Chapter 1 of Megillat Rut describes a chain of descents: a family from Beit Lechem Yehudah that goes down to the fields of Moav, settles there, marries Moabite women, and loses both its wealth and its lives. In the section before us, we follow the continuation of the descent - the death of Elimelech, the marriage of the sons, their deaths, and the beginning of Naomi's return to Eretz Yisrael. We will follow the order of the pesukim according to the explanations of the Malbim, adding the insights of Chazal and the Midrashim.
וַיָּמָת אֱלִימֶלֶךְ אִישׁ נָעֳמִי וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הִיא וּשְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ׃ - And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died, and she remained, she and her two sons.
Elimelech died. Why specifically he, and not Naomi or the sons? In the previous pasuk we already saw "and they were there" - he made the decision to settle outside the Land. Regarding this, the text says "Naomi's husband": he was the man, the ruler of the household, and therefore the sin is attributed to him. Naomi was there because of him, not he because of her, and therefore he was the one punished.
Chazal say that at first, the Holy One, blessed is He, punished him in his wealth, and only afterward in life, for the Master of Mercy does not strike souls first. This itself is alluded to in the phrase "Naomi's husband." A great and wealthy man like Elimelech was renowned for his riches and stature. Had he passed away in Eretz Yisrael, they would have said: Elimelech, the leader of the generation, the judge of Israel, the greatest of the generation, Elimelech the wealthy has died; "Woe to the generation that has lost, woe to the ship that has lost its captain." But first his wealth was stripped away - he was no longer the great magnate; then he went down to the fields of Moav, a place where he was completely unknown. And when he passed away, how was he identified? "Who is this? This is Naomi's husband." Look at the low level to which he fell: his wife was more famous than he, and his name was defined by hers.
Regarding "and she remained, she and her two sons," Chazal say: she became like the remnants of the meal offering (*sheyarei menachot*). The Malbim asks: the term "remnants" applies only when the majority is taken and a minority is left behind. You cannot take one orange from a full crate and call the rest "what remains." Here, one passed away and three remained - so how can the verse refer to them as a remnant?
The answer comes from the meal offering itself: the Kohen takes only a single handful - "and he shall take a handful from it" - and all the rest, which is the vast majority, is called "the remnants of the meal offering." Why? Because remnants can be defined by stature and importance. The essence of the minchah is the handful offered on high, and therefore all that is left over, even though it is the majority, is considered remnants. So too here: the essence of the household was Elimelech, and once he died - those remaining, even though they were the majority, were in the status of remnants.
From the phrasing "And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died," Chazal derived an observation that is deeply true to anyone familiar with reality: a man dies only to his wife, and a woman dies only to her husband. And they were precise in their wording - they did not say "over his wife," but "to his wife." When a man passes away, his mother grieves, his father weeps, the children cry - and that is all true. But after a month, two months, half a year, who truly suffers? The wife. The parents move on, the children certainly move on, while she feels the absence anew every single day: if my husband were here I would do this, on this holiday we would have done that. And likewise the reverse: when a woman passes away - the husband is the one who feels her absence at every moment and every hour more than anyone else.
וַיִּשְׂאוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מֹאֲבִיּוֹת שֵׁם הָאַחַת עָרְפָּה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית רוּת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם כְּעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים׃ - And they took for themselves Moavite wives; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Rut, and they lived there for about ten years.
Here, the Malbim explains, we see another downward step. It was not enough that they settled down; the sons went on to marry Moavite women without converting them. The proof: whenever a gentile converted, their name was changed, yet here they retained their gentile names - Orpah and Rut.
This is particularly evident from the wording "vayis'u" ("and they took/bore"). There is a precise distinction between "vayikchu lahem nashim" ("they took wives for themselves") and "vayis'u lahem nashim". The Gemara explains: the language of likuchin (taking) refers to marriage conducted properly according to Halachah - "When a man takes (ki yikach) a wife" - he effects Halachic acquisition (likuchin). With a gentile woman, however, there is no valid Halachic marriage (likuchin), no legal acquisition, and no true bond; therefore, Scripture uses only the term of nesi'ah (bearing or carrying). Just as one cannot say "I married an animal," so too Halachic marriage does not apply to a gentile woman: there is no union and no Halachic attachment. We find similarly in the Books of Ezra and Nechemiah that concerning the people returning from exile it says they *bore* (married) foreign wives, not that they "took" them. In contrast, regarding Shimshon, who said to his father concerning a Philistine woman, "Take her (otah kach) for me," the Rambam derives that Shimshon's wives were converts, for the term "take" (kach) indicates that Halachic marriage applies to her.
From this the Malbim raises a question: We established that the sign of their gentile status was that their names were not changed, yet Rut did not change her name even after she converted, for nowhere do we find her called by any other name! Concerning this, the Gemara asks, "Mai Rut?" - why was she called Rut? After all, a female convert is expected to change her name from a gentile one to a Jewish one. The Gemara answers that they did not change her name because the name "Rut" alludes to reviyah (satiation) - that from her would descend King David, who satiated the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises.
All this is according to the plain meaning (peshat). According to the holy Zohar, however, "Rut" is indeed a Jewish name, and throughout the Megillah she is referred to by her post-conversion Jewish name. In reality, she did have a gentile name beforehand, but the author of the Megillah no longer mentions it, as he is describing a well-known figure - and she was certainly famous in the days of Shmuel, for Rut lived a remarkably long life, surviving into the reign of King Shlomo and seeing him sit upon the royal throne. And what was her original name? The Zohar relates, and so answered the son of Rabbi Yose: I heard that her previous name was Gilit. To all those trivia enthusiasts who ask, "What was the name of Avraham Avinu's mother?", ask them instead: What was Rut's name before she converted?
The Malbim notes with precision: Kilyon, the younger brother, was the one who initiated the transgression and took Orpah. This in itself showed a lack of proper conduct (derech eretz) - why should the younger brother jump ahead and marry before the firstborn? "It is not done so in our place." Furthermore, had Machlon married first, there might have been room to judge favorably - perhaps he saw Rut's modesty and fine character, and Kilyon followed suit, thinking: My older brother married a worthy woman and prospered, so I will do the same. But here the reality was reversed. The younger brother went and took Orpah, who was no great prize at all, as we will see later from her corrupted deeds and the wicked descendants that came from her - Golyat descended from her. Machlon, the older brother, should have learned a lesson, seeing the pitfall into which his brother fell, and stayed away; yet despite this, he went and married a gentile woman. Through this, one can understand why the Divine stricture against them was so severe.
Ten years - this was already a permanent settlement. They had cast anchor, were living there full-time, registered in the population registry, and collecting national insurance. Our Sages teach that Rut and Orpah were both daughters of Eglon, king of Moav. Some explain that this does not mean literal daughters, for chronologically it is difficult to link them directly to him, as his era was much earlier; rather, the intent is that they were direct descendants of Eglon, king of Moav.
Orpah - why was she called this? Because she turned her back (oref) upon her mother-in-law. And she married Kilyon, whose name signifies destruction (kelayah). And Rut - why was she called Rut? Before her conversion she was bound by the seven Noahide laws, whereas as a Jewish woman she was commanded in the 613; thus, 606 mitzvot were added to her, which is the numerical value (gematria) of "Rut" (200 + 6 + 400 = 606). According to this, the Gemara's question, "Mai Rut?", is well understood: if she was named for the 606 mitzvot, she ought to have been called by a name that directly signifies that number - Taro (תר"ו). Rather, they also wished to hint that King David would descend from her, "Rut" being related to ravot (abundance) and reviyah (satiation), for he satiated the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises. Another interpretation: Rut comes from the language of inheritance, like yeruta in Aramaic, for she inherited the kingdom of the House of David in this world and merited life in the World to Come as well. The holy Zohar teaches: Rut is related to tor (turtledove) and nestling, for she was as pure and kosher as a dove and a fledgeling; and the Zohar further teaches: Rut is an expression of retet (trembling), for she felt profound awe and trembling before the Holy One, Blessed be He. Therefore, it was specifically she who married Machlon, as Machlon signifies the forgiveness of sins (mechilah), and not Kilyon, whose name signifies destruction.
וַיָּמֻתוּ גַם שְׁנֵיהֶם מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הָאִשָּׁה מִשְּׁנֵי יְלָדֶיהָ וּמֵאִישָׁהּ׃ - "And both of them died, Machlon and Chilyon, and the woman was left bereaved of her two children and of her husband."
They too were punished. First the elder son died, because he should have protested against his younger brother who went and married Orpah; he died both for the younger brother's transgression and for failing to protest against him. And what is meant by "both of them" [literally "also both of them"] - what does this come to include? Chazal explain: first their wealth was lost, and only afterward did they die, for the Merciful One does not strike souls first. Their father's lesson - who first lost his fortune and then his life - was not enough for them, and they followed the exact same path.
"And the woman was left" - she did not take part in their sin. As we noted, she was coerced by her husband's word to descend to the fields of Moav, and therefore she was not punished. The Malbim adds: her intention was always to return to the Land of Israel, and therefore she was not punished for remaining outside the Land.
וַתָּקָם הִיא וְכַלֹּתֶיהָ וַתָּשָׁב מִשְּׂדֵי מוֹאָב כִּי שָׁמְעָה בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב כִּי פָקַד יְהֹוָה אֶת עַמּוֹ לָתֵת לָהֶם לָחֶם׃ - "Then she arose with her daughters-in-law and returned from the fields of Moav, for she had heard in the field of Moav that Hashem had remembered His people by giving them bread."
"Then she arose with her daughters-in-law" - in this they were all equal. Both she and her daughters-in-law agreed that this was no longer their place: the father had died, the sons had died, it was a land that devoured its inhabitants, the fortune of the place was ruined, and "changing one's place changes one's fortune." However, regarding their destination, their views diverged. Naomi resolved "to return" [lashuv], and the term "return" signifies going back to one's original place - she had come from the Land of Israel, and that is where she was returning. That is why it says "and she returned" [vatashav] in the singular, for she alone intended to return.
As for the daughters-in-law, while still in the field of Moav, their primary goal was simply to leave that place; not "where am I going?" but "where am I leaving from?" Only later, when they were already on the road, did they decide that perhaps it was worthwhile to go to the land of Judah. Naomi, by contrast, was focused entirely on the destination: it is the Land of Israel that I want to reach.
And why specifically to the Land of Israel? "For she had heard in the field of Moav." Not because of the place's misfortune, and not out of fear of the famine there - for had that been the case, she could have moved to another country, to another city in Moav, or to a different neighborhood. Rather, she heard that Hashem had remembered His people by giving them bread. And since she had only left initially because of the famine, never intending to settle permanently but only "to reside" [lagur] as a temporary sojourner, once she heard that there was no longer famine, she said: Now there is no barrier and no excuse not to be in the Land of Israel.
Chazal state: she heard it from traveling peddlers who went from town to town. Why was it necessary to state this? The Malbim explains the depth of this precise detail. On one hand, scripture states, "For Hashem will not cast off His people, neither will He forsake His inheritance" (Tehillim 94:14), while on the other hand it says, "For Hashem will not forsake His people for His great Name's sake" (Shmuel I 12:22). The Gemara resolves this: when Israel is meritorious, He acts for the sake of His people and His inheritance; and when Israel is not meritorious, He acts for the sake of His great Name.
Now, here it states, "that Hashem had remembered His people" - an expression denoting merit, in that they are His people and His inheritance and are doing His will. And who would use such phrasing? Certainly not a Moabite, who does not believe that Israel is the portion and inheritance of the Holy One, blessed be He, and does not believe in Him at all. It must be, then, that she heard this from Jews - from traveling peddlers who went from town to town, bringing reports from the Land of Israel. This is why Chazal carefully noted "from whom did she hear": not out of thin air, and not from the local Moabites, but from the mouth of Israelites, as proved by the very wording itself.
And with this, another question is answered: why had she not returned until now? For the famine came because of evil deeds, as we saw regarding "when the judges judged" - a spiritually degraded generation that lacked justice and judged its judges. If the people remained the same people, what reason was there to rush back, when the causes of the famine still existed and the famine could easily return? But when she heard that "Hashem had visited His people" - in their merit, because they transformed their deeds and became His people and His heritage - she realized that the abundance was not temporary but enduring, and said: Now I can return to the Land, for the famine has surely ceased.
וַתֵּצֵא מִן הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה שָׁמָּה וּשְׁתֵּי כַלּוֹתֶיהָ עִמָּהּ וַתֵּלַכְנָה בַדֶּרֶךְ לָשׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה׃ - "And she left the place where she had been, and her two daughters-in-law were with her; and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah."
Our Sages say: The departure of a tzaddik from a place leaves an impression. For the previous verse had already stated, "and she returned from the fields of Moab," which inherently meant she left the place - so why reiterate and emphasize "and she left"? To teach you that her departure left an impression.
Furthermore, it says, "and they went on the way." Our Sages say: They were barefoot; they did not even have shoes on their feet. This represents an unimaginable degree of poverty, for our Sages said that a person should sell everything he owns to buy shoes for his feet - yet they did not even have shoes, but walked stepping directly on the road itself.
Regarding the structure of the verse: as far as leaving the place was concerned - "and her two daughters-in-law were with her," for in this they were all of one mind, that ill fortune hung over that place and they needed to leave. However, going to the land of Judah was not immediately agreed upon, as they initially intended merely to reside elsewhere in the fields of Moab. Only "and they went on the way" - once they were already on the road, they reconsidered and decided: Let us join her and return to the land of Judah as well.
וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי לִשְׁתֵּי כַלֹּתֶיהָ לֵכְנָה שֹּׁבְנָה אִשָּׁה לְבֵית אִמָּהּ יַעַשׂ יְהֹוָה עִמָּכֶם חֶסֶד כַּאֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם עִם הַמֵּתִים וְעִמָּדִי׃ - "And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, 'Go, return each of you to her mother's house; may Hashem deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me.'"
At first Naomi assumed that her daughters-in-law merely wished to escort her, so that she would not travel alone, and would then return to Moab. Therefore she told them, "Go" - meaning, right here, while you are still in the land of Moab, return to your place. I do not need an escort, nor do I wish to burden you with traveling all the way to the land of Judah just to accompany me; I will manage on my own.
And since two options would lie before them upon returning to Moab - either to live in one of the cities of Moab or to return to their mother's home - she added her counsel: "Return each of you to her mother's house." Just as you cleaved to me when I was like a mother to you, it is best that you continue and cleave to your own mothers.
"May Hashem deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me" - this explains her plea: Do not trouble yourselves or endure hardship to accompany me on the road, for you have already performed more than enough chesed. "With the dead" - the Midrash notes that they provided shrouds from their own funds and paid for their husbands' burial, though they were under no obligation to do so; furthermore, while their husbands were alive, their conduct toward them was exemplary. "And with me" - for they were entitled to their ketubah settlement, and since there was nothing with which to pay it, they forgave their ketubah. The burial expenses should also have come from the deceased's estate, yet there were no assets, as Naomi was deeply impoverished - as we will see further on, she did not even have the means to buy grains of wheat. They therefore relinquished their claims, forgave the debts, and covered the burial costs out of pocket, and this was true chesed.
She therefore told them: You have already performed more than enough kindness with the dead and with me, and I have no doubt that the Holy One, blessed be He, will deal kindly with you, for "You reward every person according to his deeds" - Hashem will grant you fitting reward corresponding to your kindness. Since that is so, it is unnecessary for you to perform further kindness with me, as this is already above and beyond; therefore, I ask that you return each to her mother's house.
In these verses, we see a downward progression: Elimelech, who was punished as the responsible "man," losing first his wealth and then his life, until he was mentioned only as "Naomi's husband"; the survivors who were left like the remnants of a meal offering; the sons, who did not take the lesson to heart, married Moabite women without halachic marriage, settled there for ten years, and likewise lost their wealth followed by their lives. In contrast, Naomi - who had no part in the sin and whose mind was always set on returning - arose and returned, not due to the astrological fortune of the place nor out of fear of famine, but because she heard from Jewish peddlers that "Hashem had remembered His people" in their own merit, because they had improved their deeds. Her departure leaves an impression; she walks barefoot and impoverished yet directed toward the Land of Judah, and out of genuine nobility of soul, she asks her daughters-in-law to return, blessing them for the kindness they performed with the departed and with her.