Supporting
Materials for Ruth 1:19-22
By Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
APPENDIX – SUPPORTING MATERIALS for Ruth119-22.html
Peshat Level:
Targum Ruth
1:19 The two of them went until they came to Beth Lehem. And it happened that when they came to Beth Lehem all the inhabitants of the city became excited over them and the women said, "Is this Naomi?"
1:20 But she said to them: "Do not call me Naomi [pleasant]; call me the bitter of soul, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me indeed.
1:21 "I went away full, with my husband and sons, but the Lord has brought me back destitute of them. Why, then, should you call me Naomi, seeing that my guilt has been testified to before the Lord, and the Almighty has brought evil upon me?"
1:22 So Naomi returned, and with her was Ruth, the Moavitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the field of Moav. And they came to Beth Lehem on the eve of the Passover, and on that very day the Israelites began to harvest the Omer of the heave-offering which was of barley.
Rashi
1:19 So they both went Rabbi Abahu said, “Come and see how beloved the proselytes are before the Holy One, blessed be He. As soon as she decided (li. Put her mind) to proselytize, the scripture equated her with Naomi (viz., “they both”).”
That the entire city was astir The entire city was astir. All of them had gathered to bury the wife of Boaz, who had died that very day.
Is this Naomi The v is vowelized (with a) Chataf (,tuv) since this (phrase) is in the interrogative – “Is this (the same) Naomi who was accustomed to go out with covered wagons and mules? Have you seen what has befallen her because she went abroad?”
1:21 Went away full (I.e.,) with wealth and sons. Another interpretation (of “full” is) that she was pregnant (when she left).
Has testified against me He testified against me that I had sinned
before Him. Another interpretation (of hc vbg is); the
Divine Attribute of justice has humbled me, as (in Hosea 5:5), “Therefore shall
the pride of
R.Ibn Ezra says that ‘Shaddai’ is derived from the same root as שדד - ‘Despoiler’, ‘Vanquisher’ – meanining that He triumphs over and vanquishes the Heavenly constellations that normally dictates man’s fate.
As the
Kabbalistic Master, Rabbi Isaac Luria indicates, this Name has the power
to protect a
person from all harm, including the harm that comes from one’s own
subconscious.
In this
sense, the Name Shaddai can be read as an acrostic for “Shomer Daltot
Yisrael”
which means “Guardian of Israel’s Doors”or “Shomer Darchei Yisrael”
meaning
“Guardian of Israel’s Paths”
Gemarah Level:
Talmud Babli
Baba Bathra 91a Our Rabbis taught: It is not
permitted to go forth from
R. Isaac further stated: On the very day, when Ruth the
Moavitess came to
Yerushalami Ketuvoth 1:1 that the entire city was astir over them
– Now is it possible that the entire city was astir over this humble one? But
[they were astir, for] that day Boaz’s wife had died, and all had gone to pay
their last respects at which time Ruth entered with Naomi, so that this one
[Boaz’s wife] went out as the other [Ruth, who was to become his wife.] came
in.
Pesachim 42b R. Nahman [b. Isaac] said: In former
times, when they used to bring [wine] libations from
Sotah 14a, Mishna 11 All other meal-offerings consist of wheat, but this consists of barley. The meal-offering of the Omer, although consisting of barley, was in the form of groats; but this was in the form of coarse flour. Rabban Gamaliel says: as her actions were the actions of an animal, so her offering [consisted of] animal’s fodder.
Yerushalami Yevamoth 8:3 [What is the intent of: “Who returned”?] This was the first who returned [as a proselyte] from the fields of Moav.
Yevamoth 63a
R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the text, And in thee shall
the families of the earth be blessed? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to
Abraham, ‘I have two goodly shoots to engraft on you: Ruth the Moabitess and
Naamah the Ammonitess’. All the families of the earth, even the other families
who live on the earth are blessed only for
Yevamoth 77a Raba made the following exposition: What was meant by, Thou hast loosed my bonds! David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘O Master of the world! Two bonds were fastened on me, and you loosed them: Ruth the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess.
Baba Kama 38b When R. Samuel b.
Sanhedrin 15b A WHOLE TRIBE MUST NOT BE JUDGED etc. What sin was committed by the tribe? Shall I say, that it is a case of a tribe that desecrated the Sabbath? But27 if the Divine Law made a distinction between individual sinners and a multitude, it was only in cases of idolatry; did it then differentiate in cases [of the transgression] of other commandments? — It must therefore refer to a tribe that was beguiled [into idolatry]. Is it to imply that it must be tried like a multitude? [If so,] this coincides with the opinion of neither R. Josiah nor R. Jonathan. For it has been taught: How many inhabitants must a town have that it may be proclaimed condemned? Not less than ten and not more than a hundred:28 this is the view of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says: From a hundred to the majority of the tribe in question. And even R. Jonathan admits only the majority of a tribe, but not the whole of it.
Kethuboth 111b R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: A time will come when the just will break through [the soil] and rise up in Jerusalem, for it is said in Scripture, And they will blossom out of the city like grass of the earth, and by ‘city’ only Jerusalem can be meant for it is said in Scripture, For I will defend this city.
Eiruvin 19a For Resh Lakish stated: The fire of Gehenna has no power over the transgressors in Israel, as may be inferred a minori ad majus from the golden altar: If the golden altar [the layer] on which was only of the thickness of a denar lasted for many years and the fire had no power over it, how much more would that be the case with the transgressors in Israel who are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate [with seed], as it is said in Scripture: Thy temples are like a pomegranate, and R. Simeon b. Lakish remarked, ‘Read not, "Thy temples" but "Thy empty ones" [signifying] that even the worthless among you are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate [with seed]’.
Marah:
Bamidbar 20:10 And Moses <04872>
and Aaron <0175> gathered <06950> (8686) the congregation <06951> together before <06440> the rock <05553>, and he said <0559> (8799) unto them, Hear <08085> (8798) now, ye rebels <04784> Marah (8802); must we fetch <03318> (8686) you water <04325>
out of this rock <05553>?
Chagiga 12a Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it was expanding farther and farther like two unwound clues of warp until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and caused it to stand. As it is stated: "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof" (Iyyov 26:11). This is what Resh Lakish said: What is that which is written: "I am El Shaddai"? I said to the world, 'Enough.' Resh Lakish said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it was expanding farther and farther until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry. As it is stated: "He rebukes the sea, and makes it dry, and dries up all the rivers" (Nachum 1:4).
תשב
– ‘return’ when the letters are
rearranged they spell ‘shabbat’ - שבת
Sotah 14a Chapter 11
MISHNAH. [THE HUSBAND] BRINGS HER
MEAL-OFFERING16 IN A BASKET OF PALM-TWIGS AND PLACES IT UPON HER HANDS IN ORDER
TO WEARY HER. WITH ALL OTHER MEAL-OFFERINGS, THE BEGINNING AND END OF THEIR
[SACRIFICE] ARE IN MINISTERING VESSELS; BUT WITH THIS, ITS BEGINNING IS IN A
BASKET OF PALM-TWIGS AND ITS END IN A MINISTERING VESSEL. ALL OTHER
MEAL-OFFERINGS REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE, BUT THIS REQUIRES NEITHER OIL NOR
FRANKINCENSE. ALL OTHER MEAL-OFFERINGS CONSIST OF WHEAT, BUT THIS CONSISTS OF
BARLEY. THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ‘OMER, ALTHOUGH CONSISTING OF BARLEY, WAS IN
THE FORM OF GROATS; BUT THIS WAS IN THE FORM OF COARSE FLOUR. RABBAN GAMALIEL
SAYS: AS HER ACTIONS WERE THE ACTIONS OF AN ANIMAL, SO HER OFFERING [CONSISTED
OF] ANIMAL'S FODDER.
Midrash Level:
Midrash Rabbah
Midrash Rabbah Ruth III:5 AND WHEN SHE SAW THAT SHE WAS STEADFASTLY MINDED TO GO WITH HER (I, 18). R. Judah b. Simon commented: Come and see how precious in the eyes of the Omnipresent are converts. Once she decided to become converted, Scripture ranks her equally with Naomi.
Midrash Rabbah Ruth III:6 SO THEY TWO WENT (I, 19).
R. Samuel b. Simon said: That day was the day of the reaping of the Omer, as we
have learnt elsewhere4: All the towns near by assembled together that it might
be reaped with great ceremony. Others say that on that day Ibzan married his
daughter. R. Tanhuma in the name of R. ‘Azariah and R. Menahema in the name of
R. Joshua b. Abin said: It is written, O Lord God of Hosts, who is a mighty
one, like unto Thee, O Lord (Psalm
LXXXIX, 9), who brings things about in their due season. The wife of Boaz died
on that day, and all
Midrash Rabbah Ruth III:6 And she said to them, CALL ME NOT NAOMI, CALL ME MARAH. Bar Kappara said: Her case was like that of an ordinary ox which its owner puts up for sale in the marketplace, saying, ‘It is excellent for ploughing, and drives straight furrows.’ ‘But,’ say the bystanders, ‘if it is good for ploughing, what is the meaning of those weals on its back? So said Naomi, WHY CALL YE ME NAOMI (PLEASANT), SEEING THE LORD HATH TESTIFIED AGAINST ME, AND THE ALMIGHTY HATH AFFLICTED ME (I, 21)
Midrash Rabbah Ruth III:7 All His concern was with me, for in this world THE LORD HATH AFFLICTED ME, but of the Messianic future it is written, Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good (Jeremiah XXXII, 41)
Midrash Rabbah Ruth III:7 I WENT OUT FULL AND THE LORD HATH BROUGHT ME BACK EMPTY (ib.). I went out full with sons and daughters. Another interpretation of I WENT OUT FULL, is, I was pregnant. WHY CALL YE ME NAOMI, SEEING THE LORD HATH AFFLICTED (‘ANAH) ME, AND THE ALMIGHTY HATH DONE EVIL TO ME. God has afflicted me with His Attribute of Justice, as in the verse, If thou afflict (‘aneh) him in any wise (Exodus XXII, 22). Another interpretation of ’anah is ' testified ' against me, as in the verse, He hath testified (‘anah) falsely against his brother (Deuteronomy XIX, 18). Another interpretation: All His concern was with me, for in this world THE LORD HATH AFFLICTED ME, but of the Messianic future it is written, Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good (Jeremiah XXXII, 41)
Midrash Rabbah Ruth IV:2 SO NAOMI RETURNED, AND RUTH
THE MOAVITESS HER DAUGHTER-IN- LAW WITH HER, WHO RETURNED OUT OF THE FIELD OF
MOAV (I, 22). [People pointed to her saying] ‘This is the one who returned from
the field of Moav!’ AND THEY CAME TO
Midrash Rabbah Ruth V:1 Lentils are human food and barley fodder for animals. On the other hand, lentils are not used for bringing the ’Omer, whereas barley is. challah is not separated from lentils, but it is from barley.
Midrash Rabbah - Esther I:9 R Levi said: Wherever you find the word ' field ' (sadeh) in Scripture, it implies a city; wherever you find ' city ' (‘ir) it implies a metropolis; wherever you find metropolis (medinah) it implies a province.’ Whence do we know that ' field ' implies ' city ‘? Because it says, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields (I Kings II, 26). Whence do we know that ' city ' implies metropolis? Because it says, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem (Ezek. IX, 4).2 Whence do we know that metropolis implies a province? Becau se it says, A HUNDRED AND SEVEN AND TWENTY PROVINCES (MEDINAH).
Midrash Rabbah - Ecclesiastes X:16 THE LABOUR OF FOOLS WEARIETH EVERY ONE OF THEM (X, 15): i.e. a disciple who stands [without making progress] in his study. FOR HE KNOWETH NOT HOW TO GO TO THE CITY: should he not go to his teacher[1] who will restore his learning to him?
Midrash Rabbah - Ruth VII:5 AND SHE SAID: THESE SIX MEASURES OF BARLEY GAVE HE TO ME (III, 17). R. Alexander said: Wherever the children of Israel went, they did not depart there from empty-handed. From the spoil of Egypt they did not depart empty-handed, nor did they leave empty handed the spoil of Sihon and Og, nor did they depart empty-handed from the spoil of the thirty-one kings. The word rekam (empty-handed) occurs in connection with Egypt, as it is said, And it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty-handed-rekam (Ex. III, 21). And in connection with the Festival pilgrims, as it is said, And none shall appear before Me empty-handed-rekam (ib. XXIII, 15); and in connection with the righteous, as it is said, FOR HE SAID UNTO ME: GO NOT EMPTY-HANDED UNTO THY MOTHER-IN-LAW (III, 17). The word ’rekam‘ which occurs in connection with the righteous is to be compared not to that of Egypt, but to that of the Festival Pilgrims, as we have learnt: The re'iyyah-offering must be not less than two pieces of silver in value, and the Festival-offering not less than one ma'ah of silver.
Midrash Rabbah - Ruth III:7 I WENT OUT FULL AND THE LORD HATH BROUGHT ME BACK EMPTY (ib.). I went out full with sons and daughters. Another interpretation of I WENT OUT FULL, is, I was pregnant.
Midrash Rabbah - The Song of Songs IV:12 [With regard to] the mount of Moriah, R. Hiyya the Great and R. Jannai explained this name differently. One said it was so called because from it issued bitterness (marah) to [the rest of] the world; the other said, because from it issued religious awe (mora) to the rest of the world.
Midrash Rabbah - Genesis XLVI:3 R. Nathan said in R. Aha's name, and R. Berekiah said in R. Isaacs name: I AM EL SHADDAI (GOD ALMIGHTY): It is I who said to My world, ’day’ (enough)! And had I not said ’day!’ to My world, the heaven would still have been spreading and the earth would have gone on expanding to this very day. It was taught in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: It is I whose Godhead outweighs the world and the fulness thereof. Akilas translated it: Sufficient and incomparable.
Midrash Rabbah - Ruth III:7 I WENT OUT FULL AND THE LORD HATH BROUGHT ME BACK EMPTY (ib.). I went out full with sons and daughters. Another interpretation of I WENT OUT FULL, is, I was pregnant. WHY CALL YE ME NAOMI, SEEING THE LORD HATH AFFLICTED (‘ANAH) ME, AND THE ALMIGHTY HATH DONE EVIL TO ME. God has afflicted me with His Attribute of Justice, as in the verse, If thou afflict (‘aneh) him in any wise (Ex. XXII, 22). Another interpretation of ’anah is 'testified' against me, as in the verse, He hath testified (‘anah) falsely against his brother (Deut. XIX, 18). Another interpretation: All His concern3 was with me, for in this world THE LORD HATH AFFLICTED ME, but of the Messianic future it is written, Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good (Jer. XXXII, 41)
Midrash Rabbah - Leviticus XXIX:5 R. Berekiah in the name of R. Jeremiah opened his discourse with the text, The path of life goeth upward for the wise (Prov. XV, 24). The expression, ‘The path of life’ denotes none other than the Torah; as is prosed by the citation, She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her (ib. III, 18).
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin notes that the Torah commands “v'eeneetem et nafshotechem: and you shall afflict your souls.” [Lev. 23:32] But it uses the same verb root- anah- when it commands “v’anitah lifnei Adonai- and you shall sing out before the Lord your G d...” [Deut. 26:5] Anah: afflict and sing. Yom Kippur then is about the comingling of fasting and chanting, of discomfort and inspiration, of affliction and exaltation. And music will be our bridge between the two.
Midrash Rabbah - Ruth VII:2 R. Juda b. Simon said: The meaning is that as a reward for, AND HE MEASURED SIX BARLEYS AND LAID [THEM] ON HER, he was vouchsafed that there should arise from her six righteous men, each one of them possessing six outstanding virtues, viz. David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah,2 Daniel, and the Messiah. David, as it is said, Skilful in playing, and a mighty man of valour, and a man of war, and prudent in affairs, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him (I Sam. XVI, 18)
Midrash Rabbah - Ruth IV:2 SO NAOMI RETURNED, AND RUTH THE MOABITESS HER DAUGHTER-IN- LAW WITH HER, WHO RETURNED OUT OF THE FIELD OF MOAB (I, 22). [People pointed to her saying] ‘This is the one who returned from the field of Moab!’ AND THEY CAME TO BETHLEHEM IN THE BEGINNtNG OF THE BARLEY- HARVEST (ib.). R. Samuel b. Nahman said: Wherever the words barley-harvest occur in Scripture, they refer to the harvest of the Omer. Wherever the words wheat- harvest occur, it refers to the Two Loaves. If it states simply harvest it may be applied to both.
Midrash Rabbah - The Song of Songs VIII:19 The greatness of Israel is compared to four things--to harvest, to wine-gathering, to spices, and to a woman bearing child. To a harvest, because if a field is reaped before its time even its straw is no good, but if in its proper time all its yield is good, as it is written, Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe (Joel IV, 13). It is compared to wine-gathering, because when the vineyard is gathered before its time even the vinegar made from it is not good, but if gathered in its time its vinegar also is good; so, Sing ye of her: A vineyard of foaming wine (Isa. XXVII, 2): when the vineyard is ready to produce foaming wine, then pluck it. It is compared to spices, because if spices are gathered when they are moist and soft, they do not give off scent, but if gathered when they are dry, they give off scent. It is compared to a woman bearing child, because if the woman gives birth before the time, the child does not live, but if at the right time, the child lives. So it is written, Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth (Micah V, 2). R. Aha said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: I the Lord will hasten it in its time (Isa. LX, 22). If ye prove not worthy, it [the redemption] will be at its due time; if ye prove worthy, I will hasten it. So may it be God's will speedily in our days, Amen.
Matityahu (Matthew) 13:37-43 He answered and said unto them, He that
soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom;
but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the
harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and
burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels,
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which
do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into
a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Zohar Level:
Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 224a ‘The term ne'arim (youths)’, he said, ‘has been expounded to mean empty, [Tr. note: The root, N'R has this meaning only in post-Biblical Hebrew.] that is, empty of any words of the Torah and of any observance of the precepts of the Torah: “little ones”,
Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 224b to wit, of little faith, and such as were doomed in this world and in the world to come; “came forth out of the city” (Ibid.), that is, they abandoned the mystery of Divine Faith, the term “city” having the same implication here as in the passage, “and I will not enter the city” (Hos. XI, 9). [Tr. note: Al. the Divine Faith, which is called “city”, as in the passage, “in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God” (Ps. XLVIII, 9)].
Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 163a Said R. Eleazar: ‘There are sinners who either neglect altogether the words of the Torah, or if they do cast an eye on them, think them mere foolishness. But in truth the foolishness is in their own minds, since all the words of the Torah are sublime and precious, and of every word it is written: “She is more precious than rubies; and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared with her” (Prov. III, 15). Woe to all these foolish and senseless people, when the Holy One, blessed be He, will demand an account from them for the insult done to the Torah and they will be punished for having rebelled against their Master. So Scripture says: “For it is no empty thing for you” (Deut. XXXII, 47), implying that if it is an empty thing, its emptiness is from you yourselves, seeing that all the things one can desire are not to be compared with her. How can they say that the Torah is an empty thing seeing that Solomon said: ‘ ‘ If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself” (Prov. IX, 12), implying that whoever becomes wise in the Torah benefits himself thereby? Thus the Torah is filled with all riches and no one can add thereto even one letter.
Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 27a But if he transgresses the law, they are watered from the bitterness of the tree of evil, which is the evil inclination, and all his limbs are full of bitterness; but when the members of the body are kept holy from the side of good, it may be said of them that “they came to Marah and were not able to drink waters from Marah, for they were bitter” (Ex. XV, 23). Similarly, the study of the Talmud is bitter compared with that of the esoteric wisdom, of which it is said, “And God showed him a tree” (Ibid.); this is a tree of life, and through it “the waters were sweetened”.
In the first verse of Genesis 17, G-d is referred to as El-Shaddai in Torah for the first time. Although there are various understandings of El-Shaddai, according to Ramban, Shaddai is related to the word shoded (both having the shoresh shin-dalet-dalet), which means “manipulate”. Therefore El Shaddai alludes to G-d as one who manipulates the entire world. Manipulation related to shoded is not in the miraculous sense (such as splitting the sea) which involves a suspension of nature itself. Instead shoded means a manipulation of the natural world through subduing of it, or a manipulating of the world within nature and not apart from it.
Midrash HaNe’elam of the Zohar to the book of Ruth "When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole
city buzzed with excitement over them. The women said, 'Can this be
Naomi?"' (Ruth 1:19). For she left this place [the spiritual world] full
of goodness, replete with Torah. A pillar of cloud was at her head by day, and
a pillar of fire by night. And a candle shone in her presence. She was shown
the Garden of Eden, the place of the good reward of the righteous; and she was
shown Gehenna, the place of the punishment of the wicked, where they are judged
for their sins, as Scripture states, "When his candle shone upon my head"
(Job 29:3).29. At that moment, the Neshamah-Soul said, "Do not call me
Naomi; call me Mara" (Ruth 1:20). "1 went away full" (v. 21) as
you have said, "but the Eternal has brought me back empty" (ibid.).
While I was in this place I was full of Torah, full of goodness. But now
"the Eternal has brought me back empty" to that world.
Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 59b R. Eleazar said: ‘The term “These are”, as we
have learnt, always implies that something spoken of before in the text is now
of no account. Now it is written above in the account of the Creation [Tr.
note: Where also we find the expression ‘these are the generations, (Gen. II,
4).] that “A river went out from Eden to water the garden and from
thence it was parted, etc.” (Gen. II, 10).
Soncino Zohar,
Bereshith, Section 1, Page 65b
For when a man departs from this world, and goes to give an account to his
Master of all his actions in this world while body and soul were still joined
together, he sees many strange things on his way, and at length meets Adam, the
first man, sitting at the gate of the Garden of Eden, ready to welcome with joy
all those who have observed the commands of their Master. Round him are many
righteous men, those who in this life have kept clear of the path to
Gehinnom and followed the path to the Garden of Eden. It is these who are
here called “inhabitants of the world’.
Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 181a We see thus that all things are dependent on allotment (mazzal), according to the dictum: “Children, life, and livelihood do not depend on a man's merits, but on mazzal.” Hence all those who are sorely afflicted in this world in spite of being truly righteous suffer through the mischance of their soul; but in compensation the Holy One, blessed be He, has compassion on them in the world to come.’
Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 237b Hence we are required to enclose inside the phylacteries a hair of a calf with one end jutting out and exposed to sight. This hair is incapable of communicating defilement, since it is smaller than a barley grain.
Other Commentaries:
Me’am Lo’ez
VERSE 1:19
1:19 The two of them went until they came to
Along the dangerous roads of
For protection, they disguised themselves as men, hence the
masculine ending of the word ovh,a instead of ivh,a
And miraculously, they encountered no one until they reached
They were now “the two of them”—equal in purpose and determination. Although Ruth was moving farther and farther away from her birthplace and approaching a strange land where she knew people would look strangely at her, she walked with the same eagerness as Naomi, who was returning home.
Our sages infer from here how greatly God cherishes the proselyte. Once Ruth had resolved to convert, the scripture holds her to be equal to the righteous and noble Naomi.
Since Elimelech and Naomi and their two sons had been
prominent citizens of
The tragic figure of Naomi evoking the wonder of
“Is this Naomi?” The question may have been addressed to Ruth. Yet they did not ask “Is this your mother-in-law?” since they did not know Ruth, or else because they did not want to embarrass Naomi by reminding her that her son had married a Moabite.
By coming out to greet Naomi, the Bethlehemites fulfilled the obligation of a society to share in the sorrow of the individual. At the same time, from Naomi’s present condition they drew the proper lesson for themselves and repented of their own misdeeds.
Said R. Yitzchak: Read not hngb ,tzv
(“Is this Naomi?”) but hngb ,tzj (as in ,uzj,
seeing)—i.e., “have you seen Naomi?” “Look at what happened to Naomi for
leaving the
According to the Jerusalem Talmud, the people had gathered then for the funeral of the wife of Boaz, who died that day. This is hinted at by the word vay’ehi, “it came to pass,” which expresses woe (see verse 1). This explains how they all happened to be on hand when Ruth and Naomi arrived.
When the huge crowd following the bier saw these two unattended women coming, they approached them in greeting.
“One left, the other came,” comments the Talmud. As soon as Boaz lost his first wife, God brought him Ruth.
Ruth’s arrival in
read uag (Esau), and vbtuc is an anagram of vtucb (prophecy). This implies that the power of Esau will last until the Messianic prophecy comes true.
VERSE 1:20
1:20 She said to them, “Call me not Naomi (pleasant), call me Mara (bitter); for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.
Although surrounded by the entire population of
“Call me not Naomi, the pleasant one,” she said, “but Mara, the bitter one.” And to accent the great bitterness with which “the Almighty has dealt with me,” the word mara ends in an unexpected aleph (t) rather than the letter heh (v). Thus we find, similarly, “He left in a great wrath (tnj)” (Daniel 11:44) - tnj, for emphasis, instead of the expected vnj.
In this regard, the numerical values of the t
(=1) and the v (=5) are significant. Of the
five souls that left the
That she had been pregnant at the time is conveyed by “I went out full (vtkn)” (v. 21), as in, “the bones [that grow] in a full (vtkn) womb” (Ecclesiastes 11:5).
Therefore Naomi called herself Mara, Aramaic for “hoe,” as if to say, ‘I have dug graves for my husband and children.”
God had dealt “bitterly” with her by striking down her husband; “very” bitterly by striking down her two sons.
Naomi is also alluding to the fact that at the same time
this was happening in
Naomi observed that the people were not so much sorrowing over her tragic situation as bemoaning her fall from good fortune and previous situation in life. So she said: “So great is my suffering that you could well call me Mara even if I had not been Naomi, but one of the common people. As it is, however, falling from a great height made my suffering all the more bitter.”
Naomi was like that recalcitrant cow put up for sale in the marketplace, whose owner praised her diligence at plowing and making beautiful furrows.
“If so,” queried a prospective buyer, “why does she show all those tell-tale signs of having been beaten!”
Similarly, when Naomi, who had been famous for her good deeds, saw that the Bethlehemites around her were appalled to see a righteous woman in such straits, she said to them, “Call me not Naomi, she whose deeds are pleasing, but Mara, she whose deeds are bitter. Had I been truly righteous, God would not have dealt so bitterly with me.”
VERSE 1:21
1:21 “I went out full, and empty has the Lord returned me. Why should you call me Naomi, when the Lord has testified against me and the Almighty has afflicted me?”
Since no human being ever feels he has enough material
possessions, our sages deduce that she was actually saying: “When I left the
Now the word vbg may connote affliction, and also mean answered.” Accordingly she was saying: “The Lord had then fulfilled all my wishes and the name Naomi fit me. But now that the Almighty has afflicted me and I have lost everything, why should you still call me Naomi?”
She was like that rich man who came on hard times, had to sell his house and all his possessions, and was left with only his horse and wagon. Then he was forced to sell these also, and from then on had to carry heavy loads on his back. An old acquaintance who remembered him from his days of wealth met him and asked, “Where is all the gold and silver you once had?”
“Gold and silver?” he replied. “Would that I had a horse and wagon!”
Similarly, Naomi said: “Why remind me of my glorious old days by calling me Naomi? Would that I had what even the lowliest human being has! But the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me.”
She was now “empty” of family, health, and possessions, and the fact that she returned at all was only due to divine mercy. The attribute of mercy is denoted by the Tetragrammaton (‘n’~’TI”); hence “empty has the Lord (niir’) returned me.”
The people of
“God is just, and He has punished me measure for measure.
Because I went out full—I left the
Lest the people, however, object that it was her husband who sinned by fleeing from the responsibility of feeding the poor and hungry, Naomi added: “The Lord has testified against me.” She too was guilty for failing to protest.
The term vbg can mean warned,
testified, or humbled. “The Lord warned
me to repent, but I paid no heed; whereupon He punished me, thereby testifying
that I had sinned; and He humbled me.” Similarly the if prophet says, “The
glory of
Naomi’s punishment was inflicted not by the divine Attribute of Justice (Elohim), but by the Attribute of Mercy (“the Lord”) operating on behalf of the poor. For as the Torah states: “If he [a poor man] calls out toMe, I will hear, for I am merciful” (Exodus 22:26).
The punishment for afflicting the poor is harsh and long-lasting. Naomi asked that she no longer be called Naomi, being convinced that her bitter condition would endure.
Although Naomi said, “the Almighty has afflicted me,” she realized that what she called affliction was only to “me,” that is, according to her human perception. But in truth, everything God does is good. Thus our sages teach: “In this world, for happy events we recite the blessing chynvu cuyv lurc “Exalted is He Who is good and does good,” and on sad occasions we recite, ,nt ihs lurc, “Blessed is the True judge.” In the future, however, we will recite only “Exalted is He Who is good and does good,” for we will realize that our suffering was the source of our good fortune, as it is written: “I will rejoice over them to do good for them, and I will plant them in this land in truth with My whole heart and with My whole soul” (Jeremiah 32:41).
VERSE 1:22
1:22 Thus Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabite, her
daughter-in-law, who returned from the Fields of Moab. They came [to]
The narrative of Naomi’s return, interrupted to record her
acceptance of God’s judgment, is now resumed. Scripture repeats that “Naomi
returned.” For as we find in Genesis, when the narrative about Joseph is
resumed, the scripture repeats that “Joseph was taken down to
Our sages teach that she “returned” in more ways than one.
She “returned” to God; she repented. It is stressed once more that she came “to
She also returned to her good deeds. The poor had called her Naomi (the pleasant) because she collected money for them and dispensed comfort with a pleasant word. No one had taken her place while she was gone, and now she resumed her work of charity assisted by Ruth, who cleaved to her in order to learn the ways of righteousness.
On account of Ruth, who stayed “with her” and brought her
happiness, Naomi began to rise out of the depths of misery she had reached in
Evidently Naomi also returned to her original level of
righteousness, since she merited to bring back from
Although Ruth was now fully a Jewess, she is still called
“the Moabite,” reflecting the fact that her Moabite origin enabled her to guide
Naomi safely out of
The scripture provides the extra emphasis that “Ruth . . .
returned from the Fields of Moab,” calling attention to Ruth’s greatness. She
had separated herself from the stinginess and depravity of
When God directed Abraham to the
So strong was the pull to return to her source, that Ruth
came to the
Our sages comment: “It was she who returned from the Fields
of Moab.” God was waiting for two “pearls” to come from
She was also the first to “return from the Fields of Moab,” in that she was the first Moabite to convert. And through her the forgotten law of “a Moabite, not a Moabitess” was clarified.
Previously it says (v. 19), “until they came [to]
They arrived “at the beginning of the barley harvest,” that is, when the first-yield measure (omer, rng) of barley is brought to the cohen-priest, in fulfillment of “You shall bring an omer of the first of your harvest to the priest. . . . And bread of parched corn and green ears you shall not eat until this self-same day, until you have brought the offering (Leviticus 23:10-14). Thus the omer offering is called “the beginning of the barley harvest.” Thereafter the new grain may be harvested and eaten.
In their eagerness to come to the
To them, therefore, applies: “You mighty of strength, who fulfill His word, to harken to His word” (Psalms 103:20). Because they exerted themselves to fulfill one mitzvah (“His word”), they also merited to fulfill a second one.
The pause mark (tjp,) over the word ,kj,c (" at the beginning") is significant,
indicating that it was a special beginning, namely, the first harvest after
many years of famine.
According to Targum Yonathan, they came on the day before Passover, the
beginning of the barley season, when the omer is harvested. This
explains why Boaz did not come out to greet them. As the head of the clan, he
was occupied with the Passover lamb offering and the baking of matzoth.
Thus begins the account of how it came to pass that Ruth married Boaz.
Since "they came to
Abraham Ibn Ezra
1:19 ov,u: From the niphal conjugation of a double ‘ayin verb.
IS THIS NAOMI?: For Elimelech and his wife were of the great
ones of
1:20 DO NOT CALL NE NAOMI, CALL ME MARA: Although Mara is written with an aleph it behaves in the same way as a word with silent he an the end. The aleph in rn’ is instead of v, and the word xs is like it. In the opinion of R. Judah and in my opinion, ob is something pleasant, and bitterness is the opposite of pleasantness. ob when applied to food is sweetness.
1:21 FULL: With Sons and money.
AND THE LORD HAS ANSWERED NE: There are some who say that ‘n/i is from the same root as ‘ be humbled before me’, but in my opinion it is from the same root as ‘you shall not answer your neighbour’, where the meaning is similar to ‘you renew your witnesses against me’.
AND THE ALMIGHTY HAS TREATED ME BADLY: It is like saying ‘he afflicted’, and a similar example is ‘creator of evil’ Either the meaning is ‘he has treated me badly on account of my rebellion’, or the text is to be understood in the way in which the word is normally used, and this is the correct meaning.
1:22 The v in vcwv, as it is found here, is the definite article. The reason why it says AND NAOMI RETURNED a second time is to connect the time of their return with the beginning of the barley harvest, on account of Ruth’s gleaning.
Malbim
19. They both went on. The Midrash Ruth Rabbah (3:5) comments, "once she made up her mind to convert, Scripture equates Ruth with Naomi." (The word ovh,a, they both, is extraneous and is therefore coming to accentuate a relationship of equality.) Alternately, one may suggest that the use of the words they both is to explain the entire city was in turmoil about them -Naomi was always surrounded by many servants and members of her household whenever she left her home, and now she came with only herself and her daughter-in-law; they came like two itinerant beggars.
20-22. Questions: When they called her Naomi ("pleasantness"), was it not in reference to her previous status in which she was successful and "pleasant"? If so, why did she say, Do not call me Naomi? Was it not justifiable to refer to her as "pleasantness" in the context of her previous circumstances? Why did she say, Do not call me Naomi...why do you call me Naomi... the ETERNAL has borne witness against me... God has made things bad for me. These all appear to be redundant! Why does verse 22 repeat, Naomi returned... which is unnecessary here?
20. Do not call me Naomi [pleasantness}. By way of analogy, a man who possessed wealth as great as that of Achashverosh[2] and lost everything except for 1000 golden coins cannot be described as a "poor person" unless we refer to his previous fortune. If one had not known of his former prosperity, the man who has 1000 golden coins would be considered a" rich man". However, if even such a wealthy man were to lose all his assets to the point where he could not afford bread and water, it would be unnecessary to mention his previous affluence in order to call him a "poor man". When the inhabitants of the city saw Naomi and her daughter-in-law walking (not on horseback or in a carriage) without anyone to serve them or wait on them, they knew that she had lost her great wealth. However, they assumed that she still had a reserve of gold and jewelry that would make even the common man feel "fortunate". As such they exclaimed that the source of their tumult and astonishment was, Is this Naomi?, referring to her former affluence and stature, .relative to which she now appeared lacking.
She answered them. She informed them that it was
unnecessary to mention her previous name, Naomi ("pleasantness"),
in order to call her Mara ("bitterness") [which would imply
that her present state of poverty was only relative to her previous wealth],
for she had lost everything (behold, Ruth had to go collecting grain for food)
and could therefore be called Mara without any allusion to the name Naomi: Do
not call me Naomi! Call me Mara, for the All-sufficing God had made things
very bitter for me. Even though...
21. I left full [of possessions], and the ETERNAL brought me back empty-handed. I have nothing! So you can call me Mara, pauper, and beggar without making reference to my name Naomi which I was called during the time of my success and fame. Naomi now added a new insight to her predicament and claimed that the name Naomi was never applicable -Why do you call me Naomi? That itself is an untruth. We have explained that there are times when, before God wants to mete out a very severe punishment, He first advances the individual to the apex of financial success and fame. Consequently, if God brings him down from there to abject poverty, the individual will feel the pain and grief more intensely and his downfall will be greater. As we find in Iyov (20:6,7): If he will raise his height to the Heaven...like his own excrement will he be destroyed... and in Ovadiah (1:4): "If he [Esav] will rise like an eagle and among the stars will make his nest, from there I will bring you down, " declares God. Likewise, Naomi sensed that her former success and prominence was a pretext to the augmenting of her downfall and impoverishment. If her former greatness was merely a warning that she needed to return to God, and He had elevated her for the purpose of enhancing her calamity [if she would not take heed], she maintained that the name Naomi which she had at that time was unjustified. For her glory was indeed very bitter -" an upward movement for the sake of her downfall."[3] This is what Naomi meant when she said, I left full... in order that the ETERNAL brought me back empty-handed. If so, my original wealth merely increases my present pain and grief. And, if so, Why do you call me Naomi? Even when you formerly called me Naomi it was inappropriate for the ETERNAL has borne witness against me: my earlier accomplishments were His way of warning me to improve my deeds and avoid being cast down from the pinnacle of my success. And so it was, that by my success, the All-sufficing God had made things bad for me: My anguish and ruin have been intensified by the very nature of my former self.
The Midrash Ruth Rabbah (3:6) says, "Is this
Naomi? In the past she would go with fancy shoes, but now she is barefoot.
In the past she would wear clothes of fine linen, but now she is dressed in
rags. Is this Naomi? And she said to them, Do not call me Naomi! Call
me Mara...[this corresponds to Naomi's claim that any mention of her past
was superfluous]. Bar Kapara compared this situation to a cow put on display by
its owners, who declared that it was a plowing cow. People said, "If it is
a plowing cow, where are the marks (literally: wounds) of the yoke?" So,
too, Why do you call me Naomi, when
the ETERNAL has borne witness against me... [this corresponds to Naomi's insistence that even her formerly being
called Naomi was inappropriate since it was ultimately to result in suffering
and poverty].
22. Naomi returned. This is repeated here in order to point out that when she departed from Bethlehem, she left her properties -it is possible that others seized possession of the fields when she left [as happened to the Shunamite woman (Melachim II, 8:1-6) when she departed for the land of the Philistines so that it was necessary for her to request royal intervention to obtain the restitution of her house and field] so she contested these until her inheritance was restored.
With Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law. She,
too, had an inheritance through her deceased husband (from his father), which
is qualified by who had returned...from the fields of Moab, implying
that if she had remained in the fields of Moab, she would have forfeited the
inheritance (especially, according to the Midrash Ruth Rabbah 2:14 that
she had already relinquished the marital contract's monetary obligation owed
her by Machlon). However, now, in contrast, returning from the fields of
The Midrash Ruth Rabbah (4:1,2) interprets the words who
had returned...from the fields of
They came to
Alshich
(19) The
two of them went until they arrived in
(20) She
replied to them, “Do not call me Na’omi [i.e., pleasant) but ‘Morah’ [i.e.,
bitter), for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.”
(21) “1
left full but God has returned me empty-handed: why should you call me Na’omi
since God has testified against me and has dealt very bitterly with me?”
In verse 19 the obvious difficulty is the word ovh,a,
two of them. Why couldn’t the prophet write simply, “They went?”
Besides, the word ovh,a has a masculine ending; the
correct word is ivh,a.
Indeed, later in the verse, we find the feminine
form, ivhkg about them.
Also difficult is the repetitious formulation of
the verse. First we read that they went to
Why was the town in such an uproar? Were they surprised
to see Ruth with Na’omi? They didn’t even know who she was!
Verses 20 and 21 discuss what Na’omi’s name should
or should not have been. How is all this relevant to us? It is not the way of
the Scriptures to repeat the gossip of local women! Moreover, Na’omi repeats
that God has dealt bitterly with her. She bemoans the fact that she left
The final difficulty we have to contend with is an
apparent contradiction. In verse 20, Na’omi asks the women not to call her
Na’omi, while in verse 21 her language is much stronger, as if she were
remonstrating against them: What right do you have to call me Na’omi?
A Measure
of Their Greatness
A clear look at these verses
will reveal Na’omi’s and Ruth’s courage and enthusiasm in leaving
When embarking on their journey, they did not seek the company of other people as normal women would do in such circumstances in order to be safe from attack. God dealt kindly with them and they came to no harm.
The two of them went emphasizes
that only the two of them traveled — no one else was in their
company. This explains the masculine ending of ovh,a. It
indicates that they acted like men who are not afraid to travel alone. When
they arrived in
A further grammatical
peculiarity in verse 19 is the extra v in the words vbtuc
(they arriued) and in vbtucf (when they arrived).
These words should be spelled vbtuc,, ituc
It must be made clear that these
women were treading an exceedingly dangerous path. The Talmud (Sotah 42b)
relates that Orpah had travelled a distance of two thousand cubits in order to
return to the city, but during that short time had been repeatedly assaulted
until she was ‘beaten like a bruised corn.’ Na’omi and Ruth had to travel for
several days, and it is quite likely that, as a precaution, they wore men’s
clothes for the duration of their journey. This, too, would explain why the
word ovh,a
has a masculine ending. Once they reached
No wonder that the city was in an uproar. They saw two attractive women, arriving from a faraway place completely on their own, who had survived unharmed.
Na’omi
Acknowledges Her Guilt
Our Sages comment (Ruth Rabbah 3:6): “Is this Na’omi? She has such pleasant ways but has suffered such great misfortune.”
According to the Midrash, her address to the people in Bethlehem sounded like this: “You must all be wondering how I, Na’omi, who was so named because my ways are pleasant, should be left now bereft of my husband and sons. You will no doubt assume that I am indeed righteous and fit to be called ‘Na’omi,’ and that my troubles have befallen me on account of my husband and sons who perished because of their sins.”
Typical of her piety, she acknowledges
God’s judgment and the fact that she is wholly undeserving. She continues: “Don’t call me Na’omi as if my ways are
pleasant, for the Almighty has made me very bitter. It is my fault that these troubles have befallen me, as I do not
suspect the Holy One of punishing without justice (cf. Talmud Berachoth
5b). Proof of this can be seen in my history. I left here pregnant. If I
was indeed meritorious, though my good deeds may not have been enough to save
my husband and sons, surely they would at least have been enough to save
my unborn child, who could not have been held guilty for leaving
“You may challenge me with the
following: ‘How can you deny it? We know you are righteous and
good-intentioned. How can you declare that God has judged you for your sins?’ “My reply to you is: God has testified
against me. He searches a man’s inner thoughts. While man has the ability
to see only actions, God sees the thought behind every deed. How is it
that I survived and was not smitten along with my family? For the Almighty
has dealt very bitterly with me.”
This brings to mind the words in Genesis (43:14), And the Almighty God shall grant you mercy. Jacob said: “May the
One Who said to His World (after creation) ‘Enough,’*[6] say to my troubles, ‘Cease, that’s enough!’” (Rashi ad bc., Midrash Tanchuma ad bc.; Zohar, Volume 3,251b.)
Na’omi voices a similar notion here. By using God’s name, hsa, which contains the word hs (enough), she indicates that God called a halt to the suffering which was afflicting her, since he did not kill her along with her husband and children.
(22) Na’omi
returned with Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her, who had returned
from the fields of
Ruth as
Great as Na’omi?
The majority of this verse contains information which
is not new to us at all. We know that both Na’omi and Ruth had returned from
The text is indeed very revealing. It teaches us how
much Ruth had gained in spiritual stature by leaving
With this explanation we are better able to
understand the verse: Na’omi returned... At first Na’omi was considered
to be of greater stature. Ruth was known as a Moabitess and her
daughter-in-law; not as a person of consequence. When they arrived in
There is a way to understand the verse as a
continuation of the previous theme. The Divine Spirit testified that Na’omi had
survived twice due to God’s kindness, for she too played a part, first
in her husband’s sin and later in the sin of her children. She admitted her
guilt by saying, And God has testified against me.
Now we are told the reason why she was not destined
to die. Na’omi returned. She did not die like her husband and sons, even
though she was guilty to some extent, as we explained in our commentary to the
words, and the women remained ...and she remained (verses 3 and 8). She
was allowed to survive so that Ruth the Moabitess, who was destined to join the
ranks of
Three Came
to
Through Ruth, they both arrived in
The
Passover Connection
This may help us to understand the Midrash (Ruth
Rabbah 4:3) which explains the words, Who returned from the fields of
At first glance, the Midrash appears meaningless, for it does not seem to add anything to the verse itself. However, the Sages found two difficulties with the verse. Firstly, why is the word returned used in connection with Ruth, who had never been there in the first place? Secondly, why is there a definite article in the word vcav? It seems to imply that that Ruth was returning. Was there another ‘Ruth’ who did not return with Na’omi?
The point being made is that Ruth is the one who,
even though she had never been to
The Midrash further teaches: “R. Shmuel bar Nachman
said: Each time the term ‘barley harvest’ is mentioned it refers to the reaping
of the omer”.[8]
Following this, the Targum renders the verse: “And
they came to
The question here is, what difference does it make to us whether they arrived on the eve of Passover? Why is it relevant for us to know that on that day they prepared to reap the barley harvest?
Finally, why does the Targum take pains to tell us
that on that day the Israelites ‘prepared’ to reap...? Wouldn’t it have been
sufficient to render this: It was the time of the reaping of the omer?
The Midrash (Pesikta d’R. Cahana, Piska 12) remarks: Just as a girl who was in captivity and a newly converted female proselyte must wait three months before marrying in order to distinguish between the unclean and the holy, so, too, Israel had to wait three months after leaving Egypt before they were able to receive the Torah.[9]
With this we can understand the statement of R. Shmuel bar Nachman (Ruth Rabbah 5:11) on the verse, She stayed close to Boaz’s girls, gleaning until the end of the wheat harvest (2:23):
From the beginning of the
barley harvest until the end of the wheat harvest ux~s a period of three
months. The uerse then continues, “And she dwelt with her mother-in-law.”
Following that, chapter three begins: “Then Na’om:, her mother-in-law, said to
her, ‘My daughter, shall I seek security for you...
The intention of this Midrash is obviously to inform us that the end of the wheat harvest marked a period of three months since Ruth had converted. Her mother-in-law told her as follows: “Now that the three months necessary to distinguish between seed conceived in uncleanliness and seed conceived in holiness has elapsed, I shall seek security (i.e., marriage) for you.”
R. Shmuel’s remark has a bearing on the verse under discussion, too. The ‘reaping of the barley harvest’ mentioned is an allusion to the omer. R. Shmuel was perplexed by the seemingly irrelevant piece of information concerning the onset of the barley harvest. Furthermore, when Scripture writes They came it does not have the simpler term utchu And they came, but utc vnvu which implies that there is a special emphasis on the fact that they arrived on that particular day.
The ‘Omer’ Period — Its Purpose and Significance
The prophet is conveying to us the idea of having to
distinguish between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean.’ When the whole nation of
We see how God wished to purify the faithful
of
The seven weeks began with the omer to remind
us that before we became purified, we were unclean, as an animal that feeds on
barley. Once
As we know, Ruth was a Moabitess, but God had ordained that the glory of the Crown of Israel would emanate from her. Lest anyone challenge the Divine decision by wondering how sweet can come forth from the strong (Judges 14:14) and claiming that it would be far more suitable for a pure daughter of Israel to be the mother of Israel’s royalty, the Scripture reminds us that the entire nation of Israel was immersed in the uncleanliness of Egypt’s heathen way of life. God purified them and converted them into a holy nation just as a woman with a menstrual flow is purified from her uncleanliness.
It should not surprise us if Ruth was deemed suitable
to be progenitress of the stock of Jesse. She was brought to our people at the
time of the reaping of the omer, so that she could begin her process of
purification with Na’omi’s help. Her arrival at this particular time of year
will help us remember that just as barley was reaped before
This is what R. Shmuel intended to convey in his
statement: “This was the time of the reaping of the omer.” Now we can
fully appreciate the Targum’s rendering of the verse. The addition of the
clause: “And on that day