¹tn Heb “in the days of the judging of the judges.” The LXX simply reads “when the judges judged,” and Syriac has “in the days of the judges.”
sn Many interpreters, reading this statement in the light of the Book of Judges which describes a morally corrupt period, assume that the narrator is painting a dark backdrop against which Ruth’s exemplary character and actions will shine even more brightly. However, others read this statement in the light of the book’s concluding epilogue which traces the full significance of the story to the time of David, the chosen king of Judah (4:18-22)
²tn Heb “in the land.” The phrase “of Judah” is supplied in the translation to clarify the referent.
³sn The name Bethlehem (<jl tyb) is from “house, place” (tyb) and “bread, food” (<jl), so the name literally means “House of Bread” or “Place of Food.” Perhaps there is irony here: One would not expect a severe famine in such a location. This would not necessarily indicate that Bethlehem was under divine discipline, but merely that the famine was very severe, explaining the reason for the family’s departure.
map For location see Map5-B1; Map7-E2; Map8-E2; Map10-B4.
⁴tn Or “to live temporarily.” The verb rwg (“sojourn”) may refer to (1) temporary dwelling in a location (Deut 18:6; Judg 17:7) or (2) permanent dwelling in a location (Judg 5:17; Ps 33:8). When used of a foreign land, it can refer to (1) temporary dwelling as a visiting alien (Gen 12:10; 20:1; 21:34; 2 Kgs 8:1-2; Jer 44:14) or (2) permanent dwelling as a resident alien (Gen 47:4; Exod 6:4; Num 15:14; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 4:3; Jer 49:18,33; 50:40; Ezek 47:22-23). Although Naomi eventually returned to Judah, there is some ambiguity whether or not Elimelech intended the move to make them permanent resident aliens.
sn Some interpreters view Elimelech’s departure from Judah to sojourn in Moab as lack of faith in the covenant God of Israel to provide for his family’s needs in the land of promise; therefore his death is consequently viewed as divine judgment. Others note that God never prohibited his people from seeking food in a foreign land during times of famine but actually sent his people to a foreign land during a famine in Canaan on at least one occasion as an act of deliverance (Gen 37-50). In this case, Elimelech’s sojourn to Moab was an understandable act by a man concerned for the survival of his family, perhaps even under divine approval, so their death in Moab was simply a tragedy, a bad thing that happened to a godly person.
⁵tn Heb “he and his wife and his two sons.” The LXX omits “two.”
⁶sn The name “Elimelech” literally means “My God [is] king.” The narrator’s explicit identification of his name seems to casts him in positive light. For the role of names in characterization in biblical Hebrew narratives, see R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, XXX.
⁷tn Heb “and the name of his wife [was] Naomi.”
sn The name Naomi (ymun) is from the adjective <un (“pleasant, lovely”) and literally means “my pleasant one” or “my lovely one.” Her name will become the subject of a wordplay in 1:20-21 when she laments that she is no longer “pleasant” but “bitter” because of the loss of her husband and two sons.
⁸tn Heb “and the name[s] of his two sons [were] Mahlon and Kilion.”
sn The name Mahlon (/wljm) is from hlm (“to be weak, sick”) and Kilion (/wylk) is from hlk (“to be frail”). The rate of infant mortality was so high during the Iron Age that parents typically did not name children until they survived infancy and were weaned. Naomi and Elimelech might have named their two sons Mahlon and Kilion to reflect their weak condition in infancy due to famine—which eventually prompted the move to Moab where food was abundant.
⁹tn Heb “[They were] Ephrathites.” Ephrathah is a small village (Ps 132:6) in the vicinity of Bethlehem (Gen 35:16), so close in proximity that it is often identified with the larger town of Bethlehem (Gen 35:19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Mic 5:2 [MT 5:1]; HALOT 81); see F. W. Bush, Ruth, 64. The designation “Ephrathites” might indicate that they were residents of Ephrathah. However, the adjectival form <ytrpa (“Ephrathites”) used here elsewhere refers to someone from the clan of Ephrath (cf. 1 Chr 4:4) which lived in the region of Bethlehem: “Now David was the son of an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah whose name was Jesse” (1 Sam 17:12; cf. Mic 5:2 [MT 5:1]). So it is more likely that the virtually identical expression here—“Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah”—refers to the clan of Ephrath in Bethlehem (see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth, 91).
¹⁰tn Heb “and were there.”
¹¹tn Heb “And Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died.” The vav functions in a consecutive sense (“then”), but the time-frame is not explicitly stated.
¹²tn Heb “they.” The verb is 3mpl referring to Naomi’s sons, as the translation indicates.
¹³tn Heb “and they lifted up for themselves Moabite wives.” When used with the noun “wife,” the verb acn (“to lift up, carry, take”; BDB 669) forms the idiom “to take a wife,” that is, to marry (BDB 673.3d; 2 Chr 11:21; 13:21; 24:3; Ezra 9:2,12; 10:44; Neh 13:25).
¹⁴tn Heb “the name of the one [was] Orpah and the name of the second [was] Ruth.”
sn The name Orpah (hpru) is from the noun [ru (“back of the neck”) and the related verb (“to turn one’s back”). The name Ruth (twr) is from the noun twur (“friendship”), derived from the root ur (“friend, companion”). Ironically, Orpah will eventually turn her back on Naomi, while Ruth will display extraordinary friendship as her life-long companion (see 1:14). Since they seem to mirror the most definitive action of these women, perhaps they designate character types (as is the case with the name Mara in 1:21 and Peloni Almoni in 4:2) rather than their original birth names.
¹⁵tn Heb “and the two of them also died, Mahlon and Kilion.”
¹⁶tn The term dly (“offspring”), from the verb dly (“to give birth to”), is used only here of a married man. By shifting to this word from the more common term /b (“son”; see vv. 1-5a) and then using it in an unusual manner, the author draws attention to Naomi’s loss and sets up a verbal link with the story’s conclusion (cf. 4:16). Although grown men, they were still her “babies” (see E. F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, 56; F. W. Bush, Ruth, 66).
¹⁷tn Heb “and she arose, along with her daughters-in-law, and she returned from the region of Moab.”
¹⁸tn Heb “in the region of Moab.”
¹⁹tn Heb “had visited” or “taken note of.” The basic meaning of dqp is “observe, examine, take note of” (NIDOTTE 3:658), so it sometimes appears with rkz (“to remember”; Pss 8:4 [MT 5]; 106:4; Jer 14:10; 15:15; Hos 8:13; 9:9) and har (“to see”; Exod 4:31; Ps 80:14 [MT 15; NIDOTTE 3:659.5). It often emphasizes the cause/effect response to what is seen (NIDOTTE 3:659.5). When God observes people in need, it is glossed “be concerned about, care for, attend to, help” (Gen 21:1; 50:24, 25; Exod 4:31; Ruth 1:6; 1 Sam 2:21; Jer 15:15; Zeph 2:7; Zech 10:3b; NIDOTTE 3:661.10). When humans are the subject, it sometimes means “to visit” needy people to bestow a gift (Judg 15:1; 1 Sam 17:18). Because it has such a broad range of meanings, its use here has been translated variously: (1) “had visited” (KJV, ASV, NASV, RSV; so BDB 823); (2) “had considered” (NRSV) and “had taken note of” (TNK; so HALOT 955-57); and (3) “had come to the aid of” (NIV), “had blessed” (TEV), and “had given” (CEV; so NIDOTTE 3:657). When God observed the plight of his people, he demonstrated his concern by benevolently giving them food.
²⁰tn Heb “by giving to them food.” The translation “reversing the famine and providing abundant crops” attempts to clarify the referent of <jl (“food”) as “crops” and highlights the reversal of the famine that began in v. 1. The infinitive construct <jl <hl ttl may denote (1) purpose: “[he visited his people] to give them food” or (2) complementary sense explaining the action of the main verb: “[he visited his people] by giving them food.” The term <jl here refers to agricultural fertility, the reversal of the famine in v. 1.
²¹tn Heb “and she went out from the place she had been, and her two daughters-in-law with her, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah.”
²²tn Heb “each to the house of her mother.” Naomi’s words imply that it is more appropriate for the two widows to go home to their mothers, rather than stay with their mother-in-law (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, 75).
²³tc The MT (Kethib) has the imperfect hcuy (“[the Lord] will do”), but the marginal reading (Qere) has the shortened jussive form cuy (“may [the Lord] do”), which is more probable in this prayer of blessing. Most translations adopt the jussive form (KJV, ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, JPS, TEV, CEV).
²⁴tn Heb “do with you.” The pronominal suffix “you” appears to be a masculine form, but this is likely a preservation of an archaic dual form (see E. F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, 65; F. W. Bush, Ruth, 75-76).
²⁵tn Heb “the dead.” This refers to their deceased husbands.
²⁶tn Heb “devotion as you have done with the dead and with me.” The noun dsj (“devotion”) is a key thematic term in the Book of Ruth (see 2:20; 3:10). G. R. Clark suggests that dsj “is not merely an attitude or an emotion; it is an emotion that leads to an activity beneficial to the recipient”; an act of dsj is “a beneficent action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties, by one who is able to render assistance to the needy party who in the circumstances is unable to help him—or herself” (G. R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 267). HALOT 336-37 defines the word as “loyalty” or “faithfulness.” Other appropriate glosses might be “commitment” and “devotion.”
²⁷tn Heb “may the Lord give to you, and find rest, each [in] the house of her husband.” The syntax is unusual, but following the jussive (“may he give”), the imperative with vav conjunctive (“and find”) probably indicates the purpose or consequence of the preceding action: “May he enable you to find rest.”
²⁸tn Heb “rest.” While the basic meaning of hjwnm is “rest,” it often refers to “security,” such as provided in marriage (BDB 629-30; HALOT 600). So translations render it in three different but related ways: (1) basic sense: “rest” (KJV, ASV, NASV, NIV); (2) metonymical cause/effect sense: “security” (NRSV, NJPS, REB, NLT, GW); and (3) referential sense: “home” (RSV, CEV, TEV, NCV).
²⁹tn Heb “in the house of her husband.”
³⁰tn Heb “they lifted their voice[s] and wept.” This refers to loud weeping characteristic of those mourning a tragedy (Judg 21:2; 2 Sam 13:36; Job 2:12).
³¹tn The particle yK here has the force of “no, on the contrary” (see Gen 31:26; Ps 44:22; HALOT 470).
³²tn Or perhaps “we want to,” if the imperfect is understood in a modal sense indicating desire.
³³tn Heb “Why would you want to come with me?” Her rhetorical question expects a negative answer. The phrase “to Judah” is added in the translation for clarification.
³⁴tn Heb “Do I still have sons in my inner parts that they might become your husbands?” Her rhetorical question expects a negative answer.
³⁵sn Too old to get married again. Naomi may be exaggerating for the sake of emphasis. Her point is clear, though: It is too late to roll back the clock.
³⁶tn Verse 12b contains the protasis (“if” clause) of a conditional sentence, which is completed by the rhetorical questions in v. 13. For a detailed syntactical analysis, see F. W. Bush, Ruth, 78-79.
³⁷tn Heb “For them would you wait until they were grown?” Some understand /hlh as an interrogative he with an Aramaic particle meaning “therefore” (see GKC §103.b.2 [n. 4]), while others understand the form to consist of an interrogative he, the preposition l (“for”), and an apparent third feminine plural pronominal suffix. The feminine suffix is problematic, for its antecedent is the hypothetical “sons” mentioned at the end of v. 12. For this reason some emend the form to <tlh (“for them,” a third masculine plural suffix). R. L. Hubbard raises the possibility that the nunated suffix is an archaic Moabite masculine dual form (Ruth, 111, n. 31). In any case, her rhetorical question expects a negative answer.
³⁸tn Heb “For them would you hold yourselves back so as not to be for a man?” Her rhetorical question expects a negative answer. The verb /gu (“hold back”) occurs only here in the OT. For discussion of its etymology and meaning, see HALOT 787-88, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, 79-80.
³⁹tn The negative is used here in an elliptical manner for emphasis (see HALOT 48; GKC §152.g).
⁴⁰tn Heb “No, my daughters.” Naomi is not answering the rhetorical questions she has just asked. In light of the explanatory clause that follows, it seems more likely that she is urging them to give up the idea of returning with her. In other words, the words “no, my daughters” complement the earlier exhortation to “go back.” To clarify this, the words “you must not come with me” are added in the translation.
⁴¹tn Heb “bitterness to me.” The term rrm can refer to emotional bitterness: “to feel bitter” (1 Sam 30:6; 2 Kgs 4:27; Lam 1:4) or a grievous situation: “to be in bitter circumstances” (Jer 4:18) (BDB 600; HALOT 638). So the expression yl-rm can refer to emotional bitterness (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, NLT, CEV) or a grievous situation (cf. NRSV, NAB, NCV, CEV margin). Although Naomi and her daughters-in-law had reason for emotional grief, the issue at hand was Naomi’s lamentable situation, which she did not want them to experience: being a poor, widow in a foreign land.
⁴²tn Heb “for there is bitterness to me exceedingly from you.” The clause <Km dam yl-rm-yK is notoriously difficult to interpret. It has been taken in three different ways: (1) “For I am very bitter for me because of you,” that is, because of your widowed condition (cf. KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NJB, REB, JB, GNB). This does not fit well, however, with the following statement (“for the LORD has attacked me”) nor with the preceding statement (“You must not return with me”). (2) “For I am far more bitter than for you” (cf. NIV, NASV, NJPS, NLT, NEB, CEV). This does not provide an adequate basis, however, for the preceding statement (“You must not return with me”). (3) “For my bitterness is too much for you [to bear]” (cf. NRSV, NAB, NCV, CEV margin; GBH §141.i). This is preferable because it fits well with both the preceding and following statements. These three options reflect the three ways the preposition /m may be taken here: (1) causal: “because of, on account of” (BDB 580.2f; HALOT 598.6), not that Orpah and Ruth were the cause of her calamity, but that Naomi was grieved because they had become widows; (2) comparative: “more [bitter] than you” (BDB 581.6a; HALOT 598.5b), meaning that Naomi’s situation was more grievous than theirs—while they could remarry, her prospects were much more bleak; and (3) elative, describing a situation that is too much for a person to bear: “too [bitter] for you” (BDB 581.6d; HALOT 598.5a; IBHS §14.4f; e.g., Gen 4:13; Exod 18:18; Deut 17:8; 1 Kgs 19:17), meaning that Naomi’s plight was too bitter for her daughters-in-law to share. While all three options are viable, the meaning adopted must fit two criteria: (1) The meaning of this clause (1:13bb) must provide the grounds for Naomi’s emphatic rejection of the young women’s refusal to separate themselves from her (1:13ba); and (2) it must fit the following clause: “for the hand of the LORD has gone out against me” (1:13bc). The first and second options do not provide adequate reasons for sending her daughters-in-law back home, nor do they fit her lament that the LORD had attached her (not them); however, the third option (elative sense) fits both criteria. Naomi did not want her daughters-in-law to share her sad situation, that is, to be poor, childless widows in a foreign land with no prospect for marriage. If they accompanied her back to Judah, they would be in the same kind of situation in which she found herself in Moab. If they were to find the “rest” (security of home and husband) she wished for them, it would be in Moab not Judah. The Lord had already deprived her of husband and sons. She could do nothing for them in this regard because she had no more sons to give them as husbands, and she was past the age of child-bearing to raise up new husbands for them in the future—as if they could wait that long anyway (1:13a). For a discussion of these three options and defense of the approach adopted here, see F. W. Bush, Ruth/Esther, 80-81.
⁴³tn Heb “for the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.” The expression suggests opposition and hostility, perhaps picturing the Lord as the Divine Warrior who is bring calamity upon Naomi. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth, 113.
⁴⁴tn Heb “they lifted their voice[s] and wept” (see v. 9). The expression refers to loud weeping in mourning tragedy (Judg 21:2; 2 Sam 13:36; Job 2:12).
⁴⁵tc The LXX adds, “and she returned to her people.” Translated back to Hebrew, this would read: hmu-la bvtw. Most dismiss this as a clarifying addition added under the influence of v. 15, but this alternative reading should not be rejected too quickly. It is possible that a scribe’s eye jumped from the initial vav on bvtw (“and she returned”) to the initial vav on the final clause (twrw, “and Ruth”), inadvertently leaving out the intervening words, “and she returned to her people.” Or a scribe’s eye could have jumped from the final he on htwmjl (“to her mother-in-law”) to the final he on hmu (“her people”), leaving out the intervening words, “and she returned to her people.”
⁴⁶tn The clause is disjunctive. The word order is conjunction + subject + verb, highlighting the contrast between the actions of Orpah and Ruth.
sn Orpah is a literary foil for Ruth. Orpah is a commendable and devoted person (see v. 8); after all she is willing to follow Naomi back to Judah. However, when Naomi bombards her with good reasons why she should return, she relents. But Ruth is special. Despite Naomi’s bitter tirade, she insists on staying. Orpah is a good person, but Ruth is beyond good—she possesses an extra measure of devotion and sacrificial love that is uncommon.
⁴⁷tn Clung tightly. The expression suggests strong commitment (see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth, 115).
⁴⁸tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁴⁹tn Or “gods,” if the plural form is taken as a numerical plural. However, it is likely that Naomi, speaking from Orpah’s Moabite perspective, uses the plural of majesty of the Moabite god Chemosh. For examples of the plural of majesty being used of a pagan god, see BDB 43. Note especially 1 Kgs 11:33, where the plural form is used of Chemosh.
⁵⁰tn Heb “do not urge me to abandon you to turn back from after you.” The use of bzu (“abandon”) reflects Ruth’s perspective. To return to Moab would be to abandon Naomi and to leave her even more vulnerable than she already is.
⁵¹tn Heb “Thus may the Lord do to me and thus may he add…” The construction [ysy hkw…hcuy hK (“May he do thus…and may he do even more so …!”) is an oath formula of self-imprecation (e.g., 1 Sam 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Sam 3:9,35; 19:14; 1 Kgs 2:23; 2 Kgs 6:31). In this formula the exact curse is understood but not expressed (GKC §149d; GBH §165a; BDB 462.1b). In ancient Near Eastern imprecations, when the curse was so extreme, it was not uttered because it was unspeakably awful: “In the twelve uses of this formula, the calamity which the speaker invokes is never named, since OT culture (in keeping with the rest of the ancient Near East) accorded such power to the spoken word” (F. W. Bush, Ruth/Esther, 82). Ruth here pronounces a curse upon herself, elevating the preceding promise to a formal, unconditional level. If she is not faithful to her promise, she agrees to become an object of divine judgment. As in other occurrences of this oath/curse formula, the specific punishment is not mentioned. As Bush explains, the particle yK here is probably asseverative (“indeed, certainly”) and the statement that follows expresses what the expresses what underscores the seriousness of her promise by invoking divine judgment, as it were, if she does otherwise. Of course, the Lord would not have been obligated to judge her if she had abandoned Naomi—this is simply an ancient idiomatic way of expressing her commitment to her promise.
⁵²tn Heb “certainly death will separate me and you.” Ruth’s vow has been interpreted two ways: (1) Not even death will separate her from Naomi—because they will be buried next to one another (e.g., NRSV, NCV; see E. F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, 74-75). However, for the statement to mean, “Not even death will separate me and you,” it would probably need to be introduced by <a (“if”) or negated by al (“not”; see F. W. Bush, Ruth, 83). (2) Nothing except death will separate her from Naomi (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, TEV, NJPS, REB, NLT, GW; see Bush, Ruth, 83). The particle yK introduces the content of the vow, which—if violated—would bring about the curse uttered in the preceding oath (BDB 472.1c; GBH §165a,b; e.g., Gen 42:16; Num 14:22; 1 Sam 20:3; 26:16; 29:6; 2 Sam 3:35; 1 Kgs 2:23; Isa 49:18). Some suggest that yK is functioning as an asseverative (“indeed, certainly”) to express what the speaker is determined will happen (Bush, Ruth, 83; see 1 Sam 14:44; 2 Sam 3:9; 1 Kgs 2:23; 19:2). Here yK probably functions in a conditional sense: “if” or “if…except, unless” (BDB 473.2b). So her vow may essentially mean “if anything except death should separate me from you!” The most likely view is that Ruth is swearing that death alone will separate her from Naomi.
sn Ruth’s devotion to Naomi is especially apparent here. Instead of receiving a sure blessing and going home (see v. 8), Ruth instead takes on a serious responsibility and subjects herself to potential divine punishment. Death, a power beyond Ruth’s control, will separate the two women, but until that time Ruth will stay by Naomi’s side and she will even be buried in the same place as Naomi.
⁵³tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁵⁴tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁵⁵tn Heb “she ceased speaking to her.” This does not imply that Naomi was completely silent toward her. It simply means that Naomi stopped trying to convince her to go back to Moab (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, 84-85).
⁵⁶tn The suffix “them” appears to be masculine, but it is probably an archaic dual form (E. F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, 65; F. W. Bush, Ruth, 75-76).
⁵⁷map For location see Map5-B1; Map7-E2; Map8-E2; Map10-B4.
⁵⁸tn The temporal indicator yhyw (“and it was”) here introduces a new scene.
⁵⁹map For location see Map5-B1; Map7-E2; Map8-E2; Map10-B4.
⁶⁰tn Heb “because of them.”
⁶¹tn Heb “they said,” but the verb form is third feminine plural, indicating that the women of the village are the subject.
⁶²tn Heb “Is this Naomi?” The question here expresses surprise and delight because of the way Naomi reacts to it (F. W. Bush, Ruth, 92).
⁶³tn Heb “said.”
⁶⁴tn The third feminine plural form of the pronominal suffix indicates the women (see v. 19) are the addressees.
⁶⁵sn The name Naomi means “pleasant.”
⁶⁶sn The name Mara means “bitter.”
⁶⁷tn Heb “Shaddai.” The etymology and meaning of this divine name is uncertain. It may be derived from: (1) ddv (“to be strong”), cognate to Arabic sdd, meaning “The Strong One” or “Almighty”; (2) hdv (“mountain”), cognate to Akkadian shadu, meaning “The Mountain Dweller” or “God of the Mountains”; (3) ddv (“to devastate”) and dv (“destroyer”), Akkadian Shedum, meaning “The Destroyer” or “The Malevolent One”; or (4) v (“who”) plus yD (“sufficient”), meaning “The One Who is Sufficient” or “All-Sufficient One” (HALOT 1420-21). In terms of use, Shaddai (or El Shaddai) is presented as the sovereign king/judge of the world who grants life/blesses and kills/judges. In Genesis he blesses the patriarchs with fertility and promises numerous descendants. Outside Genesis he blesses/protects and also takes away life/happiness. In light of Naomi’s emphasis on God’s sovereign, malevolent deprivation of her family, one can understand her use of this name for God. For discussion of this divine name, see T. N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God, 69-72.
⁶⁸tn Or “caused me to be very bitter.”
⁶⁹sn I left here full. That is, with a husband and two sons.
⁷⁰tn Heb “but empty the Lord has brought me back.” The disjunctive clause structure (vav + adverb + verb + subject) highlights the contrast between her former condition and present situation.
sn Empty-handed. This statement is highly ironic, for ever-loyal Ruth stands by her side even as she speaks these words. These words reflect Naomi’s perspective, not the narrator’s for Ruth will eventually prove to be the one who reverses Naomi’s plight and “fills” her “emptiness,” so to speak. This perspective will prove to be inaccurate and the women will later correct Naomi’s faulty view of Ruth’s value (see 4:15).
⁷¹tn The disjunctive clause structure (vav + subject + verb) here introduces either an attendant circumstance (“when the Lord has opposed me”) or explanation (“seeing that the Lord has opposed me”).
⁷²tc The LXX reads “humbled me” here, apparently understanding the verb as a Piel (hnu) from a homonymic root meaning “afflict.” However, hnu (“afflict”) never introduces its object with B=; when the preposition B= is used with this verb, it is always adverbial (“in, with, through”). To defend the LXX reading one would have to eliminate the preposition.
tn Heb “has testified against me.” The idiom yb hnu (“testify against”) is well attested elsewhere in legal settings (see BDB 773; HALOT 852). Naomi uses a legal metaphor and depicts the Lord as testifying against her in court.
⁷³sn The divine name translated Sovereign One is yDv (“Shaddai”). See further the note on this term in Ruth 1:20.
⁷⁴tn Or “brought disaster upon me.”
⁷⁵tn Heb “and Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, the one who returned from the region of Moab.”
sn This summarizing statement provides closure to the first part of the story. By highlighting Ruth’s willingness to return with Naomi, it also contrasts sharply with Naomi’s remark about being empty-handed.
⁷⁶tn The pronoun appears to be third masculine plural in form, but it is probably an archaic third person dual form (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, 94).
⁷⁷tn This statement, introduced with a disjunctive structure (vav + subject + verb) provides closure for the previous scene, while at the same time making a transition to the next scene, which takes place in the barley field. The reference to the harvest also reminds the reader that God has been merciful to his people by replacing the famine with fertility. In the flow of the narrative the question is now, “Will he do the same for Naomi and Ruth?”
sn The barley harvest began in late March. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 91.