Commentaire sur Ruth 2:27

A kinsman. A relative; he was the son of Elimelech’s brother. Our Rabbis of blessed memory said, “Elimelech, and Salmone¹Rus 4:21. the father of Bo’az, and the anonymous kinsman,²Ibid. 4:1. and the father of Naomi,³Therefore Bo’az and Naomi were cousins. were all sons of Nachshon,⁴Shemos 6:23 and Bamidbar 10:14. the son of Aminadav.⁵Maseches Bava Basra 91a. Yet the merit of their fathers was no avail them when they left the Land [of Yisroel] to go abroad.”

Let me go now to the field. To one of the fields of the people of the city, after one of them, “in whose eyes I will find favor,” so that he will not rebuke me.

And glean among the stalks, behind one in whose eyes I will find favor. After someone in whose eyes I will find favor.⁶Alternatively, after I find favor in his eyes, i.e., I will not glean in a field until I know the owner allows it. (Malbim)

So she went, and came and gleaned in the field. We find in Midrash Rus [the question is raised], “Before she had even gone she returned?” For it states, “and [she] came” and afterwards “and gleaned” [i.e., she came back before she gleaned]? Rather, [the Midrash explains] she would mark the roads before she entered the field, and she went and came and returned to the city, in order to make signs and markings so that she would not stray in the paths and she should know how to return.⁷Alternatively, Rabbi Eliezer said that she kept on coming back until she found decent people with whom to go. (Maseches Shabbos 113b).

[And as Divine fate decreed] she happened. To come to the portion of the field belonging to Bo’az.

Boaz arrived from Bethlehem. He greeted the reapers, “Adonai be with you!” Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin and he reached the cross roads. The Tosafot write that because he was meditating Torah and its words were always in his mouth, he began by saying “Adonai be with you.” This was to inform them that he was learning, and, God forbid, that he should mention God without including a word with it. The reapers who were busy with their work prefaced a word (before God’s name); it is written, “They said, “Yivarekhha (Bless you) Adonai.” The author of Torat Hayim on Masechet Hullin writes that one who says Borchu et Adonai mentions two words before God’s name. Why, then, is Baruch Adonai haM'vorach different since there is only one word before God’s name. The answer is the previous person already said Borchu et Adonai.¹⁴So there in fact were at least two words before the response containing God’s name. Therefore, it seems that is hinted at when they say, Yivarechecha Adonai, they did so because Boaz already said Eemachem which is connected to Yivarechecha Adonai so that there are two words before Adonai. Yivarechecha Adonai also alludes to the Priestly blessing from which we learn that one should not treat the blessings of a layperson lightly, as the author of Zera Barech¹⁵Possibly the book Zera Berech on the Torah, homilies, by Rabbi Berachia Berech son of Rabbi Yitzchak Izaak [Shapiro] of Krakow. writes. Or it might be that we learn that one can make a blessing without conditions.

To whom does this maiden belong. Was it the practice of Bo’az to inquire about women? Rather, [because] he saw her modest and wise behavior [he was curious about her. He observed that] two ears she would glean but three she would not glean;⁸As prescribed by the Mishnah (Pe’ah 6:5). The Torah in Vayikra 19:9 awards the fallen ears of grain and forgotten sheaves to the poor. Thus her exemplary behavior and her knowledge of the law caught the attention of Bo’az and he therefore inquired about her. and she would glean the standing ears while standing and the lying ones while sitting, in order to avoid bending over.⁹Maseches Shabbos 113b.

“Whose girl is that…” The meaning of the question, “Whose girl is that,” is, “Is she fitting to enter the community of Israel?” “The servant in charge of the reapers replied…” This verse repeats, “The servant in charge of the reapers,” though in the first phrase it says, “...said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers…” It should have said, “He said to him, ‘A Moabite girl…’”¹⁶Without the repetition of the whole phrase, “The servant in charge of the reapers.” However, it seems that Boaz asked the question in the way one might ask a trusted member of his household, in charge of others. That is why it says, “He said to his servant,” who was in charge of the reapers. And since the servant was sharp and understood Boaz’s intention to marry Ruth, he answered ‘As a servant in charge of the reapers…’ That is, he made himself out to be ordinary, like the other servants standing among the reapers. He then showed his wisdom by speaking the truth, “without anything perverse on his lips,” (Mal. 2:6) or any prejudice attached to himself.

Who returned with Naomi. The accent is at the beginning, under the shin, because it is the past tense, and not the present tense [of the verb].¹⁰See Rashi in Bereishis 29:6.

“He replied, “She is a Moabite girl…” “And Your court just came up with a new interpretation of the law, saying that Halachah is that an Israelite woman cannot marry a Moabite man but an Israelite man may marry a Moabite woman.” (Deut. 23:4) Further, this one has the added virtue that she returned with Naomi, the righteous one. Her good deeds are well known and she (Ruth) follows Naomi's good deeds. “She (Ruth) said, ‘Please let me glean…since this morning until now.’” ‘She modestly stood here and did not go back and forth to the little hut.’ When she went out she did not return because she is so modest. She was gleaning wheat because of her wretched poverty so she didn’t come and go.
It is also possible to interpret what is written “A Moabite girl who returned from the fields of Moab,” allegorically, as Rabbi Menachem Azaria Mi’Fano¹⁷Menahem Azariah da Fano (also called Immanuel da Fano, and Rema MiPano (1548 – 1620) was an Italian rabbi, Talmudist, and Kabbalist. he was a recognized authority on rabbinic law and the foremost exponent in the West of the kabbalistic system of Moses *Cordovero. Under the influence of Israel *Sarug, who during his stay in Italy spread the knowledge of the mystical system of Isaac *Luria, Menahem Azariah became an admirer of the latter, though without departing from the system of Moses Cordovero. (wikipedia and JE) did: When the Sitra Achra¹⁸The Demonic Realm. This term refers to the realm of evil, parallel to the realm of holiness and the Sephirot. oppresses the soul at the time of its exit (death), it totally destroys the palace and brings down the building (it destroys body and soul) similar to the war of the kings to save the holy soul.¹⁹Uncertain about what this may mean. Possibly a reference to Abraham saving Lot during the war of the kings in Genesis 14.
The author of Zera Barekh²⁰Berechiah Berak ben Isaac Eisik Shapira (died 1664) was a Galician preacher who was educated by Nathan Shapira, rabbi of Krakow, and was appointed preacher of that city, where he spent most of his life. He ultimately left for Jerusalem, but died en route at Constantinople .His sermons on the Torah,, the Megillot, and the Passover Haggadah were collected and published in two volumes under the title, Zerah Berak. (Wikiedia) (sec. 3), writes that in honor of Abraham, who saved his brother’s son (Lot), from whom Amon and Moab went forth, they were not entirely destroyed but gave birth to two fledglings (Ruth and Naama). This is what is stated: “She is a Moabite - she is a holy soul who was oppressed by the Sitra Achra - but now she has returned - to holiness through her sacred connection to Naomi. Why was she able to return and the entire palace not destroyed? In answer to this, he says, “From the fields of Moab,” - in honor of Abraham. That which is written, “I have been told of all that you did for your mother-in-law,” (Ruth 2:11) to mean, how you clarified the holiness from Moab.
Or else, it can be interpreted based on what the Keli Yakar said: A bride's kind eyes show that she is generous and is the opposite of women who have cruel eyes. Such a soul does not need an inspection. This is what Boaz said, ‘I have been told that you are a generous person,” and through this I know that your entire being is made up of good virtues - based on what you did for your mother-in-law. This shows your wholeness, as is said, Every, “body,” does not need inspection.

And she did say. To herself.

Please allow me to glean. The gleaning of the ears.

And gather among the sheaves. The forgotten sheaves.¹¹Devarim 24:19.

Ivtzan. Boaz.²The husband of Rus, ancestor of King David. (Bava Basra, 91:a)

How are they judging you here? To your merit! Therefore, do not go to reap in another field, where the owner might not be willing to let you. And do not go away from here, even among my fields (for Boaz had many fields), where the men might hate you. More so, stay close to my girls, because on this field there are men on one side, and women on another. Stay on the side of the women. 

And when you are thirsty, go to the jugs. And if you are thirsty, do not be ashamed to go and drink from the vessels of water that the young men will draw.

May Adonai reward your deeds. The Midrash²¹Ruth Rabba 5:4 says, “May Adonai reward your deeds. May you have a full recompense from Adonai…” Rabbi Chasa said, “under whose wings you have sought refuge!” This is something about which one says, “look, this is new,”²²See Ecclesiastes 1:10 - “Sometimes there is a phenomenon of which they say, “Look, this one is new!”—it occurred long ago, in ages that went by before us.” JT Chagigah 1:8, Peah 2:4. The full phrase which is repeated in the Jerusalem Talmud goes, “What is the reason? (Eccl. 1:10) “There is something about which one would say, look, this is new!” His colleague will answer, “it already has been forever.” (but it’s not at all new.) Rabbi Hassa doesn’t add anything new here but simply places his good name in the middle of the verse and no more.²³Rabbi Hasa’s comment does not add anything to our understanding of the verse from Ruth since he simply quotes the next part of the verse. So what is the point of his comment? Many sought to explain it!
It might be explained according to what the sages said in Midrash Shochar Tov on the verse, “When Israel went forth from Egypt…” (Ps. 114:1) (Commenting on this verse,) Rabbi Pinchas Hakohen bar Chama said: ‘As a surety was placed in the firmament, the blessed Holy One plants the deeds of the righteous and they grow fruit. To what might we compare this? If it is to a deposit, then Rabbi Moses²⁴Rabbi Moses Isserles - Rabbi Moses Isserles (22 February 1530 / 25 Adar I 5290 – 11 May 1572 / 18 Iyar 5332) also known by the acronym Rema, was an eminent Polish Ashkenazic rabbi, talmudist, and posek (expert in Jewish law). He wrote addenda to the Shulchan Aruch for Ashkenazic Jews, better known as the Mappa. has already said in Choshen Mishpat (S, 292:7), if one makes a profit using a deposit, he does not have to give back the profit to the person to whom the pledge belongs. Even if the owner claims his deposit and the holder delays returning it and (while doing so) makes a profit, Rabbi Shlomo Luria²⁵Solomon Luria (1510 – November 7, 1573) was one of the great Ashkenazic poskim and teachers of his time. He is known for his work of Halakha, Yam Shel Shlomo, and his Talmudic commentary Chochmat Shlomo. Luria is also referred to as “Maharshal” מהרש"ל‎. (Wikipedia) quotes the Shach²⁶Shabbatai ben Meir HaKohen (1621–1662) was a noted 17th century talmudist and halakhist. He became known as the Shakh , which is an abbreviation of his most important work, Siftei Kohen (literally Lips of the Priest) on the Shulchan Aruch. (Wikipedia) on this saying he is not obligated to give the owner of the surety the profit. Even a when one delays paying a debt, and then one makes a profit (on what he owes) the author of the Shulchan Aruch writes (S. 71) based on the responsa of the Rosh,²⁷Asher ben Jehiel (1250 or 1259 – 1327) was an eminent Talmudist best known for his abstract of Talmudic law. He is often referred to as Rabbenu Asher, “our Rabbi Asher” or by the Hebrew acronym for this title, the Rosh (רא"ש‎, literally "Head"). (Wikipedia) that he is not obligated to pay the profit to the one he owes the money.
How much more so here when we are not speaking of a surety or a debt, for there is no reward for the commandments in this world for all the commandments are of equal importance. The reward is not given until one leaves this world. Then, God in His mercy, repays each person even if his deeds are not complete. In this case there is no debt or surety. How can one claim the principle since it is all considered charity and acts of loving kindness so there is no judgment in the case of a debt or a surety. But God’s kindness is made great and he rewards one’s actions, so that one receives full recompense of the fruits that are born from the planting of commandments.
It is about this that Rabbi Chasa has two questions. First, if one plants commandments and fruit come forth and God, in His goodness, gives the one who performs the mitzvot recompense, why did Boaz have to offer a prayer asking for this? And furthermore the verse should have said, “And Adonai, God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought shelter will give you reward for your actions and it shall be full recompense.” To this Rabbi Chasa answers, this is the case from the time of conversion onward, but not the act of conversion itself since Ruth was not an Jew yet. Therefore ,Boaz prayed that the mitzvah of conversion would also be planted for good and that Ruth would be rewarded for the fruit of her conversion and she would profit in the recompense for her act with Adonai, God of Israel, as God did with the people of Israel. And if you ask why do I need a prayer for this (Boaz offers a prayer on behalf of Ruth), “under whose wings you have sought refuge!” That is, Boaz states, “I am speaking about the act of conversion in my prayer.” Rabbi Chasa points this out, by placing his good name before the statement, “Coming under whose wings..”

I cannot even be considered as one of your handmaidens. I am not as worthy as one of your handmaidens.

And dip your bread in the vinegar. From here [we derive] that vinegar is good for the heat.¹²Maseches Shabbos 113b. It is a popular and refreshing drink for those who toil in extremely hot climates.

He handed her roasted grain… “Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach that if a person performs a mitzvah he should perform it wholeheartedly. Had Reuben known that the blessed Holy One was writing: “Reuben heard and rescued him (Joseph) from their hands,” (Gen. 37:21) he would have taken his brother to their father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the blessed Holy One was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is coming out to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), Aaron would have emerged to meet Moses with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves.”²⁸Ruth Rabbah 5:6
It is possible to explain this statement, by beginning with Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz’s,²⁹Jacob Hagiz (1620–1674) was a Jewish Talmudist born of a Sephardi Jewish family at Fes, Morocco. Ḥagiz's teacher was David Karigal who afterward became his father-in-law. In about 1646, Ḥagiz went to Italy for the purpose of publishing his books, and remained there until after 1656, supporting himself by teaching. Samuel di Pam, rabbi at Livorno, calls himself a pupil of Ḥagiz. About 1657, Ḥagiz left Livorno for Jerusalem, where the Vega brothers of Livorno had founded a beit midrash for him and where he became a member of the rabbinical college. (Wikipedia) explanation in Korban Mincha: (S. 115) “Israel heard. The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.”³⁰The full verse states, “While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (JPS translation) (Gen. 35:22) the sages state in a Midrash on Parshat V’Zot HaBerachah that Jacob had been given the Torah and in this way Reuben was saved because he was exempt for having had relations with his father’s concubine. This is what the verse states, “Israel heard,” that he had the status of an Israelite and therefore, “The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” If the sons had the status of Noahides, then Reuben would have been put to death for this act and there would not have been twelve sons of Jacob. That is what is stated, “The heritage (morashah) of the congregation of Jacob,” (Deut. 33:4) There was already a heritage or a tradition of betrothal for Jacob and his children that marriage is only finalized through chuppah.³¹Therefore, the concubine was not judged as one of Jacob’s wives according to Jewish law. “Then he became King in Jeshurun,” (Deut. 33:5) this refers to Moses who gather all the heads of the people (and officially taught them the laws), “Numerous people is the glory of a king,” (Prov. 14:28) This is the reason for the statement, “May Reuben live and not die,” (Deut. 35:6) Because Rebuen was judged as a Israelite, he did not die as a Noahide. This is the essence of his explanation in short.
In my youth I wrote a treatise called Rosh David (P. 36) containing the opinion of Rabbi Chagiz, expressed in the introduction of Parashat Derachim.³²A work containing twenty-six homiletic treatises on various subjects, by Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes. He (1657-1727) was a Rabbi of Constantinople. On account of his knowledge of Arabic and Turkish he was appointed by the government as chief rabbi of the Ottoman empire. He took a very active part in condemning and denouncing the Shabbethaians, and was one of the signers of an appeal to the German communities to oppose the movement. This work and others were edited & published by his devoted pupil Rabbi Yaakov Culi, author of Meam Loez. (https://seforimcenter.com) I explained all of these verses there but I never found the Midrash on V’Zot HaBerachah that Rabbi Hagiz mentions. However, what was written on, “The heritage of the congregation of Jacob,” was explained there. And according to this one can explain, “O offspring of Israel, His servant;”³³offspring of Israel, His servant, O descendants of Jacob, His chosen ones. (I Chron. 16:13) Israel - our forefather Jacob - received Torah and passed it onto his children so that Reuben was not guilty of sin and there would still be the 12 sons of Jacob. Some have written in homilies that Joseph the righteous assumed that they had the status of Noahides as the author of Parashat Derachim and others wrote. If this were so then Reuben would have been deserving of he death penalty (God Forbid!).
While it was Reuben’s righteous intention to save Joseph, he didn’t try hard enough, because he was afraid that he would find out that the law was according to Joseph and that they had the status of a Noahides. If he saved Joseph he might have brought evil upon himself. If he had known, however, that God would write that he would save Joseph from the brothers, in other words, similar to what the Torah states, “He tried to save him from them,” (Gen 37:21) and also, “Intending to save him from them in order to return him to his father.” (Gen. 37:22) (he might have acted differently.) His only intention was to bring Joseph back. This is what the Holy One wrote about him and it proves that he had the status of an Israelite for whom good intentions are joined to actions.³⁴See BT Kiddushin 40a: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, links a good thought to an action, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Mal. 3:16). The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase “and that think upon His name”? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzvah but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzvah, as he is among those that think upon His name.” This however only applies to Jews and not non-Jews. If, however, Reuven was considered a Noahide, then good intentions would not be joined to his actions. Since the blessed Holy One wrote that he had the status of Israelites, he had no fear that they would say that he had the status of a Noahide as Joseph claimed, and that he was guilty (of having relations with his father’s concubine). Then he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders back to Jacob even though Joseph thought the law was different. Still, Reuben saved him because he knew that one who saves an Israelite is as if he saved the whole world. And that is why one who performs a commandment should do so with a whole heart and not worry about suspicions or other matters. And we have heard about Reuben with whom damage would have resulted had he acted on his thoughts when they (the brothers) sold Joseph resulting in a step between him and death, and all the other events that would have come to pass. One might conclude that Reuben should have acted on his good intentions and not worried about those who disagreed.
But what if one’s action will not lead to such damages; should one worry about “the scorn of the complacent?” (Ps. 123:4) The Midrash brings proof to show that a person should still perform mitzvot with a wholeheart even if there is no danger of damage as in the case of Aaron. It is possible that Aaron thought that Israelites were considered Noahides when he saw what his father, Amram, did. Amram was one of the righteous people of his generation. He was one of four who died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent (and not because of his own sin).³⁵BT Shabbat 55b He married his own aunt, Yocheved. According to Targum Yonatan when he divorced her she married Elitzafan ben Parnach but in the end, he remarried her and they gave birth to Moses. All of these acts would later be forbidden by Torah law. As a result, Aaron concluded that the Israelites had the status of Noahides until they received the Torah. Amram could take his aunt as a wife, divorce her and then take her back as a wife because the Torah had not yet been given. However, in order not to cause the scorn of the masses, Aaron didn’t want to go out to meet his brother with “drums and dance” which would have given the people an excuse to talk about his family or Moses. That is why he went out to greet Moses privately. Even though there was no danger or suffering involved in this matter, he thought that it was better to worry about scorn of the people. Thus we learn that even in this situation, it is better to perform the commandment with a full heart... If Aaron had known that God would write, “he (Aaron) will be happy in his heart to see you.” (Ex. 4:14) he would have known that they had the status of Israelites and his analysis was incorrect. Amram had acted according to the word of God, as the Zohar comments on the verse, “A man from the house of Levi…” (Ex. 2:1), then Aaron would have gone forth with timbrels and dancing (when meeting his brother), to fulfill the commandment properly.
Further we also learn this lesson from Boaz. It occurred to Boaz and he saw through the Holy Spirit that he would marry Ruth. Further Ruth said, “Why are you so kind as to single me out, when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10) The sages comment, “To single me out,” in the way of all the earth. Boaz only gave her a little grain because he was fearful that people would say that he didn’t do so for the sake of a commandment but rather out of desire for her and in order to marry her. If Boaz had known that God would write about him, “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate her fill and had some left over,” so that it appeared as of he gave her a extra in order to satisfy her hunger, when in fact he gave her just a little bit but it was blessed, as the sage explain. But the blessed Holy One wrote that he gave her enough for her satisfaction. But if he really valued the mitzvah he would have given her fatted chickens! Further it states the details; it states that he said to her”“Come over here and partake of the meal, and dip your morsel in the vinegar.” and afterwards it states that he gave her roasted grains, all as part of a single commandment to feed her. Had Boaz known how important this mitzvah was, he would have fed her fatted chickens.

And he handed her some roasted grain. And he extended to her. There is no similar [word] in Scripture, but only in the language of the Mishnah, “the outside, the inside and the handle [= בֵית הַצְּבִיטָה.”¹³Maseches Chagigah 3:1.

Boaz gave orders to his servants (ni’arim) , saying (leimor), “You are not only to let her glean among the sheaves, without interference… At first glance the word leimor, “Saying,” needs an explanation. The statement, “his servants” refers to one “who is in charge of the reapers,” (Ruth 2:5) whose job it was to make sure the workers acted properly according to the law. Among the servants there was one who was superior to rest. He is the one to whom Boaz spoke when it says, “to his servants who was in charge of the gleaners.” There were other workers with the gleaners and the poor.
Another interpretation: Later, it states, “in the field,” … his worker who was placed in charge of the gleaners. Now, when Boaz came from Beit Lechem he had a servant or two with him, as an important individual often has. To these servants and to the workers who were mentioned, he directed his comments when he said, “Boaz commanded his servants.”.(Ruth 2:15) . That is why it says, leimor; he said that the servants should say to the other gleaners, “You are not only to let her glean among the sheaves, without interference…” and he said to them, “Do not scold her.” It might be that because there were many poor people there as well as the gleaners themselves, when these people saw the servants showing great kindness to Ruth they suspected that they were doing it because of her great beauty, to get close to her. Because the servants feared God, they might scold her to show that they weren’t showing her favoritism but because they were so commanded. Rather she was in their eyes, a stumbling block. Therefore he said, “Do not scold her” lest damage result and she would not glean there.
Another interpretation: Because she is a princess and she is converting. Therefore it is not fitting to speak harshly to her for we are commanded to not to oppress the convert; how much more so when she is the daughter of the king!

And let [some sheaves] fall for her. שֹׁל תָּשֹׁלּוּ =] you should forget; pretend as though you are forgetting.¹⁴The double verb indicates that the action was to be repeated many times. The Targum for שְׁגָגָה [=oversight], is שְׁלוּתָא,¹⁵Bamidbar 15:25. and similarly, “because of this error.”¹⁶II Shmuel 6:7. Another explanation [of שֹׁל תָּשֹׁלּוּ is “let fall”], an expression [as in,] “your olive tree will cast off [= יִשַּׁל [its fruit].”¹⁷Devarim 28:40.

Bundles. Small sheaves, and there is a similar expression in the language of the Mishnah, “[If] he found them [tefillin] tied up in bundles or in packets.”¹⁸Maseches Eruvin 10:1.

Blessed be he that took note of you. [I.e.,] the owner of the field who showed you favor [and allowed you] to glean in his field.¹⁹Alternatively, the person who takes note of you and marries you will be blessed because you are a gifted person. (Gra).

So she told her mother-in-law whom she had worked with, saying, “The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz.” We need to understand this verse. On the face of it, the expression, “Saying, “The name of the man…” would appear to be repetitive, since it was already written, “She told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked.” From this phrase it is clear that we know who the man was, and certainly that Ruth had already told Noami. Further, the expression v’tageid, “She told,” implies a matter of insight/wisdom and after- wards it states, “Saying, the name of the man...” However, the sages say that this man was actually Ibtzan³⁶See Judges 12:8, Note that Ibtzan was also from Beit Lechem though it is not clear that it was the same city. “After him, Ibzan of Bethlehem led Israel.” but here he is called Boaz because he had strength in his reverence for God (oz biyirah).
When Naomi asked where did you glean, Ruth should have replied, “In the field of Boaz.” But it was Ruth’s intention to tell her that Boaz acted with amazing kindness, besides letting her glean in his field. Therefore she answered Naomi, “The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz.” Scripture prefaces her statement by saying that she answered with words of wisdom, “She told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked. The word vi’taged expresses words of wisdom/insight, as the Zohar states. This verse comes to arouse, and to illuminate her words. After this she told Naomi the name of the person, “The name of the man with whom I worked ...’” Naomi hinted to Ruth that he made a special effort because he was interested in her but she should refuse him and save him from sin. To this Ruth said, “The name of the man with whom I worked was Boaz.” In other words, my intention was on his kindness and on nothing else for his name is Boaz - One in whom there is reverence for God.
The sages saud in the Midrash,³⁷Vayikra Rabba 34:8