Lange Commentary - Ruth 3:7

Lange Commentary - Ruth 3:7 - 3:18

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Ruth 3:7 - 3:18

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Rth_3:7-18

Innocence and Piety

⁷And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry [cheerful], he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn [-sheaves]: and she came softly, and uncovered [the place at] his feet, and laid her down. ⁸And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid [startled], and turned himself [bent himself over]: and behold, a woman lay at his feet. ⁹And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt [wings] over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman [a redeemer]. ¹⁰And he said, Blessed be thou of the Lord [Jehovah], my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedest not [didst not go after] young men, whether poor or rich. ¹¹And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest [sayest]: for all the city [gate] of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous [brave] woman. ¹²And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman [a redeemer]: howbeit there is a kinsman [redeemer] nearer than I. ¹³Tarry this [to] night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman [redeemer; lit. if he will redeem thee], well; let him do the kinsman’s part [let him redeem]: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee [shall not be inclined to redeem thee], then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee [then will I redeem thee], as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth: lie down until the morning. ¹⁴And she lay at his feet until the morning: and she rose up before one [a man] could know another [recognize his friend]. And ¹⁵[For] he said, Let it not be known that a [the] woman came into the floor. Also he said, Bring the vail [mantle] that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she [he] ¹⁶went into the city. And when [omit: when] she came to her mother-in-law, [and] she [i.e. the mother-in-law] said, Who art thou, my daughter? and she told her all that the man had done to her. ¹⁷And she said, These six measures of barley gave he me; for he said to me, Go not empty unto thy mother-in law. ¹⁸Then said she, Sit still [Remain quiet], my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in [omit: be in] rest until he have finished the thing this day.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[¹ Rth_3:7.— áַּìָּè : not “secretly” (Keil), which would be superfluous here; but as in Jdg_4:21, “quietly,” “softly,” so as not to wake the sleeper—in a muffled manner, cf. Lex. s. v. ìåּè .—Tr.]

[² Rth_3:9.— ëְּëָôֶêָ must be regarded as dual, with the suffix defect, written (Ges. 91, 2, Rem. 1); for as the word does not stand in pause, the seghol cannot be a mere lengthened sheva (Ges. 29, 4, b). The Masoretic tradition, therefore, understands “wings” here, and not “skirt,” or “coverlet,” in which sense the word is always used in the singular. The covering wing is a favorite emblem of protection in the psalms and elsewhere, and is here far more beautiful and suggestive than “skirt” or “coverlet,” even though the translation of the metaphor into the language of action did carry with it an actual spreading of the skirt over one, cf. the commentary. The rendering “wings” is also adopted by Bertheau, Keil, Wright, etc.—Tr.]

[³ Rth_3:10.—Dr. Cassel: du hast deine Liebe, die spätere, noch schöner gemacht, als die erste; or, as Dr. Wordsworth very happily, as well as literally renders: “thou hast bettered ( äֵéèַáְúְּ ) thy latter loving kindness above the former.” The comparison is not as to quantity, but as to quality.—Tr.]

[⁴ Rth_3:11.— àֵùֶּׁú çַéִì : lit. “a woman of strength.” Dr. Cassel here renders it (with DeWette) by wackres Weib, brave, valiant woman, while he afterwards (see foot-note on p. 43) substitutes braves Weib, i.e. good, excellent woman (so also Keil). Others: “capable woman.” All these renderings, including that of the E. V. (which is not to be taken in the restricted sense of “chaste,” but in that of its Latin original), agree much better than they seem to do. They are all embraced in çַéִì , which is here manifestly used of moral strength, cf. Pro_12:4; Pro_31:10. A morally strong person is brave and good, capable in the noblest sense; in a word virtuous, possessed both of virtue and of virtues.—Tr.]

[⁵ Rth_3:12.—“ ëִּé before àָîְðָí , in order to strengthen the assurance: ‘and now, truly indeed,’ cf. Job_36:4. Beside the Kethibh ëִּé àִí , we have here, as in 2Sa_13:33; 2Sa_15:21; Jer_39:12, the Keri ëִּé . After the asseverating ëִּé , àָîְðָí occurs in Job_12:2, as elsewhere after an oath, Gen_22:16 f.; 2Ki_3:14 : but ëִּé àִí occurs also in such a position, 2Sa_15:21 (Kethibh); 2Ki_5:20; Jer_51:14, cf. Ew. 356 b.; and there is therefore no ground for preferring the easier reading of the Keri, especially as ëִּé àִí excludes from the assurance the opposite of what forms its object yet more decidedly than the simple ëִּé , thus: truly, indeed, only a goel am I = truly, I am certainly a goel—I am that and nothing else.” (Bertheau.) Keil also thinks that the meaning of ëִּé àִí is to be explained from its use in the sense of nisi, cf. Lex.—Tr.]

[⁶ Rth_3:13.— ìִéðִé . The MSS. have here either a large ì or a large ë . The Masora parva remarks that the Oriental (i.e. Babylonian) Jews, especially preserve the large ì . Many conjectures as to the meaning of the large letter are clearly wide of the mark. The ground of such majusculæ is undoubtedly to be sought in the purpose of ancient transcribers (as Le Clerc rightly intimates), to direct the attention of the reader to facts or thoughts which to them appeared especially noteworthy. Thus in Ecc_7:1, where the first letter of èåֹá is a majuscula. The value of a good name impressed itself here. So also in Ecc_12:13, where the í in íåֹó is written large. The fidelity of later transcribers, unwilling to obliterate any, even subjective marks, has preserved such peculiarities. With doctrine or any special exegesis, these letters have nothing to do. Thus, in Est_1:6, the transcriber, wishing to direct attention to the splendor of the royal banquet, the description of which beings with çåּø , wrote ç large. And so in our passage, it seemed important to the pious transcriber (as Buxtorf not without reason indicates), to call the reader’s attention to the language and moral conduct of Boaz.]

[⁷ Rth_3:14.—Instead of the usual èֶøֶí , we have here, and only here, èøåí in Kethibh. The pointing èֶøֶí was occasioned by the endeavor to derive the word from a specifically Hebrew root. I hold the form èְøֻí , èְøåּí , to be itself original. Comparative philology satisfactorily explains the word. It belongs to ðñßí , ðñüìïò , primus, parama, Goth. fruma (as èäåø belongs to purus, èåø to paries, etc.), and is not at all to be explained from the Hebrew. The Midrash (Ruth Rabba 34 d.) has also noted the reading èøåí , and in its usual way explains the added å of six hours, which Ruth spent in the threshing-floor. [According to Bertheau èְøåֹí is a later Aramaic form for the old, genuine Heb. èֶøֶí , and is by Aram, analogy to be pronounced èְøåּí . Not likely; as èְøåּí is not found in Aram. Fürst derives it from èָø ( èåּø , an unused root, meaning “to wait”) with the termination Îåֹï=Îåֹí . Ewald seems to regard èְøåֹí as a shortened (?) form of èֶøֶí , which he derives from èָøָä , an unused root, meaning “to be fresh,” cf. Lehrb. 337 c.—Tr.]

[⁸ Rth_3:15.— çָ֫áִé . äáִîִּèְôַּçַú (milel), as it is written in most MSS., is the second per. sg. fern, imperat. of éָäַá , to give, cf. Ges. 69, 3, Rem. 2. The reading äָáִ֫é , found in some MSS. is either for äָáִéà (i.e. the hiph. inf. const. of áּåֹà used imperatively, like an infin. absol.), or better for äָáִéàִé , second fem. imper., cf. Green, Gram. 164, 2.—On the îִèְôַּçַú , Wright quotes the following explanation from Schroeder, De Vest. Mul. Heb.: “Quia adeo ampla erant veterum pallia, ut pars in humerum rejiceretur, altera brachio subduceretur, Rutha, prehendens aliquam partem ejus sinu oblatas a Boaso fruges excepit. Imo aliam vestem quam pallium ne admittere quidem ipse textus videtur. Nam ex verbis àֲùֶׁø òָìַéִêְ , da vestem quæ est super te, haud obscure colligitur, vestem intelligendum esse totum corpus tegentem; quoniam alias pro genio linguae Hebraeae, specialius membrum corporis cui illa applicata fuisset, expressis potius verbis fuisset nominatum. Accedit quod aliud quodcunque tegumentum, nonnisi uni corporis parti, v. g. capiti, destinctum, ad usum, quem volebat Boasus, fuisset ineptum. Neque insolitum id veteribus fuit, ut in sinu vestimenti exterioris aliquid deportarent.”—Tr.]

[⁹ Rth_3:15.— åַéָּáֹà , “and he went.” Wright proposes to read åַúָּáֹà , “and she went,” on the ground that many MSS. have this reading, and that there seems to be no reason why Boaz should go to the city at so early an hour. The MS. authority, however, loses all its force when the strong probability is considered that the reading is only a conjectural emendation. Wright’s other ground is by no means decisive. The simple idea is, that Boaz, after he had dismissed Ruth, also went to the city, probably to his house, whence afterwards he “went up” ( òָìָä , expressive of the reverence with which the mind regards the place of judgment, cf. Deu_17:8), to the gate, Rth_4:1. So Keil; but cf. Dr. Cassel on Rth_4:1.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Rth_3:7. And Boaz ate and drank, and was cheerful. It illustrates the simplicity of ancient patriarchal times and manners, that Boaz, the wealthy proprietor of a great estate, himself keeps watch on his threshing-floor, works till late, and then betakes himself to rest in the solitude of the open field. It is clear that he did not do this every day; for the well-informed Naomi says, “to-night he winnows barley.” It is probable that this night he relieved his overseer. The remark, that “his heart was cheerful,” is not added without a reason. It is not, however, intended to indicate that this was why Ruth was directed to present her petition after he had eaten and drunk. It is true, indeed, that it was a current and probably well-founded maxim among the ancients that requests should not be made of great men before, but after eating (cf. Est_7:3), they being then more kindly disposed. But Ruth made no use of this post-prandial benevolence, for she allowed Boaz to betake himself to rest before she approached him. These words are rather designed to point out the danger encountered by Ruth on the one hand, and the virtue of Boaz on the other.

Rth_3:8. And it came to pass at midnight, etc. Boaz had laid himself down; it had become dark. Thereupon Ruth had come, and had laid herself softly down at his feet, drawing over herself a part of the cover under which he lay. The simple narrative paints most beautifully. It was midnight, when, perhaps, by a movement of his foot, bringing it in contact with the person of Ruth, he was startled out of his sleep. He bends himself forward in order to see what it is he touches, and lo, a woman lies at his feet! He says, Who art thou? and she answers:

Rth_3:9. I am Ruth thine handmaid; spread thy wings over thy handmaid, for thou art a redeemer. Ruth had been sent to demand the fulfillment of an ancient right. This right, peculiar as it was, had its symbol, under which it was claimed. We are made acquainted with it by the words addressed by Ruth to Boaz, and by her action in drawing an end of his coverlet over herself. The words are not contained in the instructions of Naomi to Ruth, as to what she is to do; but the action taught her, necessarily presupposes them. Marriage is a resting-place. The wife finds rest under the protection of her husband, as Israel finds it under the overshadowing wing of Jehovah. Even until the latest times, the figurative representation of God as the loving Bridegroom of his people, continues, instructively and sublimely, to run through Scripture and tradition. Christ says (Mat_23:37): “How often would I have gathered you, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.” Israel has rest (menuchah) when God spreads out his wings over them. The psalmist prays to be covered by the shadow of Jehovah’s wings. Boaz says to Ruth (Rth_2:12): “May thy reward be complete, since thou hast come to take refuge under the wings of Jehovah, the God of Israel.” That which Ruth there did with respect to the God of Boaz, she now asks to be permitted to do with respect to Boaz himself. The husband gives “rest” to his wife by spreading out his wings over her. For this reason the covering of his bed, under which he took the wife, was designated by the beautiful term, “wing” (cf. Deu_23:1 [E. V. Deu_22:30], etc.). Very attractive is the use of this expression, with figurative application to God, in Ezekiel, when Jehovah, speaking through the prophet, says (Eze_16:8): “Behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread out my wing over thee, and covered thy nakedness,… and entered into a covenant with thee.” As the chicken takes refuge under the wings of the hen, so Ruth hid herself under a corner of the coverlet of Boaz. It was the symbol of the right which she had come to claim. “Spread out thy wings over thy handmaid; for thou art a redeemer (goel). It is because he is a blood-relative that she can make this demand. Hence, she does not say, I am Ruth, the Moabitess; but, I am Ruth, thy handmaid. Here, where she lays claim to an Israelitish right, she drops all remembrance of Moab. And has he not himself received and treated her as an Israelitish maiden?

Undoubtedly this symbolical method of claiming the most delicate of all rights, presupposes manners of patriarchal simplicity and virtue. The confidence of the woman reposes itself on the honor of the man. The method, however, was one which could not easily be brought into operation. For every foreknowledge or pre-intimation of it would have torn the veil of silence and secrecy from the modesty of the claimant. But when it was once put into operation, the petition preferred could not be denied without disgrace either to the woman or the man. Hence, we may be sure that Naomi did not send her daughter-in-law on this errand without the fullest confidence that it would prove successful. For it is certain that to all other difficulties, this peculiar one was added in the present case: namely, that Boaz, as Ruth herself says, was indeed a goel, but not the goel. The answer of Boaz, also, suggests the surmise that such a claim was not wholly unexpected by him. Not that he had an understanding with Naomi, in consequence of which he was alone on the threshing-floor; for the fact that he was startled out of his sleep, shows that the night visit was altogether unlooked for. But the thought that at some time the claim of Ruth to the rights of blood-relationship might be addressed to himself, may not have been strange to him. Even this conjecture, however, of what might possibly or probably take place, could not be used to relieve Ruth of the necessity of manifesting her own free will by means of the symbolical proceeding. The ancient usage spoke a discreet language, with which not even a certain mutual understanding would have dispensed. For the rest, how truly the action of Ruth, far from clouding her womanly delicacy, was a new evidence of the nobility, purity, and genuine love that ruled her, is unequivocally testified to by the answer of Boaz.

Rth_3:10. Blessed be thou of Jehovah, my daughter! Thou hast made thy latter kindness even more beautiful than the former. This answer also opens to our view the simple, unassuming soul of Boaz, whose modesty and sincere heartiness are truly admirable. He makes no complaint of being disturbed in the night, nor of the too great importunateness, as another might have deemed it, with which the request is made. On the one hand, he entertains no thought of abusing the confidence of the woman, nor on the other does he play the modern conserver of virtue, who loudly blames another because he distrusts himself. He has only words of divine benediction for the blameless woman, so attractive in her naive humility. He knows how to value her act in its purely objective character, apart from every consideration of its relation to himself, as only a heart trained by the word of God could do. He blesses Ruth, whom like a father he addresses as “my daughter,” because he found her present kindness yet nobler and more beautiful than the former. But how is that to be understood? Ruth’s former kindness approved itself, when, after the death of her husband, she left parents and home in order to console and take care of her mother-in-law, unmoved by the certainty of misery and humiliation in a foreign land. What does she now? Young, comely, and favorably known, she might before this have looked out a husband according to her wish, rich or poor, from among the young men of Israel. Did she do it? By no means; she subordinates every such possibility to her mother-in-law and the usages of Israel. Instead of preferring the love of a young man, as were natural,—says Boaz,—thou comest to assert thy right with one more advanced in life, solely because he is a goel. Thou askest him for the protection of his wings, in order that a blood-relative may again raise up a name for thy husband and mother-in-law in Israel. In this, also, thou offerest thine own heart and happiness as a sacrifice of love to thy family! It is indeed possible that as Boaz intimates, Ruth’s present act of kindness was even a severer test of her love than the earlier. For those, done in the time of sorrow and mourning, were for that very reason easier than this, rendered at a time when perhaps a new life and fresh joy had been offered her. But the modesty of Boaz was too great. It is doubtless correct to think of him as a contemporary of Elimelech, and consequently no longer young. But in ancient as in modern times, a woman like Ruth will find a more engaging “rest” with a man like Boaz than she would find among thousands of young men.

Rth_3:11. And now, my daughter, fear not. Trembling with excitement, Ruth had done as she had been directed; and in the darkness of the night, the tremulous tones of her voice had informed Boaz of her anxiety. What he had hitherto said, contained no decision, but only praise. She, however, trembles for the answer to her prayer, on which so much depended. Hence, he says, again addressing her by the kindly name of daughter, “fear not.” As above he invoked on her, in Jehovah’s name, a full reward, because, led by love to Israel, she had trustfully come to take refuge under the wings of Israel’s God, so he will not deny her who has come to himself to ask for the protection of his “resting-place.” Her Moabitish nationality can offer no obstacle, since he has already commended her to the blessing of Jehovah. She has shown no Moabitish morals. There exists no ground whatever for denying her the rights of Israel. For the whole gate of my people knows that thou art a brave woman. In the words “my people,” he hints at the sole reason on which a refusal could base itself. But there is no Israelite among us in Bethlehem, who does not know how good thou art. Whatever thou hast a right to claim, can be unhesitatingly done for thee, for thou art loved by all.

Rth_3:12. But yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. These words teach us that what Ruth demanded was an actual objective right, which belonged to her. Although Boaz perhaps surmised that, apart from the consideration of her right, she applied with special confidence to himself for the boon desired, he modestly and considerately decides only on the question of her formal right. Her proceeding receives its unimpeachable justification only when putting aside every personal inclination, it simply regards the matter of right. Thy claim, he says, cannot be gainsaid; but I am not the one to whom it is to be directed in the first instance. There is another, who is more nearly related to Elimelech. But he does not leave her a moment in doubt, whether this be not an excuse for refusing her petition. If that other person prove not able to fulfill his duty, then he himself will do it. This he confirms with an oath by the living God. Nor will she be required to repeat the proceeding of this night. A noble, womanly heart—this is what his tenderness implies—does not dare to undertake such a mission more than once. He himself will prosecute the matter. The symbolic act with which she came to him, addressed itself not so much to him, individually, as through him to the whole family. Perhaps he knew very well that Naomi had for good reasons sent Ruth to his threshing-floor,—that the other relative would not be able to act as redeemer; but it is best for both Ruth and himself that due regard be had to formal right.

Rth_3:13 ff. Abide here to-night; lie down until the morning. He repeats the same injunction twice. He cannot send her away in the darkness of night; nor is he afraid to let her remain. She, for her part, hears his words, and obeys, with equal confidence. But she is only to remain till earliest dawn. Before it was possible to recognize each other clearly, both were up; that it might not be known that the woman came into the floor. By an early departure, he hopes that Ruth may escape meeting with any one, who might put injurious suspicions into circulation. He undoubtedly speaks of “the woman,” with special emphasis. It would have been very unpleasant to Boaz to have people connect himself with any woman in a suspicious way; but scandalous rumors of this kind, with Ruth for their object, would have been exceedingly injurious. To say nothing of the fact that an undeserved stain would have been fixed on the good name of Ruth, it would have rendered it very difficult for him to prosecute her claims in Bethlehem.

But as she is about to go, he bids her first spread out her cloak or shawl, into which he empties six measures of barley, to be carried home to her mother-in-law. What is his intention in this act? That, as he says, she “come not empty to her mother-in-law.” A mere sign of his friendly disposition, it cannot have been; for Ruth will tell her all that he has said. He must have had other reasons for not wishing her to go away empty. If notwithstanding every precaution, Ruth was recognized when she returned from the threshing-floor, her appearance, laden with grain, would be less suspicious, than if she were met dressed up as a fine lady. Thus laden, it was usual to see her come from the fields of Boaz. Thus, the last occasion of possible suspicion was cut off. Still, the whole significance of the proceeding is not exhausted with this. Decided stress is laid on the fact that he gave her six measures of barley. When Ruth comes home, and Naomi asks, “Who art thou, my daughter,” i.e. “how comest thou? as one whose claim has been acknowledged, or otherwise?” she informs her mother-in-law of all that Boaz said, and expressly adds, what the reader has already been informed of, and what if only the liberality of the giver came into consideration, Naomi could see without being told: “these six measures of barley gave he me.” She evidently deems it important that Naomi should know, that he gave her just six measures of grain. The old Jewish expositors have made all sorts of allegorical attempts with this “six.” They are undoubtedly so far right, that apart from the friendly custom of sending visitors away enriched with gifts for their families, Boaz, on this occasion, meant to give a hint to Naomi of the result of Ruth’s application. This result was, that in any event Ruth would obtain a “resting-place.” The number six is the symbol of labor and service, which is followed by seven, the time of rest. Whoever has served six years, is released in the seventh. Naomi receives what she may take as an intimation that the time has come, when after long labor she must let Ruth go out free. The day of rest is at hand.

Rth_3:18. And she said, Remain quiet [cf. Gen_38:11], my daughter. Ruth is to remain at home, like an affianced bride. From both words and actions of Boaz, Naomi perceives that he will not rest, until he makes good his promise. This very day will decide the issue of the matter. And whatever that issue may be, it will not be without a blessing. “The man will not rest, until he have provided for thee a resting-place.”

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

“And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou sayest.” The faith of Boaz is such as leads to action. He not only instructs, by his prophetic words to Ruth (Rth_2:12), and by the pious spirit that breathes in his intercourse with his servants; he not only gives, moved by sympathy sprung from faith; he not only enters into the necessities and anxieties of Ruth; but he has also a clean heart, in which no impure thought arises, and stands as firm in the hour of temptation and secrecy as when the eyes of all Bethlehem are upon him. He is an Israelite not only before man, but also before God alone. And it was because he did not forget, what man is naturally so prone to forget, that God sees him, that he is so mindful of his duty. Hypocrites, when alone, are different from what they appear in company; Israelites like Boaz feel and act in the presence of the all-knowing God alone, not otherwise than they would if all the stars of heaven and all the creatures of earth could testify against them. Boaz showed an active faith when he gave no place to temptation. Pious and offenseless as he was when Ruth came to claim the right of the poor, he is equally so now when she asks for her right of redemption. Then the question was only about a few ears of grain, now it involves his own person and estate. Then he was kind in the presence of Ruth’s humility, now he is humble in the presence of her claim to be righted. Then he forgot herself in the fact that she had left the land of Moab, now he forgets that she had ever owned another law than that of Israel. Then his tender delicacy made Ruth assured of her safety in his fields; now that same delicacy understands that since she has come to him, the right she claims must be fulfilled. He might have released himself by the letter of the law to which she appeals,—there was a nearer relative; but his faith is an active faith. The question was one of right, not of ingenious play with the letter. The claimant must be satisfied; and he does what he promised to do. Freely and purely, full of that love which is the characteristic of faith, he keeps himself and keeps his word. People speak of a man’s “word of honor;” it were more correct to speak of “the word of a Christian,” “the word of a confessor of God.” For only the Christian does not walk in the crooked ways of intrigue and false advocates.

Starke: “Christian, behold the kindness and gentleness of Boaz! Will it then be possible that God, when thou art in need, will send thee empty away? Never! his generous hand is never closed. Only open Him thy heart, and divine gifts flow in upon thee, without any action on thy part.”

The same: “A Christian must be upright in word and deed.”

Footnotes:

[Rth_3:7.— áַּìָּè : not “secretly” (Keil), which would be superfluous here; but as in Jdg_4:21, “quietly,” “softly,” so as not to wake the sleeper—in a muffled manner, cf. Lex. s. v. ìåּè .—Tr.]

[Rth_3:9.— ëְּëָôֶêָ must be regarded as dual, with the suffix defect, written (Ges. 91, 2, Rem. 1); for as the word does not stand in pause, the seghol cannot be a mere lengthened sheva (Ges. 29, 4, b). The Masoretic tradition, therefore, understands “wings” here, and not “skirt,” or “coverlet,” in which sense the word is always used in the singular. The covering wing is a favorite emblem of protection in the psalms and elsewhere, and is here far more beautiful and suggestive than “skirt” or “coverlet,” even though the translation of the metaphor into the language of action did carry with it an actual spreading of the skirt over one, cf. the commentary. The rendering “wings” is also adopted by Bertheau, Keil, Wright, etc.—Tr.]

[Rth_3:10.—Dr. Cassel: du hast deine Liebe, die spätere, noch schöner gemacht, als die erste; or, as Dr. Wordsworth very happily, as well as literally renders: “thou hast bettered ( äֵéèַáְúְּ ) thy latter loving kindness above the former.” The comparison is not as to quantity, but as to quality.—Tr.]

[Rth_3:11.— àֵùֶּׁú çַéִì : lit. “a woman of strength.” Dr. Cassel here renders it (with DeWette) by wackres Weib, brave, valiant woman, while he afterwards (see foot-note on p. 43) substitutes braves Weib, i.e. good, excellent woman (so also Keil). Others: “capable woman.” All these renderings, including that of the E. V. (which is not to be taken in the restricted sense of “chaste,” but in that of its Latin original), agree much better than they seem to do. They are all embraced in çַéִì , which is here manifestly used of moral strength, cf. Pro_12:4; Pro_31:10. A morally strong person is brave and good, capable in the noblest sense; in a word virtuous, possessed both of virtue and of virtues.—Tr.]

[Rth_3:12.—“ ëִּé before àָîְðָí , in order to strengthen the assurance: ‘and now, truly indeed,’ cf. Job_36:4. Beside the Kethibh ëִּé àִí , we have here, as in 2Sa_13:33; 2Sa_15:21; Jer_39:12, the Keri ëִּé . After the asseverating ëִּé , àָîְðָí occurs in Job_12:2, as elsewhere after an oath, Gen_22:16 f.; 2Ki_3:14 : but ëִּé àִí occurs also in such a position, 2Sa_15:21 (Kethibh); 2Ki_5:20; Jer_51:14, cf. Ew. 356 b.; and there is therefore no ground for preferring the easier reading of the Keri, especially as ëִּé àִí excludes from the assurance the opposite of what forms its object yet more decidedly than the simple ëִּé , thus: truly, indeed, only a goel am I = truly, I am certainly a goel—I am that and nothing else.” (Bertheau.) Keil also thinks that the meaning of ëִּé àִí is to be explained from its use in the sense of nisi, cf. Lex.—Tr.]

Rth_3:13.— ìִéðִé . The MSS. have here either a large ì or a large ë . The Masora parva remarks that the Oriental (i.e. Babylonian) Jews, especially preserve the large ì . Many conjectures as to the meaning of the large letter are clearly wide of the mark. The ground of such majusculæ is undoubtedly to be sought in the purpose of ancient transcribers (as Le Clerc rightly intimates), to direct the attention of the reader to facts or thoughts which to them appeared especially noteworthy. Thus in Ecc_7:1, where the first letter of èåֹá is a majuscula. The value of a good name impressed itself here. So also in Ecc_12:13, where the í in íåֹó is written large. The fidelity of later transcribers, unwilling to obliterate any, even subjective marks, has preserved such peculiarities. With doctrine or any special exegesis, these letters have nothing to do. Thus, in Est_1:6, the transcriber, wishing to direct attention to the splendor of the royal banquet, the description of which beings with çåּø , wrote ç large. And so in our passage, it seemed important to the pious transcriber (as Buxtorf not without reason indicates), to call the reader’s attention to the language and moral conduct of Boaz.]

[Rth_3:14.—Instead of the usual èֶøֶí , we have here, and only here, èøåí in Kethibh. The pointing èֶøֶí was occasioned by the endeavor to derive the word from a specifically Hebrew root. I hold the form èְøֻí , èְøåּí , to be itself original. Comparative philology satisfactorily explains the word. It belongs to ðñßí , ðñüìïò , primus, parama, Goth. fruma (as èäåø belongs to purus, èåø to paries, etc.), and is not at all to be explained from the Hebrew. The Midrash (Ruth Rabba 34 d.) has also noted the reading èøåí , and in its usual way explains the added å of six hours, which Ruth spent in the threshing-floor. [According to Bertheau èְøåֹí is a later Aramaic form for the old, genuine Heb. èֶøֶí , and is by Aram, analogy to be pronounced èְøåּí . Not likely; as èְøåּí is not found in Aram. Fürst derives it from èָø ( èåּø , an unused root, meaning “to wait”) with the termination Îåֹï=Îåֹí . Ewald seems to regard èְøåֹí as a shortened (?) form of èֶøֶí , which he derives from èָøָä , an unused root, meaning “to be fresh,” cf. Lehrb. 337 c.—Tr.]

[Rth_3:15.— çָ֫áִé . äáִîִּèְôַּçַú (milel), as it is written in most MSS., is the second per. sg. fern, imperat. of éָäַá , to give, cf. Ges. 69, 3, Rem. 2. The reading äָáִ֫é , found in some MSS. is either for äָáִéà (i.e. the hiph. inf. const. of áּåֹà used imperatively, like an infin. absol.), or better for äָáִéàִé , second fem. imper., cf. Green, Gram. 164, 2.—On the îִèְôַּçַú , Wright quotes the following explanation from Schroeder, De Vest. Mul. Heb.: “Quia adeo ampla erant veterum pallia, ut pars in humerum rejiceretur, altera brachio subduceretur, Rutha, prehendens aliquam partem ejus sinu oblatas a Boaso fruges excepit. Imo aliam vestem quam pallium ne admittere quidem ipse textus videtur. Nam ex verbis àֲùֶׁø òָìַéִêְ , da vestem quæ est super te, haud obscure colligitur, vestem intelligendum esse totum corpus tegentem; quoniam alias pro genio linguae Hebraeae, specialius membrum corporis cui illa applicata fuisset, expressis potius verbis fuisset nominatum. Accedit quod aliud quodcunque tegumentum, nonnisi uni corporis parti, v. g. capiti, destinctum, ad usum, quem volebat Boasus, fuisset ineptum. Neque insolitum id veteribus fuit, ut in sinu vestimenti exterioris aliquid deportarent.”—Tr.]

[Rth_3:15.— åַéָּáֹà , “and he went.” Wright proposes to read åַúָּáֹà , “and she went,” on the ground that many MSS. have this reading, and that there seems to be no reason why Boaz should go to the city at so early an hour. The MS. authority, however, loses all its force when the strong probability is considered that the reading is only a conjectural emendation. Wright’s other ground is by no means decisive. The simple idea is, that Boaz, after he had dismissed Ruth, also went to the city, probably to his house, whence afterwards he “went up” ( òָìָä , expressive of the reverence with which the mind regards the place of judgment, cf. Deu_17:8), to the gate, Rth_4:1. So Keil; but cf. Dr. Cassel on Rth_4:1.—Tr.]

[The same practice is still continued in Palestine, cf. Rob. ii. 83; Thomson, ii. 511. Its design is, of course, to keep the grain from being stolen. Thomson says, that “it s not unusual for husband, wife, and all the family to encamp at the threshing-floors, and remain until the harvest as over.”—Tr.]

åַéִּìָּôֵú , as it is said of Sampson, Jdg_16:29, that he bent over the pillars, åַéִּìְôֹּç .

“All know that thou art a good woman.” The LXX., with singular literalness, render àֵùֶׁú çַéִì by ãõíὴ äõíÜìåùò .

The Midrash (Ruth Rabba, p. 34 b), which would fain hold fast to the letter of the law, which speaks only of the brother as goel, thinks that the name of the nearer relative was Tob (cf. Rth_3:13). As if Boaz had intended to say: “If Tob will redeem thee, let him redeem.” But Ibn Ezra already found this unsuitable, and Ruth 4 makes it wholly impossible.

The Talmud (Berachoth, p. 9 a) teaches how to measure the break of day. The Mishna had decided day-break to begin when it becomes possible to distinguish between white and blue; R. Mair, when a wolf and a dog—R. akiba, when an ass and a wild ass—could be distinguished. “But others said, when one sees and recognizes another person at the distance of four ells.”

[Wright. “These words express Boaz’s opinion, which he had previously intimated to Ruth; for the use of the article (the i.e. this woman) forbids us to suppose that they were actually addressed to Ruth. The Targumist, probably influenced by this reason, and considering it un likely that Boaz should have been alone in the threshing floor, renders: “and Boaz said to his young men,” etc.—Tr.]

The Mishna (Jebamoth, ii. 8) determined that one suspected of previous intercourse with a foreigner, even though she were a convert, was not allowed to perform the duty of levirate marriage.

The measure is not given; the expression is simply “six of barley.” It made a considerable load, for he had to put it on her. The allegorical interpretation of the Midrash (in the Targum) brings out six descendants of Ruth, namely, David, Daniel, “the companions” (Dan_1:6) and “the king, Messias.” Ruth Rabba, p. 34 a, counts eight descendants with six prominent characteristics. In this case, Hezekiah and Josiah are added to the others already named.