Глава 1

1–6. The resettlement of the Bethlehemite Elimelech and his family to the land of Moab and the disasters that befell this family there. 7–22. The return of Naomi and her daughter-in-law Ruth to the Holy Land and their arrival in Bethlehem. Ruth.1:1. In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land. And a certain man went from Bethlehem of Judah with his wife and his two sons to live in the fields of Moab. The time of the events described in the book of Ruth is determined by general and vague dates: “when the judges ruled,” i.e. at one of the moments of the period of the Judges (which, according to Acts 13:20, covered 450 years) and when “there was a famine on the earth” (i.e. in Palestine, the land of Israel), who visited the Holy Land many times in biblical times (for example, Gen. 12:10, 26:1, 45:6; 2 Sam. 21:1). Both dates have not so much a chronological meaning as they indicate the nature of the time of the Judges, the lack of centralizing state power among the Jews at that time (cf. Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25), when each member of the people was left to himself and at a time of social disasters - famine (as here), enemy raids, etc. had to act at his own risk, ensuring his own well-being (cf. Judges 18:1); Elimelech acts in a similar way here, leaving his native Bethlehem and retiring with his family to a foreign land, to the land of Moab, “to live (there) as a stranger” (Hebrew verb gur, cf. Gen. 12:10, 19:9, 20:1; Judges 17:7, 19:1; Lamentations 4:15), hence “ger” - stranger, proselyte). The rabbinic interpretation rightly condemns Elimelech for abandoning his “brothers” (fellow citizens, fellow tribesmen), seeing in the misadventures and death of Elimelech in a foreign land a divine punishment for him for leaving the Holy Land (D. Midrasch Ruth Rabba, in deutsch. ubertragen v. A Wunsche, Leipzig, 1883, p. 15). On the contrary, rabbinic attempts to determine the time of Elimelech’s migration are arbitrary and unsuccessful, for example, they put this event at the time of Barak and Deborah (Judges 4–5, and in the “judges” (schophetim) Ruth. 1:1 they saw an indication of Deborah, Barak and Jael), at the time of the judges of Eod (Judges 3:15–30), in whose contemporary Eglon, the king of Moab, they saw the father Ruth the Moabite; also attributed to the time of Judge Heshbon (Jephthah's successor), with whom Boaz was identified, on the grounds that both lived in Bethlehem (Ruth. 2:1–4, cf. Judges 12:8, 10), etc. (Midr. Ruth Rabba, s. 10. 19). In fact, the only point of reference for establishing the time of the events described in the book of Ruth can only be the genealogy of David, given here (Ruth. 4:17–22): according to him, David was the great-grandson of Boaz and Ruth through Obed and Jesse, therefore, the period of time that elapsed from the events of the book of Ruth is approximately more than a hundred years, which is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus, who dates the resettlement of Elimelech (Ἀβιμέλεχος, according to Josephus) to the years of the reign of the judge and high priest Elijah (“Antiquities of the Jews” V, 9, 1–4). Bethlehem (Heb. Bet-lechem - “house of bread”), formerly (Gen. 35:16, 19, 35:7) called Ephrath (Heb. Ephratah - “fruitful”), but subsequently retaining its ancient name with a later name synonymous with it (Ruth. 4:11; Mic. 5:2), lay, judging by the name, in one of the most fertile areas of Palestine; according to Eusebius and Blessed. Jerome, 6 Roman miles, i.e. about 8 versts (Roman mile is equal to 694 fathoms), south of Jerusalem (Onomastic. 260; Russian translation of Right Palest. Collection, issue 37 p. 41), which is fully confirmed by the distance of the present village of Bethlehem, in Arabic Beth-Lam (with 7000 exclusively Christian population), from Jerusalem (see, for example, Cuerin, Description de la Palestine 1868, I, 120 sqq. Comp. Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky, “Holy Land”, vol. II, Kyiv, 1878, p. By the time of the Gospels and, of course, much earlier, Bethlehem was usually called the city of David (Luke 2:4, 11), not without the influence of the story of the book of Ruth (cf. Ruth. 4:17–22). Unlike the other Bethlehem - in the tribe of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15), Bethlehem, the future homeland of David, is named here, Rufus. 1:1, and in 1 Sam. 17:12; Mich. 5:2 Bethlehem of Judea, glory. “Bethlehem Judah” (Heb. Bet-lechem Iehudah). Ruth.1:2. The name of the man was Elimelech, the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chileon; they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem of Judah. And they came to the fields of Moab and stayed there. Elimelech's family was very famous in Bethlehem (Ruth. 1:19) and had relative wealth (Ruth. 1:21). The very name Elimelech (from Hebrew “my God is the king”), according to some, indicates the noble origin of the person who bore this name. In origin, this name is rightly close to the name of one Hittite prince (in southern Palestine) Ilimilki, or Milkili, mentioned in the Tell Amarna letters (cuneiforms discovered in Egypt in 1887–1888). I. Josephus conveys the name Elimelech Ἀβιμελέχος, thus bringing Elimelech closer to the name of the Philistine kings. The names of Elimelech's wife Naomi and both sons are also very significant. Naomi, Heb. Noomi - “lovely, pleasant, happy” (cf. Rufus 1:20, where this name is contrasted in meaning to another: “Mara” - “bitter”), for, notes the Midrash (s. 17), “her deeds were beautiful and pleasant.” Mahlon and Chileon (glorified Maalon and Heleon) are interpreted by some (Midrash, cit.; Geiger, s. 50) as “sickness and exhaustion” (from Hebrew Chalah and Kalah), which could indicate the early death (Ruth. 1:5) of both sons of Elimelech (Mid. cit.). However, such a correspondence of the meanings of the names (although it is still controversial due to the different meanings assigned to the same name) does not speak against the historical significance of the story of the book of Ruth, since a coincidence of this kind is undoubtedly unintentional. "Ephrathites", slav. “Ephratheists” are the same as “Bethlehemites” (cf. 1 Kings 17:12, where Jesse is called an Ephrathite), residents of Bethlehem, ancient Ephrath, and not at all “Ephraimites” (cf. Judges 12:5; 3 Kings 11:26; 1 Kings 1:1), as the Midrash mistakenly understands (s. 17). Ruth.1:3. And Naomi's husband Elimelech died, and she was left with her two sons. Elimelech died in the land of Moab, probably soon after arriving there, and the marriage of his sons took place after his death. Naomi remained a widow, “like the remnant of a bloodless sacrifice” (Midrash, s. 18). Ruth.1:4. They took themselves Moabite wives, one's name was Orpah, and the other's name was Ruth, and they lived there for about ten years. Ruth.1:5. But then both [her sons], Mahlon and Chileon, died, and that woman remained after both her sons and after her husband. The death of his father did not prompt his family to return; on the contrary, both sons of Elimelech now settle even more firmly in a foreign land: they marry Moabite women: the eldest, Mahlon, to Ruth (Ruth. 4:10), and the second, Chileon, to Orphe. The meaning of the names of Naomi's daughters-in-law is understood differently. Orpah (Heb. Orpah, LXX: Ορφά), according to the Midrash (s. 19), is so named because she turned the back (oreph) of her mother-in-law, i.e. left her (Ruth. 1:14; cf. Jer. 2:27); Gesenius derives this name from the Arabic root urf - “mane”, Simonis brings it closer to ophrah - “doe”. Ruth (Heb. Ruth) in the Talmud (Baba Batra 14, b.) is interpreted: “delighting” (from the verb ravah): “for from her came David, who delighted the Holy One with psalms”; in the Midrash (s. 19): “paying attention” to the mother-in-law (from the verb raah, to see, to behold); but the most accepted (Gesenius, Geiger, Philippson, etc.) production is from gea - neighbor, feminine reuth, close (i.e. closely related, loving in relation to Naomi); The latest production is based on the reading of the Syriac translation (Reuth). Marriage to foreigners and idolaters (Ruth. 1:15), prohibited by law (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3), cf. regarding the Moabites (Deut. 23:3, Judg. 10:6), the Targum and Jewish tradition in general considers the cause of the early and childless death of Mahlon and Chileon, although, for the sake of the high importance of David's foremother Ruth, he believes that the prohibition (Deut. 23:3) to accept the Moabites into the society of Jehovah applies to the male sex of this nation; as seen from Ruf. 1:16, Ruth accepted the faith of Israel after the death of her husband and after Naomi returned to Bethlehem. The famine in Israel probably lasted ten years, and the married life of Naomi's sons lasted the same amount (v. 4). Ruth.1:6. And she got up with her daughters-in-law and went back from the fields of Moab, for she heard in the fields of Moab that God had visited His people and given them bread. Ruth.1:7. And she left the place where she lived, and her two daughters-in-law with her. As they walked along the road returning to the land of Judah, After the death of Mahlon and Khileon, the family became poor. Then Naomi learns that Jehovah, according to the degree of Israel’s faithfulness or unfaithfulness to Him, sent him fertility and famine (Deut. 28:47–48), “visited”, “pakad” (cf. Gen. 21:1; Exod. 4:31; 1 Sam. 2:21), i.e. mercy - the gift of a grain harvest, and immediately leaves the Moabite land and heads, accompanied by both daughters-in-law, to Judea. Ruth.1:8. Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each one to your mother’s house.” May the Lord show mercy to you, as you did to the dead and to me! Ruth.1:9. May the Lord grant you that you may each find refuge in her husband’s house! And kissed them. But they raised a cry and cried As she approaches the border of the Moabite land with Judah, Naomi tries to advise her daughters-in-law to return to their parents' homes (according to LXX, Slav., “the house of their father”, but Heb., Russian: “the house of their mother” - an indication of the special significance of the mother in the primitive order of life, cf. Gen. 24:28; Song 3:4) 4; at least Ruth's father was still alive then (Ruth. 2:11). Naomi’s entire speech and the daughters-in-law’s responses reveal the existence of a relationship between them and their mother-in-law that can only be called ideal. With firm faith in the providence of God (this faith runs through the entire thread of the narrative of the book of Ruth), Naomi expresses gratitude to her daughters-in-law for their kind relations with their deceased husbands and mother-in-law, wishes them the mercies of Jehovah, thus expressing the belief that the power and action of Jehovah is not limited to the borders of Israel and its land, but extends to other nations, to the whole world and generously advises them to enter into new marriages, wishing “rest” (Heb. “menuchah”, v. 9) for them in the houses of future husbands (cf. Ruth. 3:2). Ruth.1:10. and they said, “No, you and I will return to your people.” However, Ruth and Orpah express a desire to follow their beloved mother-in-law to Judea. Ruth.1:11. Naomi said: Return, my daughters; why do you come with me? Do I still have sons in my womb who would be your husbands? Ruth.1:12. Return, my daughters, go, for I am too old to be married. Yes, even if I said: “there is still hope for me,” and even if I were with my husband that very night and then gave birth to sons, - Ruth.1:13. then can you wait until they grow up? Can you delay and not get married? No, my daughters, I grieve greatly for you, for the hand of the Lord has overtaken me. In her response, Naomi proceeds from the Hebrew view that the highest purpose and happiness of a woman is to be a mother (cf. Gen. 24:60, 30:1) and, in addition, she has in mind the Hebrew (also found among other peoples - Indians, Persians, Circassians, etc.) custom of levirate marriage (Gen. 38:7-11; Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Josephus “Jewish Antiquities” IV, 8, 23, cf. From this point of view, the following of her daughters-in-law after Naomi is recognized by her as pointless: she does not and will not have sons who could replace the deceased Mahlon and Chileon for Ruth and Orpah, so there is no hope for them in Israel; however, according to Naomi, her own situation is still more bitter (Heb. mar, v. 13) than theirs, for they have lost only husbands and can have hope for new marriages, while she has lost her husband, children, property and, moreover, does not have a better future in mind: apparently, she “has suffered the (punishing) hand of Jehovah” (v. 13). Ruth.1:14. They raised a cry and began to cry again. And Orpah said goodbye to her mother-in-law [and returned to her people], but Ruth remained with her. Ruth.1:15. [Naomi] said to [Ruth], Behold, your daughter-in-law has returned to her people and to her gods; return, too, after your daughter-in-law. Naomi's admonitions had an effect on Orpah, and she, fearing perhaps the hardships awaiting her in Naomi's company, chose to return “to her people and to her gods” (v. 15), i.e. to the veneration of Chemosh (Num. 21:29; Jer. 48:13) and other Moabite deities (according to the Targum, “to God” is the singular, which is why some ancient interpreters saw the True God here, which, however, is incorrect due to the fact that this is assimilated (v. 16) only by Ruth, in obvious contrast to Orpha (v. 15). Ruth.1:16. But Ruth said: Do not force me to leave you and return from you; but where you go, there I will go, and where you live, there I will live; Your people will be my people, and your God my God; Ruth.1:17. and where you die, there I will die and be buried; may the Lord do this and that for me, and do even more; Death alone will separate me from you. Ruth.1:18. [Naomi] seeing that she was firmly resolved to go with her, she stopped persuading her. But Naomi’s words had a completely opposite effect on Ruth. Now “love as strong as death” began to speak within her (Song 8:6): out of love for Naomi, she not only promises to accompany her inseparably in every place and under all circumstances, but with all the power of conviction she recognizes her people - Israel - as her people. Her God (Jehovah) is her God, i.e., according to the interpretation of the Midrash (s. 24), she declares herself a proselyte, joining both the faith and the people of Israel (cf. Berthofet, Stellung der Isr. u Iuden zu den Fremden, s. 28). Only death can separate her from Naomi, but still the ashes of both must lie in the same tomb. Ruth confirmed all this with an oath (common in the books of Kings, for example, 1 Samuel 3:17, 14:44, 20:13; 2 Kings 3:35), according to the Slavic text (more accurately than the Russian translation, which conveys the original text): “so may the Lord do for me, and this he will add.” Then Naomi abandoned her admonitions, silently agreeing with her. Ruth.1:19. And they both walked until they came to Bethlehem. When they came to Bethlehem, the whole city began to stir from them, and they said: Is this Naomi? Ruth.1:20. She said to them: do not call me Naomi *, but call me Mara **, because the Almighty has sent me great sorrow; Ruth.1:21. I left here richly, but the Lord returned me empty-handed; why call me Naomi when the Lord made me suffer, and the Almighty sent me misfortune? The arrival of Naomi in Bethlehem after a ten-year absence, moreover, without her husband and sons, naturally made an impression on the small population, of course, and especially the women said with surprise (Hebrew tomarnah, feminine): “Is this really Naomi?” (Greek-Slavic translation is more accurate than Vulg.: “haec, est illa Noemi” and Russian). Jewish Marah, Aramaic. op. Mara (LXX: Πικρά, Vulg. Amara, gl. "Bitter"), cognate with the name Mary, is the opposite in meaning of the name Noomi, and this contrast is expressed by Naomi as applied to the circumstances of her life and suffering at the will of the Almighty (Heb. Schaddai). Ruth.1:22. And Naomi returned, and with her her daughter-in-law Ruth the Moabite, who came from the fields of Moab, and they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest. The arrival of Naomi and Ruth in Bethlehem took place “at the beginning of the barley harvest,” or harvest in general (since barley ripens in Palestine before wheat) - about half of April (see Ed. Robinson, PaIastina 2 Bd., s. 504, 522, 597, 620, 668) or around the time of Passover (Targum: “at the coming day of Passover"), on the second day of which the first sheaf of the barley harvest was brought to the sanctuary (Lev. 23:10–11); Wed Midr. 31. The date of arrival may (in connection with what follows; chapters II-III) give the idea of ​​the proximity of God’s help to both women: the harvest gave rise to the manifestation of God’s mercy to them through Boaz. W. Nowack. Richter-Ruth. 1909, s. 186. Wed. prof. I. O. Mukhina. The state of Palestine and Phenicia in the 15th century BC... Kyiv, 1899, p. 35 Many critical biblical scholars (for example, Smend, Nowack, Benzinger) recognize the so-called matriarchy, or matriarchal era, which supposedly preceded the patriarchal one: if in the latter the father had the leading role in the family, then in the former it was exclusively the mother. But the Bible does not know such a cultural and historical stage of development of the family and community, but simply recognizes the fact of the initial high importance of the mother in the patriarchal family, along with the primacy of the father-patriarch (cf., for example, Gen. 16: 1, 21, etc.). Midrash (Part 21) in explanation of the expression “mother’s house” (Art. 8) says: “The pagan has no father.” You might be interested in: