Bible Commentaries

Ruth Seeks for Marriage with Boaz - Ruth 3

After the harvest Naomi advised Ruth to visit Boaz on a certain night, andask him to marry her as redeemer ( 3:1-5). Ruth followed this advice, andBoaz promised to fulfil her request, provided the nearer redeemer who wasstill living would not perform this duty ( 3:6-13), and sent her away inthe morning with a present of wheat, that she might not return empty toher mother-in-law ( 3:14-18). To understand the advice which Naomigave to Ruth, and which Ruth carried out, and in fact to form a correct ideaof the further course of the history generally, we must bear in mind thelegal relations which came into consideration here. According to thetheocratical rights, Jehovah was the actual owner of the land which He hadgiven to His people for an inheritance; and the Israelites themselves hadmerely the usufruct of the land which they received by lot for theirinheritance, so that the existing possessor could not part with the familyportion or sell it at his will, but it was to remain for ever in his family. When any one therefore was obliged to sell his inheritance on account ofpoverty, and actually did sell it, it was the duty of the nearest relation toredeem it as goël. But if it should not be redeemed, it came back, in the nextyear of jubilee, to its original owner or his heirs without compensation. Consequently no actual sale took place in our sense of the word, butsimply a sale of the yearly produce till the year of jubilee (see Leviticus 25:10, Leviticus 25:13-16, Leviticus 25:24-28). There was also an old customary right, which hadreceived the sanction of God, with certain limitations, through the Mosaiclaw-namely, the custom of Levirate marriage, or the marriage of a brother-in-law, which we meet with as early as Gen 38, viz., that if an Israelitewho had been married died without children, it was the duty of his brotherto marry the widow, that is to say, his sister-in-law, that he mightestablish his brother's name in Israel, by begetting a son through his sister-in-law, who should take the name of the deceased brother, that his namemight not become extinct in Israel. This son was then the legal heir of thelanded property of the deceased uncle (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5.). These twoinstitutions are not connected together in the Mosaic law; nevertheless itwas a very natural thing to place the Levirate duty in connection with theright of redemption. And this had become the traditional custom. Whereas the law merelyimposed the obligation of marrying the childless widow upon the brother,and even allowed him to renounce the obligation if he would take uponhimself the disgrace connected with such a refusal (see Deuteronomy 25:7-10);according to 4:5 of this book it had become a traditional custom torequire the Levirate marriage of the redeemer of the portion of the deceasedrelative, not only that the landed possession might be permanentlyretained in the family, but also that the family itself might not be sufferedto die out.

In the case before us Elimelech had possessed a portion at Bethlehem,which Naomi had sold from poverty ( 4:3); and Boaz, a relation ofElimelech, was the redeemer of whom Naomi hoped that he would fulfilthe duty of a redeemer - namely, that he would not only ransom thepurchased field, but marry her daughter-in-law Ruth, the widow of therightful heir of the landed possession of Elimelech, and thus through thismarriage establish the name of her deceased husband or son (Elimelech orMahlon) upon his inheritance. Led on by this hope, she advised Ruth tovisit Boaz, who had shown himself so kind and well-disposed towards her,during the night, and by a species of bold artifice, which she assumed thathe would not resist, to induce him as redeemer to grant to Ruth thisLevirate marriage. The reason why she adopted this plan for theaccomplishment of her wishes, and did not appeal to Boaz directly, or askhim to perform this duty of affection to her deceased husband, wasprobably that she was afraid lest she should fail to attain her end in thisway, partly because the duty of a Levirate marriage was not legally bindingupon the redeemer, and partly because Boaz was not so closely related toher husband that she could justly require this of him, whilst there wasactually a nearer redeemer than he ( 3:12). According to our customs, indeed, this act of Naomi and Ruth appears avery objectionable one from a moral point of view, but it was not so whenjudged by the customs of the people of Israel at that time. Boaz, who wasan honourable man, and, according to 3:10, no doubt somewhatadvanced in years, praised Ruth for having taken refuge with him, andpromised to fulfil her wishes when he had satisfied himself that the nearerredeemer would renounce his right and duty ( 3:10-11). As heacknowledge by this very declaration, that under certain circumstances itwould be his duty as redeemer to marry Ruth, he took no offence at themanner in which she had approached him and proposed to become hiswife. On the contrary, he regarded it as a proof of feminine virtue andmodesty, that she had not gone after young men, but offered herself as awife to an old man like him. This conduct on the part of Boaz is asufficient proof that women might have confidence in him that he woulddo nothing unseemly. And he justified such confidence. “The modestman,” as Bertheau observes, “even in the middle of the night did nothesitate for a moment what it was his duty to do with regard to the youngmaiden (or rather woman) towards whom he felt already so stronglyattached; he made his own personal inclinations subordinate to thetraditional custom, and only when this permitted him to marry Ruth washe ready to do so. And not knowing whether she might not have to becomethe wife of the nearer goël, he was careful for her and her reputation, inorder that he might hand her over unblemished to the man who had theundoubted right to claim her as his wife.”

3:1-2

As Naomi conjectured, from the favour which Boaz had shownto Ruth, that he might not be disinclined to marry her as goël, she said toher daughter-in-law, “My daughter, I must seek rest for thee, that it maybe well with thee.” In the question אבקּשׁ הלא, the word הלא is here, asusual, an expression of general admission or of undoubted certainty, in thesense of “Is it not true, I seek for thee? it is my duty to seek for thee.” מנוח = מנוּחה ( 1:9) signifies the conditionof a peaceful life, a peaceful and well-secured condition, “a secure lifeunder the guardian care of a husband” (Rosenmüller). “And now is notBoaz our relation, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he iswinnowing the barley floor (barley on the threshing-floor) to-night,” i.e.,till late in the night, to avail himself of the cool wind, which rises towardsevening (Genesis 3:8), for the purpose of cleansing the corn. The threshing-floors of the Israelites were, and are still in Palestine, made under the openheaven, and were nothing more than level places in the field stamped quitehard.

(Note: “A level spot is selected for the threshing-floors, which arethen constructed near each other, of a circular form, perhaps fiftyfeet in diameter, merely by beating down the earth hard.” - Robinson,Pal. ii. p. 277.)

3:3-4

“Wash and anoint thyself (סכתּ, from סוּך =נסך),and put on thy clothes (thy best clothes), and go down(from Bethlehem, which stood upon the ridge of a hill) to the threshing-floor; let not thyself be noticed by the man (Boaz) till he has finishedeating and drinking. And when he lies down, mark the place where he willsleep, and go (when he has fallen asleep) and uncover the place of his feet,and lay thyself down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.”

3:5

Ruth promised to do this. The אלי, which the Masoriteshave added to the text as Keri non scriptum, is quite unnecessary. Fromthe account which follows of the carrying out of the advice given to her,we learn that Naomi had instructed Ruth to ask Boaz to marry her as herredeemer (cf. 3:9).

Ruth went accordingly to the threshing-floor and did as her mother-in-lawhad commanded; i.e., she noticed where Boaz went to lie down to sleep,and then, when he had eaten and drunken, and lay down cheerfully, at theend of the heap of sheaves or corn, and, as we may supply from thecontext, had fallen asleep, came to him quietly, uncovered the place of hisfeet, i.e., lifted up the covering over his feet, and lay down.

About midnight the man was startled, namely, because on awaking heobserved that there was some one lying at his feet; and he “bent himself”forward, or on one side, to feel who was lying there, “and behold a womanwas lying at his feet.” מרגּלתיו is accus. loci.

In answer to his inquiry, “Who art thou?” she said, “I am Ruth, thinehandmaid; spread thy wing over thine handmaid, for thou art a redeemer.” כּנפך is a dual according to the Masoretic pointing, as wecannot look upon it as a pausal form on account of the position of theword, but it is most probably to be regarded as a singular; and thefigurative expression is not taken from birds, which spread their wingsover their young, i.e., to protect them, but refers, according to Deuteronomy 23:1; Deuteronomy 27:20, and Ezekiel 16:8, to the wing, i.e., the corner of the counterpane,referring to the fact that a man spreads this over his wife as well ashimself. Thus Ruth entreated Boaz to marry her because he was aredeemer. On this reason for the request, see the remarks in theintroduction to the chapter.

Boaz praised her conduct: “Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter (see 2:20); thou hast made thy later love better than the earlier, that thouhast not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. ” Ruth's earlier or firstlove was the love she had shown to her deceased husband and her mother-in-law (comp. 2:11, where Boaz praises this love); the later love shehad shown in the fact, that as a young widow she had not sought to winthe affections of young men, as young women generally do, that she mighthave a youthful husband, but had turned trustfully to the older man, thathe might find a successor to her deceased husband, through a marriage withhim, in accordance with family custom (vid., 4:10). “And now,”added Boaz ( 3:11), “my daughter, fear not; for all that thou sayest I willdo to thee: for the whole gate of my people (i.e., all my city, the wholepopulation of Bethlehem, who go in and out at the gate: see Genesis 34:24; Deuteronomy 17:2) knoweth that thou art a virtuous woman.” Consequently Boazsaw nothing wrong in the fact that Ruth had come to him, but regarded herrequest that he would marry her as redeemer as perfectly natural and right,and was ready to carry out her wish as soon as the circumstances wouldlegally allow it. He promised her this (vv. 12, 13), saying, “And now truly I am aredeemer; but there is a nearer redeemer than I. Stay here this night (or as itreads at the end of v. 13, 'lie till the morning'), and in the morning, if he willredeem thee, well, let him redeem; but if it does not please him to redeemthee, I will redeem thee, as truly as Jehovah liveth.” אם כּי (Kethibh, v. 12), after a strong assurance, as after the formula used in anoath, “God do so to me,” etc., 2 Samuel 3:35; 2 Samuel 15:21 (Kethibh), and 2 Kings 5:20, is to be explained from the use of this particle in the sense of nisi,except that, = only: “only I am redeemer,” equivalent to, assuredly I amredeemer (cf. Ewald, §356, b.). Consequently there is no reason whateverfor removing the אם from the text, as the Masorites have done (inthe Keri).

(Note: What the ל maju sc., in ליני signifies, is uncertain. According to the smaller Masora, it was only found among the eastern(i.e., Palestinian) Jews. Consequently Hiller (in his Arcanum Keri etCtibh, p. 163) conjectures that they used it to point out a variousreading, viz., that לנּי should be the reading here. But this is hardlycorrect.)

Ruth was to lie till morning, because she could not easily return to the cityin the dark at midnight; but, as is shown in 3:14, she did not stay tillactual daybreak, but “before one could know another, she rose up, and hesaid (i.e., as Boaz had said), It must not be known that the woman came tothe threshing-floor.” For this would have injured the reputation not only ofRuth, but also of Boaz himself.

He then said, “Bring the cloak that thou hast on, and lay hold of it” (tohold it open), and measured for her six measures of barley into it as apresent, that she might not to back empty to her mother-in-law ( 3:17). מטפּחת, here and Isaiah 3:22, is a broad upper garment, (pallium),possibly only a large shawl. “As the cloaks worn by the ancients were sofull, that one part was thrown upon the shoulder, and another gathered upunder the arm, Ruth, by holding a certain part, could receive into herbosom the corn which Boaz gave her” (Schröder, De vestit. mul. p. 264). Six (measures of) barley: the measure is not given. According to theTargum and the Rabbins, it was six seahs = two ephahs. This is certainlyincorrect; for Ruth would not have been able to carry that quantity ofbarley home. When Boaz had given her the barley he measured out, andhad sent here away, he also went into the city. This is the correctrendering, as given by the Chaldee, to the words העיר ויּבא; though Jerome referred the words to Ruth, but certainly withoutany reason, as יבא cannot stand for תּבא. This reading isno doubt found in some of the MSS, but it merely owes its origin to amistaken interpretation of the words.

When Ruth returned home, her mother-in-law asked her, “Who art thou?”i.e., as what person, in what circumstances dost thou come? The realmeaning is, What hast thou accomplished? Whereupon she related all thatthe man had done (cf. 3:10-14), and that he had given her six measures ofbarley for her mother. The Masorites have supplied אלי afterאמר, as at 3:5, but without any necessity. The mother-in-lawdrew from this the hope that Boaz would now certainly carry out thematter to the desired end. “Sit still,” i.e., remain quietly at home (see Genesis 38:11), “till thou hearest how the affair turn out,” namely, whether thenearer redeemer mentioned by Boaz, or Boaz himself, would grant her theLevirate marriage. The expression “fall,” in this sense, is founded upon theidea of the falling of the lot to the ground; it is different in Ezra 7:20. “Forthe man will not rest unless he has carried the affair to an end this day.” כּי־אם, except that, as in Leviticus 22:6, etc. (see Ewald, §356, b).