SIVANย Ruth 2:20
ืึทืชึนึผึจืืึถืจ ื ืืขึณืึดึื ืึฐืึทืึธึผืชึธึืึผ ืึธึผืจึฅืึผืึฐ ืืึผืึ ืึทื' ืึฒืฉึถืืจึ ืึนืึพืขึธืึทึฃื ืึทืกึฐืึผึืึน ืึถืชึพืึทืึทืึดึผึืื ืึฐืึถืชึพืึทืึตึผืชึดึืื ืึทืชึนึผึงืืึถืจ ืึธึฃืึผ ื ืืขึณืึดึื ืงึธืจึฅืึนื ืึธึื ืึผึ ืึธืึดึืืฉื ืึดึฝืึนึผืึฒืึตึื ืึผ ืึฝืึผืื
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: ืืกื.
https://www.dbandart.com/arise-detail-and-gallery
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/living-ruth-the-value-of-kindness/
MAIN SOURCE used: Mordechai Cohen, โHesed: Divine or Human? The Syntactic Ambiguity of Ruth 2:20,โ 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 checkย D. ย R. ย G. ย Beattie, Jewish ย Exegesis ย of the ย Book ย of Ruth
ย (Sheffield, ย 1977), ย 47-101.
See: https://torah.org/learning/ruth-class7/?printversion=1
https://www.sefaria.org.il/sheets/366242?lang=bi
In this discussion ofย 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 verseย 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,ย the narrative is set at a harvest time and Shavuot is a harvest festival; Shavuot celebrates the โoccasion of the giving of the Torahโ at Sinai, and Ruthโs joining the Jewish people is viewed as analogous to Israelโs acceptance of the obligations of Biblical commandments. ย According to Midrash Ruth Rabbah, the significance of the book is centered on its theme of lovingkindness:
"ืึทืขึทืฉื ื' ืขึดืึผึธืึถื ืึถืกึถื," ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฒื ึดืื ึธื ืึผึทืจ ืึธืึธื ืึธืึทืจ, ืึทืขึฒืฉืึถื ืึผึฐืชึดืื, ืึผึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืขึฒืฉืึดืืชึถื ืขึดื ืึทืึผึตืชึดืื, ืฉืึถื ึผึดืึฐืคึผึทืึฐืชึผึถื ืึผึฐืชึทืึฐืจึดืืึตืืืึนื, ืึฐืขึดืึผึธืึดื, ืฉืึถืึดืชึผึฐืจืึผ ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืชึปืึผืึนืชึตืืึถื. ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฐืขึตืืจึธื, ืึฐืึดืึผึธื ืืึน ืึตืื ืึผึธืึผ ืึนื ืึปืึฐืึธื, ืึฐืึนื ืึธืึณืจึธื, ืึฐืึนื ืึดืกึผืึผืจ, ืึฐืึนื ืึถืชึผึตืจ, ืึฐืึธืึผึธื ื ึดืึฐืชึผึฐืึธื ืึฐืึทืึผึถืึฐืึธ ืึผึทืึผึธื ืฉืึธืึธืจ ืืึนื ืึฐืืึนืึฐืึตื ืึฒืกึธืึดืื.
โMay the Lord perform [yaโas] kindness with youโ โ Rabbi แธคanina bar Ada said: It is written โyaโaseh.โ โAs you performed with the deadโ โ that you tended to their shrouds; โand with meโ โ that you relinquished your marriage contracts. Rabbi Zeโeira 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 ืืกื appears in 3 verses in the book of Ruth, strategically placed, and intertwining all the main charactersโ Naomi, her husband and two sons, her two daughters-in-law, and Boaz, as well as God:
- 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.'"
ืึทืชึผึนึคืืึถืจ ื ึธืขึณืึดืึ ืึดืฉืึฐืชึผึตึฃื ืึทืึผึนืชึถึืืึธ ืึตึฃืึฐื ึธื ืฉืึผึนึืึฐื ึธื ืึดืฉืึผึธึื ืึฐืึตึฃืืช ืึดืึผึธึืึผ ืืขืฉื [ืึทึฃืขึทืฉื] ืึฐืืึธึคื ืขึดืึผึธืึถืึ ืึถึืกึถื ืึผึทืึฒืฉืึถึงืจ ืขึฒืฉืึดืืชึถึื ืขึดืึพืึทืึผึตืชึดึืื ืึฐืขึดืึผึธืึดึฝืื
- 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!'"
ืึทืชึผึนึจืืึถืจ ื ึธืขึณืึดึื ืึฐืึทืึผึธืชึธึืึผ ืึผึธืจึฅืึผืึฐ ืืึผืึ ืึทืืืึธึื ืึฒืฉืึถืจึ ืึนืึพืขึธืึทึฃื ืึทืกึฐืึผึืึน ืึถืชึพืึทืึทืึผึดึืื ืึฐืึถืชึพืึทืึผึตืชึดึืื ืึทืชึผึนึงืืึถืจ ืึธึฃืึผ ื ึธืขึณืึดึื ืงึธืจึฅืึนื ืึธึื ืึผึ ืึธืึดึืืฉื ืึดึฝืึผึนืึฒืึตึื ืึผ ืึฝืึผืื
- 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.'"
ืึทืึผึนึืืึถืจ ืึผึฐืจืึผืึธึจื ืึทึคืชึผึฐ ืึทึฝืืืึธืึ ืึผึดืชึผึดึื ืึตืืึทึืึฐืชึผึฐ ืึทืกึฐืึผึตึฅืึฐ ืึธืึทืึฒืจึืึนื ืึดืึพืึธืจึดืืฉืึืึนื ืึฐืึดืึฐืชึผึดืึพืึถึืึถืช ืึทืึฒืจึตืึ ืึทืึผึทึฃืืึผืจึดึืื ืึดืึพืึผึทึื ืึฐืึดืึพืขึธืฉืึดึฝืืจื
As is the case in each of the monthly analyses in this LISHMAH project, the presentation will proceed as follows:
- The text of the verse in Hebrew
- Selected ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of the verse
- DESCRIPTION OF the AMBIGUITIES in the VERSE.
- 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 commentaryโs identification and resolution of the ambiguity in question.
***Throughout, some text will be โhiddenโ through the use of white fontย on white background, to enable readers to consider the puzzles independently and opt out of โspoilersโ. To reveal the hidden text, simply use the โtext colorโ icon in the toolbar 
Our SIVAN verse is Ruth 2:20
ืึทืชึนึผึจืืึถืจ ื ืืขึณืึดึื ืึฐืึทืึธึผืชึธึืึผ ืึธึผืจึฅืึผืึฐ ืืึผืึ ืึทื' ืึฒืฉึถืืจึ ืึนืึพืขึธืึทึฃื ืึทืกึฐืึผึืึน ืึถืชึพืึทืึทืึดึผึืื ืึฐืึถืชึพืึทืึตึผืชึดึืืย ืึทืชึนึผึงืืึถืจ ืึธึฃืึผ ื ืืขึณืึดึื ืงึธืจึฅืึนื ืึธึื ืึผึ ืึธืึดึืืฉื ืึดึฝืึนึผืึฒืึตึื ืึผ ืึฝืึผืื
Modern English Translations
Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "Blessed is he to Hashem, for he has not abandoned his kindness[2]ย with the living or the dead." And Naomi said to her, "The man is a relative of ours; he is from our redeemers."[3]
ย
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, โBlessed be he by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!โ Naomi also said to her, โThe man is a relative of ours, one of our nearest kin.โ*Or one with the right to redeem
JPS (2006; sefaria.org), ย Ruth 2:20:
Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, โBlessed be he of the LORD, who has not failed in His kindness to the living or to the dead! For,โ Naomi explained to her daughter-in-law, โthe man is related to us; he is one of our redeeming kinsmen.โ*Cf. Lev. 25.25 and note and Deut. 25.5โ6. The fact that Boaz was a kinsman of Ruthโs dead husband opened up the possibility of providing an heir for the latter.
ย 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 
ืึทืชึนึผึจืืึถืจ ื ืืขึณืึดึื ืึฐืึทืึธึผืชึธึืึผ ืึธึผืจึฅืึผืึฐ ืืึผืึ ืึทื' ืึฒืฉึถืืจึ ืึนืึพืขึธืึทึฃื ืึทืกึฐืึผึืึน ืึถืชึพืึทืึทืึดึผึืื ืึฐืึถืชึพืึทืึตึผืชึดึืืย ืึทืชึนึผึงืืึถืจ ืึธึฃืึผ ื ืืขึณืึดึื ืงึธืจึฅืึนื ืึธึื ืึผึ ืึธืึดึืืฉื ืึดึฝืึนึผืึฒืึตึื ืึผ ืึฝืึผืื
Some guiding QUESTIONS:<<<What is the head of the relative clauseโ whom, or what, does the word ืืฉืจ refer to?
In the phrase โBlessed is he to/before Hashemโ, โheโ refers to Boaz.
Does the relative clause modify one of the nouns in that phraseโ either the proximate noun, โHashemโ, or ย โheโ/Boaz, the subject of the main clause:
Blessed is Boaz to Godโ Who has not abandoned His kindness.โ
Or:
Blessed is Boazโwho has not abandoned his kindnessโto/before God.
Or
Alternatively, instead of taking the relative pronoun as โwhoโ, with a direct nominal referent, which is also the subject of the verb ืขืื, it is possible to translate impersonally: ย for/that he has not abandoned his kindnessโฆ ย
or, alternatively, the kindness itself can be taken as the subject of ืขืื โ that his kindness has not departedโฆ.ย >>>
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 SEPTUAGINTย (https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=LXX) - GREEK
20 ฮบฮฑแฝถย ฮตแผถฯฮตฮฝย ฮฯฮตฮผฮนฮฝย ฯแฟย ฮฝแฝปฮผฯแฟย ฮฑแฝฯแฟฯย ฮแฝฮปฮฟฮณฮทฯแฝนฯย แผฯฯฮนฮฝย ฯแฟทย ฮบฯ ฯแฝทแฟณ,ย แฝ ฯฮนย ฮฟแฝฮบย แผฮณฮบฮฑฯแฝณฮปฮนฯฮตฮฝย ฯแฝธย แผฮปฮตฮฟฯย ฮฑแฝฯฮฟแฟฆย ฮผฮตฯแฝฐย ฯแฟถฮฝย ฮถแฝฝฮฝฯฯฮฝย ฮบฮฑแฝถย ฮผฮตฯแฝฐย ฯแฟถฮฝย ฯฮตฮธฮฝฮทฮบแฝนฯฯฮฝ.ย ฮบฮฑแฝถย ฮตแผถฯฮตฮฝย ฮฑแฝฯแฟย ฮฝฯฮตฮผฮนฮฝย แผฮณฮณแฝทฮถฮตฮนย แผกฮผแฟฮฝย แฝย แผฮฝแฝดฯ,ย แผฮบย ฯแฟถฮฝย แผฮณฯฮนฯฯฮตฯ แฝนฮฝฯฯฮฝย แผกฮผแพถฯย แผฯฯฮนฮฝ.
ENGLISH translation by M. Cohen (โHesed,โ p.22):
Blessed is he to the Lord, because (แฝ ฯฮน) he has not abandoned (lit. โleft behindโ) 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.โ
Cohen comments that the Septuagint is helpful for disambiguation, โsince it does not render ืืฉืจ simply as a relative pronoun (โwhoโ)โ (โHesed, p. 22). Cohen terms แฝ ฯฮนย a โcausal particle.โ (โHesed,โ p. 23[7]).ย 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 ืขืื = แผฮณฮบฮฑฯแฝณฮปฮนฯฮตฮฝ, i.e., READING B.
Targum Ruthย () - ARAMAIC
ืชืจืืื ืืชืืืื
ืึทืึฒืึทืจึทืช ื ึธืขึณืึดื ืึฐืึทืึฐึผืชึทืึผ ืึฐืืึนืจึธืึฐ ืืึผื ืึดืคึผืึผื ืงืึผืึฐืฉึธืื ืึทึผืึธื ืึฐึผืึธื ืฉึฐืืึทืง ืึตืืืึผืชึตืืึผ ืขึดื ืึทืึทืึธึผื ืึฐืขึดื ืึตืชึทืึธึผื ืึทืึฒืึทืจึทืช ืึทืึผ ื ึธืขึณืึดื ืงึธืจึดืื ืึทื ึธื ืึผืึผืึฐืจึธื ืึดืคึฐึผืจึดืืงึธื ึธื ืืึผื.
Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, โBlessed be he by the holy mouth of the Lord,[8]ย who has not failed in his kindness to the living and the dead.โ Naomi said to her, โThe man is related to us, he is one of our redeemers.โ[9]
Cohenโs translation:
Blessed is he from the holy mouth of the Lord, who has not abandoned his kindness with the living and with the dead (โHesed,โ 22).
Which READING does this source adopt? <<<The Targum retains the ambiguity of the Hebrew, with the Aramaic particle ื functioning just like the Hebrew word ืืฉืจ. The fact that the pronoun ืืึผื in the translation of the end of the verse refers to ืึผืึผืึฐืจึธื which itself refers to the ืืึผื 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 ย โhis lovingkindness,โ but this is not a necessity in the Aramaic, just as it is ambiguous in the MT Hebrew.>>>
PESHITTA
ืื ืืจืื ืืื ืืขืืจ ืืกืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืชืื
English, via Cohen (โHesed,โ 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 โthe Lordโ is the only option for the antecedent and subject of the relative pronoun and relative clause. Instead of Naomiโs statement blessing Boaz โbeforeโ the Lord, Naomiโs statement in the Peshitta version blesses God, โBlessed is the Lordโ: ย as though the text read โืืจืื ืืื ื rather than MTโs โืืจืื ืืื ืื.ย 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.ย
Cohenโs 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 แฝ ฯฮน (as per Cohen, โHesed,โ p.23). Cohen adds: โUsing the subjunctive (โMay he be blessedโ), the Latin construes the main clause as a prayerย that God bless Boaz. Naomi justifies this prayer in the quoniamย clauseโฆโ (ibid.), i.e., READING B.
Observation: the Vulgateโs resolution of the syntactic ambiguity involves also some lexical and morphological interpretation, of ืขืื.[13]ย
Observation: Cohen suggests (โHesed,โ 24-25) ย that the Vulgate was influenced by Genesis 24:27, in which Abrahamโs servant states:
ืึธึผืจึคืึผืึฐ ืึ' ืึฑืึนืึตืึ ืึฒืึนื ึดึฃื ืึทืึฐืจึธืึธึื ืึฒึ ืฉึถืึ ืจ ืึนึฝืึพืขึธืึทึฅื ืึทืกึฐืึผึืึน ืึทืึฒืึดืชึผึืึน ืึตืขึดึฃื ืึฒืึนื ึดึื
Blessed is Hashem, the god of my master Avraham, who did not forsake his steadfast kindness[14]ย from my master.
Observation: Cohen (โHesed,โ 25) suggests that the Peshitta may have combined โtwo assumptions attested separately elsewhere in the exegetical traditionโ: (1) โโthe Lordโ is the subject of the relative clause (Rashi, following Ruth Rabbah); (2) the relative clause is a justificationย of Naomiโs benediction (Septuagint and Vulgate). Combined, these two premises require that โthe Lordโ be the recipient of the benediction in the main clause.โ
Maybe incorporate this note, here, or in context of Saโadia or moderns:
<<<Note: further thought and decisions are needed on how to quote, paraphrase, incorporate Cohenโs words and arguments forโon the one handโ maximum effectiveness, clarity, and comprehensiveness of analysis, as well asโon the other handโ full adherence to legal terms of fair use and maximal sensitivity to ethical terms of same.>>>
Method: comparison to parallels. Cohen (โHesed,โ n. 48): 1 Sam 15:13:
ืึทืึธึผืึนึฅื ืฉึฐืืืึผืึตึื ืึถืึพืฉึธืืึืึผื ืึทืึนึผึงืืึถืจ ืึฃืึน ืฉึธืืึืึผื ืึธึผืจึคืึผืึฐ ืึทืชึธึผืึ ืึทึฝืโ ืึฒืงึดืืึนึืชึดื ืึถืชึพืึฐึผืึทึฅืจ ืโ
Peshitta- similar; the connection between the clauses is not clear. Cohen cites Abarbanel, Qara. ย 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 Rabbaย (Ruth Rabba 5:10)
ืืืจืฉ ืจืืช ืจืื
[ื] ืึทืชึนึผืืึถืจ ื ึธืขึณืึดื ืึฐืึทืึธึผืชึธืึผ ืึธึผืจืึผืึฐ ืืึผื ืึทืืณ ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ืึนื ืขึธืึทื ืึทืกึฐืึผืึน ืึถืช ืึทืึทืึดึผืื โ ืฉึถืืึธึผื ืึผืคึดืจึฐื ึตืก ืึถืช ืึทืึทืึดึผืื. ืึฐืึถืช ืึทืึตึผืชึดืื, ืฉึถืื ึดึผืึฐืคึทึผื ืึฐึผืชึทืึฐืจึดืืึตืืืึนื. ืึทืชึนึผืืึถืจ ืึธืึผ ื ึธืขึณืึดื ืงึธืจืึนื ืึธื ืึผ ืึธืึดืืฉื ืึดืึนึผืึฒืึตื ืึผ ืืึผื. ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึดึผื ืฉึฐืืืึผืึตื ืึทึผืจ ื ึทืึฐืึธื ืึนึผืขึทื ืึฐึผืืึนื ืึทืึผืึนืจ ืึธืึธื, ืึฐืึธืึดืฉึธึผืื ืขึธืฉึฐืืชึธื ืืึนืชืึน ืงึธืจืึนื, ืฉึถืื ึถึผืึฑืึทืจ: ืงึธืจืึนื ืึธื ืึผ ืึธืึดืืฉื.
"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.'โย (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.ย (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 ืึธึผื ืึผืคึดืจึฐื ึตืก 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. ย ***SEE BELOW, ***ย >>>
Yalqut Shimoniย (13th century?)
ืืืงืื ืฉืืขืื ื
ืืชืืืจ ื ืขืื ืืจืื ืืื ืืืณ ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื โ ืขื ืืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืคืจื ืกื, ืืขื ืืืชืื ืฉื ืืคื ืืื ืืชืืจืืืืื, ืืจืดืฉ ืืื ืืจืื ืืื ืืื ืฉื ืฆืืงื, ืืืขื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืช ืืืจืช ืืืืฉ ืืคื ืื, ืงืจืื ืื ื ืืืืฉ ืืืืืืื ื ืืื.
"And Naomi said: 'Blessed be he to Hashem, who has not left off His kindness โย โwith 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 โThe man is among our redeemers.โโ
Which READING does this source adopt? <<<โ>>>
Observations: maybe some hint, since so concerned with person of Boaz, that itโs taking Boaz as the subject/referent etc. of the relative clause.
DISAMBIGUATION READING STRATEGY: presumably following midrashic tradition, which is what yalkut does,-- itโs an anthology, and in this instance, it is very close to Midrash Ruth Rabbah.
DISAMBIGUATION EXPRESSION: <<<
ืขื ืืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืคืจื ืกื, ืืขื ืืืชืื ืฉื ืืคื ืืื ืืชืืจืืืืื,
Although not phrased in order to answer the question of โwhose kindnessโ, 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, โHesed,โ 13)[15]:
And ื ืขืื 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 deadโฆ[16]ย
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Her saying ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื (โwho has not abandoned his kindnessโ)โ 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 ืืกื ืืืืช (โkindness and faithfulnessโ)[17]ย toward Elimelekh and his sons, who are the ืืชืื (โdeadโ).
And her saying ืืช ืืืืื (โwith the livingโ)โrefers to herself and to Ruth.
Statement of ambiguity: โit is possible thatย it refersย to God, may He be exalted;ย or it mayย referย to Boazโ[18]
Yefet elaborates only on Reading B, โattempting to identify Boazโs acts of kindness.[19]ย As indicated in the pericope, s.v. ืืช ืืืืื, it is likely that his โkindness with the livingโ refers to his generosity to Ruth in the fields. But the more elusive โkindness . . . with the deadโ forces Yephet to posit a prior history of kindness during Elimelekhโs lifetime not recorded elsewhere in Scripture.โ[20]ย Yefet ties the prior kindness to ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื, probably because ืขืื, meaning โto abandonโ indicates continuity. (Cohen: contrast NJPS, โwho has not failedย in his kindness.โ) Later in the passage, however, Yefet gives an alternative interpretation for โwith the living and dead,โ in which both words are taken to refer to Elimelekh and his sons, at different temporal juncturesโ 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 Cohenโs critique of this interpretation, p. 15, n. 12.
Saโadiaโs translation
See notes 36, 56.
ืืืืดื ืื ืืืดื ืคืฆืดืื
Cohen, n. 8 translates: โwho has not withheldย his kindness,โ observing that Saโadiaโs word choice, unlike Yefetโs does not relate to continuity/discontinuity.
12th century Hebrew variant translation of Yephetโs commentary[21]
Cohen (โHesed,โ 16-18) also analyzes a 12th century Hebrew translation of Yefetโs commentary, which differs from the Arabic:
ืืืืจ ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืืโืืฉืื ืื ื' ืืชืดืฉ ืื ืืฉืื ืื ืืืขื. ืืืืจ ืืช ืืืืื โ ืืฉืื ืื ื ืขืื ืืื ืจืืช.
ืืืืจ ืืืช ืืืชืืโ ืืื ืืืืืข ืื ืืืขื ืขืฉื ืืกื ืืืืช ืขื ืืืืืื ืืื ืื, ืืื ืืืชืื, ืืืขื ื ืื ืืื ืขืฉื ืืกื ืขื ื ืขืื ืืขืืืจ ืืืชืื.
And it says, โwho has not abandoned his kindnessโโ this refers either to God, may his name be blessed, or it may refer to Boaz.
And it says โwith the livingโโ this refers to Naomi and Ruth.
And it says โand with the deadโโ thi indicates that Boaz performed โkindness and truthโ with Elimelekh and his sons, and they are โthe dead,โ 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, โthe livingโ refers to Naomi and Ruth, and there is no insistence of continuity, so that no prior acts of kindness are posited: Boazโs current kindness to Naomia and Ruth is a kindness to both the livingโ the women themselves and the deadโtheir deceased kin.
Saโadiaโs translation:
See Cohen, โHesed,โ n. 36. ย The translation retains the ambiguity. I think that Cohenโs analysis might point to Saโadiaโs taking God as the subject?
Rashiย (1040-1105)
ื. ืืืคืืกืื ืืืืืจืื ื ืืกืฃ ืืื: ืดืืช ืืืืื ืืืช ืืืชืืย โ ืฉืื ืืืคืจื ืก ืืช ืืืืื ืื ืืคื ืืฆืืจืื ืืืชืื.ืด ืืืืืจ ืื ืืกืจ ืืืดื.
[โwith the living and with the deceasedโ โ That he feeds and sustains โthe living,โ and attends to the needs of โthe deceased.โ[22]
Cohen: Rashiโs โlanguage suggests that he attributes religious significance to Naomiโs words by making God the antecedent of the relative clause.โ
Rashi paraphrases Midrash Ruth Rabbah, โthat he fed and supported "the living". "And the dead" that he was attentive to their shrouds.โย 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. Rashiโs modifications point to an understanding of God as the subject. Cohen states that Rashi โattributes religious significance to Naomiโs words (p. 20),โ and suggests that he communicated this, e.g., โby substituting the participle ืืืคืจื ืก for the past tense ืืคืจื ืก in Midrash Rabba, in order to highlight the parallel with Birkat ha-Mazon;โ Also, Rashiโs โcomprehensive, intangibleโ formulation, โwho attends to the needs of the deadโฆ better befits Godโs kindnessโ than the โspecific, concrete formulation, โwho attended to their burial shrouds,โ 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 โunconcernedโ 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 donโt think we need to assume that Rashi was unaware of or indifferent to the syntactic question.
Lekach Tovย (11th century)
ืืงื ืืื
ืืชืืืจ ื ืขืื [ืืืืชื] ืืจืื ืืื ืืืืณ ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื ืืช ืืืืื ืืืช ืืืชืื โ ืืช ืืืืื ืฉืคืจื ืก ืืืชื, ืืืช ืืืชืื ืฉืืืจ ืืืืชื ืฉื ืจืืฉืื ืื. ืืืื ืืืกื ืื ืืฆืืงื ืื ืืฆืืงื ืืืืื ืืืืกื ืืืืื ืืืืชืื ืืฆืืงื ืืืืื ื ืืืืกื ืืืืคื ืืืืืื ื.
And Naomi said [to her daughter-in-law], โBlessed 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 Caraย (~1050 - ~1130)
ืจ ืืืกืฃ ืงืจื ื'
ืืช ืืืืืย โ ืขืื ืืขืื.
ืืืช ืืืชืืย โ ืืืืืชื ืืืืื.
ืงืจืื ืื ื ืืืืฉ โ ืฉืงืืืื ืืกืืจ ืคื ืื ืืคืืช. ืืืืืืื ื ืืื โ ืงืจืื ืืื ืื ื ืืจืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืช ื ืืืชืื ื ืฉืืืจื ื ืื ื ืืืขืื ืืืืชืื ื ืืฉืื ืืืื.
โโโwith the livingโ โ with me and with you.
โand with the deadโ โ while they were alive. (tangentt: connect to metim al sefat hayam)
โThe man is a kinsman to usโ โ that he received you with a beautiful welcome.
โHe is from our redeemersโ โ 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.
ืืื ืขืืจื
ืืจืื ืืื ืืืดื[23]ย ืืฉืจ ืืย ืขืื ืืกืื โ ย ืืืืช ืื ืขืฉื ืืกื ืืชืืืื ืขื ืืืืืื ืืขื ืื ืื, ืื ืฉืืคื ืืื.ืขื ืืืืืื ืืขื ืื ืื, ืื ืฉืืคื ืืื. ืืืืื โ ื ืขืื ืืจืืช. ืืืืืืื ื ืืื โ ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืื, ืจืง ืืื ืืจื ืืืจืช.
"Blessed is he to the Lord, for he has not abandoned his kindness"[24]ย โ as a sign that he preformed kindness in the beginning with Elimelech and with his sons, for he was a judge.
โThe livingโ โ Naomi and Ruth.
โhe is from our redeemers" โ โredemptionโ is not yibbum,ย only it is another way.
Cohenโs translation (โHesed,โ p. 18):
โBlessed is [he to] God, who has not abandoned his kindnessโโ this is evidence that he had preformed kindness beforehand toward Elimelekh and his sons, for he was a chieftan.
โ...the livingโ โ ย Naomi and Ruth.
DISAMBIGUATING EXPRESSION: โfor he was a judgeโ 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]ย and Cohen posits Yefetโs influence as well, regarding continuity from his earlier kindness, โืืืืช ืื ืขืฉื ืืกื ืืชืืืื ืขื ืืืืืื ืืขื ืื ืืโ
*expand discussion
Cohen (โHesed,โ 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).
ืืื ืืกืคื
ืืกืื โ ืื ืื ืืืืขื.
ืืืืื โ ืจืืช ืื ืขืื ืืืชืจ ืืงืจืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื.
ืืืช ืืืชืื โ ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืชืจ ืืงืจืืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืชื.
"His kindnessโ โ [the pronominal suffix is] a referent to Boaz
โthe livingโ โ 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)
โAnd with the deadโ โ 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 Boazโs kindness, and it is in keeping with Ibn Caspiโs 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:
ืื ืื ืืืืขื.
[ืืืืืจ ืืคืกืืง ืื ืืืื ืืืืืืจ ืคืกืืง ืื]
ืจืืืดื ืชืืขืืช
ืืื ืืืืจื ืืจืืย โ ืจืืฆื ืืืืจ: ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื ืื ืืกื.
(ืื-ื) ืืชืืขืืช ืืจืืืขื โ ืืื ืืืืืืข ืฉืืืชืงืจื ืื ืืดื ืืชืืจื ืืฆืืืื ืขื ืืื ืื. ืืื ืชืจืื ืืื ืกืื ืืดื ืืชืืจื ืืืฆืืื ืจืืช ืขื ืฉืืืจ ื ืฉืืช ืืฉืืคื ืืืฉืืคืืื ืืืืชื ืืืืืช ืืืจืขื ืืืืืืช ืขื ืืฉืจืื ืื ืฆื ืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืฆื ืืื ื ืืื ืืฉืจ ื ืชื ื ืื ืืืืืื ืืจืืช ืืื.
R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)ย (1809-1879)
ืืชืืืจ ื ืขืื ืืืืชืย โ ืชืืื ื ืชื ื ืื ืืจืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื ืืช ืืืืื ืื ืืืื ื ืฉืขืฉื ืืืช ืืคืจื ืก ืขืืดื ืืืืื ืืช ื ืขืื ืืจืืช ืฉืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืฉืคืืชื, ืืืช ืืืชืื ืื ืืืื ื ืืดื ืฉืืขืฉื ืืกื ืขื ืืืชืื ืขืดื ืืืื ืฉืืื ืืขืฉื ืืืื ืื ืคืฉ ืืืช, ืืคืจืฉื ืืืจืื ื ืื ืืดืฉ ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื ืืช ืืืืื ืื ืงืจืื ืื ื ืืืืฉ, ืืขืดื ืขืืฉื ืืกื ืขื ืงืจืืืื ืืืืื, ืื ืื ืืดืฉ ืขื ืืืชืื ืืืจื ืืืืืื ื ืืื, ืืืืืื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืืื ืืืื ื ืคืฉ ืืืช ืืื ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืฉืจืื, ืืืืจื ืืืืืื ื ืืื ืื ืืฉ ืขืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื.
โAnd Naomi said to her daughter-in-lawโ - 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 โlivingโ and they are from his family, and โwith the deadโ 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 deceasedโs soul. And she set out her words in conjunction with โthat he did not withhold his kindness from the livingโ (ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื ืืช ืืืืื), โbecause the man is a relative of oursโ (ืื ืงืจืื ืื ื ืืืืฉ), and therefore he has been doing kindness for his living relatives, and in conjunction with โwith the deadโ, saying โhe is among our redeemers,โ (ืืืืืื ื ืืื) and the redeemer has to perform yibbumย for he thereby redeems the soul of the deceased so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.โ And she said โamong our redeemersโ because there is another redeemer and he (Boaz) is one of them.
READING B: Boaz
R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)ย (1821-1898)
ืืืืื ืย โ ืืกืจ ืืืดื ืืจืืื, ืื ืจืื ืื ืฉืืื ืณืืืืืณ ืืื ืฉืืจ ืืฉืจ, ืืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืขืื, ืืื ืืื ืื, ืืึนื ืืื ืืึนื ืื ืืืจืื ืืคืจืฉืช ืืืจ. ืื ืื ืืขื ืืื ืืคื ืื ืจืื ืื ืืืื ืฉื ืืืืืื.
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)ย (1860-1942)
ืืจืื ืืื ืืืณ โ ืืดืจ ืืืื ื, ืืขืืื ืื ืืื ืข ืืื ืขืฆืื ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืงื ืืืจืื, ืฉืืจื ืืืขื ืื ืคืณ ืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ื ืคืงื, ืืืืื ืฉืืชืคืืื ืขืืื ืืืชื ืฆืืงืช ืืื ื ืคืงื, ืฉื ืืืจ ืืจืื ืืื ืืืณ.1 (ืฉื) ืืช ืืืืื ืืืช ืืืชืื โ ืืช ืืืืื โ ืฉืื ืืคืจื ืก ืืช ืืืืื, ืืืช ืืืชืื โ ืฉื ืืคื ืืชืืจืืืืืื.2 (ืฉื) ืงืจืื ืื ื ืืืืฉ โ ืืดืจ ืฉืืืื ืืจ ื ืืื ื, ืืืขื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืฉื ืขืฉืชื ืืืชื ืงืจืื ืืื, ืฉื ืืืจ ืงืจืื ืื ื ืืืืฉ.3 (ืฉื)
Blessed is he to the Lordย - 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)
ืึทืชึนึผืืึถืจ ื ึธืขึณืึดื ืึฐืึทืึธึผืชึธืึผ ืึธึผืจืึผืึฐ ืืึผื ืืืขื ืึทืืืึธื ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ืึนื ืขึธืึทื ืึทืกึฐืึผืึน ืฉืื ืืืคืจื ืก1 ืึถืช ืึทืึทืึดึผืื โ ืืืชื ืืืืชื2, ืึฐืึถืช โ ืืืืคื ืืฆืจืื3 ืึทืึตึผืชึดืื, ืฉืืืื ื ืฉืืขืฉื ืืกื ืื ืขื ืืืชืื ืขืดื ืืืืื4, ืึทืชึนึผืืึถืจ ืึธืึผ ื ึธืขึณืึดื ืงึธืจืึนื ืืฉืคืื ืืื ืึธื ืึผ ืึธืึดืืฉื ืฉืงืืืื ืืกืืจ ืคื ืื ืืคืืช5, ืึดืึนึผืึฒืึตื ืึผ ืืึผื โ ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืืืืื ืฉืืฉ ืื ื6 ืืื ืืืืื ืืช ื ืืืชื ื ืฉืืืจื ื ืื ื ืืืขืื ืืืืชื ื ืืฉืื ืืืื7:
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:ย see M. Cohen, โHesed,โ 26 - 33.
Cohenโs 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. Cohenโs section headings are presented below with selections:
- The phrase ืื ืขืื
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 โredeemerโ
Wider perspective of the book: P. Jouon: earlier, Naomi had viewed God as a source of anguish: Ruth 1:13, 30-21, and โthis attitude is reversed, when Naomi perceives the beneficent hand of God in the chance encounter that created a possibility for redeeming her family lineage.โ (Jouon, Ruth, 63; see Cohenโs comments on continuity in footnotes.).
- 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.
- The formula ืืจืื ืืื ืืโ:
***Genesis 24:27โ similarities and differences.
***2Samuel 2:5
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Psalm 115:15
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Genesis 14:19
- Ruth 3:10 (?; see โHesed,โ 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 ย the Hebrew Universityโs 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 inโฆ.. >>>>
***EXAMPLE OF DELIBERATE AMBIGUITY (I WOLD SAY: DELIBERATE SECONDARY MEANING):
Gen 39:17 (โHesed,โ p. 33).... SUMMARIZE pp. 33-38.
Concluding paragraph:
[1]ย See Yossi Prager, โMegillat Ruth: A Unique Story of โTorat Hesed,โโ Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought; Vol. 35, No. 4 (Winter 2001), pp. 15-22 (8 pages)
[2]ย alhatorah.org: 1. for he has not abandoned his kindness | ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ืึนื ืขึธืึทื ืึทืกึฐืึผืึนย โ See Ibn Ezra and Ibn Kaspi that the clause refers to Boaz and comes to explain why he should be deserving of blessing. Alternatively: "He, who has not abandoned His kindness", with the clause modifying the immediately preceding word, "Hashem", and describing the benevolence of Hashem rather than Boaz.
[3]ย Alhatorah.org: from our redeemers | ืึดืึนึผืึฒืึตื ืึผย โ See Vayikra 25:25 that if a person becomes impoverished and is forced to sell some of his inheritance, a close relative might come and redeem it. Apparently, Naomi had been forced to sell some of the family land (or was about to sell it), and she was hoping that Boaz would redeem it (see Ibn Ezra, R"Y Kara, and Rashi on Rut 3:9). Alternatively, Naomi is referring also to the practice of levirate marriage (or some variation thereof), where a brother of the deceased (or here, a family member) marries the childless widow (Devarim 25:5-6, and see Malbim Rut 3:4, and Pseudo-Rashi and Rid on Rut 3:9). The institution might serve to prevent the deceased's inheritance from leaving the family (Bavli Yevamot 24a), to perpetuate the name of the dead, or to reincarnate his soul (Malbim on Rut 3:4, perhaps the "secret" alluded to by Ramban on Bereshit 38:8). According to the first possibility, the institutions of land redemption and levirate marriage are connected. The importance of the motif of "redemption" to the story is underscored by the fact that the root "ืืื" appears 21 times in the book, and the noun "ืึฐืึปืึธึผื" twice more.
[4]ย Footnote 1 in Cohen, โHesedโ: โUnless otherwise noted, translations in this essay are my own. Ancient and modern translators have generally assumed that ืืกืื is the object of the verb ืขืื, similar to 1 Chron 17:13, ย ืืขืื TDK ย ืืกืื ืื (โI shall not withdraw my kindness from himโ). But Prof. Richard Steiner (in an oral communication) argued that ืืกืื should be taken as the subject of the verb ืขืื, as in II Sam 7:15 ืืกืื ืื ืืกืืจ ืืื ื (โMy kindness shall not depart from himโ), since ืขืื ืืช (โto leave,โ โto abandonโ) is a synonym of ืกืจ ืื ย (qal; โto depart fromโ), not Ton (; โto remove fromโ). In that case, ืืช would be the direct object marker, indicating ืืืืื ืืืืชืื as the (compund) object, yielding the translation โBlessed is he to the Lord, whose kindness has not left the living or the dead.โ
[5]ย Footnote 2 in Cohen, โHesedโ: โReading A takes โthe Lordโ to be the antecedent (and implied subject) of the relative clause, whereas reading B makes โheโ, i.e. Boaz, the antecedent. Reading B, like reading A, can be modified slightly to accommodate R. Steinerโs analysis (see above, n. 1). The syntactic ambiguity of the relative clause is noted in most modern commentaries. See P. Joรผon, Ruth: Commentaire Philologique et Exรฉgรฉtique (Rome, 1953), 63; E. Campbell, Anchor Bible: Ruthย (New York, 1975), 106, J.M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (Sheffield, 1979.), 60; Y. Zakovitz, Mikra le-yosrael: Rut โim mavo u-perush (Jerusalem, 1990), 83.โ
[6]ย On the LXX and Vulgate as witnesses for ancient Jewish exegetical traditions, Cohen (โHesed,โ footnote 34) cites B. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions (Cardiff, 1951), 101-119; 247-258, and for the Peshitta he cites Y. Maori, The Peshitta Versions of the Pentateuch and Early Jewish Exegesisย (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1995).
[7]ย Cohen cites Geseniusโ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A.E. Cowley (Oxford, 1909), 492. He notes, โUnlike a relative clause, which generally modifies a specific noun, a causal clause is a sentence modifier, hence, the clause โbecause he has not abandonedโ must modify that which is predicatedย in the main clause. (โHesed,โ note 38).
[8]ย Beattie has footnote: in place of โthe Lordโ, H repeats, โblessed be heโ (bryk hwโ).
[9]ย English translation from The Targum of Ruth Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes by D.R.G. Beattie; The Targum of Chronicles Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes by J. Stanley McIvor. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark:1994.
[10]ย Can this online Peshitta link work? For now, the text is from Cohen, who credits A. Hubsch, Die Fรผnf Megilloth nebst dem syrischen Thargumgennant Peshittoย (Prague, 1866), cited in โHesed,โ note 41.
[11]ย Cohenโs footnotes 42 and 43 address the issue of discerning between exegetical and textual variants, both generally and with respect to the specific variation in this verse, in which the Peshitta lacks the preposition found in MT and the other versions. Cohen further notes that there is โa single Hebrew MSโ that reads ืืจืื ืืื ื (J.B. de Rossi, Variable lectonis Veteris Testamenti [Parma, 1784-88], II: 236), which is referenced in BHK (โHesed,โ p. 24, n. 42)ย and that โthe anonymous medieval Arabic translation in the Walton Polyglot, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta (London, 1655) reads similarlyโ adding that it is a translation of the Peshitta; and that โindependent corroboration seems to be provided by the the Old Latin version (ibid., n. 41)..
[12]ย โHesed,โ p. 23, for which he thanks Moshe Bernstein (ibid., footnote 40).
[13]ย Cohen, โHesed, n. 40โ, compares the Vulgate with the commentary of Yefet, regarding the interpretation of โืื ืขืืโ as indicating continuity, with reference to the identifications of โthe livingโ and โthe deadโ who were the beneficiaries of the kindness.
[14]ย Not in alhatorah.og: โ1. steadfast kindness | ืึทืกึฐืึผืึน ืึทืึฒืึดืชึผืึนย โ Often in Tanakh the word "ืืืช" connotes faithfulness rather than truth. When it is paired with the word "ืืกื", as here, the phrase is likely a hendiadys (a pair of words which convey a single idea). Many commentators, nonetheless, distinguish between the two terms, suggesting that "ืืกื" connotes mercy, while "ืืืช" refers to one's just due (Radak, Ralbag).โ
[15]ย Cohen, n. 5: โOriginal Arabic in N. Schorstein, Der Commentar des Karaerts Jephet ben Ali zum Buche Ruthย (Berlin, 1903) xxxiโฆ. Compare translation in L. Nemoy, A Karaite Anthology (new Haven, 1952, 106. The Arabic reads:
ืคืงืืืช ื ืขืื ืืื ืชืื ืืืืจื ืื ืื ืขื ื ืจื ืืืขืืืื, ืืื'ื ืื ืืชืจื ืคืฆ'ืื ืืข ืืืืืื ืืืืืืชืโฆ ืงืืืื ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื ืืืชืื ืื ืื ืชืฉืืจ ืื ืืื ืืืื ืชืขืื ืืืชืืื ืื ืื ืชืฉืืจ ืื ืืื ืืขื ืคืื ืืื ืื ืืขื ืงื ืคืขื ืืกื ืืืืช ืืข ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืชืื. ืืงืืืื ืืช ืืืืื ืชืฉืืจ ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืจืืช.
[16]ย As noted by Cohen, f.n. 3, although the English looks like Reading A, the Arabic actually retains the ambiguity of the Hebrew. *** access Yefetโs Arabic text and insert it***
[17]ย Cohen (โHesed,โ n.4) suggests that Yefetโs insertion of ืืืช here reflects the influence of the parallel ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื ืืืืชื in Gen 24:27 (See the discussion of the Vulgate translation, above.)
[18]ย Cohen: โYefet ben โAli, the tenth-century Karaite exegete, is the only medieval author who observes that Ruth 2:20 is ambiguousโ, noting that in Yefetโs commentary, โhe provides an Arabic translation, followed by a commentary in Arabic, punctuated by untranslated words from Scriptureโ (โHesed,โ 13).
[19]ย Cohen, โHesed,โ 14, n. 6, observes that Godโs kindness is universally applicable to living and dead people generally. โGodโs kindness, unlike that of Boaz, is not limited to specific individuals or acts, which is perhaps why Yefet does not elaborate on his first reading.
[20]ย Cohen, โHesed,โ 14.
[21]ย Hebrew from Markon, 88; English translation is Cohenโs (โHesed,โ note 18).
[22]ย ย Alhatorah.org note: the Rashi text provided here is found only in late printed editions, not in manuscripts. See Cohen, โHesed,โ n. 29.
. Note in alhatorah.org English transl. Rashi: identify source? The "needs of the deceased" refers to the kindness displayed by Bo'az to Elimelech and his sons (Ibn Ezra). Alternatively, the "needs of the deceased" refers to the willingness of Bo'az to perform a levirate marriage and will thus do kindness to the memory of her deceased husband (Alshikh). Both of these readings assume that "he" refers to Boaz. See, however, Prof. Mordechai Cohen, "Hesed: Divine or Human", Hazon Nahum (New York, 1997): 19-21, who offers support for an alternative understanding of Rashi that "He" (with a capital H) refers to Hashem as He is the One who feeds and sustains and buries the dead (as per Bavli Sotah 14a).
[23]ย This is the lemma in alhatorah.org. Sefaria.org has ืืจืื ื' ืืฉืจ ืื ืขืื ืืกืื, which is Cohenโs text. See Cohen, โHesed,โ n. 22.
[24]ย Alhatorah.org footnote: โย for he has not abandoned his kindness | ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ืึนื ืขึธืึทื ืึทืกึฐืึผืึนย โ See Ibn Ezra and Ibn Kaspi that the clause refers to Boaz and comes to explain why he should be deserving of blessing. Alternatively: "He, who has not abandoned His kindness", with the clause modifying the immediately preceding word, "Hashem", and describing the benevolence of Hashem rather than Boaz.โ
[25]ย Cohen (โHesed,โ n. 27) notes that Ibn Ezra cites the rabbinic identification of Boaz as Ivzan (Judges 12:8), as per b.Bava Batra 9aa in his commentary on Ruth at Ruth 2:1, when Boaz is first mentioned.