SIVAN Ruth 2:20

וַתֹּ֨אמֶר נׇעֳמִ֜י לְכַלָּתָ֗הּ בָּר֥וּךְ הוּא֙ לַה' אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹא־עָזַ֣ב חַסְדּ֔וֹ אֶת־הַחַיִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַמֵּתִ֑ים וַתֹּ֧אמֶר לָ֣הּ נׇעֳמִ֗י קָר֥וֹב לָ֙נוּ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ מִֽגֹּאֲלֵ֖נוּ הֽוּא׃

Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "Blessed is he to Hashem <for he/who> has not abandoned his kindness with the living or the dead."

Preamble: Kindness is a central theme of the book of Ruth: חסד.

https://www.dbandart.com/arise-detail-and-gallery

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/living-ruth-the-value-of-kindness/

MAIN SOURCE used: Mordechai Cohen, “Hesed: Divine or Human? The Syntactic Ambiguity of Ruth 2:20,” in Hazon Nachum: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought and History, eds. Y. Elman and J.S.Gurock, Ktav, 1977. https://repository.yu.edu/handle/20.500.12202/6143

*LOCATE and check D.  R.  G.  Beattie, Jewish  Exegesis  of the  Book  of Ruth

 (Sheffield,  1977),  47-101.

See: https://torah.org/learning/ruth-class7/?printversion=1

https://www.sefaria.org.il/sheets/366242?lang=bi

In this discussion of the syntactic ambiguity example for Sivan, we will explore the possibility of deliberate multivalence, as argued by Mordecai Cohen. We move forward from the theme of love/hate/war in our Iyyar verse to the theme of kindness, both human and divine, in the book of Ruth, a short biblical book that is read liturgically on the festival of Shavuot. There are a number of associations that account for the relevance of the scroll to the holiday. For example, the narrative is set at a harvest time and Shavuot is a harvest festival; Shavuot celebrates the “occasion of the giving of the Torah” at Sinai, and Ruth’s joining the Jewish people is viewed as analogous to Israel’s acceptance of the obligations of Biblical commandments.  According to Midrash Ruth Rabbah, the significance of the book is centered on its theme of lovingkindness:

Midrash Ruth Rabbah 2:14:

"יַעַשׂ ה' עִמָּכֶם חֶסֶד," רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר אָדָא אָמַר, יַעֲשֶׂה כְּתִיב, כַּאֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם עִם הַמֵּתִים, שֶׁנִּטְפַּלְתֶּם בְּתַכְרִיכֵיהוֹן, וְעִמָּדִי, שֶׁוִתְּרוּ לָהּ כְּתֻבּוֹתֵיהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, מְגִלָּה זוֹ אֵין בָּהּ לֹא טֻמְאָה, וְלֹא טָהֳרָה, וְלֹא אִסּוּר, וְלֹא הֶתֵּר, וְלָמָּה נִכְתְּבָה לְלַמֶּדְךָ כַּמָּה שָׂכָר טוֹב לְגוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים.

“May the Lord perform [ya’as] kindness with you” – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ada said: It is written “ya’aseh.” “As you performed with the dead” – that you tended to their shrouds; “and with me” – that you relinquished your marriage contracts. Rabbi Ze’eira said: This scroll does not contain [the laws of] purity or impurity, and not prohibitions or allowances. Why was it written? It is to teach you the extent of the good reward for those who perform kindness.^[1]

The word חסד appears in 3 verses in the book of Ruth, strategically placed, and intertwining all the main characters– Naomi, her husband and two sons, her two daughters-in-law, and Boaz, as well as God:

1. Ruth 1:8: "But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, 'Go, return each of you to her mother's house. May the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me.'"

וַתֹּ֤אמֶר נָעֳמִי֙ לִשְׁתֵּ֣י כַלֹּתֶ֔יהָ לֵ֣כְנָה שֹּׁ֔בְנָה אִשָּׁ֖ה לְבֵ֣ית אִמָּ֑הּ יעשה [יַ֣עַשׂ] יְהוָ֤ה עִמָּכֶם֙ חֶ֔סֶד כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר עֲשִׂיתֶ֛ם עִם־הַמֵּתִ֖ים וְעִמָּדִֽי׃

2. Ruth 2:20: "And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, 'May he be blessed by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!'"

וַתֹּ֨אמֶר נָעֳמִ֜י לְכַלָּתָ֗הּ בָּר֥וּךְ הוּא֙ לַיהוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹא־עָזַ֣ב חַסְדּ֔וֹ אֶת־הַחַיִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַמֵּתִ֑ים וַתֹּ֧אמֶר לָ֣הּ נָעֳמִ֗י קָר֥וֹב לָ֙נוּ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ מִֽגֹּאֲלֵ֖נוּ הֽוּא׃

3. Ruth 3:10: "And he said, 'May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich.'"

וַיֹּ֗אמֶר בְּרוּכָ֨ה אַ֤תְּ לַֽיהוָה֙ בִּתִּ֔י הֵיטַ֛בְתְּ חַסְדֵּ֥ךְ הָאַחֲר֖וֹן מִן־הָרִאשׁ֑וֹן לְבִלְתִּי־לֶ֗כֶת אַחֲרֵי֙ הַבַּ֣חוּרִ֔ים אִם־דַּ֖ל וְאִם־עָשִֽׁיר׃

As is the case in each of the monthly analyses in this LISHMAH project, the presentation will proceed as follows:

1. The text of the verse in Hebrew
2. Selected ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of the verse
3. DESCRIPTION OF the AMBIGUITIES in the VERSE.
4. TRADITIONAL COMMENTARIES on the VERSE: citations of commentaries on the verse (generally pasted from alhatorah.org), in roughly chronological order, with an analysis of each commentary’s identification and resolution of the ambiguity in question.

***Throughout, some text will be “hidden” through the use of white font on white background, to enable readers to consider the puzzles independently and opt out of “spoilers”. To reveal the hidden text, simply use the “text color” icon in the toolbar to change the font to black.

Our SIVAN verse is Ruth 2:20

וַתֹּ֨אמֶר נׇעֳמִ֜י לְכַלָּתָ֗הּ בָּר֥וּךְ הוּא֙ לַה' אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹא־עָזַ֣ב חַסְדּ֔וֹ אֶת־הַחַיִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַמֵּתִ֑ים וַתֹּ֧אמֶר לָ֣הּ נׇעֳמִ֗י קָר֥וֹב לָ֙נוּ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ מִֽגֹּאֲלֵ֖נוּ הֽוּא׃

Modern English Translations

Alhatorah.org Ruth 2:20

Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "Blessed is he to Hashem, for he has not abandoned his kindness^[2] with the living or the dead." And Naomi said to her, "The man is a relative of ours; he is from our redeemers."^[3]

KJV (biblegateway.com), Ruth 2:20:

20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the Lord, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.

NRSVUE (biblegateway.com), Ruth 2:20:

20 Then Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!” Naomi also said to her, “The man is a relative of ours, one of our nearest kin.”*Or one with the right to redeem

JPS (2006; sefaria.org),  Ruth 2:20:

Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not failed in His kindness to the living or to the dead! For,” Naomi explained to her daughter-in-law, “the man is related to us; he is one of our redeeming kinsmen.”*Cf. Lev. 25.25 and note and Deut. 25.5–6. The fact that Boaz was a kinsman of Ruth’s dead husband opened up the possibility of providing an heir for the latter.

 AMBIGUITIES and READING OPTIONS

Reminder: When you come across questions in the following discussion, I will provide some of my own answers, concealed by means of being written in white lettering. To see the concealed text, please use the  tool in the toolbar to change the white letters to black. Throughout this document, text concealed as white-on-white to minimize “spoilers.” will be marked with the symbol <<<>>>*** Feel free to add your own responses using the comment feature

Ruth 2:20

וַתֹּ֨אמֶר נׇעֳמִ֜י לְכַלָּתָ֗הּ בָּר֥וּךְ הוּא֙ לַה' אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹא־עָזַ֣ב חַסְדּ֔וֹ אֶת־הַחַיִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַמֵּתִ֑ים וַתֹּ֧אמֶר לָ֣הּ נׇעֳמִ֗י קָר֥וֹב לָ֙נוּ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ מִֽגֹּאֲלֵ֖נוּ הֽוּא׃

Some guiding QUESTIONS:<<<What is the head of the relative clause– whom, or what, does the word אשר refer to?

In the phrase “Blessed is he to/before Hashem”, “he” refers to Boaz.
Does the relative clause modify one of the nouns in that phrase– either the proximate noun, “Hashem”, or  “he”/Boaz, the subject of the main clause:

Blessed is Boaz to God– Who has not abandoned His kindness.”

Or:

Blessed is Boaz–who has not abandoned his kindness–to/before God.

Or

Alternatively, instead of taking the relative pronoun as “who”, with a direct nominal referent, which is also the subject of the verb עזב, it is possible to translate impersonally:  for/that he has not abandoned his kindness…  

or, alternatively, the kindness itself can be taken as the subject of עזב – that his kindness has not departed…. >>>

The two main options for translation, used by Cohen to structurally frame his article, are:

TRANSLATION (A): Blessed is he to the Lord, who has not abandoned his kindness with the living and with the dead.^[4]

TRANSLATION (B): Blessed to the Lord is who has not abandoned his kindness with the living and with the dead.^[5]

EXEGETICAL SOURCES

(Cantillation: not in Kogut)

ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS: SEPTUAGINT, TARGUM, PESHITTA, VULGATE^[6]

LXX SEPTUAGINT (https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=LXX) - GREEK

20 καὶ εἶπεν Νωεμιν τῇ νύμφῃ αὐτῆς Εὐλογητός ἐστιν τῷ κυρίῳ, ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκατέλιπεν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ζώντων καὶ μετὰ τῶν τεθνηκότων. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ νωεμιν Ἐγγίζει ἡμῖν ὁ ἀνὴρ, ἐκ τῶν ἀγχιστευόντων ἡμᾶς ἐστιν.

ENGLISH translation by M. Cohen (“Hesed,” p.22):

Blessed is he to the Lord, because (ὅτι) he has not abandoned (lit. “left behind”) his mercy with the living and with the dead.

ENGLISH translation from NETS (https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/08-routh-nets.pdf):

He is blessed by the Lord, because he has not forsaken his compassion for the living and for the dead.”

Cohen comments that the Septuagint is helpful for disambiguation, “since it does not render אשר simply as a relative pronoun (“who”)” (“Hesed, p. 22). Cohen terms ὅτι a “causal particle.” (“Hesed,” p. 23^[7]).  Since the function of the relative clause is to explicate the reason that Boaz is being blessed, it stands to reason that Boaz is understood to be the subject of the verb עזב = ἐγκατέλιπεν, i.e., READING B.

Targum Ruth () - ARAMAIC

תרגום כתובים

וַאֲמַרַת נָעֳמִי לְכַלְּתַהּ מְבוֹרָךְ הוּא מִפּוּם קוּדְשָׁא דַּיָי דְּלָא שְׁבַק טֵיבוּתֵיהּ עִם חַיַיָּא וְעִם מֵתַיָּא וַאֲמַרַת לַהּ נָעֳמִי קָרִיב לַנָא גּוּבְרָא מִפְּרִיקָנָא הוּא.

Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he by the holy mouth of the Lord,^[8] who has not failed in his kindness to the living and the dead.” Naomi said to her, “The man is related to us, he is one of our redeemers.”^[9]

Cohen’s translation:

Blessed is he from the holy mouth of the Lord, who has not abandoned his kindness with the living and with the dead (“Hesed,” 22).

Which READING does this source adopt? <<<The Targum retains the ambiguity of the Hebrew, with the Aramaic particle ד functioning just like the Hebrew word אשר. The fact that the pronoun הוּא in the translation of the end of the verse refers to גּוּבְרָא which itself refers to the הוּא in beginning of the verse, lends a sense of continuity, which might favor taking this same figure, Boaz, also as the head of the relative clause, and the referent of the pronominal suffix in  “his lovingkindness,” but this is not a necessity in the Aramaic, just as it is ambiguous in the MT Hebrew.>>>

PESHITTA

הו מריא דלא אעבר חסדה מן חיא ומן מתיא

English, via Cohen (“Hesed,” 44):

Blessed is the Lord, who has not removed his kindness from the living and from the dead.^[10]

In the Peshitta text, Boaz is not named at all in the main clause, so “the Lord” is the only option for the antecedent and subject of the relative pronoun and relative clause. Instead of Naomi’s statement blessing Boaz “before” the Lord, Naomi’s statement in the Peshitta version blesses God, “Blessed is the Lord”:  as though the text read ‘ברוך הוא ה rather than MT’s ‘ברוך הוא לה. If the Peshitta is taken as an interpretation of MT, then it would align with Reading A in taking God as the subject of the verb and antecedent of the relative clause.^[11]

VULGATE
Benedictus sit a Domino quoniam eandem gratiam quam praebuerat vivis servavit et mortuis. 

Cohen’s translation^[12]:
May be be blessed by the Lord, because the same grace which he had shown to the living he preserved also to the dead.

DISAMBIGUATION EXPRESSION: quoniam is a causal particle, like the Greek ὅτι (as per Cohen, “Hesed,” p.23). Cohen adds: “Using the subjunctive (“May he be blessed”), the Latin construes the main clause as a prayer that God bless Boaz. Naomi justifies this prayer in the quoniam clause…” (ibid.), i.e., READING B.

Observation: the Vulgate’s resolution of the syntactic ambiguity involves also some lexical and morphological interpretation, of עזב.^[13] 

Observation: Cohen suggests (“Hesed,” 24-25)  that the Vulgate was influenced by Genesis 24:27, in which Abraham’s servant states:

בָּר֤וּךְ ה֙' אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲ֠שֶׁ֠ר לֹֽא־עָזַ֥ב חַסְדּ֛וֹ וַאֲמִתּ֖וֹ מֵעִ֣ם אֲדֹנִ֑י

Blessed is Hashem, the god of my master Avraham, who did not forsake his steadfast kindness^[14] from my master.

Observation: Cohen (“Hesed,” 25) suggests that the Peshitta may have combined “two assumptions attested separately elsewhere in the exegetical tradition”: (1) “‘the Lord’ is the subject of the relative clause (Rashi, following Ruth Rabbah); (2) the relative clause is a justification of Naomi’s benediction (Septuagint and Vulgate). Combined, these two premises require that ‘the Lord’ be the recipient of the benediction in the main clause.”

Maybe incorporate this note, here, or in context of Sa’adia or moderns:

<<<Note: further thought and decisions are needed on how to quote, paraphrase, incorporate Cohen’s words and arguments for–on the one hand– maximum effectiveness, clarity, and comprehensiveness of analysis, as well as–on the other hand– full adherence to legal terms of fair use and maximal sensitivity to ethical terms of same.>>>

Method: comparison to parallels. Cohen (“Hesed,” n. 48): 1 Sam 15:13:

וַיָּבֹ֥א שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל אֶל־שָׁא֑וּל וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ שָׁא֗וּל בָּר֤וּךְ אַתָּה֙ לַֽה’ הֲקִימֹ֖תִי אֶת־דְּבַ֥ר ה’

Peshitta- similar; the connection between the clauses is not clear. Cohen cites Abarbanel, Qara.  Peshitta is very far from the Hebrew there.

Observations:

DISAMBIGUATION READING STRATEGY: <<<There does not seem to be any disambigution>>>

DISAMBIGUATION EXPRESSION: <<<there does not seem to be any disambigution>>>

Midrash Ruth Rabba (Ruth Rabba 5:10)

מדרש רות רבה

[י] וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי לְכַלָּתָהּ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַה׳ אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָזַב חַסְדּוֹ אֶת הַחַיִּים – שֶׁזָּן וּפִרְנֵס אֶת הַחַיִּים. וְאֶת הַמֵּתִים, שֶׁנִּטְפַּל בְּתַכְרִיכֵיהוֹן. וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ נָעֳמִי קָרוֹב לָנוּ הָאִישׁ מִגֹּאֲלֵנוּ הוּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בֹּעַז גְּדוֹל הַדּוֹר הָיָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה עָשְׂתָה אוֹתוֹ קָרוֹב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: קָרוֹב לָנוּ הָאִישׁ.

"And Naomi said unto her daughter-in-law: 'Blessed be he of Hashem, who has not left off His kindness to the living and to the dead.'” (Ruth 2:20): that he fed and supported "the living". "And the dead" that he was attentive to their shrouds. "And Naomi said unto her: 'The man is nigh of kin unto us, one of our near kinsmen. (Ruth 2:20)". Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachman said: "Boaz was great in that generation and the woman made him a relative, as it is said "The man is nigh of kin unto us."

DISAMBIGUATION READING STRATEGY: <<<??? Maybe, see זָּן וּפִרְנֵס below >>>

DISAMBIGUATION EXPRESSION: <<<This depends upon whom the midrash views as having provided financial support for living people (whether specific individuals, or generally) and as seeing/having seen to the burial shrouds of deceased people (whether specific individuals or generally.) Arguments could be brought in favor of identifying either God or Boaz as a benefactor in both of these manners.  ***SEE BELOW, *** >>>

Yalqut Shimoni (13th century?)

ילקוט שמעוני

ותאמר נעמי ברוך הוא לה׳ אשר לא עזב חסדו – עם החיים שזנן ופרנסן, ועם המתים שנטפל להם בתכריכיהם, אר״ש בוא וראה כמה כחה של צדקה, בועז גדול הדור היה ואת אמרת האיש טפל לה, קרוב לנו האיש מגואלינו הוא.

"And Naomi said: 'Blessed be he to Hashem, who has not left off His kindness – “with the living," that he fed and supported them, "and with the dead," that he was attentive to their shrouds on their behalf. Rabbi Samuel said: "Come and see how great is the power of charity. Boaz was the greatest of that generation and she made him secondary to her, as it is said ‘The man is among our redeemers.’”

Which READING does this source adopt? <<<”>>>

Observations: maybe some hint, since so concerned with person of Boaz, that it’s taking Boaz as the subject/referent etc. of the relative clause.

DISAMBIGUATION READING STRATEGY: presumably following midrashic tradition, which is what yalkut does,-- it’s an anthology, and in this instance, it is very close to Midrash Ruth Rabbah.

DISAMBIGUATION EXPRESSION: <<<

עם החיים שזנן ופרנסן, ועם המתים שנטפל להם בתכריכיהם,

Although not phrased in order to answer the question of “whose kindness”, the wording of this comment does presume a particular identity of the benefactor, and it presumes that the reader shares knowledge of this identification.>>>

YEFET (10th century)

English (from Cohen, “Hesed,” 13)^[15]:

And נעמי said to her daughter-in-law: May he be blessed by the Master of the World, who has not abandoned his kindness with the living and the dead…^[16] 

        Her saying אשר לא עזב חסדו (“who has not abandoned his kindness”)– it is possible that it refers to God, may He be exalted; or it may refer to Boaz [in which case] this indicates that Boaz had performed חסד ואמת (“kindness and faithfulness”)^[17] toward Elimelekh and his sons, who are the מתים (“dead”).

And her saying את החיים (“with the living”)–refers to herself and to Ruth.

Statement of ambiguity: “it is possible that it refers to God, may He be exalted; or it may refer to Boaz”^[18]

Yefet elaborates only on Reading B, “attempting to identify Boaz’s acts of kindness.^[19] As indicated in the pericope, s.v. את החיים, it is likely that his “kindness with the living” refers to his generosity to Ruth in the fields. But the more elusive “kindness . . . with the dead” forces Yephet to posit a prior history of kindness during Elimelekh’s lifetime not recorded elsewhere in Scripture.”^[20] Yefet ties the prior kindness to אשר לא עזב חסדו, probably because עזב, meaning “to abandon” indicates continuity. (Cohen: contrast NJPS, “who has not failed in his kindness.”) Later in the passage, however, Yefet gives an alternative interpretation for “with the living and dead,” in which both words are taken to refer to Elimelekh and his sons, at different temporal junctures– while they were living and after they died, with his kindness to Naomi and Ruth being construed as a kindness to deceased male kin. See Cohen’s critique of this interpretation, p. 15, n. 12.

Sa’adia’s translation

See notes 36, 56.

אלד״י לם יכ״ל פצ״לה

Cohen, n. 8 translates: “who has not withheld his kindness,” observing that Sa’adia’s word choice, unlike Yefet’s does not relate to continuity/discontinuity.

12th century Hebrew variant translation of Yephet’s commentary^[21]

Cohen (“Hesed,” 16-18) also analyzes a 12th century Hebrew translation of Yefet’s commentary, which differs from the Arabic:

ואמר אשר לא עזב חסדו–ישוב אל ה' ית״ש או ישוב אל בועז. ואמר את החיים – ישוב אל נעמי ואל רות.

ואמר ואת המתים– וזה יודיע כי בועז עשה חסד ואמת עם אלימלך ובניו, והם המתים, במענה כי הוא עשה חסד עם נעמי בעבור המתים.

And it says, “who has not abandoned his kindness”– this refers either to God, may his name be blessed, or it may refer to Boaz.

And it says “with the living”– this refers to Naomi and Ruth.

And it says “and with the dead”– thi indicates that Boaz performed “kindness and truth” with Elimelekh and his sons, and they are “the dead,” with the meaning that he performed kindness with Naomi for the sake of the dead.

Statement of the ambiguity, with elaboration of READING B, like the Arabic, but with some changes in the details. In this text, “the living” refers to Naomi and Ruth, and there is no insistence of continuity, so that no prior acts of kindness are posited: Boaz’s current kindness to Naomia and Ruth is a kindness to both the living– the women themselves and the dead–their deceased kin.

Sa’adia’s translation:

See Cohen, “Hesed,” n. 36.  The translation retains the ambiguity. I think that Cohen’s analysis might point to Sa’adia’s taking God as the subject?

Rashi (1040-1105)

א. בדפוסים מאוחרים נוסף כאן: ״את החיים ואת המתים – שזן ומפרנס את החיים ונטפל בצורכי המתים.״ ביאור זה חסר בכ״י.

[“with the living and with the deceased” – That he feeds and sustains “the living,” and attends to the needs of “the deceased.”^[22]

Cohen: Rashi’s “language suggests that he attributes religious significance to Naomi’s words by making God the antecedent of the relative clause.”
Rashi paraphrases Midrash Ruth Rabbah, “that he fed and supported "the living". "And the dead" that he was attentive to their shrouds.” The midrashic explanation of the kindness did not clarify who it was who performed the kindness, i.e., the subject of the relative clause, and could be taken as referring to either Boaz or God. Rashi’s modifications point to an understanding of God as the subject. Cohen states that Rashi “attributes religious significance to Naomi’s words (p. 20),” and suggests that he communicated this, e.g., “by substituting the participle ומפרנס for the past tense ופרנס in Midrash Rabba, in order to highlight the parallel with Birkat ha-Mazon;” Also, Rashi’s “comprehensive, intangible” formulation, “who attends to the needs of the dead… better befits God’s kindness” than the “specific, concrete formulation, ‘who attended to their burial shrouds,” in the midrash.

Incorporate the following details, especially insofar as they leave open the possibility that the Rashi text could retain the ambiguity.

Cohen thinks Rashi was “unconcerned” with the syntactic question, and motivated by other factors: birkat hamazon; plausibility of Boaz and/or God dealing with burial shrouds and general burial needs of Elimelech and sons. I don’t think we need to assume that Rashi was unaware of or indifferent to the syntactic question.

Lekach Tov (11th century)

לקח טוב

ותאמר נעמי [לכלתה] ברוך הוא ליי׳ אשר לא עזב חסדו את החיים ואת המתים – את החיים שפרנס אותן, ואת המתים שזכר אהבתם של ראשונים. גדול החסד מן הצדקה כי הצדקה לחיים והחסד לחיים ולמתים הצדקה בממונו והחסד בגופו ובממונו.

And Naomi said [to her daughter-in-law], “Blessed be he to the Lord, whose kindness has not left the living and the dead - the living: that he sustained them, and the dead: that he remembered the love of the first ones. Kindness is greater than charity because charity is for the living and kindness is for the living and the dead; charity is with his money and kindness is with his body and with his money.

Observations

R. Joseph Cara (~1050 - ~1130)

ר יוסף קרא ב'

את החיים – עמי ועמך.

ואת המתים – בהיותם בחיים.

קרוב לנו האיש – שקיבלך בסבר פנים יפות. מגואלינו הוא – קרוב הוא לנו וראוי לו לגאול את נחלתינו שמכרנו אני ובעלי בלכתינו לשדי מואב.

​​”with the living” – with me and with you.

“and with the dead” – while they were alive. (tangentt: connect to metim al sefat hayam)

“The man is a kinsman to us” – that he received you with a beautiful welcome.

“He is from our redeemers” – he is a close relative to us and it would be proper for him to redeem our property, which my husband and I sold when we went to the plains of Moab.

R. Abraham ibn Ezra

אבן עזרא

ברוך הוא לי״י^[23] אשר לא עזב חסדו –  לאות כי עשה חסד בתחילה עם אלימלך ועם בניו, כי שופט היה.עם אלימלך ועם בניו, כי שופט היה. החיים – נעמי ורות. מגואלינו הוא – אין הגאולה יבום, רק היא דרך אחרת.

"Blessed is he to the Lord, for he has not abandoned his kindness"^[24] – as a sign that he preformed kindness in the beginning with Elimelech and with his sons, for he was a judge.
“The living” – Naomi and Ruth.

“he is from our redeemers" – “redemption” is not yibbum, only it is another way.

Cohen’s translation (“Hesed,” p. 18):

“Blessed is [he to] God, who has not abandoned his kindness”– this is evidence that he had preformed kindness beforehand toward Elimelekh and his sons, for he was a chieftan.

“...the living” –  Naomi and Ruth.

DISAMBIGUATING EXPRESSION: “for he was a judge” clearly refers to Boaz, READING B.

DISAMBIGUATING STRATEGY: Ibn Ezra is relying on the rabbinic tradition that Boaz was one of the judges in the book of Judges,^[25] and Cohen posits Yefet’s influence as well, regarding continuity from his earlier kindness, “לאות כי עשה חסד בתחילה עם אלימלך ועם בניו”

*expand discussion

Cohen (“Hesed,” 18-19) shares some speculations as to why Ibn Ezra would have opted for READING B, without presenting READING A as an options, although clearly relying on Yefet (and, I would add, although we know that in other instances, he points out multiple possible readings).

Ibn Caspi (1280-1340)

אבן כספי

חסדו – כנוי לבועז.

החיים – רות ונעמי ויתר הקרובים החיים היום.

ואת המתים – אלימלך ובניו ויתר הקרובים שכבר מתו.

"His kindness” – [the pronominal suffix is] a referent to Boaz

“the living” – Ruth and Naomi, and the rest of the relatives who are alive today (i.e., at the time that Naomi is speaking to Ruth, within the narrative time of the book)

“And with the dead” – Elimelech and his sons and the rest of the relatives who have already died.

DISAMBIGUATION READING STRATEGY: speculation: Ibn Caspi tends to keep his interpretations close to the explicit text and context; the verse is about Boaz’s kindness, and it is in keeping with Ibn Caspi’s approach to understand the phrase in question as an expression of that content, rather than to introduce an additional, external, tangential point about divine kindness.

DISAMBIGUATION EXPRESSION: clear technical grammatical terminology:

כנוי לבועז.

Ralbag (1288-1344) 

[ביאור לפסוק זה כלול בביאור פסוק יט]

רלב״ג תועלת

יהי מכירך ברוך – רוצה לומר: אשר עשה לך חסד.

(יט-כ) התועלת הרביעי – הוא להודיע שהמתקרב אל י״י יתברך יצליחו ענייניו. הלא תראה איך סבב י״י יתברך להצליח רות עד שכבר נשאת לשופט מהשופטים וזכתה להיות מזרעה המלכות על ישראל לנצח וזה שכבר יצא ממנה דוד אשר נתנה לו המלוכה ברית מלח.

R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim) (1809-1879)

ותאמר נעמי לכלתה – תחלה נתנה לו ברכה אשר לא עזב חסדו את החיים כי הבינה שעשה זאת לפרנס עי״כ בכבוד את נעמי ורות שהם חיים והם ממשפחתו, ואת המתים כי הבינה ג״כ שיעשה חסד עם המתים ע״י יבום שבזה יעשה טובה לנפש המת, ופרשה דבריה נגד מ״ש אשר לא עזב חסדו את החיים כי קרוב לנו האיש, וע״כ עושה חסד עם קרוביו החיים, ונגד מ״ש עם המתים אמרה מגואלנו הוא, והגואל צריך הוא ליבם שבזה יגאל נפש המת לבל ימחה שמו מישראל, ואמרה מגואלנו הוא כי יש עוד גואל והוא אחד מהם.

“And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law” - first she gave him a blessing, that his kindness had not left the living, because she understood that he did this to provide honorably thereby for Naomi and Ruth, who are “living” and they are from his family, and “with the dead” because she also understood that he would do kindness to the dead through levirate marriage, that in doing this, he would would provide benefit to the deceased’s soul. And she set out her words in conjunction with “that he did not withhold his kindness from the living” (אשר לא עזב חסדו את החיים), “because the man is a relative of ours” (כי קרוב לנו האיש), and therefore he has been doing kindness for his living relatives, and in conjunction with “with the dead”, saying “he is among our redeemers,” (מגואלנו הוא) and the redeemer has to perform yibbum for he thereby redeems the soul of the deceased so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.” And she said “among our redeemers” because there is another redeemer and he (Boaz) is one of them.

READING B: Boaz

R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe) (1821-1898)

מגאלנו – חסר יו״ד הרבים, ונראה לי שאין ׳גואל׳ אלא שאר בשר, כלומר האב ולמעלה, האח ובניו, דוֹד ובן דוֹד הנזכרים בפרשת בהר. אם כן בעז היה לפי הנראה בן דודו של אלימלך.

From our redeemers - the plural yod is missing, and it seems to me that 'redeemer' means nothing other than a close relative, i.e., the father and above, the brother and his son; an uncle and a cousin, which are mentioned in the parsha of Behar. If so, then Boaz was apparently Elimelech's cousin.

R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein (Torah Temimah) (1860-1942)

ברוך הוא לה׳ – א״ר יוחנן, לעולם אל ימנע אדם עצמו מלילך אצל זקן לברכו, שהרי בועז בן פ׳ שנה היה אז ולא נפקד, וכיון שהתפללה עליו אותה צדקת מיד נפקד, שנאמר ברוך הוא לה׳.1 (שם) את החיים ואת המתים – את החיים – שזן ופרנס את החיים, ואת המתים – שנטפל בתכריכיהון.2 (שם) קרוב לנו האיש – א״ר שמואל בר נחמני, בועז גדול הדור היה והאשה עשתה אותו קרוב להן, שנאמר קרוב לנו האיש.3 (שם)

Blessed is he to the Lord - Rabbi Yochanan, said: a person should never withhold himself from going to an elderly man for his blessing, for Boaz was 80 years old at the time and was not counted and since she prayed for him you did justice immediately he was absent, as it is said Blessed be the Lord. 1 (ibid.) the The living and the dead - the living - nurture and provide for the living, and the dead - let us take care of the shroud. 2 (ibid.) The man is close to us - Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani, Boaz was the greatest of the generation and the woman made him close to them, as it is said the man is close to us. 3 ( Name)

Mikraot Sheluvot

וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי לְכַלָּתָהּ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בועז לַיהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָזַב חַסְדּוֹ שזן ומפרנס1 אֶת הַחַיִּים – אותי ואותך2, וְאֶת – ומטפל בצרכי3 הַמֵּתִים, שהבינה שיעשה חסד גם עם המתים ע״י ייבום4, וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ נָעֳמִי קָרוֹב משפחה הוא לָנוּ הָאִישׁ שקיבלך בסבר פנים יפות5, מִגֹּאֲלֵנוּ הוּא – אחד משני הגואלים שיש לנו6 כדי לגאול את נחלתנו שמכרנו אני ובעלי בלכתנו לשדי מואב7:

And Naomi said to her bride, blessed is Boaz to the Lord, that he has not abandoned his grace for he nurtures and sustains the living - me and you, and the dead - and takes care of the needs of the dead, who understood that he would also do good to the dead through the dead, and he said to her: Who is a relative to us, the man whom you received with a beautiful welcome5, from our redeemer He is one of the two redeemers we have6 to redeem our inheritance that my husband and I sold when we went to the demons of Moab7:

Survey of MODERN SCHOLARSHIP:  see M. Cohen, “Hesed,” 26 - 33.

Cohen’s summary of traditional Jewish exegesis:

READING A: Peshitta and Rashi (the latter: following Ruth Rabbah)
READING B: LXX, Vulgate, Ibn Ezra

Yephet: equivocates.

Modern scholarship refers to the earlier exegesis and particularly adds further Scriptural evidence, comparing to lexical and syntactic parallels i Ruth and elsewhere. Cohen’s section headings are presented below with selections:

1. The phrase לא עזב

Contextual content:

Immediate context of Ruth 2:20 favors reading B: (1) Boaz had just exhibited generosity in the fields (2) Naomi confers her blessing on him and (3) he is discussed immediately following as a potential “redeemer”

Wider perspective of the book: P. Jouon: earlier, Naomi had viewed God as a source of anguish: Ruth 1:13, 30-21, and “this attitude is reversed, when Naomi perceives the beneficent hand of God in the chance encounter that created a possibility for redeeming her family lineage.” (Jouon, Ruth, 63; see Cohen’s comments on continuity in footnotes.).

2. Hesed in Scripture

Glueck: it is humans who perform hesed with dead in Scripture, since the dead have no relationship with God. For determining the best reading of the verse itself, Cohen says this is inconclusive. For the study of the history of interpretive tradition, it is noteworthy that rabbinic tradition does credit God with caring for burial arrangements for the dead.

3. The formula ברוך הוא לה’:

***Genesis 24:27– similarities and differences.

***2Samuel 2:5

        Psalm 115:15

        Genesis 14:19

• Ruth 3:10 (?; see “Hesed,” n. 57)

COHEN: INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY

Main thesis stated after his initial presentation of Reading A and Reading B (p. 13):
As background literature on deliberate ambiguity, Cohen cites:*

*Note: There is a convention among some Hebrew Bible scholars to avoid referencing publications by the late Shalom Paul, in light of his extensive and prolonged history of sexual harassment. Despite the fact that I personally suffered significant harm from  the Hebrew University’s retaliation against me for the harassment complaint that I lodged against him, I do not mind referencing his work when it is not in itself offensive and can illuminate a topic of research. More recent publications on the topic include: <<<<<fill in….. >>>>

***EXAMPLE OF DELIBERATE AMBIGUITY (I WOLD SAY: DELIBERATE SECONDARY MEANING):
Gen 39:17 (“Hesed,” p. 33).... SUMMARIZE pp. 33-38.
Concluding paragraph: