Ruth 1:1-6 - Names, Identity and Leaving the Land

Full Summary

This shiur analyzes the opening verses of Megillat Ruth (1:1-6), focusing on several key themes and textual puzzles. The analysis begins with examining the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that Elimelech and his family were gedolei hador (great leaders of the generation), which creates difficulties in understanding their actions. If they were righteous leaders, why did they leave the Land of Israel during the famine, and more problematically, why did their sons marry Moabite women? A central focus is the Torah (תורה)'s unusual pattern of naming in these verses. The narrative begins anonymously - 'a man went' without identifying him - but then provides detailed names for everyone: Elimelech, Naomi, Machlon, and Kilyon. Later, the Moabite daughters-in-law are also specifically named as Orpah and Ruth. This pattern requires explanation, as it seems deliberately structured to move from anonymity to specific identification. The shiur addresses the halachic question of whether the marriages to the Moabite women were valid, noting that the Torah uses the language 'vayikchu lahem' (they took for themselves), which typically indicates proper marriage. This creates tension with the assumption that Ruth and Orpah had not yet converted, since their conversion process appears to occur later in the narrative. Significant attention is given to the principle learned from Elimelech's death: 'ein ish ozev et ishto' (a man does not abandon his wife). The analysis explores why this principle is derived specifically from this narrative rather than from earlier biblical deaths, and what connection this teaching has to the broader themes of communal responsibility and leadership. The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the family's possessions were lost gradually - first their money, then their animals, then their lives - as a form of progressive divine punishment that also represented an opportunity for repentance. This gradual loss pattern reflects the principle that God's punishments come incrementally, allowing for teshuvah. The geographical movement is carefully analyzed, particularly the phrase 'vatashav mi'sdei Moav' (she returned from the fields of Moab) followed by 'vateitzei min hamakom' (she left the place). The apparent redundancy requires explanation - why mention both returning and leaving? Rashi applies the principle of 'yetziat tzaddik min hamakom' (the departure of a righteous person from a place) that we know from Jacob's departure, but this creates questions about why the same principle needs to be taught twice in different contexts. The analysis concludes by examining the nature of communal responsibility and leadership, suggesting that the failures described in these opening verses relate to the fundamental question of how leaders relate to their communities, using the metaphor of the relationship between husband and wife to understand the relationship between leaders and the nation.