Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Rut 3:3

.."And Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, etc. It is suggested that the reason it says 'his clothes' and not 'his garments' as it did for Reuben is to emphasize that Jacob tore his precious garments. Similarly, it mentions 'sackcloth on his loins' and not 'girded with sackcloth' like 'gird with sackcloth.' Alternatively, it could be 'he put on sackcloth,' as in the case of Mordecai. Another reason for this excessive mourning is that, since one does not find comfort in life, as the sages said, it was not fitting for him to perform mourning rites for these actions. The verse also says 'and they rose,' not 'and they came.' It also mentions 'all his sons and all his daughters' without specifying that the comforters were young boys and girls. The reason for saying 'I will go down mourning' is questioned; what comfort did he find in this? It seems that Jacob mourned for Joseph in two ways: first, due to the loss of a great and righteous man like Joseph, for whom everyone should mourn. Second, because he was his son, and he had no merit to protect him, and his brothers' transgressions led to these events. Therefore, to express his awareness of Joseph's worth, he tore his splendid clothes, according to the saying, 'The garment makes the man.' And as 'and put your clothes upon you,' it is expounded as 'wear mourning garments' like the explanation in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 5:7 and Rabbah). This is due to the general mourning, even if he didn't have a son; he would do this, as explained. The second point: 'and put sackcloth upon his loins.' It means that he placed the sackcloth directly on his flesh from the inside, and it stuck to his skin beneath his garments. He put it on his loins to signify mourning for his son who came out from his loins and his abdomen. He acted with this private mourning for many days. Later, his sons and daughters sensed this, and they saw his actions as a bad omen. As the Sages say (Midrash Kohelet 27): 'Anyone who prolongs mourning for a deceased more than necessary is doing so over another deceased.' This is what they felt against him, thinking that what he was doing was a bad sign for them. Therefore, they rose up to forcefully put an end to his behavior. Perhaps they demanded that he console himself for their sake, as he had other sons and daughters, and the sons had their own children. This is the meaning of 'all his sons and all his daughters.' He replied that he wasn't concerned about them, even though they were numerous, as he was mourning and lamenting for his son, and none of them would fill his place. According to the first interpretation, he meant that he would go down to his sons' level of mourning, behaving in mourning throughout his life for his son, for whom he did not merit to protect. And there are pious individuals who weep and mourn all their days when they see that, Heaven forbid, they stumbled even in a minor matter, as exemplified by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, who fasted every day because his teeth turned black, as he said, 'I am ashamed before my teeth,' as mentioned in Chagigah 22. Some say he responded to them that, on the contrary, it is better that they do not see him happy but rather sad, so that the Satan does not accuse him. Furthermore, he quoted the words of Job, 'If I say, "I will forget my complaint, I will change my expression and smile,"' meaning that he would forget entirely from his heart or, at least, even if he does not forget from his heart, he would change his face to present himself before people as if he has no sorrow. 'All my suffering I know that You will not acquit me,' meaning that he feared that the Satan would not cease accusing him.

אשורם ולטושם The names of chieftains of clans (Genesis Rabbah 61:5). As regards the translation of Onkelos I cannot make it fit in exactly with the words of the text. He explains אשורם by למשירין which means “camps” (cf. שיירא a caravan). If you say that this cannot be correct on account of the א in אשורם which is not a root letter in the word from which משירין is derived (whilst in אשורם we have an א) then I would reply that we find some words which should have no א at the beginning, but still א is placed before them. Such are אנך in (Amos 7:7) “a wall made by a plumbline (אנך)”, where the word is of the same root as נכה in (2 Samuel 4:4) “stricken (נכה) in his feet”, and אסוך, a cruse containing anointing oil, in (2 Kings 4:2) “a pot (אסוך) of oil” which is of the same root as וסכת in (Ruth 3:3) “wash thyself and (וסכת) annoint thyself”.

OR WHOSOEVER PUTTETH ANY OF IT UPON A ZAR'… — “When it is not required [for anointing a person] into the [high-] priesthood or kingship.” This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra retorted that zar in this connection means anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron and his sons mentioned,¹³⁷For since He mentioned first (in Verse 30): And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, it follows that the expression, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a ‘zar’ means that anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron is a zar (a stranger). So why did Rashi say that the oil may also be used for the anointing of a king? just like the verse, and the ‘zar’ that draweth nigh shall be put to death,¹³⁸Numbers 1:51. “Shall be put to death — by the hand of Heaven” (Rashi). which means any stranger not included in those mentioned. Similarly: There shall no ‘zar’ eat of the holy thing,¹³⁹Leviticus 22:10. [which means anyone not of the seed of Aaron]; to the end that no ‘zar’ that is not of the seed of Aaron, draw near…¹⁴⁰Numbers 17:5. It is for this reason that [Ibn Ezra] thought that the anointing of Solomon¹⁴¹I Kings 1:39. which was done by Zadok [the priest] taking the horn of oil out of the Tent,¹⁴¹I Kings 1:39. — which refers to the Oil of Anointment [which Moses prepared] — was a special, temporary decree by authority of prophecy [permitting the oil to be used upon one who was not of the seed of Aaron]. But this is not the opinion of our Rabbis.¹⁴²For according to the Talmud (Kerithoth 5 b) every High Priest who would be appointed was to be anointed with this oil, as were also some of the kings. Generally an heir to the throne of Israel did not have to be anointed, though in order to avoid disputes over the royal succession [as was the case with Solomon] anointing was resorted to. See further on this topic “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 45.
And I say that [the opinion of our Rabbis is borne out by the language of the verse]. For Scripture states, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations,¹⁴³Verse 31. and it would have been correct if it were to say instead, “This shall be a holy anointing oil for Aaron and his sons throughout their generations,” just as He said in the case of the garments, And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him;¹⁴⁴Above, 29:29. or that He say, “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto Me, and it shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.” But now that He mentioned only them, [And Aaron and his sons thou shalt anoint] and then continued by saying that it should not be put upon any zar, it could mean that [the prohibition extends] to all people [even High Priests after Aaron] except those mentioned specifically [i.e., Aaron and his sons] ! Similarly He said, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured,¹⁴⁵Verse 32. [which might be taken to mean upon anyone’s flesh — even that of the High Priests after Aaron], and yet Scripture explicitly states, And the anointed priest that shall be in his [Aaron’s] stead, from among his sons!¹⁴⁶Leviticus 6:15. This shows that it is impossible to say that the High Priests after Aaron should not be anointed with this oil. And if so, the question appears why did Scripture use here language which might indicate the opposite, as explained above? But such is the explanation etc. But such is the explanation: He commanded that at the moment Aaron and his sons should be anointed with this oil, and then He continued, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me,¹⁴³Verse 31. — to anoint with it My holy anointed ones whom I will choose — throughout your generations,¹⁴³Verse 31. and it shall not be put upon a zar (stranger) whom I have not designated unto Me. It is for this reason that kings and High Priests were anointed with this oil, for both of them are “the anointed ones of G-d.” Thus it is written, I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him¹⁴⁷Psalms 89:21. — meaning, with the oil which is the holy anointing oil unto Me. And the meaning of the verse, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured,¹⁴⁵Verse 32. is as an admonition to all men [even to Aaron and his sons after they have been anointed with it], since He did not say, “upon the flesh of a zar shall it not be poured.” Thus the purport thereof is that he [Moses] is to pour of the oil upon Aaron’s head in order to anoint him, and then he is to anoint also his sons, but he is not to pour this oil upon any man, even upon the anointed priests, merely as people apply good oils to their bodies in order to scent themselves with hands soaked in oil, after bathing, something like it is said, Wash thyself and anoint thee;¹⁴⁸Ruth 3:3. Then I washed thee with water… and I anointed thee with oil.¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 16:9. This is the plain meaning of the verse and its intention. And so did our Rabbis say:¹⁵⁰Kerithoth 7a. “How do we know that if the High Priest took some of the oil of anointment which was upon his head and put it upon his stomach, that he is liable [to punishment]? Scripture therefore says, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured.”¹⁴⁵Verse 32.