Sem título Sermão (2)

Rute 2.7 NVI

Ela me pediu que a deixasse recolher e juntar espigas entre os feixes, após os ceifeiros. Ela chegou cedo e está em pé até agora. Só sentou-se um pouco no abrigo”.

7 “May I glean stalks of grain and gather them in bundles behind the reapers?” The Hebrew of v 7 is fraught with problems. It is extremely difficult to make the apparent meaning of this clause fit coherently with the rest of the chapter, and it is very difficult to make sense at all of the rest of the verse as it stands. The meaning and relationship of the first two words is reasonably clear. The cohortative אלטה״נא is continued by a perfect with waw consecutive, ואספתי, expressing sequence: “I would like to glean and (then) gather.” Contrast this with the use in v 2 of a second cohortative (ואלקטה ) to continue a previous cohortative (אלכה״נא), a construction that expresses purpose: “I would like to go . . . to glean.” The second sequential verb, “and gather,” refers to the fact that the work of gleaning involved picking up individual stalks of grain and gathering them into bundles. In this context (see below), it seems far less likely that the sequence is logically consequent, “Let me glean and (so) gather,” contra IBHS § 32.2.2b.

The force of the phrase ואספתי בעמרים, “and gather them in bundles,” however, is unclear in the context and much disputed. It is often rendered “and gather among the sheaves” (NAS; NEB; NIV; RSV; cf. Campbell, 94; Rudolph, 46 n. b; Sasson, 38, 48). The preposition ~ can bear the meaning “among” (cf. BDB, 2, p. 88; note esp. 2 Sam 15:31). However, major problems are raised by such a translation. First, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that Ruth would make a request so contrary to customary practice. In OT times, grain was reaped as follows (see Boroswki, Agriculture, 57–61; Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte 3:41–44, 46–50): The reaper (קצר) grasped a handful of standing grain ( קמה) with one hand (Ps 129:7a) and cut it with a sickle (Jer 50:16) held in the other (Isa 17:5; see the illustration in Borowski, Agriculture, 59). This handful of cut grain ( שבלים—the ears with attached stubs of stalk) was laid on the ground behind him. These “handfuls” were in turn gathered into “bundles” (עמרים ; cf. KB3, 804) by the “bundler [ מעמר] who fills his arms” (Ps 129:7b; see esp. plate 5

in Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, vol. 3). These “bundles” were probably then bound into sheaves (אלמ-ב or אלמות, Gen 37:7; Ps 126:6; cf. Borowski, Agriculture, 60–61), although it is also possible that עמרים , “bundles,” and □אלמי , “sheaves,” are synonymous. The ordinary privilege of gleaning required that the gleaners work only in that part of the field in which the work of harvesting described above had been completed and the sheaves removed to the threshing floor (see Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte 3:46–47, 62; and esp. Deut 24:19; cf. de Waard-Nida, 30; Hubbard, 148, 176; and esp. Joüon, 50). Most probably, this is what is implied by the expression “to glean behind (someone),” used by Ruth in v 2 and by the narrator in the summary statement of v 3, and by the expression “follow behind the women workers,” used by Boaz in his instructions to Ruth in v 9. Ruth was a stranger and a foreigner. It would be almost unthinkable for her to have requested the right to glean “among the sheaves,” a right of gleanage that far exceeded anything accorded by custom to native Bethlehemites. It could have caused her only the ill will and enmity of all the other women whom circumstances (cf. Deut 24:19) had also driven to the exigencies of the poverty stricken. Indeed, if the above interpretation is correct, then the rendering of v 7 by “may I glean and gather among the sheaves behind the reapers” is simply a contradiction in terms. In this light, it is not insignificant to note that the expression “behind the reapers” or its equivalent is missing in v 15, where Boaz does command his workers to let Ruth “glean between the sheaves.” And finally, it is incongruous for Ruth to request this privilege here in v 7 and for Boaz not to grant it until v 15 after the break for the noon meal (v 14). Consequently, most commentators have sought a meaning for the expression other than “glean among the sheaves.”

However, two recent commentators, Sasson and Hubbard, have attempted with considerable insight and ingenuity to make this translation fit with a coherent interpretation of the chapter. Both have followed the lead of Campbell, who wonders whether we should not understand the verse to mean that Ruth asked for permission to glean among the sheaves but had received no answer from the overseer, “because the owner of the crop had not yet arrived, and in the overseer’s view the owner alone was the one to grant it” (Campbell, 96). In favor of this view, Campbell argues, is the possibility that the following phrase, ותבוא ותעמוד, can then be taken “in its literal and regular sense: ‘she arrived and has stood waiting for permission before she begins . . .’ ” (96; see the discussion below). Although suggesting that

Boaz gave his permission in the sequel, Campbell does not offer a complete interpretation of the scene. He only notes that the proposal requires understanding v 3a to be a summary of the action that the whole episode spells out. In particular, he does not discuss the phrase ואספתי בעמרים in connection with the hypothesis and, indeed, seems to imply that Ruth requested only the ordinary rights of gleanage.

Sasson (44–48), however, takes the proposal that one step further. He understands ואספתי בעמרים to mean “and gather among the sheaves,” and with Campbell he takes ותעמוד to mean “she stood waiting,” to which clause he joins the following temporal phrases, yielding the translation “She requested permission to glean, and to gather grain among the sheaves behind the reapers. She arrived and has been waiting from daybreak until now” (38). On the basis of this interpretation, Sasson (47) posits that Ruth “was deliberately presenting the overseer with a request he was not in a position to grant,” to glean among the sheaves themselves, rather than in that part of the field where the harvesting had been completed and the sheaves removed to the threshing floor. He uses this understanding to buttress his view, discussed above, that Ruth with Naomi’s collusion deliberately set out to meet Boaz and gain his favor. For, by making a request that could not be fulfilled by a mere overseer, she “was assured of meeting Boaz, since the latter could hardly fail to notice her as she stood by” (48). In Sasson’s view of the continuation of the scene (48–57), Boaz does not immediately respond to Ruth’s request. In the dialogue that follows (vv 8–13), he grants her only the ordinary rights of gleanage (49–50), which Ruth then set about doing at the conclusion of her conversation with him recorded in vv 8–13 (44, 49). It is only after pondering her request during the rest of the morning and during the break for the noon meal (54–55) that in v 15, after the meal, Boaz finally grants her request (56).

But this interpretation fails to give a coherent understanding of the scene at very significant points. First, it must be said that, although v 3a is a summary statement for which this whole scene spells out the details (see Comment above), its most natural implication is that the gleaning of which the narrator there speaks is in process as he tells us of Boaz’s arrival in v 4. Sasson himself feels the force of this, commenting about v 3: “Ruth arrives at the fields and begins gleaning.” Since, however, this does not fit with his view that “Ruth did not begin gleaning until after her interview with Boaz,” he suggests that it may be best to translate the verse “She proceeded to begin gleaning in the field behind the reapers”

(44). It is hard indeed to see how this either fits the Hebrew or implies that Ruth did not begin gleaning until much later. Second, if Boaz accorded Ruth only the ordinary rights of gleanage in his response in vv 8–9 instead of the special request to glean between the sheaves, it is very hard to understand her dramatic and astonished response to him in v 10, in which she prostrates herself on the ground and asks, incredulously, “How have I earned your favor so that you pay such attention to me . . . ?” (see the discussion below). This is hardly what one would expect if her request had not at all been met, and Sasson recognizes the incongruity, for he observes, rather understatedly, that her action “is somewhat an exaggerated display of gratitude for the limited amount of privilege which Boaz granted Ruth” (51). Third, if Ruth began gleaning according to the normal pattern after her conversation with Boaz in w 8– 13, it is surprising that the narrator says nothing whatsoever about it. Indeed, the abrupt transition from the morning’s conversation in vv 8–13 and Boaz’s words to her at the break for the noon meal in v 14 rather clearly imply no change in her activities in the meantime.

Finally, two factors speak conclusively against Sasson’s interpretation. First, as Hubbard notes (“The Events of Ruth 2:1–16,” 5), Boaz’s words of permission in v 15 are directed to his workers, not to Ruth, and only after Ruth got up to resume gleaning. In this view then, Ruth received the answer to her major request indirectly, by overhearing a command directed to others. As Hubbard observes, given the story’s pattern of face-to-face dialogues, should we not expect Boaz to answer her directly? Second and most important, as we noted in the Comment on vv 1–2 above, Sasson’s view that Ruth set out from the beginning deliberately to meet Boaz and gain his favor cannot be sustained. Hence, Ruth cannot have adopted this course in order to meet Boaz, and consequently, we are left without a reason for Ruth to make such a request—a request that, as we noted above, so far exceeded what custom accorded native poor people that it would have been unthinkable for a stranger and a foreigner.

Hubbard (149 n. 41), on the other hand, follows Sasson in understanding Ruth to be requesting in v 7a that she might “glean and gather among the sheaves” and in understanding v 7b to mean that she “stood waiting” for the owner of the field to respond to her request (149, 152). But he departs from Sasson in stating that Boaz grants her request in his first words to her in vv 8–9a (154; also “The Events of Ruth 2:1– 16,” 8) rather than in v 15b. What, then, of Boaz’s command in v 15b,

“Let her glean between the sheaves,” addressed to his workers after the noon meal reported in v 14? In Hubbard’s view (176) this is Boaz’s instruction to his workers implementing the permission granted Ruth in vv 8–9a before the meal. And the statement immediately preceding, “She rose to glean” (v 15a), records the beginning, finally, of Ruth’s gleaning (175, 178). In this view, then, vv 7–16 compose one long, continuous sequence of events in which Ruth’s request is reported (v 7), Boaz grants it (vv 8–9), and the conversation occasioned by her surprise at his action ensues (vv 10–13), followed by the report of the noon meal (v 14), the onset of Ruth’s gleaning (v 15a), Boaz’s instructions to his workers implementing his permission (v 15b), and his further magnanimity toward her (v 16).

But this interpretation, ingenious though it be, likewise seems problematic on several counts. First of all, it is difficult to view vv 7–16 as one long continuous sequence, for the most natural interpretation of the language of v 14, “Then Boaz said to her at the mealtime” (see below), implies a break of some length between the previous conversation and that about to ensue. Hubbard himself suggests that they “probably met sometime in mid-morning and shared the meal about midday” (171 n. 2) and speaks of “a pregnant, pause of unknown duration . . . between vv 13 and 14” that “introduced a new short scene” (172). Why, then, did Ruth not set about gleaning in the interim? Indeed, does not Boaz’s initial summons, “Come over here and eat,” imply that she is then some distance away? Second, Boaz’s language in vv 8–9a can only with great difficulty be understood as a response to a request to “glean among the sheaves.” It rather comprises instructions that she should limit her gleaning to his field alone. In Hubbard’s own words (154), “He formally authorized Ruth to remain in his field.” Third, Ruth’s dramatic reaction to Boaz’s words, in which she is “surprised” and “astonished” (Hubbard, 161) is hard to understand if he has done nothing more than grant her request. It can hardly be explained by his granting her access to his workers’ water supply (v 9d). Finally, and most conclusive, since Hubbard (138–39; esp. n. 13) rejects Sasson’s view that Ruth deliberately set out to meet Boaz and win his favor, she cannot then have adopted this course in order to meet him. Hence, his view likewise gives no reason that can explain the impropriety of such an action on her part (see the discussion above).

Consequently, it seems most unlikely that a coherent interpretation of the scene can be given if the translation “glean among the sheaves” is

adopted, so the phrase must have some other meaning. To begin with, it is not possible to take עמרם , “bundles,” as the object of אפף , “to gather,” governed by the preposition ם (contra Barthélemy et al., Preliminary and Interim Report 2:138), for the verb אפף occurs some eighty times meaning “gather, collect” and never elsewhere governs its object with a preposition. Hence, citing Syr. and Vg (see Note 7.b.*), some have simply omitted the phrase (e.g., JB; TEV; Gerleman; Witzenrath; Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte 3:47). Others emend עמר י מ to read עמרים, understood to be a defectively written plural of עמיר , “cut grain,” meaning “stalks of grain” (Joüon, Rudolph, Hailer). Besides the fact that this is purely hypothetical, it also leaves the problem of the anomalous preposition ם unexplained. To take this as another example of the problematic ם participative as in v 2 above (Zenger, 55) does not in the least commend itself. Equally unlikely is the view of those who emend !^ואפפ to the feminine plural participle, אספות yielding the translation “the women gathering the sheaves,” which is then transposed after “behind the reapers” (Hertzberg, Würthwein) or deleted as a gloss (Gray, CeB). A solution, however, is suggested by the manner in which the verb לקט is used in Ruth. Elsewhere this verb is used ten times, and the object of the gathering or gleaning is always explicitly stated (see, e.g., Lev 19:9, 10; 23:22; Isa 17:5). However, here in Ruth 2, the verb occurs twelve times, and the object “ears of grain” is only once explicitly stated, where (v 2) it is problematically related to the verb by the preposition ם (see Comment above). In every other occurrence (vv 3, 7, 8, 15[2x], 16, 17[2x], 18, 19, 23) the object is not stated. In these passages, then, the verb לקט means “to glean ears of grain”; i.e., its object is implied in its specialized sense in this context (which is the case even if בעמרים is taken to mean “among the sheaves”). This being the case, it seems plausible to understand this implied object of the verb אלקטה־נא, “May I glean (ears of grain),” as the understood object of ואספתי, “and gather,” and to take the phrase בעמרים as an adverbial expression of manner, “in bundles” (cf. NAB; Barthélemy et al., Preliminary and Interim Report 2:138). It is not uncommon for the object to be implied in such a manner as this when the context makes it clear what is meant; cf. the following passage from the Yavneh-Yam inscription (TSSI 1:48): ויקצר עבדך ויכל ואסב בימם, “And your servant reaped and measured and stored (grain) for the (agreed) days” (lines 4– 5). Further, such a usage fits well within the range of meanings of the

preposition — that HebS § 252 terms that of “norm, expressing a state or condition” (contra de Waard-Nida, 88 n. 17; cf. also BDB, I.6, p. 88). Such an understanding provides a reason for the addition of “and gather” to “may I glean,” for otherwise the two verbs move in the same semantic field. This, as we shall show below, yields a coherent interpretation of the events of the scene.

ותבוא ותעמוד , “So she came and has remained here.” The exact meaning of the remainder of the verse is highly problematic. For a summary of some nineteen different renderings up to 1971, see Lys, VT 21 (1971) 497–99. If the conclusions we have come to above are cogent, ותעמוד cannot mean “she has stood waiting” (contra Campbell, Hubbard, Sasson). As these scholars note, Rudolph’s rendering, “she has been on her feet” (so NEB), i.e., “working continuously,” goes well beyond the attested usage of the verb עמד . However, עמד can bear the meaning “remain, stay” (cf. BDB, 3.b, p. 764; HALOT 3.c, p. 841; note Rudolph’s literal translation, 46 n. c). In Deut 5:31; 2 Kgs 15:20 it is the antonym of שוב, “return,” and in Exod 9:28 of שלח, “send away.” This meaning makes good sense in the context. (Indeed, Rudolph’s translation, 47 n. c, is but a contextual rendering of this more literal sense.) In this light, the emendation to the otherwise unattested ותעמוד , “she gleaned stalks” (Rudolph, 46), is unnecessary. The statement “And she came and has remained here” is the overseer’s way of indicating that Ruth acted upon the implied permission that he gave.

 “From morning until just now she has stopped only a moment.” Since מאז can govern an infinitive (a verbal noun: Exod 4:10; Lachish Letters 3:7 [see TSSI]), as numerous prepositions do, with the meaning “since, from the time of,” there is nothing syntactically problematic (contra Campbell, 95) in finding it governing a noun in the same sense (so Rudolph, 46; cf. BDB, 23; HALOT *4 א.b, p. 26; as Brockelmann, Syntax, § 111e, indicates, 12 alone can be used in just the same sense: Gen 46:34; cf. also Joüon, 50). This makes unnecessary the suggested emendation to מאר , “from the light (of)” (Rudolph, 46).

Contrary to the MT pointing, which joins זה to the following words, the words עתה זה probably belong together as an idiom meaning “now, just now” (cf. BDB, 4.h, p. 261; GKC § 136d), rather than understanding זה itself as an adverb of time (joined with the following words, BDB, 4.i, p. 261; so Sasson, 48). The LXX reads ἑσπέρας,

“evening” (Heb. ערב ), for עתה , “now,” an impossibility, since ahead lies the noon meal and an afternoon of work (cf. v 17).

It is quite unclear, despite the MT accent on ותעמוד , which indicates a major break, whether the phrase “from the morning until now” goes with the preceding or following clause, especially since the latter is virtually unintelligible. If our conjecture regarding the meaning of the following clause is anywhere near correct, the phrase is best taken with it, on the grounds that “the emphasis . . . is not upon ‘remaining,’ but upon the fact that Ruth continued working and thus did not rest from daylight until the time of this conversation between Boaz and the servant” (de Waard- Nida, 30; cf. Gerleman, 23).

The last four words according to the MT accentuation, ^^!* ^.^^ ^^^^ ^' , can hardly be original, for “this (or “here” or “now”) her sitting the house little” does not make sense. The translation “her sitting (i.e., resting) in the house <has only been> for a moment” (Barthélemy et al., Preliminary and Interim Report 2:139) reads much into the Hebrew and cannot fit the context. The problem with the text must have originated prior to the LXX, for the readings of all the ancient versions vary so widely that it is obvious that they represent attempts to deal with a difficult text. None are acceptable alternatives to the MT. For a brief but cogent discussion of the value of these readings, see Beattie’s discussion (ZAW 89 [1977] 122). Beattie’s ingenious solution, in which he interprets the phrase as a pre-LXX midrashic gloss on ועד עתה , is unconvincing; Hurvitz (ZAW 95 [1983] 121–22) shows that Beattie’s interpretation of the clause as rabbinic Hebrew is not syntactically acceptable. In addition, one might add that the reason given for providing a gloss on “until now” is implausible; there is no evidence whatever in the rather voluminous midrashic literature for a Hebrew equivalent of the Aramaic verb בות , “to spend the night.” Hurvitz (ZAW 95 [1983] 122–23) suggests accepting the phrase יה שבתה הבית מעט as it stands to mean “Ruth’s stay in ‘the house’ was very brief” (123). He understands its jumbled syntax to be an artistic device of the narrator intended to convey the sense that the overseer “speaks in an apologetic and confused manner because he is not sure whether the ‘boss’ will approve of the fact that the overseer has given Ruth his permission to stay . . . inside the house reserved specifically for Boaz’s workers” (122). Apart from the fact that this understanding of the words is overly subtle and requires reading into the scene a scenario for which no other hint exists except the confused phrase itself, it posits the

existence of a “house” in the midst of the fields (for criticism of which, see below). Finally, Lys (VT 21 [1971] 497–501), followed by Hubbard (150–52), divides the last four words into two separate statements, yielding, “this (field) is [‘has been’—Hubbard] her residence; the house little.” Besides the difficulty of understanding what a house is doing out in the fields (Hubbard’s postulate, 151, that it refers to the house in town where Ruth otherwise stayed is most improbable), and being as cryptic and elliptical as to be virtually unintelligible, such an interpretation, which presumes that Ruth has been standing there waiting all morning, seems precluded by the discussion above.

A tolerable sense may be achieved with little emendation by reading שבתה as שבתה , “she stopped/rested.” One could then understand הכית as adverbial, “in the house,” except that the sense obtained is impossible. First, the normal sense of בית , “house,” is excluded, for there could hardly have been a permanent dwelling out in the fields, and, second, there is no precedent anywhere in the OT for translating בית as “hut, shelter” as is often done (cf. in this regard, TDOT 2:111–15). As Rudolph notes, even the existence of a hut or shelter seems difficult given its lack of mention in v 14. For this reason, we have followed the large number of translators and commentators who have dropped הכית from the text (e.g., Gerleman, Hertzberg, Joüon, Rudolph, Würthwein, de Waard-Nida, JB, NAB, NEB, RSV, TEV), even though the reason usually given (dittography, since it shares two consonants with שבתה) is forced and improbable. Although rare, the use of מעט in a temporal sense, “a little while,” does occur; cf. Job 24:24.