Megillat Rut consists of four chapters describing a specific period in the history of the Jewish people, and primarily the formation and initial emergence of the kingdom of the House of David and of Mashiach ben David. While this is not the absolute beginning - since that beginning lies somewhere back in Sodom, with Lot - the Megillah describes that era to us, and by what merit a female convert was privileged to become the mother of royalty, the House of David and the messianic dynasty for all eternity. Megillat Rut was written by the prophet Shmuel, as the period described in it immediately preceded him.
וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בִּשְׂדֵי מוֹאָב הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָנָיו׃ - "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land; and a man went from Beit Lechem of Yehudah to dwell in the fields of Moav, he, his wife, and his two sons."
What is meant by "in the days when the judges judged"? There are several explanations. The well-known explanation of Chazal is that it was an era in which the people judged their judges - testimony to a profoundly degenerate generation. The Malbim explains that the verse comes to describe what motivated Elimelech to leave his entire family and go down to live in the fields of Moav. In those days, "there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes," and there was not even a single judge leading the nation. For had there been a single judge, there would have been leadership and authority, and everyone would have heeded him. But at that time it was "the judging of the judges" - a transition between judges, a multiplicity of judges, each vying for power. It was a state of anarchy, disorder, and lack of governance, with no single judge to restrain the people. And were it not for the fear of authority, people would swallow each other alive. Regarding this, Chazal said: Woe to a generation that judges its judges - for it lacked a single, authoritative judge whom everyone obeyed. This was the first reason that prompted Elimelech to leave the Land.
The second reason: "There was a famine in the land." In times of famine, when people have nothing to eat, where do they turn? To places where food is to be found, namely, the homes of the wealthy. They would arrive at their houses, and if the rich man refused to give - "Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger." What would they do? They would break in and take by force, seeing their wives and children perishing of hunger. What can a starving person do and not sin? They would go and seize food by force, for there was neither king nor judge in the nation. Here the two reasons converge: since there was no judge to restrain the people and no governmental power to enforce order, the starving would naturally come during the famine to rob and loot, even targeting the wealthy.
Therefore, "a man went from Beit Lechem of Yehudah to dwell in the fields of Moav." Elimelech was a wealthy man who feared that the poor would descend upon him and strip him of all his wealth, and so he went to live in the fields of Moav. The Malbim notes a precision in the language: he did not go to settle permanently, but "to dwell [lagur]" - in the sense of "I am a stranger [ger] in the land," staying there only temporarily. Nor did he go to live in a city, but rather "in the fields of Moav," like someone staying in an open field, where a person does not settle down permanently but stays only on a temporary basis.
Furthermore, Scripture reveals his disgrace: "And a man went" - only one single man! None of the other wealthy individuals left the Land of Israel. Had there been a mass exodus, with everyone fleeing, one might have argued that he simply fled along with the rest. But here, he went alone.
Even the members of his household did not leave willingly. For Scripture separates them: "And a man went from Beit Lechem of Yehudah to dwell in the fields of Moav, he, his wife, and his two sons," rather than stating, "And a man, his wife, and his two sons went to dwell in the fields of Moav." This indicates that they were merely subordinate and dragged along. The Malbim explains that this is what the verse teaches us: the members of Elimelech's household did not leave of their own accord, but were compelled to follow him. So too the Midrash states: "'He, his wife, and his two sons' - he was the primary figure, and his wife was secondary to him." That is to say, from the outset Naomi had no desire to leave.
The Midrash says: Elimelech was the leader of the generation. He thought to himself: Now all of Israel will come early to my doorstep - so he got up and fled. Chazal also note that he was called "from Beit Lechem" because his home was full of bread (lechem), and he had enough sustenance for many people. But he feared that all the "nuisances," in quotes, would come knocking at his door, and so he rose, fled, and escaped to the fields of Moav.
A story is told of one of the great Torah leaders who was appointed rabbi of a town. He made a condition with them that they should not summon him to meetings unless they were instituting a new ordinance in the town, so that he would not be interrupted from his studies. One day they called him, saying: We have a new ordinance. The poor are constantly knocking on our doors, and it is a great nuisance; every few minutes one must go to the door and give tzedakah. Therefore, we have decided to set up a central collection point where the poor will gather and their needs will be distributed. The rabbi said to them: Did we not agree that you would not call me for an ordinance that already exists in the Four Lands? They asked him: Where does it appear? It is not in our ledger! He replied: It certainly appears! It is an ancient ordinance of Sedom and Amorah, Admah and Tzevoyim - this ordinance is already recorded in their ledgers; you are not innovating anything. They understood the message and disbanded the gathering. An ordinance to ensure that the poor do not come collecting tzedakah - that is an ordinance of the people of Sedom.
The Midrash adds: There were two famines - one of Torah and one of bread. In that generation there was both a famine for Torah, for they were unlearned folk, and a famine of bread, as they had no food. The Malbim explains this based on what Chazal taught: Whoever turns his eyes away from tzedakah is considered as though he worships idols - a terrifying concept, as though he served an idol. And they further stated: Whoever does not engage in acts of loving-kindness is likened to one who has no God.
Now, what is the difference between the two, such that one who turns his eyes away from tzedakah is considered like an actual idolater, whereas one who does not engage in acts of loving-kindness is merely likened to one who has no God, which is less severe? Rav Hai Gaon explains: "Turns his eyes away" means that the poor person arrives and knocks on the door, and the host looks through the peephole, sees that it is a pauper, and says, "I did not see anyone" - he turns his eyes away and walks off. That is extremely grave, as if he worshiped idols. But "one who does not engage in acts of loving-kindness" does not refer to a case where the pauper was already at his door and he refused him; rather, it refers to the duty a person has to pursue the poor in order to give to them, yet he does not actively seek them out to merit the mitzvah of tzedakah. Such a person is not considered quite as severe, but is likened to one who has no God. For you should have understood that the mitzvah of tzedakah is so great and vital that it is worth searching for a poor person, rather than saying, "He did not come to me; why didn't he ask?" - do you not know that he is in dire straits? You ought to go to him.
Furthermore, Chazal said: Whoever lives outside the Land of Israel is likened to one who has no God, as it is stated: "They have driven me out today from joining the inheritance of Hashem" - once driven out of the Land, he is no longer in the inheritance of Hashem and is considered like one who has no God.
It turns out, then, that had the poor not been knocking early at his door, he would not have left for outside the Land. Yet at first glance, this is difficult to understand: by not actively engaging in tzedakah and not pursuing the poor, one is likened to someone who has no God; and leaving the Land of Israel is likewise likened to someone who has no God. If so, let him stay here and not give - why leave the Land? The fault is the same: over there you are considered like one who has no God because you live outside the Land, and even though you have no one to pursue for tzedakah, you are still considered like one who has no God.
Rather, says the Malbim, the situation here was far worse: If I sit in my house and they knock on my door and come to me, and I close the peephole and look away, this is not merely like one who has no God, but like an actual idolater, for one who turns his eyes away from tzedakah is judged far more severely. And what is preferable: to leave the Land and merely be considered like one who has no God, or to stay here, actively turn a blind eye to the pauper standing before me, and be considered like an idolater? Better to go abroad.
And this is where the two famines come into play. Chazal state that a tzurva merabbanan, a Torah scholar, does not become impoverished. The Gemara asks: But haven't we seen a Torah scholar become poor? It answers: Poor, yes; but coming to the point of begging door-to-door, to such degradation he never descends, for Heaven ensures he does not sink to that level. The Malbim explains: Now connect the pieces. Had there not been a famine of Torah, people would not have gone begging door-to-door, since as Torah scholars they would never have reached that depth. And if they were not begging door-to-door, Elimelech would not have stumbled into the sin of turning his eyes away from tzedakah; his only failing would have been failing to seek them out and give to them, and one who does not engage in acts of loving-kindness is likened only to one who has no God, not an idolater. However, because there was also a famine of Torah and they were not scholars, they were forced to beg door-to-door. This placed Elimelech in the position of turning his eyes away from tzedakah, which is equated with idolatry. Hence his calculation: Better to go abroad and be likened to one who has no God, than to remain in the Land, withhold tzedakah, and be regarded as an idolater.
Yet this is not meant to vindicate Elimelech, for this entire calculation was completely flawed from the start: Give tzedakah, and you will be neither like one who has no God, nor like an idolater, nor anything of the sort! When they knock on the door, open your home wide and sustain the poor according to your capacity and means.
Chazal say: Who was Boaz? He was Ivtzan. This is why it says, "in the days when the judges judged" - in the days of the judge named Ivtzan, who is Boaz. For one who examines Sefer Shoftim or Sefer Shmuel finds no hint of Megillat Rut and this era, and therefore they teach us that Ivtzan is Boaz. And why was his name called Boaz? We shall see this later on.
And why did he go specifically to the fields of Moav? Were there no other places? Chazal say: Not for nothing did the starling go to the raven, but because it is of its own kind. The Moabites were tightfisted and did not greet us with bread and water, and there he found good company, the company of people of the same kind. May Hashem protect us.
וְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ אֱלִימֶלֶךְ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ נָעֳמִי וְשֵׁם שְׁנֵי בָנָיו מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן אֶפְרָתִים מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׂדֵי מוֹאָב וַיִּהְיוּ שָׁם׃ - The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Machlon and Chilyon, Ephrathites of Beit Lechem in Yehudah. And they came to the fields of Moav, and remained there.
The verse teaches us that this man was well known and prominent, and not only he, but his wife too was renowned by the name Naomi, and his two sons Machlon and Chilyon were men of renown and prominent figures. This in itself was part of what drove him to leave: an anonymous rich person is not troubled by many, but a well-known person whose name is widely recognized - anyone in distress or hardship turns to him immediately. This too was among the factors that motivated Elimelech to leave the Land.
This is also the reason he was punished so severely, as we will see later on. An ordinary, unknown individual - his sins are private sins. But when a prominent and famous person commits a disgraceful act, his action causes demoralization across the entire nation and a desecration of Hashem's Name (Chilul Hashem) throughout Klal Yisrael. Therefore, his action was not a private matter, but a communal one that impacted the public. For this reason, when Naomi returns, we see what astonishment grips all the people who see her - teaching us that this was not a private matter between him and his Creator, but an act that brought with it a Chilul Hashem.
What is the meaning of "Ephrathites of Beit Lechem in Yehudah"? After all, Ephrathites means from Ephrat, and Beit Lechem Yehudah is Beit Lechem, so why does it include both? The Malbim explains: Beit Lechem was originally called Ephrat, and Yehudah is the name of the region. At first it was called Ephrat and later Beit Lechem, as it is written, "and was buried there on the way to Ephrat, which is Beit Lechem." Furthermore, he belonged to a distinguished family of the tribe of Yehudah, for members of the tribe of Yehudah were called Ephrathites after Calev's wife, whose name was Ephrat, and she was a great and important woman. Rashi also explains that Ephrathim is an expression of nobility - an Ephrati means an important person. Thus, the verse informs us that he was among the most distinguished and prominent men in Beit Lechem in Yehudah.
Seemingly, if they came to the fields of Moav, they were certainly there, so what does "and remained there" add? Rather, at first "they came to the fields of Moav" - as we explained regarding the word field: one does not build a palace, but sits in the field in some makeshift booth, temporarily, as a transient resident. That is how it begins. But afterward, "and remained there" - they decided that this was it, "Here will I dwell, for I have desired it," and established their permanent residence there. Because of this, the divine grievance against them was so severe, as we will see later on.
The Gemara tells us that Rabbi Meir would expound the meanings of names. Elimelech - for he would say, "To me royalty shall come," desiring rulership. And his wife's name was Naomi - for her deeds were pleasant. If so, why was she punished? Because she did not protest against her husband, when she was obligated to protest. Mahlon and Chilion - for they were blotted out (nimchu) and perished (kalu) from the world. Each name corresponded fully to their deeds, and this befell them due to their sins, as we will see further on.
The opening of the Megillah depicts a generation without leadership, where famine breeds theft, and a prominent, wealthy, and renowned man chooses to flee responsibility rather than open his storehouses. His calculation was clever - better to be like one who has no God outside the Land than to be like an idolater in the Land - yet this calculation was fundamentally flawed, for it was within his power to give tzedakah and be spared from all of this. Because he was a prominent figure, his private act turned into a public Chillul Hashem, and once he transitioned from "and they came" to "and they remained there," his decree was sealed. The family's names all bear witness to this trajectory: Elimelech who sought kingship, Naomi who failed to protest, and Mahlon and Chilion who were blotted out and vanished from the world.