b. Boaz’ provision for Ruth (2:4–17)
b. Boaz’ provision for Ruth (2:4–17)
Boaz had heard of Ruth’s kindness to Naomi, and when he found her gleaning in his part of the field he took steps to see that she should work unmolested.
4. Behold brings a touch of vividness to the narrative. The author sees the events happening (cf. Berkeley, Then, look …). The verb rendered came could be either the participle, in which case the writer sees Boaz ‘coming’ from the town, or the perfect, when he would be thinking of him as having arrived. Perhaps the latter is a little more likely so that AV gives the sense of it. Boaz evidently lived in Bethlehem, and came out to the scene of labour after the reapers had started their work. He seems to have been one of those who believe that their religious faith should enter their daily work, for his greeting to his employees was The Lord be with you (the Syriac reads ‘Peace be with you’). This elicited the kindred response, The Lord bless thee (AV, RV). There is nothing to show that this form of greeting was considered unusual, but it does not appear to be attested elsewhere. If it was a conventional greeting we should not read too much into it (cf. our ‘Goodbye’, which retains little of its original religious flavour).
5. Boaz’ attention was immediately attracted by Ruth. He addressed a question about her to his ‘boy’ set over the reapers. The word rendered servant has quite a wide range of meaning. It can denote a baby (Exod. 2:6) or a lad seventeen years old (Gen. 37:2). But it can also mean a servant (as in other languages). Indeed this is a very frequent use of the term. It is not without its interest that damsel (AV, RV) is the feminine form of the same word, a wordplay impossible to reproduce in English. The feminine usually refers to an unmarried woman. An exception occurs in 4:12, where it is used of Ruth by the elders, though they know her to have been married. We should take it here as general, i.e. ‘young woman’. Boaz assumes that Ruth is a servant girl, but he does not recognize her. So he inquires as to her owner.
6. His boy answers that she is the (so LXX; the Hebrew has no article) Moabite girl who returned with Naomi from ‘the field of Moab’. For this expression see note on 1:1. The expression that came back (AV, RV) is the same as that rendered ‘which returned’ in 1:22 (see note on this). We should probably take it as a participle with the article, to give the meaning, ‘a Moabite young woman, the one who came back with Naomi’. She is first described as ‘a’ Moabite, then as ‘the’ one which came with Naomi.
7. The boy’s report continues. Ruth had asked him, he said, to let her glean and gather among the sheaves (this latter is lacking in the Syriac and Vulg.). This implies more than simply going over the field after the reapers. It indicates that anything that fell from the sheaves (though originally gathered by the reapers) was regarded as belonging to the gleaners. There is a difficulty in that gleaning among the sheaves is regarded as a special favour (verse 15) and Ruth would scarcely have sought more than the common lot of gleaners. Joüon thinks of a bĕ participatif as in verse 2, and he vocalizes the consonants ‘mrym to read ‘ămîrîm, ‘stalks’, instead of MT, ‘ŏmārîm, ‘sheaves’. This makes the verse rather like verse 2, and may be the sense of it. The boy comments on Ruth’s persistence. She came (this verb may indicate that the conversation took place some distance from where the reaping was being done) in the morning and continued right up till the time of speaking (though, of course, we do not know what time of day that was). Evidently he had taken good notice of Ruth, for he had observed that she spent a short time in the house (AV, RV). There are difficulties about the last part of this verse. One concerns the meaning of the house. Knox and FF take it to mean Ruth’s own home, but one would have thought that that would be too far off for a short rest, which is what is envisaged. If the word be read, it is better to think of a house, perhaps a temporary shelter, adjacent to the field being reaped. It is unlikely to mean a regular house in such a situation, for houses tended to be grouped for protection, with the fields outside the villages. An isolated house would be unusual. But then there are textual difficulties. Literally the Hebrew reads ‘this her sitting the house a little’. AV and RV make as good sense of this as seems possible. But the versions presuppose a different text. LXX reads, ‘from morning to evening she did not rest in the field a little’, and Vulg., ‘and she did not return home’, while the Syriac omits some of the words. The commentators adopt various conjectures. Thus Gerleman omits the house (thinking the word has been inserted by dittography) and removes zeh (‘this’) by taking it closely with the preceding ‘attâ (‘just now’). The result is ‘from morning until just now she has rested only a little’. Joüon replaces zeh with lō (as LXX), points the next word šābĕtâ instead of MT, šibtāh, and alters habbayit to šabbāt to give the sense ‘she has not allowed herself (even) a little rest’. A different meaning is assigned to the Hebrew text by Lattey, who renders, ‘Her dwelling in her present home hath been but short.’ This has the advantage of sticking to the Hebrew text, but the disadvantage of appearing to be irrelevant. Wright takes zeh to mean the present state of affairs: ‘This her sitting in the house has been but for a little’, which he paraphrases as, ‘she has been sitting in the house, as you see her now, only for a short time.’ House on this view denotes a tent or other temporary shelter provided for the convenience of the workers. L. P. Smith in IB takes a similar view, but if there were such a shelter one would perhaps have expected it to be mentioned in verse 14. The resolution of the difficulty is not easy. Though the Hebrew text is difficult it seems better to rely on it than on the versions (which introduce difficulties of their own). Thus, whatever be the decision on minor points, the meaning of the words will be as AV. Ruth has worked hard all the morning, but she did take one short rest.
8. Boaz now addresses Ruth. His Hearest thou not, my daughter? (AV, RV) secures her attention for what follows. The verb šāma‘ sometimes means ‘understand’ and not simply ‘hear’ (as in Gen. 11:7; 42:23) and this may well be the case here. The form of the question looks for an affirmative answer. The form of address, my daughter, points to a disparity of ages. He instructs her not to glean elsewhere. Neither go (AV) represents an emphatic prohibition in the Hebrew (lō’ rather than ‘al). This seems to imply that there might be advantages for the gleaner in moving about from one farmer’s crop to that of another. Boaz, however, takes steps to ensure that Ruth will be better off by remaining in this part of the field. He now gives her a direction to remain with his maidservants. This apparently indicates some form of status in Boaz’ household. The verb rendered abide (AV, RV) is here followed by an unusual preposition (dābaq ‘im), a construction found only here and in verse 21, both times ascribed to Boaz. Joüon thinks this a provincialism or solecism which the author himself does not employ, for he uses the correct bĕ (1:14; 2:23). It is a piece of local colour as being the way Boaz would speak. The word rendered here in the AV, RV (kōh) is unexpected in view of the preceding from hence (RV), but it is arbitrary with Joüon to alter to kî, ‘but’, and drop the wĕ.
9. Boaz tells Ruth to keep her eyes on the field which they are reaping and to go after them. Them is feminine in form and it indicates that Boaz’ maidens had some function to perform in the reaping. Perhaps the men cut the crop and the girls tied the bundles. Alternatively, the maidens did some reaping, the masculine verb reap being used of the feminine (as in 1:8). Men and women normally worked together at harvest. There was an urgency about the task that demanded the fullest effort from everybody. Joüon thinks the feminine form a textual error. He argues that had there been maidens Ruth should have drunk with them and not the men (but this verse does not speak of drinking with the men, only of drinking what the men have drawn), that she should have sat with the maidens rather than the men (verse 14), and that when Ruth is reporting these same words of Boaz she uses the masculine (verse 21). But the feminine form occurs a number of times (8, 9, 22, 23; 3:2) and accidental error seems an impossible explanation in every case. It is better to take the natural meaning and see a reference to young women. Boaz further encourages Ruth by letting her know that he has given orders to the young men not to molest her. One can imagine that the enthusiasm of the gleaners would cause them to encroach on the legitimate property of the owners of the crops unless they were checked, and that accordingly the reapers might repulse, by force, if necessary, any who came too near before the owners were through. Ruth would know this and keep her distance. Boaz’ instruction to Ruth enabled her to work close to the reapers in a position specially favourable for gleaning. But this very position exposed her to the possibility of rude jests and even mishandling from the workmen. He now tells her that he has guarded against this by giving instructions to the reapers that they were to leave her alone. His order would allow her to approach before other gleaners and thus ensure that she obtained a good reward for her labours, and this without being treated disrespectfully. But Boaz’ kindness does not stop there. Ruth is bidden help herself when she is thirsty from what the young men have drawn. The liquid is not specified, but probably water is meant (though Joüon thinks of wine, or a mixture of water and wine). This would be a valuable provision, for gleaning in the heat of harvest-time would be thirsty work, and no doubt the water so laboriously drawn and carried to the place of reaping would be jealously guarded from all but those entitled to make use of it. Valuable time would be lost if a gleaner had to draw her own water. Boaz was going out of his way to be kind to Ruth.
10. Ruth prostrated herself before Boaz in token of humility and gratitude. She recognized that Boaz was doing more than was in strictness required and she was grateful accordingly. But she did not presume on his kindness, being content to take a lowly place. Still, she was not without her curiosity and she inquired why Boaz should show her such signal favour though she was but a foreigner.
11. Boaz replied that it had certainly been told him (the infinitive absolute strengthens the idea of the verb: fully) all that she had done for Naomi. In strictness his word is ‘with’ not for your mother-in-law, so that Boaz may mean that Ruth had been helping Naomi as the two worked together. Boaz is also impressed with Ruth’s sacrifice in leaving parents and native land (this expression means ‘land of your kindred’; the strong family sense should be noted: the emphasis is on the relations rather than one’s birth or the like). Was he reminded of the faith of the great ancestor of his race, Abraham, who left his country and his kindred in obedience to the divine command (Gen. 12:1)? Whether Boaz had this in mind or not it seems likely that the author of the book did. He makes no express mention of Abraham, but Ruth, like the patriarch, went out not knowing whither she went. And like Abraham she trusted Yahweh. Again, Abraham was accompanied only by his wife who was designated ‘barren’ (Gen. 11:30; Lot was also with him, but was soon to leave him). Yet God in a wonderful way was to give them a child, and God in a wonderful way was to give Ruth a child. Leaving her own, Ruth has come to a people she did not previously know. The Hebrew expression means literally ‘yesterday, the day before that’, i.e. it indicates that Ruth’s knowledge of this people was very recent indeed. According to Gerleman the Targum on this verse (which, of course, is very late) has an ingenious solution of the difficulty of Ruth’s acceptance into the Israelite community despite Deuteronomy 23:3f. Boaz discovers ‘through the words of the sages’ that the prohibition applies to men, but not to women!
12. Boaz concludes with a little prayer for Ruth. He has recognized that Ruth has shown kindness to Naomi, and now he prays that Yahweh will recompense Ruth for this. Despite the ‘all’ of the previous verse, thy work is singular. The noun incidentally is poetic, being rarely found in prose (though cf. 2 Sam. 23:20; 1 Chr. 11:22). This is in mind in the second part of his prayer, too. Reward with us has associations of free bounty, but the Hebrew maśkōret denotes rather ‘wages’. Ruth has deserved well, Boaz thinks, and he trusts that Yahweh, God of Israel, will pay her wage in full. In due course, the prayer was answered through him who uttered it. He recognizes the religious aspect of Ruth’s change of country by saying that she has come to trust (AV) under Yahweh’s wings. The imagery is probably that of a tiny bird snuggling under the wings of a foster-mother. It gives a vivid picture of trust and security (cf. Ps. 17:8; 36:7; 63:7), though from the similar language of Psalm 91:4 in a bellicose context some have drawn the conclusion that it is something like a huge shield that is meant. However, that hardly fits the present passage, and in any case would itself have been derived from the bird imagery.
13. Ruth’s reply acknowledges her appreciation of Boaz’ kindness. You are most gracious to me, my lord (RSV) expresses the thought better than Let me find favour in thy sight, my lord (AV), though the latter may be defended as a literal rendering. But Ruth is not imploring Boaz to be kind. She is saying how glad she is that he is kind (Gerleman, Rudolph and others think her words are almost equivalent to ‘Thank you’; the expression has something like this meaning in Gen. 33:15; 1 Sam. 1:18). Boaz’ words must have meant a great deal to her. They represent the first cheerful thing recorded as happening to her since the death of her husband in Moab. She had had to face widowhood, exile from her own land and people, and in Israel grinding poverty. Her kind reception at the hands of Boaz represents a landmark. Ruth puts this in two ways. Boaz has comforted her. Doubtless she had been somewhat apprehensive as she started the day’s gleaning in a strange land and among strange people where her knowledge of the customs was limited and her reception was unpredictable. Boaz’ words and his whole attitude must have been indeed a comfort to her. Then she says thou hast spoken friendly unto thine handmaid (AV). This reflects a Hebrew idiom which literally means ‘spoken to the heart of …’. It is a graphic way of saying that the words were kind. And Boaz has done all this though Ruth is not as one of his own maids. How she differed is not said, but the different nationality is sufficient explanation. The word for handmaid, šipḥâ, differs from ’āmâ (used in 3:9) as being the more menial. But Ruth in her humility does not even claim a place with Boaz’ handmaidens.
14. The Hebrew here is ambiguous. It could mean that Boaz addressed Ruth at mealtime (so RV and RSV), or it could mean that he said ‘At mealtime …’ (so AV). There is nothing to decide the point finally. Boaz’ invitation to Ruth was that she should share in the meal with his party (which perhaps makes it more likely that RSV and RV are correct). Joüon points out that the accents favour this meaning, since there is a stronger accent on hā’ōkel, ‘meal’, than on the name Boaz, indicating a slight pause after mealtime. Its simple nature is shown by the invitation to eat of the bread and dip her morsel in the vinegar, and by the reference to parched grain. This latter consisted of fresh ears taken from the new crop and roasted in a pan. W. M. Thomson describes it in this way: ‘a quantity of the best ears, not too ripe, are plucked with the stalks attached. These are tied into small parcels, a blazing fire is kindled with dry grass and thorn bushes, and the corn-heads are held in it until the chaff is mostly burned off. The grain is thus sufficiently roasted to be eaten, and it is a favourite article all over the country.’2 Her place beside the reapers showed that she was accepted as one of the party and Boaz’ act in passing the parched grain was, it would seem, a mark of special favour. But it was more than a courteous gesture, for our narrator makes the point that Ruth had all she wanted to eat and still had food left over. Boaz gave her a substantial quantity.
The word rendered reached (AV, RV) is unusual and its meaning is not certain. Gerleman thinks it may have some special meaning connected with the preparation of food. LXX takes it to mean ‘heaped up’, a word it uses in 2:16 to translate a different expression. Joüon similarly thinks it means that Boaz ‘made a heap’.
15. After the meal Ruth returned to her task. But her way was made easier by an instruction from Boaz to his young men to let her glean even among the sheaves and not humiliate her. He gave them the instruction personally and did not content himself with an order to the overseer. There was obvious danger in allowing the gleaners in general to come too close to the sheaves, but Boaz was prepared to allow Ruth this special privilege. The law gave the gleaners the right to go over the field after the reapers. But that is the point. They must do so only after the reapers had finished their work and had taken all they wanted from the field. Boaz was now going beyond the legal rights of the gleaners and allowing Ruth to glean before the reapers were through. This point will stand even if with Joüon we vocalize the word translated sheaves so as to read ‘Those who made the sheaves’.
16. He went further. He instructed his young men to pull out something for her from the bundles (RV, RSV ṣĕbātîm, rendered handfuls [AV], probably differs from ‘sheaves’ as denoting bundles not yet tied up), and leave them for her. AV goes on that she may glean them, but we should probably not translate as a clause of purpose.3 Rather Boaz is simply saying what will happen, ‘and when she gleans do not reprimand her’.
17. Ruth completed her day’s work, labouring until the evening. Then she beat out the grain she had gleaned and discovered that it amounted to about an ephah of barley (an ephah was about four gallons). Barley is plural in the Hebrew, the thought perhaps being that of a multitude of grains. The amount is large for a gleaner (cf. Naomi’s reaction, 2:19), which probably means both that Boaz’ servants had obeyed his instructions and that Ruth had worked hard.