The second chapter of Megillat Ruth is a chapter of unfolding chesed: Ruth goes out to glean, and Boaz - the relative who does not yet realize just how close he is - surrounds her with honor, sustenance, and words of encouragement. In this part of the lesson, we examine the conclusion of the conversation between Boaz and Ruth, the reapers' meal, Boaz's secret instructions to his young men, Ruth's return to Naomi, and the conversation between them. We will follow the order of the pesukim, in light of the Malbim's commentary.
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲדֹנִי כִּי נִחַמְתָּנִי וְכִי דִבַּרְתָּ עַל לֵב שִׁפְחָתֶךָ וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אֶהְיֶה כְּאַחַת שִׁפְחֹתֶיךָ׃ - And she said, "May I find favor in your eyes, my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken to the heart of your maidservant, though I am not even like one of your maidservants."
Boaz explained to Ruth why she had found favor in his eyes, and she replies to him: May I find favor in your eyes in the future as well. She elaborates in response to his two statements. Corresponding to the first statement, in which he informed her that he was drawing her close so that she would have what to glean and a source of livelihood - to this she says, "for you have comforted me." Ever since my husband died, I had no source of comfort, for I had no support or sustenance and no provider; and you have comforted me by assuring me of a livelihood.
And corresponding to the second statement, in which he promised her reward from the Holy One, blessed be He - "May Hashem reward your deed" - to this she says: "though I am not even like one of your maidservants." That is to say, this promise is too great for me. If only I could merit being like one of your maidservants; even to such a level I have not attained.
And according to what we explained earlier, that chen (favor) denotes the favor of a woman in the eyes of her husband, there is also an allusion here: "May I find favor in your eyes" - she hinted to him once again that he should marry her. The expression "your maidservants" also contains a hint. We find this with Avigail, the wife of Naval HaCarmeli, who came out to greet David and referred to herself as "your handmaid" - and ultimately, David took her as a wife. Although David lived in a later generation, the principle is the same: one who refers to herself as a maidservant and a handmaid ultimately becomes a mistress of the house.
The Vilna Gaon explains the verse in a completely different way. Ruth is saying to Boaz: From the words of comfort, encouragement, and support that you speak to me, I learn and understand that "I will not be like one of your maidservants" - meaning, I will not be a maidservant to you, but rather the mistress of your home. Not by way of "if only I were," but as a conclusion: from the way you treat me, I understand where things are heading.
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ בֹעַז לְעֵת הָאֹכֶל גֹּשִׁי הֲלֹם וְאָכַלְתְּ מִן הַלֶּחֶם וְטָבַלְתְּ פִּתֵּךְ בַּחֹמֶץ וַתֵּשֶׁב מִצַּד הַקֹּצְרִים וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָלִי וַתֹּאכַל וַתִּשְׂבַּע וַתֹּתַר׃ - And Boaz said to her at mealtime, "Come over here and eat of the bread, and dip your morsel in the vinegar." And she sat beside the reapers, and he reached her parched grain, and she ate, was satisfied, and left over.
In the course of these words, mealtime arrived. Boaz ate together with the reapers, and how do we know this? The Malbim cites that hired workers do not recite all the blessings of Birkat HaMazon, and only when the employer eats with them do they recite all the blessings. Boaz, who was present, wished to eat with them so as to enable them to recite Birkat HaMazon in its entirety. When the employer sits with you, he acts generously toward you and allows you to recite the full blessing.
Boaz sat at the head of the reapers, and they sat further down the table. He said to her, "Come over here" - out of honor, he wished to seat her in a distinguished place, beside him. And halom ("here") is always an expression of importance, as the Gemara states: "Halom is nothing other than royalty." That is, he hinted to her: You are destined for royalty.
"And you shall eat of the bread, and dip your morsel in the vinegar" - why this repetition? The Malbim explains that in Lashon HaKodesh there is a distinction between lechem (bread) and pat (a morsel): lechem refers to the whole loaf, while pat is a piece broken off, as in the phrase "Break it into pieces" (patot otah pitim). As an aside, why is bread called lechem? Because food is what creates the bond between the soul and the body - it solders (malchim) the soul to the body; without eating, man would perish.
Therefore, it is written, "and you shall eat of the bread" - he gave her an entire loaf for herself, which was an expression of honor toward her. And he told her: From this you should cut a piece - "and dip your morsel in the vinegar" - for a person does not dip an entire loaf into vinegar, but rather slices from it. It turns out that the whole loaf was given to her, and she ate only a portion of it, leaving the rest in her possession.
From here we can understand the phrase "and she ate, was satisfied, and had leftover" - what remained, she took with her for her mother-in-law. This would seem astonishing: does a guest take leftovers from the meal in his pocket? A story is told of someone who attended a meal with the Baba Sali, who hosted many feasts though he himself ate almost nothing, and this guest took food and put it into his pocket. The Baba Sali said to him: "Ve'achalta vesavata uveirachta" (You shall eat, be satisfied, and bless) - ve'achalta forms an acronym for "ve'el keilecha lo titen" ("and into your vessel do not put"), for he had esoteric spiritual rectifications (tikkunim) requiring that whatever remained stay in its place. If so, how could Rut act this way? Rather, it was because Boaz explicitly told her that the bread was hers: The loaf is given to you; cut from it and eat here, and the remainder is yours.
Boaz invited her "here," to the place of honor, yet she did not go there; instead, she sat beside the reapers. (Of course, "at his side" did not mean right next to him, but in the more prominent area, and she certainly conducted herself with immense modesty.) Why did she not sit there? Out of her profound modesty and humility, she did not wish to seek greatness or matters beyond her, so she sat where the simple laborers sat, who held no distinction. Moreover - "and he reached her parched grain"; he measured out barley for her and gave her an abundance of parched grain, to the point that "she ate, was satisfied, and had leftover."
וַתָּקָם לְלַקֵּט וַיְצַו בֹּעַז אֶת נְעָרָיו לֵאמֹר גַּם בֵּין הָעֳמָרִים תְּלַקֵּט וְלֹא תַכְלִימוּהָ׃ - And she rose up to glean, and Boaz commanded his young men, saying: "Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not humiliate her."
וְגַם שֹׁל תָּשֹׁלּוּ לָהּ מִן הַצְּבָתִים וַעֲזַבְתֶּם וְלִקְּטָה וְלֹא תִגְעֲרוּ בָהּ׃ - "And pull out also for her from the bundles, and leave them, that she may glean, and do not rebuke her."
Why does the verse emphasize "And she rose up to glean"? To teach us that she did not wait for the workers to recite Birkat HaMazon. Since a woman is not joined to a zimmun, she had no need to wait, and she immediately arose to glean.
Boaz then commands his young men: "Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not humiliate her" - if you see her gleaning among the sheaves, do not go inspect her actions or question what she is taking and whether she took something that is not hers, for that would cause humiliation and suspect her of theft. Furthermore: "And pull out also for her from the bundles" - tzevatim are bundles of stalks; intentionally leave some for her and pretend as though you forgot them, for the Torah contains the law of shikchah (forgotten produce) - if one forgets a sheaf in the field, it belongs to the poor. Give the impression that you forgot it, so that she can take it without embarrassment. See how much wisdom he possessed: to do good for her in a manner where she would not feel it was being handed to her as charity.
However, there seems to be a halachic problem here: leket (gleanings) and shikchah (forgotten produce) are exempt from tithes (ma'asrot), but if the workers leave stalks intentionally, this is not shikchah at all, since they did not actually forget them, and the grain remains obligated in tithes! She would then take it home and eat it without tithing, under the impression that it was genuine shikchah. What was the solution? That they should declare it ownerless (hefker), for ownerless property is exempt from tithes. Leave sheaves and make it appear as though you forgot them, but in your minds intend to renounce ownership. This is the meaning of "and leave them" (va'azavtem) - declare them ownerless and say, "Behold, this is ownerless; we are leaving it here." Thereby, it would be exempt from tithes, and she could take it without any hesitation.
"That she may glean, and do not rebuke her" - in whatever manner she gleans, even if it is technically not according to the letter of the law, do not rebuke her, for his intention was to support her with dignity.
וַתְּלַקֵּט בַּשָּׂדֶה עַד הָעָרֶב וַתַּחְבֹּט אֵת אֲשֶׁר לִקֵּטָה וַיְהִי כְּאֵיפָה שְׂעֹרִים׃ - "So she gleaned in the field until evening, and beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley."
See and take note: even though she received extraordinary treatment, she did not take advantage of it. "So she gleaned" - only gleanings, strictly the fallen stalks; she did not take pulled bundles or sheaves. Likewise, "in the field" - she did not glean among the sheaves as Boaz had permitted her, but only in the open field. And she gleaned until evening, which is why she was able to gather so much.
"And beat out what she had gleaned" - why did she beat it out? So that she would not have to carry the chaff, the husks, and the straw, but only the grain. "And it was about an ephah of barley" - an ephah is roughly twelve kilograms (about twenty-six pounds), quite a substantial load.
וַתִּשָּׂא וַתָּבוֹא הָעִיר וַתֵּרֶא חֲמוֹתָהּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר לִקֵּטָה וַתּוֹצֵא וַתִּתֶּן לָהּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹתִרָה מִשָּׂבְעָהּ׃ - "And she took it up and came into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned; and she brought out and gave to her what she had left over after she was satisfied."
Her mother-in-law saw and was astonished: how could she have gathered so much, in addition to bringing what was left over from her meal? Notice the precise wording: Ruth did not display it herself to her mother-in-law, saying, "Look how much I accomplished." Out of humility, she simply brought it and set it down, and her mother-in-law was the one who noticed it. And she immediately gave her what she had left over after eating her fill, so that Naomi would not have to wait until they ground, sifted, and baked the grain, faint from hunger in the meantime. First of all, here, take and eat; from the rest, we can bake bread later.
וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ חֲמוֹתָהּ אֵיפֹה לִקַּטְתְּ הַיּוֹם וְאָנָה עָשִׂית יְהִי מַכִּירֵךְ בָּרוּךְ וַתַּגֵּד לַחֲמוֹתָהּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשְׂתָה עִמּוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר שֵׁם הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי עִמּוֹ הַיּוֹם בֹּעַז׃ - "And her mother-in-law said to her, 'Where did you glean today, and where did you work? Blessed be he who took notice of you.' And she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked, and said, 'The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz.'"
The Malbim explains: the baked bread she brought with her proved that she had not merely gleaned among the poor, but that she had performed some work, and in return the man had given her food. After all, where would she get ready-made bread - did she bake in the field? This was the common practice: a person worked, and as wages was given bread. On the other hand, the vast amount of gleanings proved that she had been gleaning all day and had not been occupied with anything else.
Therefore, Naomi asks two questions: "Where did you glean today?" - seeing such a large quantity of gleanings; "and where did you work?" - for you must have also labored for someone, since you have bread and even roasted grain that you received as wages. Yet the two seem contradictory: if you worked for someone, when did you have time to glean so much? And if you gleaned all day, where did the bread come from?
Her conclusion: if you both gleaned and received bread, it evidently was not wages for labor, but an act of kindness. Someone showed you extraordinary chessed. She therefore blesses him: "Blessed be he who took notice of you" - blessed be that person who acknowledged you and treated you with kindness, for I have no other explanation.
"And she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked" - she told her what she had done with him. That is to say, Boaz had told her that because she performed kindness with her mother-in-law and because she converted, she found favor in his eyes, and therefore he gave her food. Thus, through this good deed, it was as if she had brought him deep satisfaction; he felt as though someone had done him a personal favor, as though he himself had benefited from the deed.
From here, she is telling Naomi: Who is this person who hears that someone did kindness with another, or that someone went and converted, and feels as though they did him a personal favor, rejoicing over it as though he were given wonderful news? An ordinary person would say: You performed a mitzvah, you converted, good for you, to your health - but what does that have to do with me? Yet if he rejoices over it so deeply on a personal level, it is a sign that it touches his very essence, a sign that he is a truly great man. Therefore: "The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz."
Our Sages teach: More than the householder does for the poor man, the poor man does for the householder - and they derived this from here. For the householder gave the poor man a small coin, ten shekels, a hundred shekels. But what did the poor man give him? Life in the World to Come, eternity of eternities, "and his righteousness endures forever." You gave him a hundred shekels that are here today and gone tomorrow, while he granted you an eternity that endures forever. Who enabled you to merit this? This poor man.
And see how upside-down the world is: a person gives money to a pauper and feels exalted - "If I had not tossed him a hundred shekels he would have had nothing to eat, I had pity on him" - and he already imagines himself a great philanthropist, thinking how noble and special he is. Fool! This person did you a kindness. And sometimes that very deed decreed life upon you - "and charity saves from death." It could be that the very moment you handed him that hundred shekels, a harsh decree had already been issued against you, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Charity saves from death, and this is enough to shield him. If so, you should have run to that poor man, embraced him, kissed him, and said: My dear sir, you have given me life! And you - what did you give him? Five shekels, ten, a hundred. This is the meaning of "The name of the man with whom I worked" - the man for whom, in truth, I did a favor by allowing him to sustain me, his name is Boaz. (There is an additional explanation here in the name of the Vilna Gaon; interested readers may consult the sefer Kol Eliyahu.)
וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי לְכַלָּתָהּ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַיהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָזַב חַסְדּוֹ אֶת הַחַיִּים וְאֶת הַמֵּתִים וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ נָעֳמִי קָרוֹב לָנוּ הָאִישׁ מִגֹּאֲלֵנוּ הוּא׃ - Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "Blessed be he of the Lord, Who has not left off His kindness to the living and to the dead." And Naomi said to her, "The man is closely related to us; he is one of our redeemers."
Naomi blesses and gives thanks to Hashem. At first, she understands that the Holy One, blessed be He, orchestrated this to provide honorable sustenance for her and Ruth, the living, from the family of Boaz - "Who has not left off His kindness to the living." And where did Hashem care for the dead? Naomi says: If he is such a master of kindness and cares for the living, he will care for the dead as well - through yibbum (levirate redemption), by taking you as a wife.
Therefore, the verse concludes with two clauses corresponding to one another: corresponding to "Who has not left off His kindness to the living" is "The man is closely related to us," for out of that kinship he is providing us now with sustenance and gleanings; and corresponding to "and to the dead" is "he is one of our redeemers," meaning that as a redeemer he will marry you, the name of the deceased will be raised up upon his inheritance, and there will be a spiritual rectification for the departed.
וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה גַּם כִּי אָמַר אֵלַי עִם הַנְּעָרִים אֲשֶׁר לִי תִּדְבָּקִין עַד אִם כִּלּוּ אֵת כָּל הַקָּצִיר אֲשֶׁר לִי׃ - And Ruth the Moabitess said, "He also said to me, 'Stay close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest.'"
Naomi had conveyed two messages: first, sustenance from him - "Who has not left off His kindness to the living"; and second, yibbum. Ruth did not understand the concept of yibbum and grasped only the matter of sustenance. Therefore, she replies: "He also said to me, 'Stay close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest'" - indeed, just as you said, he performed a kindness with us by providing us with sustenance, telling me to stay close to them until they finish the entire harvest. She does not mention the matter of yibbum, because she did not yet understand it.
Let us take note of a subtle difference: Boaz said, "with my maidens," yet Ruth quotes him as saying, "with the young men." The Malbim explains: Ruth was a Moabitess, raised in Moabite culture - boys and girls mingling together, according to the custom of the land of Moab - and so she knew nothing else and sensed no flaw or impropriety in this. In her eyes, "with the young men" simply meant "with his people," and the main workforce there consisted of the young men; she did not perceive the nuance that his words were directed specifically toward the maidens and not the young men. She even understood that perhaps his intention was for her to marry one of the young men.
For this reason, Scripture refers to her here as "Ruth the Moabitess." An Israelite woman would never have spoken this way; an Israelite woman would have understood the hints. But Ruth, having come from the fields of Moab, does not yet understand what Naomi is referring to regarding the dead and the concept of yibum (levirate marriage), nor does she appreciate the precise phrasing of Boaz, "you shall cling to my maidens," since in her conceptual world there was no distinction between them.
וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי אֶל רוּת כַּלָּתָהּ טוֹב בִּתִּי כִּי תֵצְאִי עִם נַעֲרוֹתָיו וְלֹא יִפְגְּעוּ בָךְ בְּשָׂדֶה אַחֵר׃ - Naomi said to Ruth, her daughter-in-law: "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens, and that they not encounter you in another field."
Naomi realizes that it is inappropriate for Ruth to stay close to the young men; she should remain exclusively with the maidens. And why? "And that they not encounter you in another field" - so that people will not look upon you with suspicion and ask: What is this woman doing among the young men? Such conduct invites suspicion and an unsavory reputation, particularly regarding matters of shidduchim (marriage proposals). Therefore, I advise that you cling to his maidens and not to his young men.
וַתִּדְבַּק בְּנַעֲרוֹת בֹּעַז לְלַקֵּט עַד כְּלוֹת קְצִיר הַשְּׂעֹרִים וּקְצִיר הַחִטִּים וַתֵּשֶׁב אֶת חֲמוֹתָהּ׃ - So she clung to the maidens of Boaz to glean until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest; and she dwelt with her mother-in-law.
And that is precisely what she did. The Midrash teaches that this period lasted three months. Why specifically three months? These were the months of discernment (havchanah). A woman who gets divorced, as well as a female convert, requires a three-month waiting period of discernment - what would today be called a "cooling-off period." Why? Lest she be pregnant from her first husband without realizing it, and subsequently give birth, leading people to assume she conceived from the second husband and gave birth at seven months, since a woman can indeed give birth at seven months. Therefore, Halachah requires a wait of three months, which is the time when a pregnancy becomes clearly visible; if no pregnancy is evident, she is permitted to remarry.
This resolves a major question: if Naomi sees that there is a redeemer right here, why does she hesitate and not immediately set matters in motion? The answer is that Ruth was halachically required to observe these months of discernment, and had to wait until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest - three full months - and only then could she marry him. Indeed, only after this period elapsed did Naomi set about arranging a match for Ruth.
Finally, "and she dwelt with her mother-in-law." Even though she spent a prolonged time clinging to Boaz's maidens, and the way of the world is for a young woman to forge new ties and make friends her own age rather than attach herself to elderly women - nevertheless, she did not abandon her mother-in-law or bond with them at her expense. Instead, she lived with her mother-in-law, for her love for Naomi far surpassed any bond and friendship she shared with the other young women with whom she gleaned.
In this section of the chapter, we observe two paragons of chessed acting toward one another: Boaz, bestowing his kindness with wisdom and delicacy - offering a whole loaf of bread with dignity, giving her a seat beside the head of the table, commanding the young men to leave bundles intentionally and renounce ownership over them so she would not be obligated in tithes, and placing an absolute ban on shaming or scolding her; and Ruth, responding with profound humility - sitting alongside the reapers rather than in the seat of honor, gleaning only legitimate leket and only in the field, laboring diligently until evening, and bringing the remnants of her meal to her mother-in-law. In the conversation between Naomi and Ruth, two facets of divine chessed are revealed: sustenance for the living and redemption for the deceased; and Ruth, who does not yet grasp the depth of subtle cues like a lifelong daughter of Israel, receives loving guidance from her mother-in-law. Above all stands the great message: more than what the master of the house does for the poor person, the poor person does for the master of the house - for the giver receives eternity, and the recipient is the true giver.