
Megillat Rut perek 3 is quite a perek! As the first step in our effort to grasp this perek, let us try to understand the concept of geulah, as used in our perek. When Rut declared that Boaz was a goel, Boaz replied there was a goel closer in relation. This term is used no less than seven times in the exchange between Rut and Boaz (and its shoresh appears 23 times in Megillat Rut!) But what precisely is a goel?
+Ramban — Yibbum
Ramban (Bereishit 38:8) understands the concept of geulah in the context of this perek as an expansion of yibbum. Yibbum involves a man marrying the widow of his brother who died without children. Geulah expands yibbum to relatives besides the brother. According to Ramban, Rut asked Boaz to follow the accepted protocol of “geulah/expanded yibbum,” since he was a close relative of her deceased husband. Boaz responded that this should first be given to the closer relative; the closer the relative, the more “effective” the yibbum and geulah. This is because there is a preference for yibbum to be facilitated by one who is most biologically similar to the deceased husband. According to Ramban, the child born from yibbum is a gilgul (transmigration of the soul) of the man who died without children. Thus, ideally, it should be the brother of the deceased husband that marries the widow. If not him, then the closest relative to the deceased should marry her.
+Interestingly, the Targum to pasuk 9 explains geulah as Rut asking Boaz to marry her. This implies that the Targum’s approach is aligned with Ramban.
+Rashi — Geulat Sadeh Nachalah
Let us explore the relevance of a mitzvah that is specifically referred to as geulah in the Torah (Vayikra perek 25) and consider its relevance to Megillat Rut:
+כה כִּי-יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ, וּמָכַר מֵאֲחֻזָּתוֹ—וּבָא גֹאֲלוֹ, הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו, וְגָאַל, אֵת מִמְכַּר אָחִיו. כו וְאִישׁ, כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה-לּוֹ גֹּאֵל, וְהִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ, וּמָצָא כְּדֵי גְאֻלָּתוֹ. כז וְחִשַּׁב, אֶת-שְׁנֵי מִמְכָּרוֹ, וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת-הָעֹדֵף, לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר מָכַר-לוֹ; וְשָׁב, לַאֲחֻזָּתוֹ
+These pesukim speak of someone that, due to economic hardship, sells his nachalah, the ancestral land his family possesses since the time Yehoshua had entered Eretz Yisrael. A family member has a mitzvah to recover, or in the Torah’s language, to redeem — “goel”— the land.
+According to Rashi (to Rut perek 3 pasuk 9 s.v. “Ki Goel Ata”), Rut referred to the geulah of Sefer Vayikra, and not to an expansion of the concept of yibbum. Rut asked Boaz to redeem the field, and along with this, to marry her. Although the Torah’s concept of redeeming the nachalah does not involve marriage, Naomi and Rut made this expansion, and Boaz embraced this idea.
+An advantage to Rashi’s approach is that the Torah describes redeeming the nachalah as geulah. Yibbum, by contrast, is not described this way in the Torah. Ramban would counter that yibbum is, by definition, geulah, since it redeems the neshamah (soul) of the deceased husband.
+An advantage to Ramban’s approach is that it explains Rut’s shocking behavior in perek 3, as Rut lying next to Boaz in the granary is her asking for yibbum, which the Torah (Devarim 25:5) describes as יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ (that yibbum is initiated by marital relations; see Kiddushin 2a).
+Midrash — Geulah of Am Yisrael
The Midrash adds an interesting “harmony” to the “melody” of the geulah theme in this perek. Rashi (to perek 3 pasuk 15 s.v. “Sheish Se’orim”) cites the Midrash explaining the symbolism of the six se’orim that Boaz gave to Rut. The Midrash refers to the following pesukim in Sefer Yishayahu (perek 11 pesukim 1-9) which describe the Mashiach. Accordingly, the geulah of Rut and Naomi, whether one understands it like Rashi or Ramban, reflects the geulah of all of Am Yisrael. Of course, the Midrash is reflecting on the fact that David HaMelech and the Melech HaMashiach come from the geulah of Rut and Naomi.
+Most interestingly, the Zohar understands Rut 3:13 using the level of interpretation known as remez, with “night” representing galut and “morning” as geulah. Compare the pasuk with the Zohar’s interpretation:
+“Lodge here tonight — You are presently in exile and are occupied informing your sons [in exile] of Torah and good deeds. If your good deeds shall testify in your favor to deliver you, then you shall be delivered. But if not, I shall redeem you Myself, swears God. Lie until the morning — until the light comes and lights [the way for] your delivery.”
+According to the Zohar, Boaz represents Hashem, Rut represents Am Yisrael, and the goel — the closer relative whose name according to the Midrash is Tov — represents our good deeds that might merit redemption. Our performance of mitzvot can merit an early redemption, but if we have insufficient mitzvot then Hashem will bring the dawn of our geulah at the appointed time.
+Conclusion
One may explain the connection between the peshat and derash explanations in that both Rashi and Ramban speak of Jews taking responsibility for each other by assuming marital and financial responsibility when appropriate. This responsibility for one another generates the ultimate geulah for the entire Jewish nation.
+Postscript — Ibn Ezra vs. the Karaites
Ibn Ezra to Devarim 25:5 disputes with the Karaites who claim that yibbum is done with a relative, and not with the deceased husband’s brother. The Karaites cite Megillat Rut as evidence for their position. Ibn Ezra handily dismisses their supposed raayah:
+כי ישבו אחים יחדיו - גם הם אמרו, כי אינם אחים ממש, כי אם קרובים, והביאו ראיה מבועז, ולא אמרו כלום, כי אין שם זכר יבום כי אם גאולה
+The Karaites interpret “ach,” brother, in the context of yibbum in a non-literal manner, to avoid the contradiction between yibbum and the prohibition to marry the wife of one’s brother (Vayikra 18:16). They claim that Boaz performed the true yibbum, because he is not the brother of the deceased, but rather a relative. However, Ibn Ezra convincingly dismisses the Karaites, noting that Megillat Rut never uses the term yibbum, which is when the deceased’s brother redeems the widow, but rather geulah, which is when any relative redeems her. Even Ramban views Boaz’s action only as an expansion of yibbum, but not yibbum itself. Had it been an actual yibbum, Megillat Rut would speak of yibbum and not geulah.
+
+Section 20
+
+Criticizing Tzadikim of Tanach
Naomi advised, and Rut executed, a plan that seems outrageous. The breach of tzniut is shocking! Why did Rut not simply knock on Boaz’s door and have a conversation about geulah, however one understands it (either like Rashi or Ramban)? We set forth four approaches:
+Approach #1 — Malbim
Malbim to pasuk 1 notes that the three months of havchanah, the Halachically mandated three month waiting period between conversion and marriage, had finally concluded and Rut was then eligible to marry. The choice of Boaz as a husband reflects the scarcity of men who were fully committed to Torah during this time period.
+Malbim (to perek 3 pasuk 4 s.v. “Teida Et Hamakom”) explains that Naomi and Rut were too bashful and intimidated to openly raise this issue with Boaz. Instead, Rut hints to Boaz through symbols to perform yibbum, instead of chalitzah.
+One wonders, though, whether timidity justifies such outrageous behavior. The Torah community today and in generations past would never countenance such behavior. One cannot argue that things were different then, since Torah values are eternal. Thus, Torah values of today should be the same as Torah values in the time of Naomi and Rut. Instead, they should have mustered up the courage to engage Boaz in a conversation about geulah. If Rut had the courage to surreptitiously break into the barn and lie next to Boaz, then she could have confidently knocked on Boaz's door and asked to go to the local “coffee shop” and discuss geulah.
+On the other hand, perhaps “actions speak louder than words.” Boaz had not taken the initiative to marry Rut, and thus needed an extreme measure to stir him into action.
+Approach #2 — Following Lot’s Daughters and Tamar
A good approach to solving problems when learning Tanach is considering similar or parallel stories, as Tanach should be learned as one big sefer from Hashem. Perhaps Naomi and Rut were following in the footsteps of Lot’s daughters and Tamar. These women take outrageous action to ensure the continuity of their family line.
+However, the daughters of Lot are not perceived as righteous women. Rashi to Parashat Vayeira harshly criticizes Lot’s daughters, and this appears to be the mainstream opinion. The daughters of Lot hardly serve as role models for Naomi and Rut.
+Even though Rashi in Parashat Vayeishev adopts a positive approach to Tamar, one may question whether Tamar serves as a role model for Naomi and Rut. After all, the story of Tamar happened before Matan Torah, while the story of Naomi and Rut happened after Matan Torah, from when much higher standards are expected. The best proof is that we, today, would never countenance such behavior!
+Moreover, a careful examination of Rut 3:4 reveals that Naomi was not trying to trap Boaz. Naomi specifically told Rut “vehu yagid lach et asher ta’asin — and he will tell you what you should do,” meaning that Naomi presumed that after Rut’s bold actions, Boaz would assume control and properly handle the situation. Rut asked Boaz (Rut 3:9) to assume responsibility for her, not to engage in improper behavior. Thus, there is a dramatic difference between the behavior of Naomi and Rut and the behavior of Lot’s daughters and of Tamar.
+Approach #3 — The Precedent of Rivka and Yaakov
This third approach is my suggestion, based on the approaches of Malbim, Rav Hirsch, and the Chatam Sofer on Rivka Imeinu and Yaakov Avinu’s deception of Yitzchak Avinu.
+Yitzchak saw Yaakov as the completely spiritual brother and Esav as the completely materially-focused brother. Neither could lead the Jewish people on their own, as each had something missing. Therefore, Yitzchak decided to split the beracha, with the spiritual component going to Yaakov and the material component to Esav. Rivka, in turn, realized that giving any leadership role to Esav would be disastrous, and that Yaakov had to have an immediate and extreme personality makeover in order to demonstrate to Yitzchak and to himself that he was worthy of material, in addition to spiritual, leadership.
+Perhaps Naomi felt that Rut, too, needed to take extreme action to counter Rut’s self-deprecating words that created a “weak” impression in perek 2 — which might very well be why Boaz did not pursue the relationship during the time Rut spent in Boaz’ field, as recorded in perek 2. Therefore, Rut needed to demonstrate to Boaz and to herself that she was worthy of marrying Boaz and into the Jewish nation.
+While this approach seems to resonate, there are certainly questions on it. First, the distinction between pre- and post-Matan Torah should be considered. Second, Rut’s behavior was far more shocking and outrageous than that of Rivka and Yaakov Avinu.
+Approach #4 — Naomi and Rut Were Wrong
A fourth approach is to understand that Naomi and Rut were wrong in what they did. We are reluctant to adopt such an approach without some precedent in Chazal or Rishonim— such an approach is an absolute last resort. With this understanding, the following sources support the assertion that Rut, and ultimately Naomi in her guidance, acted improperly.
+Sanhedrin 19b-20a
+אמר רבי יוחנן תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש
+The Gemara compares the levels of restraint shown by Yosef HaTzadik (vs. Eishet Potiphar), Boaz (vs. Rut) and Palti ben Layish (who restrained himself when he was wrongfully married by force to Michal bat Shaul, as she was married to David HaMelech but forcibly given by Shaul to Palti).
+This Talmudic passage seems to condemn the actions of Rut. The other two men mentioned in this Gemara, Yosef HaTzadik and Palti ben Layish, were wrongly placed in a difficult position and had to make a huge effort to restrain themselves. The Gemara seems to be comparing Rut with Eishet Potiphar, hardly a complimentary comparison!
+Rut Rabbah 7:1
+כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה הָיָה בֹּעַז שָׁטוּחַ עַל פָּנָיו וְאוֹמֵר, רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁלֹא נָגַעְתִּי בָּהּ, כֵּן יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ אַל יִוָּדַע כִּי בָאָה הָאִשָּׁה הַגֹּרֶן, וְלֹא יִתְחַלֵּל בִּי שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם — Boaz prayed the entire evening that a chilul Hashem not ensue from someone discovering that he was alone with a woman in the granary.
+This Midrash implies that Rut acted wrongly. Describing the scene of Rut and Boaz in the granary as a potential chilul Hashem appears to condemn Naomi and Rut’s actions as outrageously improper (albeit well-intentioned).
+Midrash Tanchuma Parashat Naso
+טוב לפני האלהים ימלט ממנה (קהלת שם /ז'/), זה בועז שהוא אומר לרות ליני הלילה (רות ג' יג), וחוטא ילכד בה, זה שמשון. The Midrash contrasts Shimshon’s lack of restraint with Boaz’s restraint, and seems to link Rut with Delilah (Shimshon’s evil Pelishti wife). The comparison to Delilah does not reflect well on Rut.
+Mishna — Kiddushin
+נקנית בשלוש דרכים, וקונה את עצמה בשתי דרכים: נקנית בכסף, ובשטר, ובביאה האישה
+היבמה נקנית בביאה.
+Yibbum is effected by marital relations. Since Rut was initiating a type of yibbum relationship (at least according to Ramban), perhaps this was a proper way to begin. However, the lack of eidei yichud, witnesses to their marital seclusion, seems to preclude this possibility. Naomi specifically instructs Rut to make sure no one is aware of her entering the barn.
+On the other hand, extending the yichud prohibition to singles was enacted by David and his Beit Din only after the incident of Tamar and Amnon (Sanhedrin 21b). Perhaps this behavior was not even forbidden at the time of Rut and Boaz. Nevertheless, although the formal prohibition did not exist before Tamar and Amnon, Am Yisrael already recognized this as improper behavior that must be avoided, as we see from the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:1) quoted earlier: Boaz prayed all night that a chilul Hashem should not ensue. This indicates that even in pre-Amnon and David days, yichud between unmarried individuals was regarded as scandalous behavior, especially for Boaz who was seen as a gadol ha’dor.
+Conclusion — Good Intentions
As a compromise between the various perspectives, we suggest that although Naomi and Rut may have advised/acted improperly, their intentions were noble. Moreover, they may have thought that their actions conformed to Torah law, without realizing how it ultimately clashes with Torah values. Boaz, in turn, recognizes their noble intentions and reacts to Naomi and Rut with kindness. In a later section, we will examine Boaz’s righteous behavior in the granary.
+
+Section 21
+
+A Focus on Rashi to Perek 3
In our last section, we raised the possibility that Rut and Naomi erred in regards to the granary incident. Many of my talmidim reacted with shock to this possibility. We will devote this section to delving into the fundamental issue of whether it is permissible to criticize the holy tzadikim of Tanach.
+May We Criticize Tzadikim of Tanach?
There is no doubt that tzadikim do sin, as stated twice by Shlomo HaMelech (Melachim I 8:46 and Kohelet 7:20). There are times when Tanach explicitly states that a tzadik has, such as when Moshe hit the rock at Mei Merivah.
+What about a situation that the Tanach does not record with criticism from Hashem, but it seems to us that the tzadikim acted wrongly? As a reminder, we have noted that Chazal view Rut and Naomi as tzadikim.
+Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai
Let us delve into a debate between two of our greatest chachamim, Rabbi Akiva and his talmid Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (Rashbi). It seems from Bamidbar perek 11 pesukim 21-23 that Moshe Rabbeinu expressed doubts about Hashem’s capability of providing this amount of meat. Rashi (to pasuk 22) cites the following debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rashbi as to whether Moshe Rabbeinu doubted Hashem’s capabilities:
+הצאן ובקר ישחט: זה אחד מארבעה דברים שהיה רבי עקיבא דורש ואין רבי שמעון דורש כמותו. רבי עקיבא אומר שש מאות אלף רגלי, ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים, הצאן ובקר וגו', הכל כמשמעו, מי יספיק להם, כענין שנאמר (ויקרא כה, כו) ומצא כדי גאולתו. ואיזו קשה, זו או (במדבר כ, י) שמעו נא המורים, אלא לפי שלא אמר ברבים חיסך לו הכתוב ולא נפרע ממנו, וזו של מריבה היתה בגלוי, לפיכך לא חיסך לו הכתוב. רבי שמעון אומר חס ושלום לא עלתה על דעתו של אותו צדיק כך, מי שכתוב בו (במדבר יב, ז) בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, יאמר אין המקום מספיק לנו, אלא כך אמר שש מאות אלף רגלי וגו' ואתה אמרת בשר אתן לחדש ימים, ואחר כך תהרוג אומה גדולה כזו, הצאן ובקר ישחט להם כדי שיהרגו, ותהא אכילה זו מספקתן עד עולם, וכי שבחך הוא זה, אומרים לו לחמור טול כור שעורים ונחתוך ראשך. השיבו הקב"ה ואם לא אתן יאמרו שקצרה ידי, הטוב בעינך שיד ה' תקצר בעיניהם, יאבדו הם ומאה כיוצא בהם ואל תהי ידי קצרה לפניהם אפילו שעה אחת
+Rabbi Akiva and Rashbi argue as to whether we should interpret Moshe Rabbeinu’s words in a straightforward manner, and ultimately conclude that he erred, or to make extraordinary efforts to interpret his words in a positive light. Rabbi Akiva believes that Moshe Rabbeinu erred, but according to Rashbi, Moshe Rabbeinu was arguing that Hashem’s punishment was too strict. This debate may reflect a broader dispute about how we view seemingly inappropriate actions of tzadikim. If so, the propriety of our suggestion that Rut and Naomi erred might hinge on this debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rashbi. It seems that Rashi does not resolve this matter, though he grants Rashbi the last word.
+However, one may argue that we may not extrapolate a broad and fundamental dispute from the Rabbi Akiva vs. Rashbi debate. Perhaps this is a singular situation where it appears unfathomable to Rashbi that our greatest navi, Moshe Rabbeinu, would cast doubt on the extent of Hashem’s capabilities. However, in other circumstances, it is quite possible that Rashbi would be open to criticizing a tzadik.
+Rishonim
Some of the greatest of Rishonim, including Ramban, follow in the footsteps of Rabbi Akiva.
+As we discussed in an earlier section, Ramban (Bereishit 12:10) famously criticizes Avraham Avinu for abandoning Eretz Yisrael and going to Mitzrayim. While other Rishonim disagree (such as Rashi to Bereishit 12:10), the Zohar (Lech Lecha 71b) interestingly agrees with Ramban.
+R. Yehuda said: Come and see — because Avraham moved to Egypt without permission, B’nei Yisrael were enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years. For it is written, 'Avraham went down to Egypt,' but not [a command,] 'Go down to Egypt,' and it was for that reason that he was troubled all that night on account of Sarah.”
+This is quite significant in light of the traditional attribution of the authorship of the Zohar to Rashbi. Rashbi, accordingly, criticizes Avraham Avinu in Bereishit perek 12, but not Moshe Rabbeinu in perek 11. My talmidim argue that this supports the view that Rashbi does not reject all criticism of Tanach’s tzadikim, but rather specifically rejects the idea discussed above, that the greatest navi would doubt Hashem’s capabilities.
+Likewise, Ramban (Bereishit 16:4) famously criticizes Sarah Imeinu’s treatment of Hagar. While Rabbeinu Chananel (Bereishit 16:5) disagrees with Ramban about this, Radak (Bereishit 16:6) agrees.
+David HaMelech — Chazal and Abarbanel
The Gemara (Shabbat 56a) famously proclaims, “Whoever claims that David HaMelech sinned with Batsheva errs.” This would seem to be a ringing endorsement of the need to go to all lengths to avoid criticizing the tzadikim of Tanach.
+However, Abarbanel’s (Shmuel II 11:10) comments on this Gemara show us an alternative approach, in line with those that understand tzadikim to have sinned in their lifetimes:
+The teachings of our Sages in this matter are Midrashic explanations, and I will not address them… How can we propose that 'he sought to commit [the transgression] but did not commit it'? The text testifies explicitly to this evil act in its entirety; if David had not sinned, why would he say, 'I have sinned unto God'? And why would he have engaged in such sincere repentance, saying, 'for I know my wrongdoing, and my sin is before me always' (Tehillim 51:5)? Furthermore, the verse that they cite in support of [the approach seeking to exonerate him] – 'And David succeeded in all his ways, and the Lord was with him…' (Shmuel I 18:14) comes prior to this episode, such that it does not rule out the possibility of him sinning afterwards. For even if at that time he was prudent, wise, and successful in all his undertakings, and God was with him in whatever he did, then certainly if he did in fact sin, God would be with him since he accepted his punishment and engaged in repentance. Therefore, my thinking cannot accept a minimizing of David's sin, and I shall not deny the simple truth.”
+Significantly, Abarbanel does not argue with the Gemara. He explains that the Gemara is speaking the language of derash while he is speaking the language of peshat. We suggest that Chazal, (in the derech of derash) are saying that David HaMelech did not, technically speaking, sin. Rather, he was a naval bi’reshut haTorah (see Ramban to Vayikra 19:2), as although he acted terribly, he managed to avoid any technical Torah prohibitions. David HaMelech’s severe punishment, the Gemara might be teaching, for violating what is “merely” a naval bi’reshut haTorah violation, communicates the severity of this type of sin.
+Criticism Taken Too Far?
Some contemporary teachers take this idea too far and criticize tzadikim of Tanach unnecessarily without precedent in Chazal, Rishonim or Acharonim. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, in an address to graduates of Yeshivat Har Etzion, rejected the argument that Yaakov Avinu taking the bechorah from Eisav was improper. Rabbi Lichtenstein noted that Ramban, who did not shy from criticizing the avot, did not criticize Yaakov Avinu for taking that which was rightfully his, and therefore neither should we. I am unaware of any Rishonim or Acharonim who criticize Yaakov Avinu for taking the bechorah.
+A number of TABC talmidim do note the troubling nature of Rivka Imeinu and Yaakov Avinu’s behavior in this incident. This matter does merit serious thought and in-depth exploration. I do not mean to stifle creativity, and of course not every issue has been resolved in prior generations (as stated explicitly in Chulin 7a). However, when it comes to the ultra-sensitive issue of criticizing tzadikim of Tanach, we should exercise great caution.
+Returning to Naomi and Rut
While there is room to criticize the tzadikim of Tanach even without explicit criticism from Hashem, there should be some basis for such criticism in Chazal, Rishonim or Acharonim. Perhaps we should be stricter and require a source in Chazal for our criticism of Rut and Naomi.
+There is a challenge due to the paucity of classic Rishonim on Rut — there is no commentary by Radak, Ralbag, Abarbanel or Metzudot. There are, however, a rich array of Midrashim, which is why we cited three Midrashim that might support our contention. Even so, we couched this assertion with considerable caution.
+Conclusion — Imperfect Tzadikim: A Mark of the Authenticity of the Torah
Let us conclude with some sources that express a positive side of saying that our tzadikim did indeed sin.
+Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Bereishit 12:10-13)
"The Torah never presents our great men as being perfect… The Torah never hides from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men. Just by that it gives the stamp of veracity to what it relates. But in truth, by the knowledge which is given us of their faults and weaknesses, our great men are in no wise made lesser but actually greater and more instructive. If they stood before us as the purest models of perfection we should attribute them as having a different nature, which has been denied to us… It may never be our task to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past, to appear as apologists for them. Truth is the seal of our Torah, and truthfulness is the principle of all its true and great commentators and teachers."
+Bereishit Rabbah 87:10
+A Roman matron asked Rabbi Yossi: Is it possible that Yosef, at the age of 17, at the height of physical maturity, would have acted in this way? Rabbi Yossi brought out the book of Bereishit and began to read the stories of Reuven and Yehuda. He said to her, if with regard to these two, who were older than he and were in their father's house, the text makes no effort to cover up their deeds, then concerning Yosef, who was younger than they and was all alone – how much more credence is thereby bestowed on this account.
+Accordingly, limited criticism of Tanach’s tzadikim need not be seen as belittling them. Rather, the fact that the Tanach does not hide their misdeeds highlights the authenticity of their great actions recorded by Tanach.
+
+Section 22
+
+Boaz; A Genuine Tzadik and Role Model
This section focuses on some of the magnificent insights of Rashi to perek 3 of Megillat Rut.
+Naomi’s Instructions vs. Rut’s Execution
Let us compare Naomi’s instruction to Rut in pasuk 3 with Rut’s execution of these instructions in pasuk 6. Rashi to pasuk 6 explains that there is a discrepancy; while Naomi asked Rut to prepare for her meeting before she walks to Boaz’s granary, Rut waited to do so until she had reached the granary. In this way, she avoided generating suspicion of unseemly behavior while she walked to the granary.
+Consider the import of this insight. This communicates that Rut had improved and learned the Jewish way of tzniut during the months she had spent with Boaz’s female workers. In addition, it demonstrates that Rut was not acting like a robot, blindly obeying Naomi’s directives. Instead, she was also thinking for herself and making deliberate choices. Rut’s confidence in making decisions independent of Naomi reflects Rut’s improved self-esteem, correcting her earlier slip in self-esteem in her conversation with Boaz.
+A Difficult Time Period
Rashi to pasuk 2 (s.v. “Ha’layla”) explains that Boaz slept in the granary due to concern that people would steal his grain. Rashi’s insight fits with Chazal’s understanding of Megillat Rut’s introductory words, “Vayehi bi’yemei shefot ha’shofetim,” as referring to a time of rampant corruption. It also fits with perek 2 pesukim 9 and 22, which describe the necessity for Boaz to admonish the men not to harass the female workers in the field. Boaz had to emphasize that the low standards of his time were not acceptable in his domain.
+We should note, though, that the image of Boaz sleeping in the granary guarding his grain hardly seems to fit with Rut Rabbah’s assertion that Boaz was 80 years old at this time. More on this in a later section.
+Reaffirming Rut’s Conversion
Rashi to pasuk 3 (s.v. “V’rachatzt” and s.v. “V’sacht”) explains that Naomi was directing Rut to remove any stain of avodah zarah and reaffirm her commitment to the mitzvot, as she was about to boldly approach Boaz. This comment seems to be a deeply meaningful point in the broader context of this perek. Perhaps the message is that the bold action that Rut was about to take did not represent a regression to Moabite ways; rather, in Naomi and Rut’s mind they were acting completely in conformity to Torah laws and values.
+The Joy and Impact of Torah Learning
Rashi to pasuk 7 (s.v. “Vayitav Libo”) makes an extraordinarily beautiful comment. Instead of interpreting Boaz “Vayitav Libo — and he gladdened his heart” as inebriating himself, Rashi understands it as Baoz taking some time to study Torah. This comment has significant implications.
+First, by describing Torah learning as gladdening of the heart, Rashi captures the essence of talmud Torah. The Sochatchover Rebbe, in his introduction to his sefer Eglei Tal, teaches that the essence of talmud Torah is to enjoy the learning — עיקר מצות לימוד התורה להיות שש ושמח ומתענג בלימודו. This assertion fits perfectly with the beracha we recite each morning, asking Hashem to help us enjoy our Torah learning — הַעֲרֵב נָא, ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ, אֶת דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָתְךָ בְּפִינוּ וּבְפִי כָל עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. It also fits with the Halacha that forbids learning Torah during mourning periods, such as Tisha B’Av (Ta’anit 30a). Torah learning is too enjoyable for a period of aveilut (mourning).
+The image of Boaz taking time to learn after a long hard day in the field, and describing it as gladdening his heart, captures the joy of Torah learning. The joy of life comes from transcending the mundane and elevating ourselves by entering the world of Torah.
+There is a dramatic difference between those who seek to “transcend” the mundane and gladden their heart by imbibing alcohol after a long day of work and those who do so by means of Torah study. Rashi captures this contrast by eschewing the expected explanation of “vayitav libo” as drinking, and instead explaining it as studying Torah. Indulging in alcohol as a pursuit of joy is often self-destructive, whereas delving into Torah is a life-affirming and edifying pursuit.
+Finally, Boaz studying Torah before Rut enters the granary fortifies Boaz for the great nisayon that he was about to face. The Torah study that plugs Boaz into the fount of eternity allows him to choose eternity over the fleeting pleasures of this world, which do not serve his best long-term interest.
+וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ עַל-אֲמָתְךָ — Assume Responsibility
Rashi to pasuk 9 s.v. “U’farasta Kenafecha” explains that when Rut instructed Boaz to extend the edge of his clothes and cover her with his tallit, she was requesting a gesture of nisuin, marriage — an expression of the man assuming responsibility for the wife. Most notably, this is the source for the Sephardic and German Jewish custom for a chatan to don his tallit under the chuppah and spread it over the kallah. Rut’s words, as explained by Rashi, live on in Jewish life.
+Boaz’s Oath
The peshat and derash explanations presented by Rashi to pasuk 13 s.v. “Chai Hashem” fit with our idea that peshat sometimes refers to what people say and derash to what people think.
+The peshat explains that Rut challenged Boaz to prove his seriousness. This demonstrates how Rut had come out of her proverbial shell, very assertively confronting Boaz and assuring the redemption. This peshat explanation fills in the missing piece of the story, explaining what prompts Boaz to take an oath.
+On the derash level, Boaz fortified himself by swearing to transcend his biological urges and act in conformity with the transcendent values of Hashem and His Torah (i.e., restrain himself until marriage). These two levels of interpretation capture the two levels of struggle in which Boaz was found.
+Conclusion
Each comment of Rashi, which usually emerges from the teachings of the Midrash, is laden with deep meaning. Our job is to think deeply and do our utmost to reveal and uncover the profound and enriching lessons waiting to be discovered.
+
+Section 23
+
+Kri U'Chtiv
We have devoted considerable attention to Naomi and Rut’s side of perek 3. Now let us focus on Boaz.
+Boaz — Tzadik, Chasid and Gadol Ha’Dor
The Targum (1:6) refers to Boaz as “Boaz Chasida” and (4:21) as “Boaz Tzadika.” Rut Rabbah (5:10) describes Boaz as the gadol ha’dor. In this chapter we endeavor to support this positive evaluation of Boaz.
+Why No Rebuke?
If Naomi and Rut’s plan and its execution were sinful, why does Boaz not rebuke Rut? Instead, Boaz profusely blesses and praises her!
+We may answer based on the following Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 606:1):
+ויהי בחצי הלילה. זה שאמר הכתוב חצות לילה אקום להודות לך, כך אמר דוד חייב אני לקום להודות לך על מה שעשית לזקני וזקנתי בחצי הלילה שנאמר ויהי בחצי הלילה ויחרד האיש וילפת, שאילו התחיל לה קללה אחת מהיכן הייתי עומד נתן בלבו וברכה ברוכה את לה' בתי.
+The Midrash tells us that David HaMelech was grateful that his great-grandfather chose to react kindly to Rut. Had Boaz reacted with anger, David would not have been born! Boaz could have raged at Rut for disrespecting him and his space, but instead he restrained his anger. Moreover, he helped Rut feel comfortable in an extremely awkward situation.
+In a corollary to Chazal’s (Kiddushin 70a) principle of כל הפוסל במומו פוסל (one who disparages projects his shortcomings), we suggest that whoever praises another is praising the positive elements inherent in his own personality. Perhaps the beracha and praise that Boaz bestowed upon Rut, especially about her great chesed, reflects Boaz himself — his own chesed in the kind way he reacts to Rut’s outrageous intrusion.
+TABC talmidim suggested that the reason Boaz was so kind to Rut was that she was a giyoret, a convert, new to Judaism. He may have reasoned that Rut likely did not realize that she was acting inappropriately by Torah standards. Boaz thereby followed the Torah’s command (one that is presented thirty-six times!) to be kind to converts. Other TABC talmidim suggested that Boaz was also being kind to Rut since she was an almanah, widow, and the Torah specifically forbids afflicting an almanah (Shemot 22:22), with stiff warnings accompanying this prohibition.
+Boaz sets a powerful example for managing one’s emotions and acting with kindness in a situation where one could easily slip into rage.
+Torah vs. Alcohol
Let us now return to pasuk 7 where the pasuk states, “Vayochal Boaz, vayesht, vayitav libo.” The phrase “vayitav libo” is typically understood as becoming inebriated, as we find in Esther 1:10 בַּיּוֹם, הַשְּׁבִיעִי, כְּטוֹב לֵב-הַמֶּלֶךְ, בַּיָּיִן. Similarly in Shmuel II: 13:28 כְּטוֹב לֵב-אַמְנוֹן בַּיַּיִן. However, as we noted in the prior section, Rashi (following Chazal) explains that this phrase tells us that Boaz learned Torah.
+We already focused on how this is a beautiful characterization of talmud Torah. Let us consider the implications for understanding this fateful night in Boaz’s granary.
+Perek 3 pesukim 7–15 supports Chazal and Rashi’s interpretation of “vayitav libo.” Boaz’s reaction is completely measured and sober. He hardly acts like one under the influence of alcohol!
+If so, why then does the pasuk not simply state that Boaz learned Torah? Perhaps Megillat Rut is intentionally using this phrase in order to compare Boaz’s learning to drinking alcohol. Boaz’s Torah learning was done in a constructive way for the same purpose that the alcohol devotee uses his drink in a destructive way: as a means to transcend his daily life.
+The fundamental difference, however, is that alcohol consumption leads one to lose control of his emotions and make decisions that he will severely regret in the long run, as in the case of Achashveirosh. One who lovingly embraces Torah and internalizes its priceless messages, on the other hand, is led to control his emotions and make decisions that will bring him great joy in the long run.
+Boaz, inspired and strengthened by the Torah he had learned, makes thoughtful and positive decisions. We see this in the area of bein adam le'chaveiro, as he refrained from pouring his wrath at Rut for having the chutzpah to break into his barn and lie next to him in the dead of night, as well as in bein adam la'makom, as he restrained himself from Rut who, according to the Midrash, was an extraordinarily beautiful woman. Ultimately, Boaz’s actions allow him and his descendants to be proud in the long run, despite the discomfort he experienced in the short term.
+וַיִּלָּפֵת — Interpreting A Rare Word
Perek 3 pasuk 8 records that “Vayecherad ha’ish vayilafet.” The word “vayecherad” is fairly common, which connotes fear and intimidation. “Vayilafet,” though, is a relatively rare word and more challenging to understand. Rashi and Ibn Ezra explain “vayilafet” in terms of Boaz’s shock at the unexpected visitor.
+The Gemara (Sanhedrin 19b) shockingly states: מאי וילפת אמר רב שנעשה בשרו ראשי לפתות — "Vayilafet” tells us that Boaz manifested his attraction to Rut. Why do Chazal think we need to know this intensely private information?
+Let us consider Rashi at the end of Parashat Kedoshim (citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah) for an answer.
רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מנין שלא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר חזיר, אי אפשי ללבוש כלאים, אבל יאמר אפשי, ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי, תלמוד לומר ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, שתהא הבדלתכם מהם לשמי, פורש מן העבירה ומקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים.
One should not dismiss non-kosher food as repulsive. Rather, one should regard it as appetizing, but refrain from eating solely because of Hashem’s command.
+Sanhedrin 19b teaches that Boaz was אפשי, ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי. It vividly conveys the idea that Boaz was very much attracted to Rut. He refrained from the wrong behavior not due to lack of interest or attraction, but rather, due to Hashem’s will.
+A Tikkun for Yehuda and Lot
Boaz asking Rut (Rut 3:9) “Mi at?ְ” is a powerful example of tikkun, when later generations correct the mistake of an earlier generation. Recall Bereishit perek 38: טו וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה, וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה: כִּי כִסְּתָה, פָּנֶיהָ. טז וַיֵּט אֵלֶיהָ אֶל-הַדֶּרֶךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר הָבָה-נָּא אָבוֹא אֵלַיִךְ, כִּי לֹא יָדַע, כִּי כַלָּתוֹ הִוא; וַתֹּאמֶר, מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, כִּי. Yehuda thought that Tamar was a zonah, “because he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law.” Yehuda did not bother to inquire as to the identity of the woman he encountered. Likewise with Lot, in his infamous drunken encounter with his daughters. Boaz, unlike Yehuda and Lot, treated Rut and himself with respect. He controlled his emotions, unlike Yehuda, Lot and Achashveirosh, whose emotions seemed to control them, thereby creating a tikkun for Yehuda and Lot’s mistakes.
+Conclusion
It is incumbent upon us to contemplate whether our emotions control us or whether we are in control of our emotions. As we see from several details included in Megillat Rut, Boaz deserved the many accolades bestowed by Chazal, as an exceptional tzadik and a most powerful role model, since he was the master of his emotions.
+Boaz’s Torah learning before going to sleep set him on the right path for when he was confronted with an unexpected challenge. This demonstration of the wonderful impact of Torah is a significant reason for reading Megillat Rut on Shavuot. Boaz serves as a potent example of how our Torah learning can and must elevate us to highest and most beautiful, ethical behavior, both in regards to bein adam le’chaveiro, respecting people, as well as bein adam la’makom, respecting Hashem.
+Postscript – Beautiful Words from TABC Talmid Yitzi Weiss
Why was Boaz a gadol ha’dor, a tzadik, and a chasid?
+It is not so impressive for one to be a good person when everything in life is going well. When a person is blessed with a beautiful, fully-functioning family, a healthy marriage and financial success, it does not seem so significant for that person to treat Hashem and others well — it’s pretty much expected of them. Of course, we can say that there is a challenge that he should not say “kochi ve’otzem yadi,” my success is owed to myself, and he should instead recognize Hashem — but, nonetheless, these challenges are minimal.
+However, a person’s character is put to the test when they are placed in a tough situation. For instance, when B’nei Yisrael were faced with the Yam Suf in front of them and the Egyptian army behind them, they immediately began to complain. The same happened when they were thirsty for water, and the list goes on. These same people beautifully sang Az Yashir, a song of praise to Hashem, when the sea split for them.
+Most people act appropriately when life is running smoothly. What defines a person is the way in which they deal with hard times. B’nei Yisrael was a nascent nation with a long way to go when they left Egypt, and this reality was quite evident in the way they responded to the challenge they faced. Alternatively, when a person can accept the challenging times, and, instead of folding, remain principled and retain fidelity to one’s principles, this is a true testament to the stability of one’s character.
+This time of Boaz’s life was not easy. He had recently lost his wife, and at the time of these events he was worried about his livelihood, cautious of intruders who may steal from him. Despite these circumstances, Boaz did not fall blind to instinct. He composed himself and reverts to his core principle — emunah in Hashem. Boaz opens a sefer and sits down to learn. Through this peaceful internal encounter, his worry and loneliness was relieved. At last, his heart felt “good;” he repaired his wounds by letting Hashem in.
+In this way, Boaz achieved a level of a chasid and a tzadik. His character had been tested in a difficult time and he prevailed. He understood that, in a tough time, all we can do is reach out to Hashem or to a friend and let them in. All we can do is address the situation at hand in a healthy and productive way. This character trait, the ability to adhere to our principles and think clearly in a tough time, is my humble understanding of what it means to achieve the status of a chasid and a tzadik.
+The exact opposite is exhibited through the actions of Achashveirosh. His response to his insecurities was to drink. This unhealthy and counterproductive response is that of someone whose character is uncivilized. Achashveirosh was like someone who fails to understand that one cannot treat a deep, infected cut with a bandage, primarily because they are too afraid to see what is underneath it. The decision he made while under the influence was to have his wife Vashti killed, again dealing with his insecurity by putting a bandage over the wound, rather than addressing the real problems in his life.
+Finally, Boaz achieves something otherworldly. After finally falling asleep through the noise of his troubles, Boaz was frightened in the middle of the night to find an intruder at his feet. However, rather than reacting in the way we all likely would have, Boaz composed himself and then asked who she was. Immediately after, he praised her. This encounter is otherworldly. The character displayed within these lines is the most sharpened there is.
+Being scared represents an instinct. One cannot make a calculated decision in a moment like this. When one is scared, his truest nature is revealed. Boaz’s response to Rut reveals his essence — but he was not born like this. Boaz developed himself through his Torah learning until he could defy his natural instinct and had transformed his being to the extent that he had changed his nature. This level is where he earned the description as a tzadik and chasid.
+A rebbe from Aish HaTorah once explained that “we are placed into this world as a homo sapien and it is our job that we leave a refined human being.”
+We are all imperfect. We all have a great deal to accomplish. If we develop ourselves the way that Boaz did, our natural instinct can be overridden by the strong backbone of principles.
+
+Section 24
+
+Four Closing Insights into a Most Dramatic Perek
There seems to be an unusually large number of words written with kri u’chtiv in this perek. There also are two rare words that are kri v’lo ktiv, and a rare ktiv v’lo kri. What are we to make of these unusual phenomena?
+There are a variety of explanations for kri u’chtiv that vary from place to place in Tanach. It is clear, however, that sometimes both the kri and the ktiv capture different meanings of the word.
+Kri U’chtiv in Perek 3 — Rashi
Rashi comments on the kri u’chtiv of the word “ve’yaradet” in Rut perek 3 pasuk 3. Rashi understands the ktiv “וירדתי” to mean that Naomi told Rut: my zechut, merit, will be with you. Rashi views the ktiv as a derash, the harmony to the melody of the kri.
+According to Rashi and Chazal, Naomi encouraged Rut. There are multiple reasons why this encouragement was needed. First, her plan was fraught with risks. If Rut were to be caught, her reputation would be permanently sullied. Even if she would not be caught, how would Boaz react to her bold intrusion into his granary? Finally, maybe in the eyes of Hashem this plan was way off base.
+Rashi’s understanding of the ktiv is reminiscent of Rivka telling Yaakov Avinu, before he executes her plan to dress as Eisav, that she will bear Yitzchak’s potential curse (Bereishit 27:13). Perhaps Naomi reassured Rut that her zechut is with Rut, to spare Rut from Hashem’s punishment should there be one. Naomi took responsibility, much like Rivka did for Yaakov’s deception.
+A possible shortcoming of this approach is that it does not account for the kri u’chtiv in perek 3 pasuk 4 of “ושכבתי / וְשָׁכָבְתְּ” — “and you will sleep” or “and I will sleep.”
+A Peshat Variation on Rashi
We offer a variation of Rashi and Chazal that uses the peshat-derash model of interpreting this “וירדתי” kri u’chtiv that also accounts for ושכבתי / וְשָׁכָבְתְּ. Our view explains both cases of kri u’chtiv and is based on the model that peshat is what one says, while derash is what one thinks (either consciously or subconsciously).
+We suggest that וְשָׁכָבְתְּ is what Naomi said but ושכבתי is what she thought, perhaps subconsciously. Why would Naomi be thinking ושכבתי? Here are a few possibilities:
+Naomi was in need of yibbum as well, since Elimelech’s sons had died and there were no longer any children of his to continue his legacy. Of course, this was not yibbum in the pure Halachic sense, since yibbum is specifically when the deceased husband’s brother marries the widow, but may be viewed as quasi-yibbum or geulah as understood by the Ramban. However, Naomi is not of childbearing age, as indicated in Rut 1:12.
+Interestingly, Rut 4:17 states “יֻלַּד-בֵּן לְנָעֳמִי — a child is born to Naomi” when a son was born to Rut and Boaz. It seems that Rut’s childbirth was fulfilling not only Machlon’s legacy and yibbum, but also that of Naomi and Elimelech.
+Other Peshat Variations
Many times, a rabbi will offer a controversial psak in a pressing situation (sha’at had’chak) and the questioner will ask, “but would you do this, rabbi, if you were in my situation?” Perhaps the use of the ktiv word “ve’shachavti” reflects Naomi reassuring Rut — I would also do this, if I were of age.
+Another idea is that this might be similar to Ramban’s explanation of Hashem’s instructions (Shemot 25:10) to Moshe Rabbeinu וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן (“and you (plural) shall make an Ark” when ultimately only one person, Betzalel, made the aron. Ramban offers many explanations and concludes with the possibility that שיכוונו לדבר — which I understand as saying, if all of Am Yisrael has kavana, intent, to construct the aron, it is as if they are all building it. Since everyone was emotionally invested in building the aron, everyone, in a sense, helped Betzalel in building the aron.
+The ktiv in Rut 3:3 and 3:4 might convey a similar idea. Naomi told Rut that she was emotionally invested in Rut’s success, making this approach similar to that of Rashi and Chazal’s explanation of וירדתי/וירדת. The ktiv conveys that Naomi was telling Rut that it was as if Naomi was going to the granary with her, since Naomi felt so invested in Rut’s success.
+Kri V’lo Ktiv
Now let us try to explain the striking kri v’lo ktiv in Rut 3:5. The pasuk tells us that Rut says, “I will do everything you say,” while the kri adds the word “eilay — to me.” Why is the word “eilay” omitted from the ktiv? The traditional mefarshim do not offer an explanation, but we will attempt to explain this omission.
+Related to the distinction between peshat and derash discussed previously, we suggest that, similarly, the kri is what one says and the ktiv (or lack thereof) is what one thinks.
+Shlomo HaMelech’s wise elder advisors provided the newly installed king, Rechavam, with the “recipe” for long term success (Melachim I 12:7) - אִם-הַיּוֹם תִּהְיֶה-עֶבֶד לָעָם הַזֶּה וַעֲבַדְתָּם, וַעֲנִיתָם, וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם דְּבָרִים טוֹבִים--וְהָיוּ לְךָ עֲבָדִים, כָּל-הַיָּמִים, essentially — if you will serve the people, they will serve you. Long term success comes to those who serve others, and failure comes to the self-centered.
+In the kri v’lo ktiv of Rut 3:5, the ktiv communicates that Rut removed herself from the picture, since her attitude was that she was to serve Boaz and Naomi and not herself. Rut’s ultimate reward is that she becomes the Ima Shel Malchut, the founding mother of the royal family, as expressed by the gemara in Bava Batra 91a.
+Rut eschewing self-centered behavior contrasts starkly with Chazal’s understanding of Elimelech’s name — וְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ אֱלִימֶלֶךְ, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר אֵלַי תָבוֹא מַלְכוּת, that he felt entitled to the throne (Rut Rabbah 2:5). In the end, the self-centered Elimelech died prematurely and Rut becomes Ima Shel Malchut.
+Shir Hashirim’s (6:3) recipe for success in a relationship is ”אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְדוֹדִי לִי — I am for my beloved and my beloved is for me.” The kri v’lo ktiv of “eilay” expresses Rut’s dedication and matches Naomi’s words in Rut 3:1. Naomi looked out for Rut’s best interest (Rut 3:1) and Rut reciprocated by putting Naomi’s interest ahead of hers (Rut 3:5).
+This approach can explain the kri v’lo ktiv in Rut 3:17, the omission (in the ktiv) of the word “eilay — to me.” Perhaps this kri expresses that Rut, in reporting Boaz’s message, removed herself from the discussion since she was focused on helping others.
+Ktiv V’Lo Kri
Finally, let us try to explain the ktiv v’lo kri in Rut perek 3 pasuk 12. In this case, the word “im — if” (as in, if I am a goel) is written but not read. We suggest that the kri is what is said while the ktiv is what is thought.
+The word “im” expresses hesitation. Boaz’s ambivalence might fit with the suggestion that Boaz was hesitant to enter this relationship since he was still grieving over the loss of his wife (or perhaps for other reasons — the considerable age gap between himself and Rut, or Rut being a Moabite).
+Alternatively, as noted by Rashi, the kri expresses the certainty that there was a closer relative. The ktiv expresses that Boaz was very eager to marry Rut and, subconsciously or consciously, relegated the closer goel to doubtful status in the hope that he would be able to marry her.
+Conclusion — Insight from TABC Talmid Michael Schwartz
The abundance of kri u’chtiv in Rut perek 3 is not a coincidence. The actions described in this perek can easily be seen as inappropriate. Perhaps the many instances of kri u’chtiv are here to emphasize that the characters in the story did nothing wrong. While the kri alone might convey a sense of inappropriate behavior, the ktiv clarifies that the characters seek to distance themselves from wrongdoing. According to the ktiv, Naomi spoke about herself going rather than Rut, Rut removed herself from the story, and Boaz spoke with uncertainty. The ktiv can be seen as the characters protecting themselves from impropriety.
+
+Section 25
+
+Assembling an Apparent Beit Din
Overnight Stay?
Why did Boaz permit Rut to stay overnight? In pasuk 14, Boaz asked Rut to leave at the crack of dawn, and was very concerned — אַל-יִוָּדַע, כִּי-בָאָה הָאִשָּׁה, הַגֹּרֶן — lest their sleeping together in the granary overnight be known.
+Why did Boaz not send Rut home immediately, instead allowing her to sleep at his feet (pasuk 14, וַתִּשְׁכַּב מַרְגְּלוֹתָו)? Considering the prohibition of yichud, at the very least, Boaz and Rut should have slept on opposite sides of the granary, with some kind of partition between themselves. As mentioned earlier, Chazal understood that Boaz found Rut attractive. Why, then, did Boaz not exercise caution, and instead place himself in a nisayon (trial)? Every day during shacharit, we ask Hashem not to place us into a nisayon ואל תביאני לא לידי חטא ולא לידי עון, ולא לידי נסיון, ולא לידי בזיון (Brachot 60b).
+Perhaps, as my talmidim suggest, it would have been unspeakably cruel for Boaz to dispatch Rut into the night of Beit Lechem. This was a time of disorder and corruption, and asking an attractive woman to walk home alone at night in such an environment would be placing Rut in serious danger. It could be that even asking Rut to sleep on the other side of the granary was unsafe, as Rashi (Rut 3:2 s.v. “Halaylah”) notes that Boaz slept in the granary to guard it from theft.
+However, there seems to be even more at stake here than safety, namely, Rut’s dignity. Even asking her to sleep on the other side of the granary might have seemed like Boaz was not protecting her, rejecting her and pushing her away on her own. This would have been humiliating to Rut, especially considering her request of Boaz.
+We suggest an answer based on the Gemara (Sanhedrin 21) that states that only after the Tamar and Amnon disaster (see Shmuel II perek 13), five generations after Boaz and Rut, was yichud between singles prohibited. Since yichud between single men and women at this point was not technically forbidden (but nonetheless seen as reprehensible), Boaz permitted Rut to sleep at his feet given the circumstances. Additionally, perhaps since Boaz was interested in marrying Rut, he feared that acting in an insensitive manner would sabotage their relationship.
+Rashi to pasuk 13 s.v. “Chai Hashem” captures the great tension and very delicate balance that Boaz had to strike in the granary that evening. According to Rashi, Boaz swore fidelity to both Hashem and Rut. He struggled to strike a proper balance of kindness to Rut, a convert and widow, and fidelity to Hashem. Permitting Rut to sleep at his feet while refraining from relations was the very tricky balance Boaz struck that night when the challenge of his life was hurled at him without warning. Boaz does his best to honor his responsibilities to both Rut and Hashem, as he swears to Rut that he will expediently tend to this matter and swears to Hashem that he will not sin with Rut.
+“Let it Not Be Known!”
Rut perek 3 pasuk 14 presents Boaz as saying, וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-יִוָּדַע, כִּי-בָאָה הָאִשָּׁה, הַגֹּרֶן, let it not be known that a woman slept in the granary that evening.
+To whom does Boaz say this — to Rut, to himself, or to someone else? Rashi to pasuk 14 comments that Boaz was concerned for his own dignity, were it to be known he spent the night in the granary with a woman. Why, according to Rashi, did Boaz make such a self-centered comment?
+Before we try to explain Rashi’s approach, let us note the contrasting approach of the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:1) וַיֹּאמֶר אַל יִוָּדַע כִּי בָאָה הָאִשָּׁה הַגֹּרֶן, לְמִי אָמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְבֶן בֵּיתוֹ. רַבִּי חוּנְיָא וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה הָיָה בֹּעַז שָׁטוּחַ עַל פָּנָיו וְאוֹמֵר, רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁלֹא נָגַעְתִּי בָּהּ, כֵּן יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ אַל יִוָּדַע כִּי בָאָה הָאִשָּׁה הַגֹּרֶן, וְלֹא יִתְחַלֵּל בִּי שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. According to this Midrash, Boaz was concerned of causing a chilul Hashem if it were to be known. This adds to our understanding of what sort of relationship we should have with Hashem; just as a healthy attitude amongst a couple is אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְדוֹדִי לִי (Shir Hashirim 6:3), so, too, our connection with Hashem is one in which He is for us and we are for Him, primarily showing concern and caring for the other. Boaz was more concerned for the chilul Hashem than he was for his own reputation.
+Rashi, though, notes that before one helps another, he must first tend to his own needs. Indeed, Rabbi Akiva famously teaches, חייך קודמים לחיי חבירך — your life precedes the life of another (Bava Metzia 62a). Similarly, airplane safety protocol calls for a parent to affix an oxygen mask on his own face before placing one on his child.
+As discussed previously, Rashi to pasuk 13 s.v. “Chai Hashem” describes the balance that Boaz had to strike, between caring for his own needs and the needs of Rut. Boaz was concerned for Hashem, as well as both his and Rut’s needs. While there is value in prioritizing one’s own needs, it must be balanced with consideration of Hashem’s will and others’ needs, as Boaz succeeded in doing.
+Food for Naomi
In perek 3 pasuk 17, Rut reported that Boaz sent food for Naomi. This was the sole instance in Megillat Rut of connection between Boaz and Naomi.
+In comparing what Boaz says, as recorded in pasuk 15, with what Rut reports that Boaz said, as recorded in pasuk 17, there seems to be a discrepancy. Pasuk 15 does not record Boaz instructing Rut to give the six barleys to Naomi, while pasuk 17 does. How might we resolve this difference?
+Da’at Mikra offers two solutions. One is that Boaz did indeed say it, but there was no need for the Tanach to record it since it was written in pasuk 17. Alternatively, Rut figured it out on her own, based on the amount of food that was given (in line with Malbim’s approach, which we will soon discuss).
+There is also an interesting suggestion that Rut made up these words in order to effect shalom between Boaz and Naomi. Aharon HaKohen is said by chazal to have used this type of methodology to create peace between people at odds with each other (Avot D’Rabbi Natan 12:3). The fact that Boaz did not extend help to Naomi upon her return to Beit Lechem, and that Naomi did not approach Boaz for help or even instruct Rut to glean in Boaz’s field, indicates strain between these two relatives.
+There also seemed to be a serious need to mend the relationship between Naomi and Boaz, since they were about to become more deeply connected through Rut’s upcoming marriage to Boaz. However, this explanation does not seem to stand when considering that Boaz expressed appreciation to Rut for her kindness to Naomi (2:11), and Naomi wholeheartedly blessed Boaz (2:20). Nevertheless, perhaps some lingering tension (whether conscious or subconscious) prevailed, because Naomi had left Beit Lechem in times of trouble, even though Naomi and Boaz expressed concern for each other.
+Prompt Resolution — Malbim, Midrash and New Suggestions
Perek 3 pasuk 18 records that Naomi confidently predicted that Boaz will expediently resolve matters between himself and Rut. Why was she so confident?
+Malbim to pesukim 15–18 explains that the six pieces of barley were enough for breakfast for both Naomi and Rut. Naomi understood that Boaz was communicating that they did not need to worry beyond breakfast, for all would be resolved before the next meal. Furthermore, the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:6) tells us that Naomi knew that Boaz was man of his word, as is proper conduct befitting a righteous Jew:
+וַתֹּאמֶר שְׁבִי בִתִּי (רות ג, יח), רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, הַצַּדִּיקִים הֵן שֶׁלָּהֵן, הֵן, וְלָאו שֶׁלָּהֶן, לָאו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי לֹא יִשְׁקֹט הָאִישׁ כִּי אִם כִּלָּה הַדָּבָר הַיּוֹם
+We suggest that Naomi knew her relative Boaz “like a book.” She anticipated his every move, stemming from her binah yeteira, the added measure of wisdom that Hashem gives to women (Niddah 45b), as is clear from pesukim 2–4. In pasuk 4, "וְהוּא יַגִּיד לָךְ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשִֽׂין — and he will instruct you what to do,” Naomi anticipated Boaz’s reaction to Rut’s bold move. In pasuk 18, Naomi realized that, based on Rut’s report, she had anticipated correctly, and Boaz was motivated both by his yetzer tov (kind impulse) and yetzer hara (pleasure impulse) to move very quickly. Rashi (Devarim 6:5) teaches that we are to serve Hashem with both the yetzer tov and yetzer hara, בכל לבבך: בשני יצריך. Naomi knew that Boaz was a principled man, dedicated to proper interactions between himself and Hashem, as well as between himself and others. She also recognized, as she had anticipated as well, that Boaz was attracted to Rut and wished to proceed expeditiously.
+My talmidim suggest another answer based on the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s motto, “Think good and it will be good.” When you have done everything that you could have done, and the matter is entirely beyond one’s control, the proper mindset indeed is to “think good and it will be good.” Chasidut teaches us that the bitachon, trust, that one places in Hashem, saying that everything will work out well, itself has the power and potential to generate a positive result. David HaMelech (Tehillim 55:23) similarly teaches us that we should cast our concerns to Hashem, and Hashem will in turn support us: השלך על ה' יהבך והוא יכלכלך לא יתן לעולם מוט לצדיק. Thus, Naomi advised Rut in the closing pasuk of perek 3 to rest quietly and trust in Hashem, that He would help Boaz to promptly resolve all in her favor. The silence that ensues indicates that Rut complied, thought “good,” and — lo and behold — all turned out for the good!
+Conclusion
One must know how to distinguish when it is time to act from when it is time to refrain from acting and instead place our trust in Hashem. Naomi guided Rut in taking bold steps to establish her future and the future of her family. Naomi also guided Rut in knowing when to “sit tight” and trust that Hashem will guide matters towards the desired result.
+
+Perek 4
+
+
+
+Section 1
+
+
+
+Section 2
+
+
+
+Section 3
+
+
+
+Section 4
+
+
+
+Section 5
+
+
+
+Section 6
+
+
+
+Section 7
+
+
+
+Section 8
+
+
+
+Section 9
+
+
+
+Section 10
+
+
+
+Section 11
+
+
+
+Section 12
+
+
+
+Section 13
+
+
+
+Section 14
+
+
+
+Section 15
+
+
+
+Section 16
+
+
+
+Section 17
+
+
+
+Section 18
+
+
+
+Section 19
+
+
+
+Section 20
+
+
+
+Section 21
+
+
+
+Section 22
+
+
+
+Section 23
+
+
+
+Section 24
+
+
+
+Section 25
+
+
+
+Section 26
+
+Peloni Almoni
The first two pesukim of Rut perek 4 describe Boaz immediately assembling what seems to be a beit din (court). However, there are several points in these pesukim that demand clarification.
+וּבֹעַז עָלָה הַשַּׁעַר
Pasuk 1 records “U’Boaz alah hasha’ar — and Boaz ascended to the gate.” Why, of all places, did Boaz go to the gate? Ibn Ezra to 4:1 s.v. “Alah Hasha’ar” explains that it was customary for judgment to occur at a city’s gates. He notes that we find evidence of this in the Torah, and modern day archaeologists have found considerable evidence for this as well. Devarim 17:8 “דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ” and Devarim 25:7 “וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה אֶל-הַזְּקֵנִים” are two examples.
+It is quite sensible for courts to convene at the city gates, as it is the most traversed area in the town and represents the nexus of the town residents and those coming from the outside. This is typical of non-Jewish courts as well. We find in regards to Lot (Bereishit 19:1) וְלוֹט, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-סְדֹם and Ephron HaChiti (Bereishit 19:10) וַיַּעַן עֶפְרוֹן הַחִתִּי אֶת-אַבְרָהָם בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת, לְכֹל בָּאֵי שַׁעַר-עִירוֹ לֵאמֹר.
+The Torah embraces this idea as a Torah value since, as Rabbi Daniel Fridman explains, this location positions the beit din to radiate the light of the Shechinah both inwards towards the city’s inhabitants and outwards to those beyond the community. It also ensures that the beit din is deeply enmeshed with the people and not secluded in a proverbial ivory tower.
+The Sanhedrin
The Targum to pasuk 1 takes this idea a step further. The Beit Lechem beit din was not just an ordinary beit din, but rather, it was the Sanhedrin (supreme court)! It is reasonable that at the time of this megillah, the Sanhedrin met in Beit Lechem since Chazal (Bava Batra 91) identify Boaz as the shofet Ivtzan, who is specifically mentioned in Sefer Shofetim (12:8) as having lived in Beit Lechem. This identification indicates the prominence of Beit Lechem at that time. The location of Kever Rachel in Beit Lechem adds to the prominence of this city.
+Beit Lechem serving as the seat of the Sanhedrin has several Halachic implications in this perek. Most significant is its application in practice permitting men to marry female Moabite converts when permitting the marriage of Boaz and Rut.
+וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם
Pasuk 1 then records “Vayeshev sham — and he sat there.” If Boaz was eager to act quickly, why did he simply sit down? Why did he not immediately summon the goel to discuss Rut?
+Malbim to pasuk 1 s.v. “וּבֹעַז עָלָה הַשַּׁעַר” explains that Boaz sat down to summon the goel to beit din. Careful scrutiny of pesukim 1-2 reveals how Malbim “read between the lines” to arrive at his explanation. We see that Boaz assumed control and everyone immediately complied with his demands. These pesukim support Chazal’s contention that Boaz was a gadol ha’dor, as he was the recognized leader of the elders in the prominent city of Beit Lechem. As such, Malbim surmises that as the one in charge, Boaz would not be the one to retrieve the goel, but rather, he would send someone else to do so.
+וְהִנֵּה הַגֹּאֵל עֹבֵר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-בֹּעַז
Next, pasuk 1 notes “וְהִנֵּה הַגֹּאֵל עֹבֵר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-בֹּעַז — and behold the goel about whom Boaz spoke was passing by.” Malbim (s.v. “Ve’hinei Hagoel Over”) explains the significance of the word וְהִנֵּה in general as well as its application in this context. The word וְהִנֵּה expresses a surprise encounter, as in Bereishit 24:14 (וְהִנֵּה רִבְקָה יֹצֵאת) and in many other places in Tanach. In this case, surprisingly, the goel happened to be in the right place at the right time, just as Boaz sat down ready to commence his activity at the gate. Of course, this chance meeting was orchestrated by Hashem!
+אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-בֹּעַז
Malbim explains “אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-בֹּעַז — about whom Boaz spoke” to teach that Boaz’s actions triggered Hashem’s intervention. Malbim’s approach is based on a beautiful Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:7) בֹעַז עָלָה הַשַּׁעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם וְהִנֵּה הַגֹּאֵל עֹבֵר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בֹּעַז (רות ד, א), מָה לַאֲחוֹרֵי תַּרְעָא הֲוָה קָאֵים, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם הֱטִיסוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לְשָׁם, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹא יְהֵא אוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק יוֹשֵׁב וּמִצְטַעֵר מִתּוֹךְ יִשּׁוּבוֹ. Hashem connects the goel with Boaz. This Midrash fits perfectly with Chazal (Bereishit Rabbah 68:4) that state that after completing Creation, Hashem devoted His time to making connections הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹשֵׁב וּמְזַוֵּג זִוּוּגִים, which refers not only to married couples but to all connections.
+Let us note the next stunning statement of this Midrash: אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה, כָּךְ דָּרְשׁוּ שְׁנֵי גְדוֹלֵי עוֹלָם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בֹּעַז עָשָׂה אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, ��ְרוּת עָשְׂתָה אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, וְנָעֳמִי עָשְׂתָה אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַף אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת שֶׁלִּי. After Naomi, Rut and Boaz had all done their part, Hashem responded that now He would play His role.
+This Midrash conveys the idea that an “awakening from below” — אתערותא דלתתא — generates an “awakening from above” — אתערותא דלעילא. Hashem chooses to restrain Himself and react, rather than to act. In His kindness, Hashem empowers us to do our hishtadlut and take the first step, which will in turn trigger His response.
+In addition, this Midrash endorses the bold plan of Naomi and Rut in perek 3. This differs significantly from the Midrashim we have noted in our earlier discussions.
+זִּקְנֵי הָעִיר עֲשָׂרָה
In pasuk 2, Boaz convened an assembly of ten of the “ziknei ha’ir.” While we often translate this as city elders, ziknei ha’ir extends to talmidei chachamim, as stated by Rashi to Vayikra 19:32. According to the Targum, it makes sense to assume that these elders were members of the Sanhedrin.
+Many note the peculiarity of the number ten in regards to this assemblage of distinguished leaders, which at first glance seems to be a beit din. As the first Mishna in Masechet Sanhedrin teaches, a beit din consists of either 3, 23 or 71 dayanim. Moreover, a beit din is never composed of an even number— אין בית דין שקול — as stated repeatedly in Sanhedrin. Thus, we must ask why Boaz assembled specifically ten elders for this supposed “beit din.”
+We suggest that the issues of redeeming Elimelech’s land and marrying Rut are not ones of din, strict Halacha. Rather, these issues are what Chazal call lifnim mishurat ha’din — going beyond the letter of the law, as well as minhag ha’medinah — common custom.
+To clarify, no violation of the Halacha occurred in this situation. Ten members of the Sanhedrin would never tolerate such a violation! Rather, in this perek, Boaz exceeded Halachic expectations by satisfying not only the letter of the Halacha but also the spirit of the Halacha.
+For example, let’s consider whether Rut was truly a candidate for yibbum or geulah. Recall that Malbim (Rut 1:4) insists that Rut did not convert before marrying Machlon. Rather, Rut converted only upon her return to Beit Lechem with Naomi. Strictly speaking, Boaz had no Halachic obligations to Rut as the widow of Machlon; Rut was not the Halachic widow of Machlon, as she was not considered Halachically married to Machlon, as it occurred before her conversion.
+Moreover, the notion of geulah in Megillat Rut is a lifnim mishurat ha’din — a customary extension of yibbum, according to Ramban. Geulah exceeds the demands of the letter of the law by expanding the obligation of yibbum beyond the brothers of the deceased husband.
+Therefore, we suggest that Boaz assembled ten of the ziknei ha’ir, which was not a number for a proper beit din, because din — formal baseline Halacha — was not being considered. Boaz was indeed acting fully in compliance with baseline Halacha, but his intention was not only to comply with the baseline but to exceed its requirements.
+Why, then, did Boaz assemble ziknei ha’ir at all? Boaz could have met with the goel in private, since a beit din was not required.
+We suggest two reasons for the assemblage of ten men. First, the Gemara (Ketubot 7b) derives from Boaz’s assembly of ten men that a minyan is required for birkat chatanim, wedding blessings. This teaches that marriage is not only a private matter between the chatan and kallah, but rather, it is a public matter as well. Unlike non-Jewish couples who retreat to a private honeymoon immediately after the wedding, Jews have a week of public celebrations — sheva berachot — because marriage is seen also a communal matter. This, I believe, explains why Boaz assembled ten people; his marriage to Rut was a public matter and required a public assembly.
+Still, why did Boaz specifically gather ten ziknei ha’ir, if any ten people could have played this role? I suggest that since Boaz was about to engage in highly unconventional approaches (as we shall discuss in upcoming chapters) to address an unprecedented situation, he seeks the unanimous approval of numerous ziknei ha’ir. To give a modern-day example, before ArtScroll printed English translations of the Gemara, the company obtained the unanimous consent of multiple gedolei Yisrael. Boaz similarly sought unanimous approval of ten of the city’s Torah scholars for his unprecedented actions. Boaz ensured that what he was going to do authentically confirmed to the spirit, as well of the strict letter, of Torah law.
+Conclusion
Based on the Targum, the ten ziknei ha’ir might have been Sanhedrin members, but they were not convening as a formal Sanhedrin or beit din. They met in order to approve of Boaz’s lifnim mishurat ha’din actions, to make sure they conformed to both the technical Torah laws and broader Torah values.
+
+Section 27
+
+The Goel's Refusal; Part One
Rut perek 4 pasuk 1 strikingly describes the goel as “Peloni Almoni.” Typically, this is understood as the Torah version of “John Doe.” However, this pasuk is the only place in Tanach where someone is described as Peloni Almoni. Why is the goel referred to in this way?
+Approach #1 — Da’at Mikra
Da’at Mikra shockingly suggests that by the time Shmuel HaNavi wrote Megillat Rut, the name of the goel had been forgotten, and therefore he is presented as Peloni Almoni. This explanation is untenable both spiritually and intellectually. There seem to be multiple problems with this approach.
+Megillat Rut, as part of Tanach, was written with ru’ach hakodesh. Thus, how could Shmuel HaNavi possibly not know this information? Moreover, if Shmuel HaNavi knew so many details of the conversation between Boaz and the goel, how could he not know the name of the goel?
+In addition, why is this the only case in Tanach where the identity of a person is lost? The presumption that the name was forgotten does not fit with the rest of the Tanach.
+One may defend Da’at Mikra’s approach by arguing that Hashem intervened in order that the name of Peloni Almoni be forgotten.
+Approach #2 – Rabbi Yehoshua
The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:7) cites Rabbi Yehoshua that Peloni Almoni was the goel’s name.
+The two other places in Tanach where the term Peloni Almoni is used, Shmuel I 21:3 and Melachim II 6:8, run counter to Rabbi Yehoshua’s approach. Peloni Almoni in these two pesukim refers to a hidden location. This seems to indicate that Peloni Almoni refers to something concealed, contradictory to Rabbi Yehoshua’s approach.
+Approach #3 — Midrash/Rashi
Rashi to Rut 4:1 does not present Rabbi Yehoshua’s view, and instead brings the second view in Rut Rabbah 7:7, that Peloni Almoni means a name that is deliberately concealed. The goel being referred to as Peloni Almoni is a punishment, middah k’neged middah (the punishment matches the sin), for his failure to fulfill yibbum or geulah to preserve the names of Machlon and Elimelech.
+If referring to the goel as Peloni Almoni is meant to criticize him, why was a neutral name used? Why not use a name with a negative connotation, as was done with Machlon and Kilyon? An answer may be that the goel was not a bad person and thus deserves a neutral name, not a pejorative one.
+What Did Boaz Call the Goel?
Rashi’s approach is generally regarded as the mainstream approach to this issue. However, there is an interesting twentieth century sub-machloket about this approach. How did Boaz refer to Peloni Almoni? According to Rabbi Yehoshua Bachrach, Boaz referred to him by this name. According to Da’at Mikra, Boaz called him by his real name, but Megillat Rut’s author edited it to refer to him as Peloni Almoni in the text.
+There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Had Boaz referred to Peloni Almoni in a pejorative fashion, the goel would be unlikely to comply with Boaz’s requests. Moreover, why would Boaz refer to the goel as having failed to perform geulah before this even happened? The Da’at Mikra, though, makes the assumption that in Tanach, Hashem and the prophetic author edit the speeches of the people mentioned in the sefer.
+Tov
What is the goel’s real name? The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 6:3) notes that his name was Tov. The Midrash derives this from Rut perek 3 pasuk 13, which states “אִם-יִגְאָלֵךְ טוֹב יִגְאָל.”
+Ibn Ezra (to Rut perek 3 pasuk 13) is highly critical of this Midrash. Ibn Ezra argues that had this been his name, it would have been mentioned in Rut 4:1. However, perhaps in perek 3 the goel was Tov, but in perek 4 he deteriorated to the point that his name was omitted.
+Perhaps there is a deeper meaning of the Midrash identifying the goel as Tov. The goel is called Tov in light of the choices he made in perek 4. He was not evil — he may have even been good. However, he was not very good. After each day of creation, the Torah tells us that Hashem saw it was “tov.” However, after day six, the day of the creation of humanity, Hashem saw it was “tov me’od,” very good. The human being is expected to be tov me’od, outstanding. Tov is insufficient. The goel’s name, Tov, reflects his inadequacy. Mediocrity is not acceptable. Instead, we must aspire to be tov me’od. Anything less sells us short of our potential.
+Conclusion
Da’at Mikra cogently compares the goel to Orpah. Neither are evil, but both fail to rise to the occasion to act in an extraordinary manner. As such, they are roundly condemned by Chazal. They are not bad people, but criticizing them teaches us to aspire and demand from ourselves so much more.
+
+Section 28
+
+The Goel's Refusal; Part Two
Before delving into the reason behind the goel’s refusal to marry Rut, let us try to answer an evident question: Why did Boaz separate the two issues, instead of presenting his entire agenda in one package — redeeming Naomi’s field and marrying Rut? The request of Naomi’s field is in pesukim 3-4, while that of Rut’s marriage is in pasuk 5.
+Solutions
One approach is that this is reminiscent of the Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:7) that extols one who acts in an orderly fashion — he answers “al rishon rishon v’al acharon acharon.” When one conflates two issues, neither is resolved properly, just as when when one multitasks and neither job is done completely.
+Another suggestion is that Boaz sought transparency. By separating the redemption of Naomi’s property and the marriage to Rut, Boaz eliminated a possible accusation that he hid the marriage to Rut within the discussion of the purchase of Naomi’s field.
+Alternatively, perhaps Boaz slowly adjusted the thinking of Beit Lechem. The first step was to restore Naomi’s status in Beit Lechem, and next would be the bigger step of welcoming Rut into the community. The purchase of Naomi’s field was not merely to relieve Naomi’s poverty; it also restored Naomi’s standing in Beit Lechem. Notice how Elimelech is referred in this Pasuk: “Achinu!” This brings to mind an important Rashi to Devarim 25:3, which teaches that after a sinner receives malkot (lashes), his status as a brother is restored. Elimelech and his family had certainly received their fair share of “malkot."
+Elimelech had become a pariah in Beit Lechem for leaving during the famine. Now that he had “paid his dues,” his standing and reputation can be posthumously restored. The concluding point of the pasuk describes Naomi as “hashavah misdei Moav,” returning from the fields of Moav. Thus, Naomi’s return catalyzes Elimelech’s “return.”
+Recall that this exchange happened before ten ziknei ha’ir. A crowd seems to be forming as well — carefully notice pasuk 4, “neged hayoshevim ve’neged ziknei ami — in the presence of the “yoshevim”, those who are sitting. “Yoshevim” refers to the gathered crowd. Pasuk 11 seems to also suggest that a crowd has gathered; Naomi is publicly being restored to an honorable station in Beit Lechem.
+The Goel Consents
Why did the goel agree to the offer of the land purchase? We suggest that this purchase was a win-win for both Naomi and the goel. Naomi was relieved of her poverty, which would restore her standing and good name in Beit Lechem (as we shall explain). However, the goel wins as well. Consider the following: Naomi and Elimelech have no children. Thus, this purchase will not revert back to the original owner (Elimelech) or his heirs when the yovel year arrives. The goel has a rare, once-in-generations opportunity to add to his permanent nachalah, share, in Eretz Yisrael.
+Step by Step
Boaz proceeded step by step. This first step meant that the goel led the people of Beit Lechem in letting go of their resentment towards Naomi and her family for leaving during the famine. They thereby acknowledged that she and her family had paid their dues for their misdeed, had returned to Beit Lechem despite their poverty and shame (demonstrating their sincerity) and could finally restore their place in Beit Lechem.
+Conclusion
The redemption from Mitzrayim proceeded step by methodical step (see Shemot 6:6-8 with Seforno). Any authentic redemption involves a process. The same applies to the restoration of Rut and Naomi; slowly, slowly goes the process of redemption, the Torah teaches (Shemot 23:30 and Devarim 7:22). Boaz poignantly teaches us that patience has its rewards.
+
+Section 29
+
+Purchasing Elimelech's Land from
In pasuk 5, Boaz invoked the idea of yibbum by saying “Lehakim sheim ha’meit.” If Tov was willing to redeem Naomi’s field, why was he unwilling to “go the distance” and redeem Rut’s field by marrying her? Let us review the classic and newer opinions.
+Approach #1 — Ibn Ezra
Ibn Ezra offers a down-to-earth explanation. Ibn Ezra to pasuk 3 and pasuk 6 explains that the goel already had a large tract of land, and he felt that adding the responsibility of an yet another additional tract of land would be too much for him to manage. This fits with the concern he voiced in pasuk 6, “lest he destroy his nachalah” by expanding too much. This approach might not reflect poorly on the goel’s refusal to marry Rut, since his demurral seems reasonable.
+Ibn Ezra’s explanation may seem a bit too simple for a decision of momentous ramifications — the progenitor of the royal line. However, sometimes we miss out on a magnificent opportunity due to small-mindedness or lack of ambition.
+Approach #2 — Targum
Interestingly, the Targum and the Yesh Omerim cited by Ibn Ezra to pasuk 6 say that Peloni Almoni was already married, and marriage to Rut would severely disrupt his existing marriage. “Lest I destroy my nachalah,” therefore, refers to the goel’s marriage. However, this is not the most popular approach, since we can hardly blame the goel for not wanting to destroy his marriage (recall that referring to the goel as Peloni Almoni implies dissatisfaction with his behavior). Moreover, Boaz was the superior candidate to marry Rut since, as taught by Chazal, Boaz was unmarried, as he had lost his wife. It would seem that this approach does not view the goel negatively for not marrying Rut.
+Approach #3 — Chazal/Rashi
Rashi to pasuk 6 explains, following Rut Rabbah 7:7, that the goel’s refusal stems from the Torah’s prohibition to marry a Moabite even after her conversion (Devarim 25:4-5). “Lest I destroy my nachalah,” according to this approach, refers to the yichus and lineage of the goel’s progeny.
+The evidence for this approach seems to be in pasuk 5, where Boaz explicitly referred to Rut as a Moabite. Is there any justification for the goel’s refusal according to this approach? Rashi, citing from Chazal, criticizes the goel for his ignorance and rejection of Chazal’s limitation of the prohibition to male Moabites. Chazal understand “Lo yavo Moavi be’kehal Hashem” to refer to a male Moabite — “v’lo Moaviyah,” and not to a female Moabite (Yevamot 76b-77a).
+However, an examination of the Gemara’s discussion of this issue reveals that this interpretation was subject to heated debate. This interpretation was challenged, noting that the prohibition to marry a mamzer is not limited to males. The fact that the Gemara's discussion goes back and forth, and that two proofs are needed to prove “Amoni v’lo Amonit, Moavi v’lo Moavit” (Rabbi Yehuda's pasuk and Rabbi Shimon's sevara) suggests that marrying Rut was a very delicate matter.,
+In addition, the female Moabite issue was resolved by Shmuel HaNavi who lived long after the goel refused to marry Rut. Thus, many question why we should blame the goel for his fear of risking the status of children.
+In response, we note that this Gemara casts Doeig HaAdomi as the one who vociferously protests “Moavi v’lo Moaviyah.” Doeig is viewed as an archvillain due to his cooperation with Shaul HaMelech in the wholesale murder of the Kohanim of Nov. Moreover, the Mishna (Sanhedrin 10:2) even includes Doeig on a very short list of people denied a place in Olam HaBa! By naming Doeig as the one who contests David HaMelech’s status, the Gemara casts the rejection of Moavi v’lo Moaviyah as a rogue rejection of legitimate Torah interpretation. The fact that the ten ziknei ha’ir approve of Boaz’s marriage to Rut, with Boaz conspicuously mentioning Rut’s identity as a Moabite, without any debate, indicates that the Moabite marriage prohibition being limited to male Moabites was widely accepted. Shmuel HaNavi’s authority was required to roundly reject Doeig’s rogue challenge of what had been settled four generations earlier by the elders of Beit Lechem.
+The goel and Doeig’s rejection of the Moavi v’lo Moaviyah interpretation is viewed as wrong. Boaz was regarded by Chazal as the gadol ha’dor, and his actions were unanimously supported by ten ziknei ha’ir of Beit Lechem, while the goel and Doeig were both guilty of refusing to accept recognized rabbinic authority.
+To help place Rashi’s explanation in perspective, let us consider the following mashal. In 1975, a man and woman were close to being engaged. As their relationship developed, they discovered that the woman’s mother had remarried without a get from her first husband, and the potentail bride was from her mother’s second marriage. The couple approached Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the era’s uncontested posek ha’dor, and he ruled that the woman was not a mamzeret, since the woman’s mother’s first marriage was invalid due to it being a Conservative wedding. What would we think of the man if he had refused to marry the woman due to his reluctance to accept Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s ruling? It would be the height of impudence to reject the ruling of such an eminent authority.
+Approach #4 — A New Approach
Let us carefully examine pasuk 5. Notice that according to Boaz’s proposal, the goal of the marriage to Rut was לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת, עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ — to reconstitute the nachalah of Machlon. Children born to the goel and Rut would inherit Machlon’s share in the land.
+This result would not occur with conventional yibbum; Devarim 25:6 states וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד יָק֕וּם עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו הַמֵּ֑ת. In conventional yibbum, the deceased husband’s nachalah becomes subsumed into the nachalah of the meyabeim — יקום על שם אחיו: זה שייבם את אשתו יטול נחלת המת בנכסי אביו. In Boaz’s plan, the goel and his heirs would not inherit Machlon’s nachalah; only the children born to Rut would inherit Machlon’s nachalah.
+Accordingly, the goel refused to marry Rut for he had nothing to gain from this union. It would not enlarge his nachalah, as the purchase of Naomi’s land would. Rut was of childbearing age, and the children of this marriage would inherit Machlon’s property, rather than the children of goel and his wife. Furthermore, the children born to Rut would not be added to the nachalah of the goel.
+Since Machlon was the son of Elimelech, Elimelech’s nachalah would be inherited by Machlon and would transfer to the children of Rut and the goel. Thus, the goel would no longer benefit even from his purchase of Naomi’s land! According to this approach, “Lest it destroy my nachalah” means that the goel was concerned that his plan of enlarging his nachalah was foiled.
+Tov vs. Tov Me’od
+The goel was willing to do chesed that would allow him to gain, but not chesed that would not benefit him monetarily. In other words, the goel was tov but not tov me’od. Boaz, by contrast, was tov me’od, as he was willing to redeem both the nachalah of Elimelech and the nachalah of Machlon (see pesukim 9-10) despite it not enlarging his own nachalah. Boaz was willing to have the children of his marriage to Rut inherit Elimelech and Machlon’s nachalah, while Boaz’s already existing children would not inherit this land.
+There seems to be a parallel between Elimelech and the goel: both were self-centered. The Midrash interprets the name of Elimelech as “elai melech,” I deserve to be the king. The goel, as well, is unable to see beyond himself. Note how in pasuk 6 he states “Lo uchal lig’ol li.” The word “li” here reflects the self-centered nature of the goel and his response.
+Conclusion
The name of the self-centered goel was deleted from Tanach. By contrast, Boaz, who continued to give throughout the megillah, is remembered. As the Mishna (Avot 1:13) teaches, נגד שמא אבד שמא, דלא מוסיף יסף — one who looks to further his name will have his name erased, but one who does not promote himself will further his name.
+
+Section 30
+
+Naomi and Rut?
Rut perek 4 pesukim 3-5 record Boaz proposing the sale of Elimelech’s field from the hands of Naomi and Rut. This is quite problematic.
+Bamidbar 27:8-11 sets forth the procedure for yerushah, inheritance. According to the Torah, a wife does not inherit her deceased husband’s property. Instead, the husband’s brothers inherit the field. Thus, how could the goel have been purchasing the field from Naomi and Rut — it belonged to him already!
+Malbim to pasuk 3 solves this problem, arguing that Naomi and Rut were entitled to the field based on a stipulation made in their respective ketubot.
+Malbim’s answer is problematic, since according to his view the ketubot of Elimelech and Machlon ran counter to Halacha. Why would Boaz validate such a stipulation? Rambam (Hilchot Nachalot 6:1) holds that a t’nai (stipulation by the testator) does not override the yerushah rules. Moreover, Rut’s ketubah was invalid since, according to Malbim to Rut 1:4, Rut converts only upon her coming to Eretz Yisrael. Thus, Machlon married Rut at a time when Rut was not Jewish. Rut’s ketubah entitlements, therefore, carry no Halachic validity.
+Supporting the Almanah from Her Husband’s Estate
See, however, Mishna Ketubot 11:1, which states that אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומים — a widow is sustained from her husband’s estate. If that is the case, then why did Naomi and Rut suffer in poverty from the time they returned to Beit Lechem? Why did Rut collect leket, if Naomi and Rut could have been supported by Elimelech and Machlon’s estate?
+מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי
For an answer, let us focus on two very challenging words in pasuk 3, “machrah Naomi.” These words seem to mean that Naomi sold Elimelech’s land. When did this happen?
+Option #1: Naomi sold Elimelech’s nachalah, ancestral land, after she returned to Beit Lechem, and in perek 4, a family member was called upon to redeem, or return, the land to the family. However, this option is problematic for two reasons. Had Naomi sold Elimelech’s nachalah, she would have had money upon returning to Beit Lechem and would have not needed, or even been eligible to collect, leket.
+Option #2: Elimelech’s nachalah was sold when he left Beit Lechem. Thus, when Naomi returned, she could not return to her husband’s estate and was penniless. Boaz, in perek 4, was arranging for Elimelech’s nachalah to be repurchased, or redeemed, from the person who bought it from Elimelech long ago. This option is also problematic, for several reasons. First, pasuk 3 says Naomi sold the field, not Elimelech. Second, why would Elimelech, a wealthy man, sell a field during a ra’av, famine, when land prices presumably hit rock bottom — who wants to buy land during a severe famine? Lastly, pasuk 5 indicates that the field was to be purchased from Naomi and Rut, not a third party to whom Elimelech sold the field.
+Option #3: Malbim (to pasuk 3) understands that Naomi was selling Elimelech’s nachalah in perek 4. Malbim explains that the word “machrah,” in past tense, is used for a sale that had not yet occurred, since it expresses that Naomi was resolved to sell the property. This approach is also problematic. Why did Naomi not sell this field immediately upon her return, in order to raise money to support herself and Rut?
+Option #4: In an effort to solve this problem and the problem of Elimelech’s estate not supporting Naomi and Rut, this fourth option relates to the episode recorded in Melachim II 8:1-3. This story reflects a minhag ha’medinah, a commonly accepted custom (by both the nation and its chachamim) for one who left Eretz Yisrael to forfeit his nachalah. We suggest it typically went to the next in line of yerushah. Abandoning Eretz Yisrael was seen as the equivalent of dying, a theme that resonates with the beginning of Rut perek 1, and thus the next in the yerushah line assumes the nachalah.
+I suggest that the term “machrah” means forfeit, similar to what people will say about those who choose a bad path in life: he “sold” his soul to the devil. Naomi, along with Elimelech, forfeited their nachalah by dint of their leaving Eretz Yisrael. The end of pasuk 3, הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב, alludes to Naomi leaving Beit Lechem for Moav.
+Perhaps the goel, as the closest relative, took hold of Elimelech’s field after the latter abandoned Eretz Yisrael. When Naomi returned to Beit Lechem, she could not access Elimelech’s nachalah, since she had lost their right to it by leaving for Moav. When Naomi had finally returned הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב, Boaz argued that Elimelech’s estate deserves to be reinstated. It was a takanat ha’shavim, an opportunity made for those doing teshuvah. This was one of Boaz’s innovations for which he seeks the approval of the ten gathered Sanhedrin members.
+Once Elimelech’s estate would be restored, Naomi could be supported from this estate. Boaz proposed that instead of ongoing support, אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומים (Mishna Ketubot 11:1) — Naomi should be presented with a one-time lump sum from which she can support herself and be rescued from her poverty.
+Interestingly, the goel agreed, despite the sacrifice he had to make. He was willing to pay for the land that he had been occupying since Elimelech and Naomi left Beit Lechem. This seems to reflect well on the goel. No wonder why Chazal say he was tov! He was just not tov me’od, as we are expected to be, since he was unable to make the next step of the commitment.
+Conclusion
Our next step is to delve deeper into how Rut was introduced into this picture. Boaz went step by step, building one chiddush at a time, with the hope of securing public approval from the ten ziknei ha’ir and the goel’s consent.
+
+Section 31
+
+Boaz and the Goel Make a Kinyan
Rut perek 4 pesukim 7-8 are crying out for an explanation. Pasuk 8 records the kinyan, Halachic means of conveyance, conducted between Boaz and the goel, which formally transferred the geulah obligations and rights to Boaz. The previous pasuk is a highly unusual one; it is a very rare interruption to help us understand the kinyan. Pasuk 7 demands an explanation as to its necessity.
+A Very Ancient Practice that Continues Until Today
The practice of handing a kli to one another in order to seal a deal, which is practiced until today, is a very ancient practice, as pasuk 7 states. This is done when appointing the rabbi to sell chametz, and at weddings when the chatan accepts his obligations to the kallah as set forth in the ketubah. This is called a kinyan sudar, as ever since the time of the Gemara it has been common to perform this kinyan with a sudar — handkerchief.
+Why is it important for us to know how Boaz and the goel formalized their agreement? The flow of the story would seemingly be complete without these pesukim. It would seem more appropriate for this to be part of a discussion in the Talmud’s Masechet Bava Metzia, rather than in Megillat Rut.
+Resolving an Ambiguity
Rashi to pasuk 8 quotes the Gemara (Bava Metzia 47a) presenting a dispute among the Talmudic authorities about who handed the shoe to whom. This argument remains relevant today, about whether, when you appoint the rabbi to sell your chametz, you hand the pen to the rabbi or the rabbi hands it to you. Likewise, this argument applies to whether the rabbi hands the chatan a handkerchief at a wedding or the chatan hands it to the rabbi. The Halacha follows the opinion that the rabbi is the one who hands the pen to you, as well as the one who hands it to the chatan at a wedding as well — and that Boaz was the one who handed the shoe to the goel.
+Ibn Ezra to pasuk 8 cites this dispute and explains the reasoning of both opinions. The opinion that argues that the goel handed the shoe to Boaz believes that the giving of the shoe mirrors the commitment to transfer the right to redeem to Boaz. The other opinion views Boaz giving the shoe as a symbolic consideration to the goel, for transferring the right to redeem the relatives.
+Why does the pasuk present the kinyan in such an ambiguous manner?
+The Midrash (Rut 7:12) notes two similar ambiguities. The first is when Shmuel tore clothes in connection with replacing Shaul, where it is not clear if Shmuel tore his own clothes or those of Shaul. The second is when Achiyah HaShiloni appointed Yerovam ben Nevat to take over ten of the Shevatim from the rule of Beit David, where it is not clear if he tore his own clothes or those of Yerovam.
+Interestingly, all three ambiguities involve fateful decisions that determine the long-term direction of the royal line. We suggest that pasuk 8 is deliberately presented ambiguously to convey the connection between these three pesukim. The two possible interpretations express the two possible directions that the royal line could have taken. The line could have stemmed from the goel, had he committed to Rut and the restitution of both the Elimelech and Machlon family lines, or from Boaz, as it ultimately did.
+Accordingly, Shmuel HaNavi records the kinyan in order to convey that a critical decision was made at this point that determined the course of the royal line for generations.
+The Narrator’s Note — A Bold Explanation
Pasuk 7 clarifies why a shoe, which is characteristic of chalitzah, was used to make this kinyan, when any kli could’ve worked. On a simple level, it seems that this pasuk clarifies that the kinyan with the shoe had nothing to do with chalitzah, even though it smacks of chalitzah and it is certainly a chalitzah-like situation.
+Ibn Ezra to pasuk 8 explains that a shoe was used because it is a kli that is readily available to perform the kinyan. Today, it is done with a watch, a pen or a smartphone, but, of course, these were not available, לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
+However, we believe that there is a deeper explanation that connects kinyan sudar with chalitzah. Rambam writes in Hilchot Mechira 5:14-16 that kinyan sudar is an expression of commitment, resolve and seriousness of intent.
+Perhaps pasuk 7 conveys that conducting kinyan sudar with a shoe is a very old practice amongst our people (see Ibn Ezra to pasuk 7 s.v. Ve’zot Lefanim). We suggest that it even predates Matan Torah, possibly originating in Mitzrayim when we were slaves with nothing other than our shoes with which to make a kinyan. Alternatively, it is possible that right after Matan Torah we began to use a shoe for a kinyan, in contrast to chalitzah.
+The yevamah (deceased brother’s widow) removing the shoe of the yavam (brother of the deceased), we boldly suggest, is Hashem designing a mitzvah to mirror the practice of kinyan with a shoe: The handing of the shoe in the context of kinyan sudar expresses commitment, while the removal of the shoe in the context of chalitzah represents a lack of commitment (an “un-kinyan,” if you will). Thus, this is an expression of disdain (like the spitting of chalitzah) — you are the opposite of the kinyan commonly done with a shoe; you failed to make a commitment!
+It is possible that the use of a shoe fell out of use by Boaz’s era. Boaz resurrected the ancient practice to use a shoe to express that he was acting in the opposite manner of chalitzah; he was willing to commit to restoring the families of Elimelech and Machlon, unlike the goel who, like the brother-in-law from whom the shoe is removed, is unable to make the commitment.
+Thus, the narrator in pasuk 7 helps us understand the rich symbolism employed by Boaz in pasuk 8. Perhaps it is because both options express the point of the kinyan: Boaz giving the shoe to the goel demonstrates his commitment, and the goel removing his shoe in handing to Boaz smacks of chalitzah, since he is acting in a “chalitzah-like” manner.
+Conclusion
Megillat Rut records pesukim 7-8 to communicate the following crucial points: The ambiguity of pasuk 8 denotes that a major decision was made regarding the royal line. Pasuk 7 helps us understand that the reason for the royal line emerging from Boaz and not the goel is Boaz’s willingness to make a commitment. This is reminiscent of Yehuda; Yaakov pronounces Yehuda as the royal tribe, since Yehuda commits to taking responsibility for Binyamin (Bereishit 43:9), unlike the firstborn Reuven who failed to make such a commitment. At a crossroads of the direction of the royal line, it is the one who makes the commitment who triumphs.
+The iconic handing of the shoe from Boaz to the goel broadcasts a poignant lesson: Those who commit finish first, while those who fail to make or honor their commitments finish last.
+
+Section 32
+
+Sheva Brachot
After Boaz completed the kinyan with the goel before the community and the ziknei ha’ir , they all responded with a bracha. Chazal, who never miss a beat, present this as a source for sheva brachot in the presence of ten (Ketubot 7b). Sheva brachot is essentially when the community approves the marriage, just like the community and ziknei ha’ir in pesukim 11-12.
+Rabbi Elazar Meyer Teitz reports, as he heard from his father Rabbi Pinchas Teitz, that the minhag in pre-war Europe was for the Rabbanim — not family members — to recite the sheva brachot. Pesukim 11-12 support this minhag, as we see the ziknei ha’ir participating in the brachot. In this way, similar to the role of the ziknei ha’ir, the Rabbanim voice Halachic approval for the marriage.
+Like Yehuda and Tamar
Strangely, in pasuk 12, the ziknei ha’ir and the assembled community members blessed Boaz and Rut that they should be as Yehuda and Tamar — "וִיהִי בֵיתְךָ כְּבֵית פֶּרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-יָלְדָה תָמָר לִיהוּדָה.” Why make this comparison? Might this comparison imply that the community had an inkling of what occurred in the granary the prior evening?
+One response is that the intentions of the community members are not as important as what the pasuk actually records. The fact is that these two marriages are comparable, as both were initiated by extremely bold action on the wife’s part. Perhaps the people made this comparison based on ruach hakodesh, divine inspiration, and not necessarily with knowledge of what happened in the granary.
+Da’at Mikra suggests that pasuk 12 is a standardized bracha that was recited when a yibbum or geulah relationship was initiated, at least in Beit Lechem where the descendents of Peretz resided. This is hardly foreign to us; after all, the brachot we recite at a wedding and sheva brachot are recited at every Jewish wedding for millennia.
+The community and ziknei ha’ir gave this bracha to show that they wanted this marriage to succeed despite its highly unique character. The community did not know about what happened the previous night in the granary. Instead, they were referencing Rut’s foreign origin. Even though their marriage was unusual, they still wished it to succeed, just as the unexpected union of Yehuda and Tamar led to Peretz.
+Alternatively, this could be a reference to the unusual yibbum, which did not involve an actual brother. Just as Yehuda, despite not being a brother of Er or Onan, still led to Peretz, they hoped that this unusual yibbum would also succeed. According to the Midrash Rabbah, which asserts that Boaz was eighty years of age at the time of this marriage, there was another unusual feature that both marriages had in common. Yehuda was much older than Tamar, and Boaz was much older than Rut. Thus, the community was blessing Boaz and Rut to be able to succeed the way Yehuda and Tamar did, despite the older age.
+Like Rachel and Leah
Many wonder about the bracha recorded in pasuk 11 that Rut should be “k’Rachel ve’k’Leah.” Why were only these two imahot mentioned here? Besides, why did the residents of Beit Lechem Yehuda, who were descendants of Yehuda and ultimately of Leah, place Rachel before their ancestor?
+Rashi to pasuk 11 explains that they placed Rachel first because she was Yaakov’s primary wife. While this explanation does explain the order, it does not, at first glance, explain the omission of Sarah and Rivka.
+Malbim to pasuk 11 explains that just as Rachel and Leah emerged from non-Torah homes and developed into highly committed Torah Jews, Rut should likewise be unfailingly committed to Torah and mitzvot despite her Moabite upbringing. A problem with this answer is that Sarah and Rivka Imeinu also were raised in non-observant homes as well. Malbim also does not explain why Rachel precedes Leah.
+The Targum to pasuk 11 explains that the bracha refers only to Rachel and Leah because they produced the twelve shevatim. A possible extension of this idea is that Rachel and Leah produced only “Jewish” children, while Sarah (via Hagar) and Rivka also produced the progenitors of other nations.
+Of course, there was a connection to Rachel in Beit Lechem due to Kever Rachel’s there. As a result, Da’at Mikra suggests this was a standard bracha recited at weddings in Beit Lechem, not specifically customized to this circumstance.
+A New Suggestion
In this critical moment at the gate of Beit Lechem, the community and its elders discarded the long-simmering resentment against Naomi, Elimelech and their family. We may also say that along with this relatively small step, the community took an even more significant action of ending the long-simmering rivalry between the children of Leah and the children of Rachel.
+The rivalry between Rachel and Leah continued to manifest itself long through the generations: Yosef vs. his brothers, Shaul HaMelech vs. David HaMelech, Rechavam vs. Yarovam, Malchut Yisrael vs. Malchut Yehuda.
+Yechezkel (perek 37) presents a nevuah of the future union of Yosef and Yehuda. (This is read, not surprisingly, as the haftarah of Parashat Vayigash, which records the reconciliation of Yosef and his brothers.) Although written long after Megillat Rut, the longing for reconciliation expressed by Yechezkel lies at the heart of Beit Lechem’s placement of Rachel before Leah. Thus, perhaps Rashi may be teaching that Rachel is placed first to express that the children of Leah overcame their resentment towards Rachel; they finally acknowledged that Rachel was the ikara shel habayit, Yaakov Avinu’s primary wife. The community set forth a vision for Rut and Boaz’s descendants bridging the gaps among our people.
+The people of Beit Lechem were the most appropriate people to make this declaration because they represented the political elite in Bnei Yisrael. Future kings emerged from this city, so they have the opportunity to make the rest of Bnei Yisrael feel equal with them. Kever Rachel’s location in Beit Lechem also made this the ideal community to effect the reconciliation between the shevatim.
+Let us consider how David HaMelech actualized this vision: 1) He refrained from killing Shaul HaMelech when he had an easy opportunity to do so. 2) He made peace with Avner. 3) He tolerated the severe curse of Shimi ben Geira from Shevet Binyamin. 4) Most importantly, he moved the capital from Chevron to Yerushalayim, which lies at the northern border of Shevet Yehuda and the southern edge of Shevet Binyamin.
+Let us also consider the response of the rest of Am Yisrael to these unifying moves: Shmuel II 5:1 records, וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל-שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶל-דָּוִד--חֶבְרוֹנָה; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר, הִנְנוּ עַצְמְךָ וּבְשָׂרְךָ אֲנָחְנוּ.
+Radak to Shmuel II 5:1 explains:
+הננו עצמך ובשרך אנחנו. אף על פי שאתה ממשפחת יהודה והננו קרובים לך אנחנו גם כן עצמך כי כלנו בני ישראל אחים אנחנו
+Am Yisrael declared support of David HaMelech in a beautiful expression of unity, stating that even though he was from Shevet Yehuda, we are all Bnei Yisrael — all brothers. The seed and vision of reunification planted in the gates of Beit Lechem at the moment of Boaz and Rut’s marriage came to full bloom in the time of David HaMelech.
+Unfortunately, the unity forged by David HaMelech dissolved two generations later after the death of Shlomo HaMelech. However, Yishayahu HaNavi (11:13) described the Melech HaMashiach picking up where his ancestor David HaMelech left off.
+The reconciliation began with the leaders of Beit Lechem, who let go of their resentment towards Naomi and Elimelech and seized the historic opportunity on behalf of Bnei Leah to let go of their jealousy of Bnei Rachel.
+Rachel Imeinu Reciprocates and Adopts Us as Her Children
The Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:13) presents Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Rashbi) describing Rachel Imeinu’s reciprocation to the children of Leah by adopting them posthumously as her own:
+תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחָאי, לְפִי שֶׁאָמְרוּ דְּבָרִים כְּנֶגֶד רָחֵל, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ בָּנִים לִשְׁמָהּ, דִּכְתִיב (ירמיה לא, יד): רָחֵל מְבַכָּה עַל בָּנֶיהָ.
+Rashbi’s idea adds even more to the significance of Kever Rachel in Beit Lechem, especially since we Jews are predominantly the children of Leah! Rachel Imeinu adopting us as her children, crying and pleading on our behalf before Hashem at our most critical moments, is even more meaningful in light of the fact that we are predominantly the descendants of Yehuda and Levi (see Rashi to Bereishit 49:5). These were the brothers who harmed Yosef the most. Rachel Imeinu looks beyond this and extends her bountiful love to us in a profoundly moving act of self-transcendence. No wonder why she is the most beloved of all of the imahot.
+Our suggestion adds another basis for the minhag to read Megillat Rut on Shavuot. Shavuot celebrates our united encampment at Har Sinai when we were, in the famous words of Rashi to Shemot 19:2, כאיש אחד בלב אחד — a unified nation.
+Conclusion
Perek 4 concludes with the lineage of David HaMelech, the great-grandchild of Boaz and Rut. Ending with the mention of David HaMelech connotes that our reunification under the rule of David HaMelech began on that great morning with Boaz and Rut. Each Shavuot, Megillat Rut reminds us that a descendant of David HaMelech, Mashiach Tzidkeinu, will bring a permanent reunification of our people and complete the process begun long ago in the gates of Beit Lechem.
+Postscript — Thoughts from TABC Talmid Ezra Seplowitz
Rachel's children are Leah’s children; Leah’s children are Rachel's children. This is the underlying message of the Rut 4:11, and this is the underlying message with David and Yirmiyahu (31:14). More relevantly, this is the underlying message of the Shoah (the reishit tzmichat milchemet Gog U’MaGog, in my opinion). I think this lesson serves as the foundation of Kabalat HaTorah and for coming close to Hashem. If we do not learn from the Shoah that a Jew is a Jew — that he is not secular or Chareidi or Ben Rachel or Ben Leah, but rather he is a Reb Yisrael — then we make the worst chilul Hashem. Furthermore, we degrade ourselves. Every person was created be’tzelem Elokim, and if we desecrate a person we desecrate HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Additionally, the Kabbalat HaTorah and performance of mitzvot sanctified Bnei Yisrael in particular. The lesson from Rut, David moving to Yerushalayim and the Shoah is that we must love each and every Jew because they are our brothers and sisters. Whether they were born halfway across the planet, or whether they have long pei’ot or none at all, we are all Jews in the eyes of the Nazis, the world, and, le’havdil, Hashem.
+
+Section 33
+
+למעלה מן הטבע and David HaMelech
Perek 4 pasuk 13 of Megillat Rut is most jarring in its declaring “וַיִּתֵּן ה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן” — that Hashem provided Rut with pregnancy. It sounds eerily like the very foreign doctrine of “immaculate conception,” especially since Rut is referred to by Chazal (Bava Batra 91b) as the אמה של מלכות, mother of the royal line culminating in the Mashiach.
+Da’at Mikra observes that there is no parallel for such a formulation anywhere else in Tanach. As such, this Pasuk is screaming out for an explanation!
+Peshat Approaches — Hashem Partners With Man
+Da’at Mikra explains that, in general, pregnancy does not happen without Hashem being involved. Indeed, Chazal (Kiddushin 30b) express that there are three partners in the creation of man: father, mother and Hashem. Dr. Harry Lieman, an Orthodox Jew and worldclass fertility expert, explains that there is so much that can go wrong from the time of relations to birth that it is a miracle that any one of us is born! One may broaden this idea noting that nothing is accomplished without Hashem’s help, as expressed in Tehillim 127:1: אִם-ה, לֹא-יִבְנֶה בַיִת-- שָׁוְא עָמְלוּ בוֹנָיו בּוֹ;אִם-ה לֹא-יִשְׁמָר-עִיר, שָׁוְא שָׁקַד שׁוֹמֵר.
+Da’at Mikra also suggests that Hashem obviously orchestrated everything and enabled Rut to elevate herself from rags to riches. This point brings to mind the unforgettable Midrash (Rut Rabba 7:7) where Hashem says that since Boaz, Rut and Naomi all did their parts, it was then time for Hashem to play His role in bringing the matter to fruition.
+One might wonder why of all places in Tanach, Rut 4:13 is the place chosen to express this central idea. Malbim to pasuk 13 (s.v. “Vayavo Eleha Vayiten Hashem Lah Hirayon”) explains that Rut became pregnant after being with Boaz one time, even though she did not become pregnant over ten years of marriage to Machlon.
+Perhaps since the zekeinim and the community approved of the marriage, Hashem then expressed His approval of the marriage by facilitating the birth of this child.
+Midrash — Hashem Gave Rut a Uterus
The Midrash (Rut Rabba 7:14) says: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, עִקַּר מוֹטְרִין לֹא הָיָה לָהּ, וְגָלַף לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עִקַּר מוֹטְרִין — Rut was missing a womb and Hashem bestowed a womb on her when she married Boaz.
+There are several deeper messages communicated by this astounding Midrash.
+Midrash Explanation #1
The Kabbalah teaches that Hashem chooses to react to our actions. He empowers our “awakening from below” (itaruta d’letata) to trigger His reactions (tarura d’l’eila). When one acts למעלה מן הטבע (above nature; transcending biology), Hashem sometimes responds in kind by acting למעלה מן הטבע. Perhaps since Rut and Boaz transcended their biology over the night in the granary, Hashem responded accordingly.
+This idea is expressed in the Midrash (Mechilta, Parashat Beshalach number 3), that when Yosef’s bones were brought near the Yam Suf, Hashem split the sea in reaction to Yosef transcending his biology when he resisted Eishet Potiphar.
+Midrash Explanation #2
Another explanation may be derived from the parallel situation of Hashem creating a uterus (or reactivating one) for Sarah Imeinu. Hashem waited for Sarah to conceive a child at age ninety, instead of conceiving at a time within the normal natural parameters. Perhaps Hashem wanted Am Yisrael to be created in a supernatural manner, because we are an eternal nation of supernatural nature. I suggest that our Midrash is teaching that David HaMelech was created in a supernatural manner (not immaculate conception) because the Davidic line is eternal.
+Conclusion
With Yitzchak Avinu’s miraculous birth, the Jewish nation was created in a supernatural manner so that the Jewish people would transcend nature and serve as an eternal nation. David HaMelech’s grandfather was also born in a miraculous manner, so that transcending nature is embedded with the very nature of Malchut Beit David, also an eternal entity.
+
+Section 34
+
+Grappling With a Striking Midrash
In a striking and well-known Midrash, we learn that Boaz died the night after marrying Rut and fathering a child with her (Yalkut Shimoni 608:4). The righteous Boaz hardly seems to deserve this terrible fate, and the same with Rut. Moreover, the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 7:7) explains that the goel refused to marry Rut, arguing that Machlon died because of his marriage to Rut, and he did not want to die as well. The Midrash seems to validate Peloni Almoni’s argument!
+This surprising Midrash is not cited in the Gemara or in Midrash Rabbah, arguably the most prominent collection of Midrashim on Megillat Rut. This Midrash has experienced a mixed reception among Chazal. The idea from the Yalkut Shimoni is supported by the absence of Boaz from pasuk 13; why do the neighbors name the child rather than Boaz? On the other hand, the apparently jubilant mood at the naming of the baby does not seem fitting for a family that experienced a tragedy.
+The Yalkut Shimoni reads between the lines:
+1. Boaz was conspicuously absent after pasuk 13.
+2. The neighbors named the child, rather than the father (or mother).
+3. Naomi raised the child, perhaps due to Rut realizing she cannot raise the child by herself as she needs Naomi to teach the child the Jewish way, or that Rut was heartbroken and immobilized.
+All these points lead the Yalkut Shimoni to conclude Boaz disappeared from the scene very soon after his marriage to Rut. What might we learn from the Yalkut Shimoni’s understanding, that Hashem brought about such a terrible calamity, Boaz's sudden death, to people who acted so nobly?
+Approach #1 — Tafkid
Let us try to explain the Yalkut Shimoni. According to Rut Rabbah, Boaz was eighty years old when he married Rut. Consider that before the advent of modern medicine, it was quite uncommon to live to the age of eighty years.
+Accordingly, a popular explanation of the Yalkut Shimoni is that Boaz would never have lived to the age eighty had his tafkid, life mission, not been to marry Rut and father a child. Once Boaz completed his tafkid, his lease on life expired.
+TABC’s Rabbi Daniel Fridman compares this Midrash to what Hashem told Pharaoh before Makat Barad (Shemot 9:16): you deserved to die much earlier, but I kept you alive in order to fulfill your tafkid.
+A potential critique of this approach is that it makes a very bold claim that has broad effects. Would Hashem keep anyone alive if he has not yet fulfilled his mission? What if one accomplished everything early in life; should they consequently die early? Similarly, what if they waste time; should they live longer to make up for the lost time?
+Approach #2 — Consequence for an Aveira Lishmah
I raised the possibility that the root of this Midrash is the all-important principle of יראת חטא, fearing the deleterious impact of sin. יראת חטא is not just the fear of being held accountable for the sin, but for the terrible damage caused by performing it.
+There is a concept called an עבירה לשמה (sinning for the sake of heaven; Nazir 23b) — meaning that one is faced with a terrible predicament and his choice is not between the permissible and the forbidden, but between a bad sin and a worse one. When one chooses the less-bad sin, which he must do in such a terrible situation, this is an עבירה לשמה. Even though he made the right choice and did what Hashem expected him to do, he still ultimately performed an aveira.
+However, because a sin is so profoundly toxic, there is a consequence even for an עבירה לשמה. This idea is comparable to a situation of a baby being trapped (chas v’shalom) in a burning oven, and one puts his bare hands in the fire because this is the only way to save the baby. His hands would still be burnt in such a situation, even though he acted nobly and did the right thing.
+The Gemara (Ta’anit 12b) teaches that the only way to cancel a terrible dream is to fast the next day, even if the next day is Shabbat. However, he must fast an additional fast day as kapara (forgiveness) for the sin of fasting on Shabbat.
+David HaMelech was unable to build the Beit HaMikdash because he spilled much blood (Divrei Hayamim I 22:8). This consequence was administered despite Sefer Shmuel I (25:28) describing the wars David fought as “Milchamot Hashem.”
+The Gemara (Bava Metzia 58b) records the dramatic conclusion to the Tannur Shel Achnai episode: Rabban Gamliel rightfully excommunicated Rabbi Eliezer for refusing to heed the ruling of the Chachamim. However, Rabban Gamliel died as a result, since Rabbi Eliezer was hurt in the process.
+Bereishit Rabbah 67:4 states that our suffering at the hands of Haman was punishment for the anguish Yaakov Avinu caused Esav, Haman’s ancestor, by taking the bracha. Indeed, Yaakov Avinu acted correctly. However, we paid a price since this was still an aveira. It was lishma, but nonetheless an aveira for which punishment was due.
+I boldly suggest that during the night in the granary, Boaz was faced with a terrible dilemma: on the one hand, asking Rut to leave would violate the issur of afflicting an almanah and being unkind to a ger; on the other hand, the spirit of the Halacha would be undoubtedly violated, as we discussed previously, by remaining alone with Rut in the granary. Boaz chose the lesser of two evils. Although Boaz chose correctly, he still deserved a consequence.
+Chazal (Yevamot 121b) teach that Hashem is exceptionally strict with tzadikim. Accordingly, Boaz died that night as a consequence for the עבירה לשמה of being alone with Rut. The lesson that emerges is יראת חטא — to realize the profound toxicity of חטא.
+My aveira lishma approach is problematic. Here are some of the critiques posed by TABC talmidim:
+1. There is no clear indication in Megilat Rut that Boaz sinned.
+2. Premature death for yichud seems excessive.
+3. Boaz enacted greeting people using Hashem's name, recognizing that the needs deemed this necessary (as we discussed earlier) and he was not punished for this, even though saying Hashem’s name unnecessarily is a severe violation of Halacha.
+4. Severe punishment for someone who acted so nobly would demotivate mitzvah observance.
+Explanation #3 — An Inexplicable Tragedy
The following approach to the Yalkut Shimoni occurred to me in the wake of the torrent of tragedies we encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps the first two answers are problematic because we posed the wrong question. We asked why Hashem brought about such a terrible calamity to people who acted so nobly. This, however, was the wrong question to ask, as taught by Sefer Iyov. Rather, we should ask how Rut coped with such a horrific tragedy.
+Boaz had suddenly died, and all of Rut's hopes were suddenly crushed; the tragedy was unbearable. Rut had gone from princess to pauper to marrying the gadol hador, only to then come crashing down again. Megillat Rut only hints at this tragedy, and many Midrashim do not mention this, perhaps since it is so painful to relate!
+However, this is not how the story ends. Rut pulled herself together, as is evident from her distinguished descendants. She suffered an unbearable loss, and the neighbors consoled her and Naomi and supported them emotionally. The neighbors made a festive naming ceremony for the baby and urged Rut to look forward to a very bright future for the child. Rut and her child, Oved, recovered to the extent that Oved's grandson became the greatest leader in our nation's history.
+Rut’s tragic and unexplainable loss is very much like the story of many survivors of the Shoah. They suffered excruciating and incomprehensible losses that for many was too painful even to mention. Yet they managed to rebuild, forge ahead and accomplish great things. Compare the state of our people in 1945 to where it is today. We were floundering then, but now we are blessed with Medinat Yisrael, many Yeshivot and flourishing communities.
+Conclusion
Rut was an even greater hero than ever imagined. Embedded in David HaMelech’s legacy is an unmatched ability to persevere through the most daunting of challenges. This unparalleled strength of character became emblematic of the entire Jewish People, which shone through especially with the heroic Holocaust survivors who emerged from the worst possible human predicament to restore our nation to its proper glory.
+
+Section 35
+
+Oved
In our concluding chapter, we will grapple with the name that the women of Beit Lechem give the son of Boaz and Rut: עוֹבֵד (Rut 4:17).
+Only one other individual in Tanach is named Oved. The name strikes one as peculiar; it means “works” or “serves.” Why would they give the child such an odd name?
+Da’at Mikra explains that עוֹבֵד is short for עבדיה, noting that we find shortened names elsewhere in Tanach, such as Chanan for Chananiah and Matan for Mataniah.
+As a variation, perhaps Naomi and Rut named the child Ovadia and the townspeople nicknamed him Oved for short. This point explains why the pasuk records the townspeople naming the baby instead of Rut and Naomi.
+Malbim (to pesukim 16-17 s.v. “Sheyulad Ben L’Naomi”) explains that they called him Oved since he would serve Hashem, for it is from him the Davidic dynasty will stem. However, if the Malbim’s approach serves as a full answer, they would have called the child the more common name עבדיה, which means eved Hashem.
+We can add a dimension to the Malbim’s explanation by noting the following two stories: In Melachim I 12:7, the advice of elders to the newly inaugurated Melech Rechavam to serve the people is that if you aim to serve the people, the people will reciprocate and accept your rule for many years. In Horiyot 10, after Rabban Gamliel appoints two of his talmidim as roshei yeshiva, he tells them, “I positioned you as servants.” Perhaps Beit Lechem’s women named Rut’s child עוֹבֵד (and not עבדיה) because it can imply both service of Hashem and service of Am Yisrael. A proper king serves both Hashem and Am Yisrael, as expressed in Melachim II 11:17.
+The distinction between a proper king like David HaMelech and a failed king is that those who fail serve their own best interests. The successful king is a “servant-leader,” one who serves Hashem and the people. The women of Beit Lechem named the child עוֹבֵד, because that is the type of king this child (or his descendent) would become.
+This approach explains why the lineage of David HaMelech stems from עוֹבֵד.
+Predicting the Future?
If so, how did the women of Beit Lechem know the future?
+One possibility is as the Ari z”l teaches, that ruach hakodesh envelopes those who name a baby. A second possibility is as we see in Bereshit 5:29. Lemech named his son Noach since the child would eventually ease (nach) mankind’s suffering. Rashi famously explains that Noach invented the plow. How did Lemech know Noach this in advance? Ibn Ezra (ad. loc.) offers three explanations. One is that Lemech acted with chochmah, wisdom. He wisely created an ambitious and positive vision for Noach at birth. Lemech embedded this vision within his name. The positive vision set forth by his father set Noach on a path of great accomplishment.
+I know this to be true from personal experience. I have, with Hashem’s help, written thirteen books. As a teenager, my father instructed me to record every chiddush, novel idea, that I developed. A few years later, my mother said to me, “you will write books.” It all started with a positive vision! As the Lubavitcher Rebbe said, “think good and it will be good.” On Yom HaShoah 2020, the TABC community heard from a survivor of Auschwitz who recounted that he survived the unimaginable horror because of his optimism that he would survive.
+Our suggestion is that the women of Beit Lechem set an extraordinarily positive vision for this child by naming him עוֹבֵד. The child’s heritage (as noted in the end of the perek) of the leadership of Yehuda, Nachshon ben Aminadav and Boaz helped propel this vision into reality.
+Sadly, Elimelech opted out of this grand lineage, but עוֹבֵד was a child of a family that returned and raised the greatest leader of Am Yisrael. Oved’s destiny of giving to the community, as declared by the women of Beit Lechem who named him, signifies his tikkun of the self-centered behavior of Elimelech, Machlon and Kilyon,. Additionally, when they called him Oved, they may also have meant that he would work to sustain his family, to revive the family name and renew their tarnished image.
+There is even greater meaning if the women of Beit Lechem are understood as consoling the grief-stricken Rut and Naomi (following our new explanation of the Midrash asserting that Boaz died suddenly the night of the marriage). The women of Beit Lechem consoled Rut and Naomi by urging them to channel their grief into raising this son to be the progenitor of royalty, as befits Rut’s royal background and Boaz’s noble character and ancestry. The extraordinary circumstances of Oved’s birth also led them to conclude that a great destiny awaited this child and his progeny
+Furthermore, naming the child Oved conveys that the child would have to work hard to overcome the disadvantage of not growing up with a father (in line with the Midrash that Boaz died soon after his marriage to Rut). The women of Beit Lechem meant that with hard work, Oven can and will overcome his handicap.
+Oved was a great success, as David HaMelech was his grandson and Yishai was his son, who according to Chazal (Bava Batra 17a) never sinned.
+Finally, we note that the encouraging words of the women of Beit Lechem corrects their earlier sin of ona’at devarim (the sin of verbal insensitivity) upon Naomi’s return to Beit Lechem.
+Conclusion
+Rut took up the mission set by the women of Beit Lechem and raised Oved to be the progenitor of the royal line of our people. All this adds to the beauty of the scene described by Chazal (Bava Batra 91b): Shlomo HaMelech, at his inauguration, set aside a special seat of honor for Rut — אמה של מלכות — who persevered against all odds to raise a family that would emerge as the eternal royal family of our people.
+
+Conclusion; The Contemporary Transition from Chaos to Kingship
+
+Megillat Rut sets forth the roadmap on how to progress from the State of Israel to Yemot HaMashiach, the Messianic era. Contemporary Israel has much in common with the Sefer Shofetim era; many of the same societal ills and challenges have emerged. We as a people are, Baruch Hashem, in our land, but we lurch from both internal and external crisis to crisis. The self-centered mindset seems to be pervasive on a national level (with, of course, many significant exceptions).
+Perhaps the remedy is that the Jewish People take to heart the lessons taught by Megillat Rut. The emergent lessons will elevate and transform us from the current chaos to an age where we will be led by a descendent of David HaMelech, Mashiach Tzidkeinu.
\ No newline at end of file