רות ג-איכה ג: חסד, שוליים ומרכז במגילת רות

"In the days the judges judged (Ruth 1:1)" [which could also be "the judges were judged"]. Woe to a generation that judges its judges and woe to a generation whose judges need to be judged. As it says: "And they didn't listen to their judges (Judges 2:17)". Who were those judges? Rav said: "They were Barak and Deborah". Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi said: "They were Shamgar and Ehud". Rav Huna said: "They were Deborah, Barak, and Yael". 'Judge' means one, 'judges' two, and 'the judges' three".

"There was a famine in the land (Ruth 1:1)". Ten famines have come into the world: one in the days of Adam the first man, one in the days of Lamech, and one in the days of Abraham, and one in the days of Isaac, and one in the days of Jacob, and one in the days of Elijah, and one in the days of Elisha, and one in the days of David, and one in the days "the judges judged", and one which changes and comes to the world. One in the days of Adam the first, as it is said: "Cursed be the ground because of you (Genesis 3:17)". And one in the days of Lamech, as it is said: "out of the very soil which Hashem placed under a curse (Genesis 5:29)". And one in the days of Abraham, as it is said: "There was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt (Genesis 12:10)". And one in the days of Isaac, as it is said: "There was a famine in the land—aside from the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham (Genesis 26:1)". And one in the days of Jacob, as it is said: "It is now two years that there has been famine in the land (Genesis 45:6)". And one in the days of Elijah, as it is said: "there will be no dew or rain except at my bidding (1 Kings 17:1)". And one in the days of Elisha, as it is said: "There was a great famine in Samaria (2 Kings 6:25)". And one in the days of David, as it is said: "There was a famine during the reign of David, year after year for three years (2 Samuel 21:1)". And one in the day the judges judged, as it is said: "and there was famine in the land". And one that changes and comes to the world, as it is written: "when I will send a famine upon the land: not a hunger for bread or a thirst for water (Amos 8:11)". Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Samuel: "The really actual one was was supposed to come upon them in the days of Saul and was not supposed to come in the days of David, and because Saul was a wooden vessel made from sycamore wood and was not able to withstand it, the Holy One, blessed be He, brought it to David, and he was a wooden vessel of olive wood and he was able to withstand it. A riddle says: "Shilo sinned and Yochanan was punished". Thus all of them did not come when men were weak, but rather when men were powerful and they were able to withstand them. Rabbi Chiyya in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar: "like a glass blower who had a basket full of cups and etched glass in his hand, and and then he was seeking to hang up his basket and he brought a peg and suspended himself from it first and then he would hang his basket". Thus all of them did not come when men were weak, but rather when men were powerful. Rabbi Berachya would always recite about them: "He gives strength to the weary (Isaiah 40:29)". Rabbi Berachya in the name of Rabbi Chelbo: "Two came in the days of Adam the first". Rabbi Huna in the name of Rab Acha: "One in the days of Abraham and one in the days of Lamech". The famine which was in the days of Elijah was of scarcity: one year produced and one year did not produce, but the famine which came in the days of Elisha, that was a real disaster, as it is said: "until a donkey’s head sold for eighty [shekels] of silver and a quarter of a kab of doves’ dung for five shekels (2 Kings 6:25)". Of the famine that came in the days the judges judged, Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Dosa: "42 se'ot there were and became 41". See! It is taught by the tannaim that a man does not go forth outside the land, unless two se'ot can be acquired for a shekel. Rabbi Shimon son of Gamliel: "In what time does he not go out if he can acquire food? Rather if he goes to acquite food and if he can acquire a se'ah for a shekel he does not go out from Israel to another land. And see! The tannaim teach that in a time of plague and a time of war he sits on his feet, and in a time of plague he moves his feet. " Why was Elimelech punished? Because he struck [despair] into the hearts of Israel, for nothing did he rule the country, and the countrymen were sure that when the years of plague/famine would come, he would be able to sustain the country for 10 years with food! When the year of famine came to the land, his maid went to the market stalls and her basket was in her hand, and the people of the district said: "Is this the one whom we trusted in that when the famine came he would be able to provide for us for ten years? And see! His maid is standing in the market and her basket is in her hand!" Elimelech was one the great leaders of his district and one of the financial supporters of his generation. But when the years of famine came, he said, “Now all Israel will come knocking at my door, each one with his basket.” He got up and fled from them. This is the meaning of the verse, “and a man went [out] from Beth-lehem in Judah.

And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all.

They should not leave peah of less than one-sixtieth [of the field]. But even though they said, “there is no measure for peah,” everything depends upon the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the extent of the yield.

Two sheaves [left lying together] are “forgotten,” but three are not “forgotten.” Two bundles of olives or carobs are “forgotten” but three are not “forgotten.” Two flax-stalks are “forgotten”, but three are not “forgotten”. Two grapes are considered “grape gleanings,” but three are not “grape gleanings.” Two ears of grain are deemed “gleanings,” but three are not gleanings.” All these [rulings] are according to Bet Hillel. And concerning them all Bet Shammai says that three [that are left] belong to the poor, and four belong to the owner.

One who reaps his field should not reap the whole field entirely but rather he should leave a little bit of standing grain for the poor at the edge of the field, as it is written, (Lev. 23:22) You shall not reap all the way to the edges of the field. It is the same whether one is reaping [with a tool] or plucking [by hand], and that which is left is what Scripture refers to as péah [the "edge"]. Just as one must leave [some standing crops] in the field, so too when one gathers the fruit of trees, one should leave a little for the poor. If he does transgress [the negative mitzvah against harvesting one's field completely] and reaps all the field or gathers all the trees' fruit, he should take a little from what he reaped or gathered and give it to the poor, for giving it is a positive mitzvah [divine commandment], as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. Even if the standing grain is ground, kneaded, and baked into bread, the one who gives from it is considered to have given péah to the poor.¹That is, the first part of the verse, (Lev. 23:22) You shall not reap all the way to the edges of the field, corresponds to the prohibition against reaping all of the field, and the second part of the verse, you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger, corresponds with the injunction to give the food to the poor, no matter what form it is in or how far it has been processed. "Leaving them for the poor and the stranger," therefore, actually indicates actively giving. If all of his produce that he reaped was destroyed or burned before he gave péah, he deserves punishment [with lashes], for he has transgressed a negative mitzvah and cannot fulfill the positive one [to rectify the situation] for the opportunity has been taken from him.²See Babylonian Talmud Makkot 16b. Punishment, according to the rabbis of the Talmud, usually took the form of lashes, where the offender was whipped across his or her back, based upon Deuteronomy 25:3. Because no one was ever to receive more than forty lashes, the standard number to be received was thirty-nine or less if that is what the offender could bear. Negative commandments were usually punished with lashes while positive commandments were not, but in this case, the commandments not to gather certain agricultural produce involve negative commandments whose transgression could be made up for by fulfilling positive commandments. In this case, it is only when the opportunity to fulfill the positive commandment is also lost and the situation cannot, therefore, be rectified in any fashion that punishment is incurred. This rabbinic understanding of liability also applies to the next two laws. And so it is with leket [overlooked gleanings] as one reaps and binds, one may not gather the fallen stalks at the time of reaping, but rather one should leave them for the poor, as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) Or gather the gleanings of your harvest. If one transgresses [the negative mitzvah against reaping one's field completely] and reaped them and even kneaded and baked them, one should give them to the poor, as it is said, (Lev. 23:22) You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. If it is destroyed or burned after one has gleaned but before one has given to the poor, one deserves punishment. And so it is with peret [separated fruit] that fell from the vine at the time of harvesting and with olélot [malformed grape clusters], as it is said, (Lev. 19:10) You shall not pick your vineyard bare [te'olél] or gather the fallen fruit [uferet] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. So also with one who stacks sheaves and has forgotten a sheaf in the field. This person may not recover it, as it is said, (Deut. 24:19) And overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it. If one does transgress [the negative mitzvah against picking up a forgotten sheaf] and gleans and even grinds and bakes, this one still must give to the poor, as it is said, (Deut. 24:19) It shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. This is a positive mitzvah. Thus you learn that all these mitzvot are negative which are transformed into positive mitzvot, and if one does not fulfill a positive mitzvah, one deserves punishment.³Each one of these verses is two-fold; one part corresponds to the prohibition against gleaning or picking all of a crop while the other part is the injunction to give food to the poor. Each one of the gifts for the poor involves two acts: one of self-restraint and one of giving. Just as it is with forgotten sheaves [shikhecha, the "forgotten"], so it is with standing grain. If one has forgotten a portion of standing grain, one may not harvest it. It is for the poor. And just as with forgotten produce and their products, so also with forgotten fruit of trees altogether, as it is said, (Deut. 24:20) When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again. So it applies to all other types of trees.⁴With regard to trees, however, there are exceptions, such as with carob trees. See 3:21. Thus we have learned of four gifts to the poor concerning the vineyard: peret [the "separated fruit"], olélot [the "malformed grape clusters"], péah [the "edge"], and shikhecha [the "forgotten"]. [We learned] three gifts concerning produce: leket [the "overlooked gleanings"], shikhecha, and péah. And [we learned] two concerning trees: shikhecha and péah.⁵See Babylonian Talmud Chullin 131a-b. Maimonides offers a different way of organizing categories of "gifts for the poor," based on applicability. The categories of peret and olélot apply only to the vineyard while the category of leket applies only to the field. Péah and shikhecha apply to every situation. With regard to all of these gifts to the poor, owners may not derive any benefit from them, but rather the poor come and take them regardless of the owner's wishes. Even if he [the farmer] is one of the poor of Israel, they take them from his possession.⁶See Babylonian Talmud Chullin 131 a-b. Even if the farmer is poor, he is still obligated to give to the poor as a member of the community. This principle that all may give is taken up again in Chapter 10, with the provision that collectors of tzedakah may not cause any public embarrassment to a poor person. Any "stranger" that is mentioned [in Scripture] with regards to the gifts for the poor can only refer to a convert, for it states regarding ma'asér sheni [the second tithe], (Deut. 14:29) Then the Levite...and the stranger...shall come. Just as a Levite is a member of the covenant, so also the stranger is a member of the covenant. Nevertheless, we do not prevent the poor of the Gentiles⁷Literally, "worshipers of the stars" or idolators. from these gifts. Rather, they may come along with the poor of Israel and take them for the sake of peaceful relations.⁸See Mishnah Gittin 5:8, Babylonian Talmud Gittin 61a, and Tosefta Gittin 3:13. Doing something "for the sake of peaceful relations" was ultimately a political reason, where a member of the community would act so as to avoid conflict with others, principally Gentiles. The Jewish community, which was often at the mercy of a hostile ruling power, needed to act so as not to provoke the authorities against them. See later in this treatise in 8:6-8, and also 10:2, where Maimonides states refers to the ruling powers' relationship with the Jews as "the idolatrous nations that hate them and pursue them." It has already been noted in the Introduction that giving to the poor of another ethnic or religious group was remarkable for that time. It is mentioned regarding gifts for the poor, (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger, [that is to say] each time the poor have a claim on them [these gifts], when they have ceased to desire and return after them, the remainder is permitted to anyone, for it is not in and of itself sanctified like gift-offerings [which belong only to the Temple in Jerusalem].⁹Giving to the Temple in Jerusalem was a different kind of giving than giving to the poor including any kind of consecrated property or sacrifice, such as a gift-offering. Property became sanctified when the donor said a pledge to that effect and was immediately efficacious, and the use of the property other than for the Temple was prohibited.. Nor is one obligated to give their value's worth, for it does not say, "give them to the poor" but rather you shall leave them [for the poor]. It is not a mitzvah to leave them for wild animals and birds but rather for the poor, and these [animals] are not "the poor" [but rather they should be used by people].¹⁰See Babylonian Talmud 134b, where it says that we leave food for people and not for "ravens and bats." " When can anyone take leket? When the [poor] gleaners come [into the field] a second time and gather after the first group of [poor] gleaners and then depart. When can anyone take peret and olélot? When the poor have come into the vineyard and gone, what remains after them is permitted to anyone. When can anyone take forgotten olives? In the Land of Israel, if one forgot it [the olive produce] from the top of the olive tree, this is permitted from the first of the month of Kislev, for it is the time of the second rainfall, late in the season. But olives that are left piled up, forgotten under a tree, are permitted [to anyone] as soon as the poor cease from going through them.¹¹See Mishnah Péah 7:2 and 8:1. Any time that the poor person can take forgotten olives that were left on the ground under the tree, he [the poor person] may take them [that is, it does not depend on the time of the season], even after the time when anyone is permitted to take what was forgotten at the top of the tree. Any time he [anyone] can take forgotten olives that were left on the top of the tree [that is, beginning in Kislev], he may take them, even though he still may not take the forgotten olives from beneath the tree that the poor have not yet ceased to go through].¹²Maimonides follows an established tradition of dividing a tree in half between top and bottom (see Mishnah Gittin 5:8). The top includes those olives that would need to be beaten down with a stick while the bottom includes those that can be reached by hand. A tree, therefore, cannot be categorized under the requirement of being harvested all at once. In addition, olives left on the ground are like other produce in that, once they have been left behind by their owner, the poor may claim them, and after the poor have gone through them, they are available to anyone. The olives that were not beaten down from the top of the tree, however, depend upon the time of year before they can be considered abandoned by their owner. He bases this upon both Mishnah Péah 7:2 and 8:1. Ravad of Posqiueres, however, takes issue with this, also citing Mishnah Péah 7:2 for a different rule that states that as soon as the olives underneath are deemed to be forgotten so, too, are the olives above. This is reiterated in the Jerusalem Talmud, Péah 7:2, with the added explanation that even if the olives below may be remembered by the owner and not deemed to be forgotten, the olives above are deemed forgotten as soon as the worker has gone through with a harvesting rod and beaten down all that he wanted. In addition, Ravad claims that "underneath" need not only apply to that which is on the ground but actually on the lower branches of the tree, and he also cites the part of a Mishnah that says that if the tree has more than two seah of olives on it, then this clearly could not have been forgotten by the owner because it is too large a quantity. Ravad therefore understands that the status of whether or not the olives qualify as shikhecha depends entirely upon the actions and intentions of the owner and not the time of year. The gifts for the poor that are in the field of which the poor have not claimed belong to the owner, even if the poor have not ceased from going through their gifts.¹³This passage speaks to the rabbinic understanding of the property of the poor. The poor own these agricultural products and have a claim to them even before the owner of the field has given them because these products are gifts from God and the owner of the field is merely a steward of God's will. It is only when the poor have not claimed the property that it can be understood as being abandoned property and, in that case, the owner of the field or anyone else can take possession of the produce. All of these gifts for the poor as they are in the Torah only apply to the Land of Israel, like gift offerings and tithes. Thus Scripture says, (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) When you reap the harvest of your land, [and] (Deut. 24:19) When you reap the harvest in your field. [But] it has already been explained in the Talmud¹⁴See Babylonian Talmud Chullin 137b. that the category of péah applies outside of the Land of Israel from rabbinic law, and it appears to me that it makes sense for the remaining types of gifts for the poor to all apply to outside of the Land of Israel from rabbinic law as well.¹⁵See Mishnah Kiddushin 1:9. In this law as well as the next, Maimonides makes a distinction between laws that are from the Torah itself and rabbinic rulings. While laws from the Torah are more directly authoritative, the laws of the rabbis rest on the authority of a tradition of sacred interpretation and were considered just as binding as the laws of the Torah. Indeed, some rabbinic laws carried very severe punishments for their transgression to discourage challenging their authority. The rabbinic law seeks to clarify the intent of the Torah, filling in the gaps that the Torah does not make clear. In this instance, the location of where these laws are in force in the Jewish community and the minimum amount that needed to be given are details lacking in the Torah that the rabbis fill in. How much is the [minimum] measure of an "edge" portion? From the Torah there is no [minimum] measurement. Even if one left one stalk, one is free from one's obligation, but from rabbinic law it is not less than one-sixtieth whether in the Land of Israel or outside, and one increases over and above one-sixtieth according to the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the blessing of sowing. How so? If a field is exceedingly small and one leaves from it one-sixtieth, it does not benefit a poor person. Thus in this case the measure is increased. And so if there are a great deal of poor people one adds [to the measure], and if the sowing is very little and nevertheless one took in a great deal because one was [unusually] blessed, one increases what one gives according to the abundance of the blessing. Anyone who adds to the measure of the péah portion increases his reward [by God], and there is no [maximum] measure to this added benefit.¹⁶See Mishnah Péah 1:1-2. The first line of Mishnah Péah reads, "These are the things for which there is no definite quantity: péah, first fruits, the festival offering upon appearing in the Temple, deeds of lovingkindness, and the study of Torah." Taken literally, this means that the Torah does not prescribe a limit in the application of this duty. The implication, however, is that there is no prescribed definite quantity for the reward of following these commandments, as Maimonides makes clear in this law. In addition, one is supposed to be as generous as possible.

At three times of the day they divide up the péah portion in the field for the poor or leave it for them to pick: at dawn, at noon, and at mincha,³⁴Late afternoon. and they do not leave anything for the poor person who does not come at these times so that there is a set time for the poor to gather together and take [what they need]. Why was there not only one set time during the day? Because there are nursing mothers who are poor who need to eat at the beginning of the day, there are poor children who do not stir during the morning and do not arrive to the field until noon, and there are old people who cannot arrive until mincha.³⁵See Mishnah Péah 4:5.

"God will deal kindly with you (Ruth 1:8)" . Rabbi Chanina son of Ada says, "He will deal (ya'aseh)" is what is written (k'tiv), "as you dealt with the dead" when you were occupied with their shrouds, "and with me" when they renounced their ketubot. Rabbi Zeira says: "This book [of Ruth] does not have anything in it concerned with impurity or purity nor what is forbidden and what is permitted. So why is it written? To teach us the greatness of the reward for acts of lovingkindness."

And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)? “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your God”; this is referring to taking the indigent dead out for burial and accompanying a poor bride to her wedding canopy, both of which must be performed without fanfare. The Gemara summarizes: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If, with regard to matters that tend to be conducted in public, as the multitudes participate in funerals and weddings, the Torah says: Walk humbly, then in matters that tend to be conducted in private, e.g., giving charity and studying Torah, all the more so should they be conducted privately. § Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs acts of charity is greater than one who sacrifices all types of offerings, as it is stated: “To perform charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” (Proverbs 21:3), including all types of offerings. And Rabbi Elazar said: Acts of kindness, assisting someone in need, are greater than charity, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness” (Hosea 10:12). This means: If a person sows, it is uncertain whether he will eat or whether he will not eat, since much can go wrong before the seed becomes food. However, if a person reaps, he certainly eats. In this verse, charity is likened to sowing, while acts of kindness are likened to reaping. And Rabbi Elazar said: The reward for charity is paid from Heaven only in accordance with the kindness and generosity included therein and in accordance with the effort and the consideration that went into the giving. It is not merely in accordance with the sum of money, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness.” The Sages taught that acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity can be performed only with one’s money, while acts of kindness can be performed both with his person and with his money. Charity is given to the poor, while acts of kindness are performed both for the poor and for the rich. Charity is given to the living, while acts of kindness are performed both for the living and for the dead. And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who performs charity and justice is considered as though he filled the whole world in its entirety with kindness, as it is stated: “He loves charity and justice; the earth is full of the kindness of the Lord” (Psalms 33:5). Lest you say that anyone who comes to leap and perform an act of kindness may simply leap and do so without scrutiny, the verse states: “How precious is your kindness, O God” (Psalms 36:8). It is a precious and rare occurrence to perform an act of kindness properly. One might have thought that even a God-fearing individual does not always encounter the opportunity to perform acts of kindness. Therefore, the verse states: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him” (Psalms 103:17).

And Naomi said unto her two daughters-in-law: ‘Go, return each of you to her mother’s house; the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.

Then said Boaz unto his servant that was set over the reapers: ‘Whose damsel is this?’ And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said: ‘It is a Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the field of Moab; and she said: Let me glean, I pray you, and gather after the reapers among the sheaves; so she came, and hath continued even from the morning until now, save that she tarried a little in the house.’ Then said Boaz unto Ruth: ‘Hearest thou not, my daughter? Go not to glean in another field, neither pass from hence, but abide here fast by my maidens. Let thine eyes be on the field that they do reap, and go thou after them; have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee? and when thou art athirst, go unto the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn.’ Then she fell on her face, and bowed down to the ground, and said unto him: ‘Why have I found favour in thy sight, that thou shouldest take cognizance of me, seeing I am a foreigner?’ And Boaz answered and said unto her: ‘It hath fully been told me, all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law since the death of thy husband; and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people that thou knewest not heretofore. The LORD recompense thy work, and be thy reward complete from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to take refuge.’ Then she said: ‘Let me find favour in thy sight, my LORD; for that thou hast comforted me, and for that thou hast spoken to the heart of thy handmaid, though I be not as one of thy handmaidens.’ And Boaz said unto her at meal-time: ‘Come hither, and eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar.’ And she sat beside the reapers; and they reached her parched corn, and she did eat and was satisfied, and left thereof. And when she was risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying: ‘Let her glean even among the sheaves, and put her not to shame. And also pull out some for her of purpose from the bundles, and leave it, and let her glean, and rebuke her not.’