Abstract
It is well known to both translators and students of the Bible, that some words or verses are very difficult, not only to translate but also to understand. The Hebrew text of Ruth 2:7b is one of them. The purpose of this paper is to consider some of the inherent problems of this text—such as unclear meaning of words and uncanny grammatical structures—and to provide an overview of ancient and modern ways to deal with the difficulties. While it is logical to assume that the author of Ruth expected to be understood (including when resorting to intentional ambiguity), we also need to consider that the original manuscripts are lost and that the possibility of a corrupted text could explain its awkwardness. The various translations of Ruth 2:7b stem from attempts to make sense of a text of which the exact original, word-by-word meaning might not be established beyond all reasonable doubt, but of which the basic intended meaning seeps through unmistakably: Ruth indeed is a hard worker, worthy of Boaz's attentions.
Keywords
The end of Ruth 2:7 is notoriously difficult to translate. A young foreman, answering Boaz's inquiry on the identity of that strange young lady unexpectedly met on his premises, declares: “She [is] a young Moabite [who] has returned with Naomi from the land of Moab. And she said: ‘Please, let me gather (or glean) and I will collect among the sheaves after the harvesters’. And she came and she stood whence (or thence) the morning and until now, this (zeh) her resting (shivtah) the house (habayth) a little (m'at)” (Ruth 2:6b-7, emphasis of English terms is mine).
My wooden translation simply shows how difficult and improbable this text is. A look at the critical apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia quickly informs us that the Septuagint (LXX) presents some important variants and accommodations: the Masoretic “until now” (to'adh-'attah) is changed into “until evening” (eōs esperas); “this” (zeh) is transformed into a negative particle; “her resting” (shivtah) is understood as a perfect Qal form (3rd feminine singular) of sh-v-th (“to rest, to cease, to stop”); “the house” (habayth) becomes “in the field” (en tō agrō); the substantive “littleness” (m'at) is translated as if it were an adjective (“little,” mikron).
The result is that the Greek text reads as follows: “And she said, ‘Please, let me glean and gather among the sheaves after the reapers.’ And she came and stood from morning till evening, and did not rest, [even] a little, in the field (ou katepausen en tō agrō mikyon).”
It is unlikely that the LXX translates an alternative Hebrew text (different from the Masoretic). It seems to me that what we have here is a clumsy attempt to resolve a difficult original reading with a disputable solution: the “until now” (w'adh-'attah) makes more sense than the “until evening” (eōs esperas), since when Boaz comes to the field, is not evening yet (Ruth 2:14).
The Targum too offers a somewhat free rendering of the Masoretic text: “And she said, Let me glean now and gather the ears among the sheaves which are left after the reapers. So she came and has continued, and has remained now from before the morning, even until now, save that she tarried a very little in the house.” In this case “whence” (me'az) is translated as if it were an adverb (“before,” tsyvhd); “has remained” has been added maybe to stress the meagerness of her gleaning; and finally “her resting” (shivtah) is rendered by the Aramaic “has remained,” from the root y-th-v (“to sit”).
The Vulgate, like the LXX and the Targum, also stresses the hard work of the young Moabite woman, but adds to the text the suggestive idea that she “has not gone home for one moment” (ne ad momentum quidem domum reversa est). The Masoretic and generic “house” (bayth) becomes Ruth's own domus, while “this” (zeh) is amended into a negative particle and “littleness” (m'at) is changed into a different noun: momentum. But the most important variant of the Vulgate is the reading of “her resting” (shivtah) as a Qal form (3rd feminine singular) of the verb “to return” (sh-u-v), maybe influenced by Ezekiel 46.17: “it shall be returned to a prince” (wsavath lannasi').
The comparison between those variants shows the difficulty of translating (especially) the last four words of verse 7: “this/her resting/the house/a little.” Hubbard (152) is very straightforward: “The statement remains obscure, however, and offers no firm footing for interpretative extrapolations,” while Campbell (94) avoids translating the last 14 words (!) of verse 7 because, according to him, “[o]nly a combination of errors, progressing by stages and compounding the confusion, can account for what we have now” (96). In fact, many scholars have tried to give a definitive solution to the question, but without gathering a convincing consensus.
The real crux of Ruth 2:7 seems to be the word shivtah. It has been suggested that since “this” (zeh) is masculine, then shivtah cannot be a feminine infinitive construction. But even then the translation remains problematic. Moore (239) gives a list of legitimate ways to translate shivtah (even by amending the punctuation):
As the infinitive Qal form of y-sh-v (“to sit, to dwell”) with a possessive suffix (3rd fem. sing.): “her sitting.” The only two examples in the Bible of an infinitive form of y-sh-v with a 3rd feminine singular suffix are found in Ps 27:4 and 139:2. As a segolate noun from sh-w-th with a 3rd feminine singular suffix: “her ceasing” (e.g., Exod 21:19; cf. 2 Sam 23:7; Isa 30:7; Prov 20:3). If re-punctuated, we could also have a perfect Qal (3rd feminine singular) of sh-w-th: “she has ceased.”
So far there is no way to establish whether we have to consider shivtah as stemming from either sh-w-th (“to rest, to cease”) or y-sh-v (“to dwell, to sit”). Even in the Phoenician part of the inscription of Karatepe (8th century
Exploring the Meaning(s)
Sound exegesis requires that the study of the context should provide the key to understanding how to render zeh shivtah habayth m'at in a way that respects its original meaning. But even there consensus is a chimera. For instance, J. M. Sasson (47) thinks that Ruth is trying to perform an unusual action since:
she, as a poor person, doesn't need to ask for permission to glean (cf. Lev 19:9–10: “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the L she asks for something the overseer cannot grant: glean among the sheaves.
In other words, she manages to be noticed by simply standing in the field as she waits for Boaz. P. Jüon also agrees that Ruth didn't need any permission to work after the reapers, but he's not convinced that Ruth is asking for something unusual. According to his understanding, Ruth worked the whole day and the overseer commended her when Boaz noticed her: she didn't (even) have a short break. However the New Interpreter's Bible (vol. 2: 916), commenting on Leviticus 19:9–10 and 23:22 and Deuteronomy 24:19, argues that while those texts allow the “sojourner” or the resident alien (ger in Hebrew) to glean, it is also to be noted that Ruth calls herself a nakhriyah “female foreigner” (2:10), “which may mean that she is not entitled to glean and needs to get permission first.” Also, Deuteronomy 15:3 and 23:20 “seem to give a status to the sojourner, but not to the foreigner.”
A more sophisticated suggestion is made by Rudolph (quoted by Campbell: 94), who posits an a haplography in verse 7b: a second 'attah (“now”, found at the end of verse 7a) after zeh (beginning of verse 7b) would give the expression “just now,” giving the idea that Ruth is resting in the house “just now,” and that Boaz surprises her while not working! Hurvitz's proposal too deserves to be mentioned for its originality (121–22): the last four words of verse 7 are words stumbling over words, a deliberate choice by the author to convey the overseer's embarrassment at Boaz's inquiry (cf. 1 Sam 9:12–13). To this it has been replied that it is quite singular that the overseer gets emotional only at this point of his speech, after having mastered his vocabulary and syntax very well up to that point.
Beatty speculates that one should rather imagine that the original text ended at “until now,” and that a midrashic exegete, intrigued by the apparently superfluous “until now” at the end of verse 7a, which would be the end of the verse in Beattie's hypothesis, would have added: “this [is said] because she stayed at home for a little.” This requires zeh sh to be an introductory (but unattested!) formula for a midrash, and also supposes v-tha-h as a derived form of an unattested Aramaic root v-y-th or v-w-th (“to stay in a house”). Even if he points to Daniel 6:19, where we find the Aramaic verb v-w-th (“to pass the night”), his suggestion has not won the day, because there is no evidence of zeh sh as an idiom introducing a midrashic statement, not even in the Tannaitic or Amoraic sources.
Some exegetes try to overcome the impasse by simply summarizing possible options on the meaning of the last words of Ruth 2:7 (cf. Sakenfeld: 42): either Ruth had been continuously working and was working when Boaz arrived to the field; or Ruth had been working but was resting when Boaz arrived at the field: maybe she was noticed for her “not working”; or Ruth had been standing, waiting for Boaz'a arrival.
Conclusion
The big question still needs to be answered: are those last words of Ruth 2:7 deliberately chosen for their “unique polymorphic and polysemantic qualities” to convey multiple meanings, as Moore (242) suggests? Or are we attempting with frustration to decode an unintelligible phrase— “not tolerable Hebrew,” in Beattie's words (122)—maybe because of one or multiple errors of transmission?
What we are left with is a number of ancient and modern translations that inevitably either amend the Hebrew text or try somehow to find a meaning in the Masoretic text—often read through the glasses of the critically weak version offered by the LXX. “The more the merrier,” thus even Lys, who takes time to gather no fewer than 19 different translations/versions in his article, proposes his own thesis: to amend the Masoretic accentuation and to read the last sentence as divided into two parts: “This [field is] her residence; the house [is or has been] a little” (500).
Alas, the mystery remains unsolved. But the foggy text does not prevent the young Moabite woman from becoming the shining character by which the great qualities of a life lived according to the Torah are manifested in their splendor: Ruth, although a hard worker, somehow rests (allusion to the Shabbat) and waits for permission instead of being found in need of asking for forgiveness. This, at any rate, is how the passage has been understood by later Jewish writers:
All the other women bend down to gather the ears of corn, but she [Ruth] sits and gathers; all the other women hitch up their skirts, and she keeps hers down; all the other women jest with the reapers, while she is reserved; all the other women gather from between the sheaves, while she gathers from that which is already abandoned [Ruth Rabba 4:6].