(1) Why does Scripture state that this occurred “in the days when the judges judged”? It should have identified the name of the judge. Why does it repeat, “a man went from Bethlehem in Judah,” and then, “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah”? And why does it add, “they came to the fields of Moab and remained there”? Why does it say, “the husband of Naomi”? And what is the novelty in stating that she remained, she and her two sons?

“And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged”—Scripture explains the cause that moved Elimelech to leave the Land of Israel for the Diaspora. It was because this occurred “in the days when the judges judged,” regarding which it is said (Judges 17 and 18): “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Nor was there at that time a single judge appointed over all Israel, for this was an interval between one judge and another, when there were many judges, and anyone who desired would assume authority for himself. The fear of the judge was not upon the people, as our Sages said: “Were it not for the fear of government, a man would swallow his fellow alive.” And the Sages expressed this figuratively: “Woe to the generation that judged its judges.” A second factor was that “there was a famine in the land.” In times of famine, crowds of poor people gather against the wealthy and compel them to give bread and grain, and if not, they seize it by force—especially when there is no king to impose fear upon them. Therefore, “a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the fields of Moab.” Since he was a wealthy man, he feared that the poor would descend upon him and plunder all that he possessed. Nevertheless, he did not go in order to settle permanently, but only “to sojourn in the fields of Moab” until the anger should pass. Nor did he go to dwell in a city or town, but only “in the fields of Moab,” like one temporarily residing in the countryside. Likewise, although it was a time of suffering and distress, not everyone left the land—only one man departed, while the other wealthy people did not join him in leaving the Land of Israel for the Diaspora. Even Elimelech’s household did not leave willingly, for they did not wish to abandon the desirable land; rather, only he, his wife, and his two sons went, because he was the principal actor in this matter, while they were compelled to follow him. Thus the Midrash says: “He was primary, and his wife secondary.”* The Midrash says: Elimelech was the leading man of the generation. He said: “Now all Israel will come daily to my doorway [seeking support],” and so he fled. It also says there that there were two famines: a famine of Torah and a famine of bread...

“And the name of the man”—Scripture explains that he was a man well known by name; not only he himself, but also his wife and sons were people of distinction. This further explains why he left, for he feared the masses, who would seek from him provisions to sustain their households during the famine. It also explains the punishment that befell him, since, being a great man, his departure discouraged the hearts of Israel, as stated in the Midrash, and also constituted a desecration of God’s name. “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah”—Bethlehem was originally called Ephrath, and only afterward was given the name Bethlehem, as it says: “And I buried her there on the road to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem” (Genesis 48:7). It was also a family of especially distinguished lineage within the tribe of Judah, called Ephrathites [after Caleb’s wife, who was called Ephrath and was great and distinguished]. Therefore, Scripture repeats that he was among the well-born and prominent families of Bethlehem in Judah. “And they came”—Although at first they left only “to sojourn in the fields of Moab” temporarily, once they arrived in the fields of Moab, “they remained there”—that is, they then resolved in their minds to stay there permanently.

“And Elimelech died”—Because he resolved to remain permanently outside the Land of Israel, he was punished immediately and died. Scripture explains why he was punished while Naomi was not: he was “the husband of Naomi,” meaning that he ruled over her, and thus the primary sin was attributed to him. Our Sages said that God first punished him through his wealth, for the Merciful One does not strike at a person’s life first. This is hinted at by the phrase “the husband of Naomi”, for a wealthy man such as Elimelech would ordinarily have been known by name because of his riches, and people would have said, “Elimelech the wealthy man has died.” All the more so had he remained in the Land of Israel, where they would have said, “Elimelech, the provider and leader of the generation, has died.” But after he lost all his wealth and was in a foreign land, he was no longer known by his own name, but only as “the husband of Naomi,” who was more recognized there than he was; he was identified only through being Naomi’s husband. “And the woman remained”—Even so, they did not take the lesson to heart and return to the Land of Israel, but remained there. The Midrash says concerning “and the woman remained”: “She became like the remainder of a meal offering.” The terms “remainder” and “leftover” properly apply only when most has been taken and a minority remains. How, then, can it be said here when only one person died and three remained? The answer is: like the remainder of a meal offering, where even though only the handful (kometz) is taken, the entire offering is called the “remainder,” because the handful is the essential part and the meal offering is secondary to it. So too here: Elimelech was the essence of the household, and therefore all the others were called the “remainder.”

“And they took wives”—The sons further compounded the sin by marrying Moabite women without converting them, as stated in the Midrash. Therefore it says, “the name of the one was Orpah”, for when converts entered Judaism, they would generally change their former names, yet these women retained their original names. [Although Ruth did not change her name even after conversion, the Talmud asks in Berakhot (9b): “Why was she called Ruth?” and answers: “Because David descended from her, who satisfied the Holy One, blessed be He, with songs and praises.” The very question, “Why Ruth?” implies: why was her gentile name not changed?] This is also indicated by the wording “and they took wives” (vayisu). The term lekichah (“taking”) is generally used for marriages contracted through proper kiddushin according to Jewish law, whereas the expression vayisu is commonly used for marriages to foreign women throughout Ezra and Nehemiah, or regarding women of secondary status. Thus it says concerning Rehoboam (II Chronicles 11): “He took eighteen wives and sixty concubines,” where only two principal wives are described with the term “he took” (vayikach), and similarly elsewhere. Scripture specifies “the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Ruth” for two reasons: First, because Kilion, the younger brother, preceded Mahlon and married Orpah first. This demonstrates the brothers’ lack of proper conduct, since the younger brother married before the elder, and the elder brother did not protest. Second, had Mahlon married first, there might have been some basis to judge them favorably: Mahlon could be credited with recognizing Ruth’s righteousness, as her later deeds proved her earlier character, and Kilion might have reasoned that he too would find a worthy wife like his brother. But the truth was the opposite: Kilion first married the wicked Orpah, and Mahlon, the elder brother, should have learned from the younger brother’s failure in choosing an evil woman, yet instead added sin upon sin. They further sinned by remaining there for about ten years, for this demonstrates that they had completely abandoned hope of ever returning to the Land of Israel.

“And they also died”—Therefore they too were punished, and Mahlon died before Kilion, because he ought to have protested against his younger brother. He died both for his own sin and for failing to rebuke his brother. Our Sages said that the word “also” (gam) indicates that their wealth first perished, and only afterward did they die, for the Merciful One does not strike at a person’s life first. “And the woman remained”—For she did not participate in their sin, and her intention had always been to return to the Land of Israel.

Questions: (6) Why does Scripture repeat itself by saying, “she returned,” “she departed from the place,” and “they went on the road”?

“And she arose, she and her daughters-in-law”—All of them agreed to leave that place, for they thought that the misfortune was caused by the fate of the place. In this respect, they were equal in departing from where they had been. However, regarding the destination to which they were going, only Naomi had firmly resolved to return to the fields of Moab. The term “return” signifies returning to a place where one had previously been, and only Naomi had agreed to this. Therefore it says, “and she returned from the fields of Moab”—she had already resolved upon this while still in the fields of Moab, whereas her daughters-in-law had not yet agreed to this while there, as will later be explained. “For she had heard in the fields of Moab”—that is, Naomi did not return because of the ill fortune of the place or out of fear of death, for in that case it would have been enough merely to leave that place for another location in Moab. Rather, she returned because “she had heard in the fields of Moab that Hashem had remembered His people to give them bread.” Since she had left only because of the famine and intended merely to sojourn until it passed, once she heard that the disgrace of famine had ended, she returned to the Land of Israel. The Midrash asks: From whom did she hear this? From traveling merchants who went from town to town. And what did she hear? “That Hashem had remembered His people.” One verse says, “For Hashem will not forsake His people, nor abandon His inheritance” (Psalms 94:14), while another says, “For Hashem will not forsake His people for the sake of His great name” (I Samuel 12:22). How are these reconciled? When Israel is worthy, He acts for the sake of His people and His inheritance; when Israel is not worthy, He acts for the sake of His great name. Malbim explains: Since Scripture says that Naomi heard, “Hashem had remembered His people,” this could not have been something she heard from Moabites. Although they lived near the Land of Israel and knew what was happening there, it was not their manner of speech to say, “Hashem had remembered His people,” for they did not believe in Hashem nor in His special relationship with Israel as His people. Therefore, the Midrash says that she heard this from traveling merchants who passed through towns and brought goods from the Land of Israel to sell in the fields of Moab—this itself being a sign that the famine there had ended. Furthermore, Naomi would not yet have returned merely because the famine had ceased, for the famine had originally come as a consequence of wicked behavior, as Scripture says: “And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged… and there was a famine,” which the Midrash explains as resulting from the lack of justice among them—they judged their judges, and their judges themselves needed judging. Therefore, as long as the people had not improved their conduct, Naomi could not be certain that the famine would not return. Rather, she heard that “Hashem had remembered His people”—meaning that He acted not merely for the sake of His name, but for the sake of the people themselves, because they had improved their deeds and were worthy of Divine remembrance as His people and inheritance. Therefore, He had remembered them “to give them bread”—a lasting and enduring provision.

“And she departed”—This explains the earlier statement: with respect to leaving the place, Naomi departed and her two daughters-in-law went with her, for in this they immediately shared the same opinion—that it was necessary to leave that place where their fortune had turned against them. However, regarding Naomi’s immediate resolve to return to the land of Judah, they did not at first share her intention, for their plan had been merely to settle elsewhere in the fields of Moab. Only later, “they went on the road”—after they had committed themselves to the journey and reached the edge of the land of Moab, the road leading only toward the land of Judah—did they also agree to return to the land of Judah.

“And Naomi said”—At first, Naomi thought that their intention in accompanying her on the road to the land of Judah was merely to escort her, so that she would not travel alone, and that they intended only to accompany her to the land of Judah as an act of escort, after which they would return to the land of Moab. Therefore she said to them, “Go”—meaning, go on your own way, which is in the land of Moab, for she had no need of an escort. Since, upon returning to settle in the land of Moab, they had the choice either to settle independently in one of the cities of Moab or to return to their mother’s house, she advised them: “Return, each of you, to her mother’s house”—just as you attached yourselves to me, for I was like a mother to you, it is better that you now return to your true mother. She then explains her words concerning “Go”—that they should not trouble themselves on the journey for her sake in accompanying her. Thus she said: “May Hashem deal kindly with you”—meaning, you have already shown me kindness more than sufficiently, both “with the dead” while they were alive, in being good wives to your husbands, and “with me.” Our Sages explained: “with the dead”—that they provided them with burial shrouds; “and with me”—that they waived their marriage settlements. According to the customs of Moab, burial expenses would normally come from the deceased’s estate, and they were also entitled to receive their marriage settlements, yet they relinquished all of this from what was rightfully theirs. This was not required by law, but was an act of kindness. You have already shown kindness more than sufficiently, such that surely Hashem will likewise deal kindly with you, for He will not withhold the reward due to you according to your acts of kindness. Therefore she said: “May Hashem deal”—meaning, this He will certainly do, according to His way of repaying each person in accordance with his deeds.

“May He grant”—Beyond the kindness that Hashem will show you as your due reward, “may He grant” refers to a gift bestowed upon you [even though it is not repayment for a prior deed]. “That you may find rest, each woman in the house of her husband” corresponds to what Naomi had said: “Return, each of you, to her mother’s house.” For widows who do not wish to remarry establish a household of their own, as women independent in their own domain. But a widow who intends to remarry returns to her father’s house; and among gentiles, who do not trace lineage through the father, she returns to her mother’s house until she marries again. Therefore Naomi blessed them that they should “find rest, each woman in the house of her husband”—that they should no longer know bereavement or widowhood, but instead dwell in peaceful security. This would be Hashem’s gift. “And she kissed them”—a kiss of parting.

“And they said to her”—At this point, they revealed their true intention: they were not accompanying her merely to escort her to the land of Judah and then return to Moab. Rather, “with you we will return to your people”—for their intention was to remain among Naomi’s people. Yet they still did not say, “to your God”—that is, they had not yet expressed an intention to convert, but only “to your people,” meaning to dwell among Naomi’s people.

“And Naomi said”—In response, Naomi advised them: “Return, my daughters; why should you go with me?” That is, the people of Israel will not intermarry with you. And if you are hoping that I will somehow arrange marriages for you, since you were already my daughters-in-law, “Do I still have sons in my womb?” It has already been explained elsewhere (Torat HaKohanim, Tazria, §4) that the term banim (“sons” or “children”) in its precise sense refers only to children already born, not to embryos in their mother’s womb. Yet here Naomi says, “Do I still have sons in my womb?”—which appears to contradict that rule. Malbim explains that Naomi is speaking figuratively. She first means to say: Do I have grown sons already fit for marriage immediately, such that “they could become husbands to you”—that is, suitable men for you right away? But in a playful manner of speech she says: Do I perhaps have such grown sons hidden away in my womb, concealed so that you cannot see them, whom I could suddenly bring forth and who would immediately become husbands for you? This is a figurative expression, for at the outset it would not even occur to anyone that they intended to wait for Naomi to remarry, bear sons, and then wait for those sons to grow up—by which time they themselves would be elderly and unsuitable for much younger husbands.

“Return”—Naomi now added a second argument. Even if one were to suppose that you wish to wait until I remarry, bear sons, and those sons grow up, there are still two obstacles: first, on my side, “for I am too old to have a husband”; and second, on the side of the children to be born, for you would need to wait until they matured. The Midrash says: “Even if I were to have a husband tonight, and even if I were to bear sons”—indeed, if I were to have a husband tonight, I could bear sons. The Sages interpret these verses in light of the principle that a woman who has remained without a husband for ten years can no longer bear children. They ask: But did not the daughter of Rav Chisda remain widowed for ten years and afterward bear children? They answer: Since she intended to remarry, she was still able to bear children even after ten years without a husband. Here Scripture says: “And Elimelech died…” and afterward, “they lived there about ten years.” Thus Naomi had remained widowed for ten years after her husband’s death. Under such circumstances, it would no longer be possible for her to bear children except in one of two ways: first, if throughout all her widowhood she had never despaired of remarriage and always intended to remarry, in which case she could still bear children even after ten years; second, even if she had not intended to remarry, there was still one possibility—that she marry precisely on this very night, since this was the final night of the ten-year period. Thus she said: “Return, my daughters, go, for I am too old to have a husband”—meaning that after remaining widowed for ten years, she could no longer marry in order to bear children. Yet she added: “For I said, I have hope”—that is, if throughout those ten years of widowhood I had always said to myself that I still had hope of remarriage and had not despaired of it, then I could still bear children. The second possibility is: “Even if I were to have a husband tonight”—if I were to marry tonight, which is the final night within the ten-year period. Thus the Midrash says: “If I were to have a husband tonight, I could bear sons”—meaning, specifically tonight. Even then, Naomi asks: “Would you wait for them…?”

“Would you wait for them?”—The term sheber (“hope” or “expectation”) refers to one who confidently expects something that reason suggests will come to pass in due time, as in: “his hope is in Hashem his God” (Psalms 146:5), “if the hoped-for grain comes in its season,” “on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to rule over them” (Esther 9:1), and “They all look to You in hope, and You give them their food in its season” (Psalms 104:27). Naomi’s meaning is: there is uncertainty whether such sons would even grow up at all, for they might die in childhood. But even if they did grow up, “would you remain bound, refraining from marrying another husband for their sake?” “No, my daughters”—the Midrash interprets the word “no” (al) here as related to expressions of lamentation, such as “Lament like a virgin” (Joel 1:8) and “Woe is me!” (Micah 7:1), meaning: woe and grief are greater for me than for you. “For the hand of Hashem has gone out against me”—the expression “the hand of Hashem”, which signifies Divine affliction, is ordinarily expressed with terms of being or resting upon someone, such as “Let Your hand be upon me” or “the hand of Hashem was upon me.” The wording here, “has gone out”, indicates that God’s blows against Naomi had already been exhausted, such that no further strike remained. Therefore the Midrash says: “It has gone out against me”—against me, my sons, and my husband. That is, since all had already been struck, nothing remained to be struck again. But regarding you, “the hand of Hashem was upon you”—it had not yet “gone out.”

“And Orpah kissed”—this was a kiss of separation, for her intentions had been directed only toward what was beneficial to herself. But Ruth, whose intention was motivated by goodness, “clung to her.”

“Behold, your sister-in-law has returned”—That is, once she returned to her people, she also returned to her gods, as the Midrash states: since she returned to her people, she returned to her gods, for she had never intended to enter the faith of Israel. Presumably, your intention is the same. Therefore, “return after your sister-in-law.”

“Do not urge me”—[The Midrash explains: “Do not sin against me; do not withdraw your affection from me.” The term pegi‘ah (“encounter” or “entreaty”) is used in three senses: killing, as in “he struck him and he died”; meeting, as in “he came upon Jericho”; and supplication, as in “intercede for me with Ephron.” According to the Midrash, supplication and encounter are related in meaning, referring to one who requests and hopes that another will willingly come forward to fulfill the request. Thus Ruth intentionally uses the term pegi‘ah: if in the sense of killing, then by Naomi abandoning her she would suffer a spiritual death—hence, “do not sin against me”; and if in the sense of meeting or supplication, then: do not think that my heart merely entreats you in this matter and that I will simply yield to your wishes—tesubon meaning “withdraw your entreaty from me.”] “To leave you, to turn back from following after you”—That is, not only do I refuse to leave you, for I do not wish to part from you, but even if I were somehow forced to separate from you, I would still not “turn back from following after you” to the land of Moab. Rather, I would still go to the land of Judah and convert there through others. [So too the Midrash: “to turn back from following after you”—even so, my intention is to convert, though it is preferable to do so through you rather than through others.] “For wherever you go, I will go”—Do not think that the purpose of my journey differs from yours: that you are going for the sake of your faith, in order to observe the commandments dependent on the Land and the Torah and its commandments, while I go only for some personal benefit. Rather, the very purpose of my journey is the same as yours. Likewise, do not think that I hope for some worldly success, such as marrying a wealthy man or the like, for “wherever you lodge, I will lodge”—I will dwell as a stranger in the land, and like the righteous, for whom this world is merely a temporary lodging. For the goal of my journey is that “your people shall be my people, and your God my God”—I have already embraced the teaching of your God and the customs of your people, and I am as one of your people.

“Where you die”—The primary purpose of my journey is this: “Where you die, I will die”—that I may die the death of the upright, as you will die, with the spirit returning to the bundle of life. And “there I will be buried”—so that I may be buried in the place where you are buried, in the Holy Land and among the graves of the righteous, who are destined to rise again in the resurrection. “Thus may God do to me, and more as well”—Ruth swore an oath to uphold her words, affirming that this was her true intention: “for only death shall separate me from you”—that is, the reason I wish to journey with you is because I have seen and understood that death creates a great distinction between us. Though in life I was attached to you, and although religion separated us, we nevertheless remained bound together in affection; yet after death we would be separated, for you would cleave to the God of spirits, while I would be cast away among the ranks of idol worshippers. Therefore, I seek to convert, so that even in death we will not be separated. Through these words Ruth revealed that the foundations of faith were already firmly established in her heart: belief in the existence and unity of God, as implied by “your God shall be my God”; acceptance of the Torah of Israel and their way of life, as implied by “wherever you go, I will go”—meaning, I will walk in the path of the righteous and in the ways of the Torah—and likewise by “your people shall be my people.” She also believed in the immortality of the soul, reward and punishment in the World to Come, and the resurrection of the dead, as implied by “where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.” Our Sages also derived from these words that Ruth accepted the practical commandments, interpreting “wherever you go, I will go” as referring, for example, to the laws of Sabbath observance. They further said: whatever commandments and good deeds one can acquire must be acquired in this world, for in the World to Come, “death shall separate me from you.”

“And she saw”—Once Naomi saw that Ruth was converting with a whole heart, for the verb lehit’ametz (“to strengthen oneself firmly”) denotes inner resolve and steadfastness of heart [this being the distinction between chazaq (“to strengthen”) and amatz (“to fortify oneself with resolve”)], “she ceased speaking to her”—in accordance with the law.

“And the two of them went”—The Midrash says: once Ruth had resolved to convert, Scripture regarded her as equal to Naomi. That is, the word “the two of them” is superfluous and comes to indicate equality, in accordance with the principle that expressions such as “both of them,” “both of you,” or “the three of them” signify equivalence. It may also be that the phrase “the two of them” explains what follows: “and the whole city was astir.” Naomi had once possessed servants, maidservants, and a large household, and whenever she left her home she was surrounded by many people. But now they saw that only the two of them had come—mother-in-law and daughter-in-law alone, like impoverished and abandoned women. Therefore, “the whole city was astir.”

Questions: (20–22) Since the townspeople called her Naomi based on her former condition—when, in the time of her prosperity, she had indeed been “pleasant” (Naomi)—why did she say, “Do not call me Naomi”? Even so, it would still be fitting to say that in her earlier circumstances her name had truly been Naomi. And why the double expression: “Do not call me Naomi; why call me Naomi?” Likewise, why the repetition: “for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me” and “the Almighty has afflicted me”, all of which appears repetitive? And why does Scripture repeat, “So Naomi returned”, when this does not seem to be the appropriate place for it?

“And she said to them: Do not call me Naomi”—Consider a person who once possessed immense wealth, like the riches of Ahasuerus, and then lost nearly all of it, retaining only a thousand gold coins. One might say that he had fallen from his estate and become poor, but this description would make sense only if one recalled the scale of his former wealth. Relative to his previous riches, he would now be poor and diminished; yet if one ignored his earlier condition, a person with a thousand gold coins would still be considered wealthy. However, if that same great rich man lost everything and was left without even a single coin or a piece of bread to quiet his hunger, then he could be called poor and destitute even without reference to his former standing. The people of the city, seeing that Naomi and her daughter-in-law had arrived on foot with no attendants to serve them, understood that they had lost the wealth they once possessed. Yet they still assumed that Naomi retained some gold and jewelry—enough that an ordinary person would have been content to possess such means. Therefore they exclaimed: “Is this Naomi?”—thereby invoking her former standing, meaning that in comparison with her previous wealth she had fallen astonishingly far. Naomi replied to them that things were not as they supposed. It was not the case that she could be called “Mara” (“bitter”) only by comparison to her former identity as “Naomi” (“pleasant”), such that only relative to her previous prosperity did her decline become evident. Rather, she informed them that there was no need to mention her former condition at all, for she was now so impoverished that nothing remained in her possession [after all, her daughter-in-law had to glean among the poor]. Therefore, they could call her “Mara” even without recalling that she had once been Naomi. Thus she said: “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara”—meaning, you may call me “Mara” without first calling me “Naomi,” that is, without recalling my former name and standing, “for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.”

“I went away full”—yet “Hashem has brought me back empty,” and I have nothing left in my possession. Therefore, you may call me “Mara”—poor and destitute—even without recalling my former name, “Naomi,” which I bore in my time of prosperity. “Why call me Naomi?”—Until this point, Naomi had only answered that there was no need to mention her former name, Naomi, which she had borne in the past. But now she adds something further: she realized that it had never truly been appropriate to call her Naomi at all. Thus she says: “Why call me Naomi?”—as if to say: even what you say, that I was formerly called Naomi, is false. This follows a principle explained elsewhere: sometimes, when God intends to punish a person with an especially severe punishment, He first raises that person to great heights of success and honor, so that if He later casts him down into poverty and humiliation, the pain and anguish will be felt more sharply, and the fall will be far greater. As it says in Job (20:6): “Though his height rise to heaven… like his own refuse he shall perish forever,” and in Obadiah: “Though you set your nest among the stars”—it is for the purpose that “from there I will bring you down,” making the downfall more severe. Thus Naomi came to think that the great wealth and honor God had granted her in earlier days had been given only so that He might cast her down from that lofty position into poverty and degradation, making her descent all the more painful and devastating. If so, since that earlier prosperity was merely a kind of warning to return to God—He raised her up only in order to cast her down into the depths—then the name “Naomi”, by which she had been called at that time, had never been truly fitting, for that prosperity itself was bitter, being merely an ascent for the sake of a greater fall. Thus she says: “I went away full”—only so that “Hashem has brought me back empty.” Therefore, the very fact that I was once full only increases my pain now. Thus, “Why call me Naomi?” Even your statement that I was once rightly called Naomi is false, for “Hashem has testified against me”—meaning that my earlier prosperity was itself a warning, through which God cautioned me to improve my ways, lest He cast me down from the height of that success into the depths. And so it happened: through that very prosperity, “the Almighty has afflicted me,” for it made my sorrow and downfall doubly painful. The Midrash says: “Is this Naomi?” Formerly she walked in fine carriages, and now barefoot; formerly in garments of fine wool, and now in rags—“Is this Naomi?” And she replies to them: “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara”—this, the Midrash explains, corresponds to Naomi’s rejection of their unnecessary invocation of her former state. Bar Kappara gave a parable: a common cow was set up in the marketplace by its owner, and he declared, “It is a plowing cow.” People responded: “If it truly is a plowing cow, then what are all these wounds upon it?” So too Naomi says: “Why call me Naomi, when Hashem has testified against me?”—meaning, even previously she had not truly been Naomi, for she had already been destined for suffering and poverty.

“And Naomi returned”—That is, when Naomi departed from Bethlehem, she had abandoned her fields. It is possible that in the meantime others had taken possession of her parcel of land, just as happened with the Shunammite woman when she left for the land of the Philistines and later had to cry out to the king concerning her house and field. Naomi therefore made efforts until she regained possession of her inheritance. Scripture adds: “and Ruth her daughter-in-law with her”—for Ruth also had a claim to the field through her husband, as an heir to his father. Thus Scripture again says: “the one who returned from the fields of Moab”—for had Ruth remained in the fields of Moab, she would have relinquished her share, especially according to the Sages’ teaching that she waived her marriage settlement. But now that she returned from the fields of Moab, she retained a claim to the field, as will later be explained (chapter 4). The Midrash says concerning “the one who returned from the fields of Moab”: this means that Ruth was the first woman to come from the fields of Moab in order to convert, for until that time the verse “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation” had not yet been interpreted as excluding women (“an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess”). “And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest”—This serves as preparation for what follows, explaining why Ruth went to gather the gifts for the poor, even though she had a share in the field: they arrived during the harvest season, when it was no longer possible to sow the land, and at that time they were counted among the poor.