אֲנִי֙ מְלֵאָ֣ה הָלַ֔כְתִּי וְרֵיקָ֖ם הֱשִׁיבַ֣נִי יְהוָ֑ה לָ֣מָּה תִקְרֶ֤אנָה לִי֙ נָעֳמִ֔י וַֽיהוָה֙ עָ֣נָה בִ֔י וְשַׁדַּ֖י הֵ֥רַֽע לִֽי׃
אַ פֿולע בין איך אַרױסגעגאַנגען, און לײדיק האָט מיך גאָט אומגעקערט. נאָך װאָס רופֿט איר מיך נָעמי, אַז גאָט איז מײַן קלעגער געװאָרן, און דער אַלמאַכטיקער האָט מיר שלעכטס געטאָן.
Siftei Chakhamim
“And she left the place,” which is written concerning Naomi and Ruth. Question: Why does Rashi bring a proof from Ruth, when in Ruth, he brings a proof from here? The answer is: Without the proof from Ruth, we might think that the two leavings written here are (1) the departure of his person and (2) the departure of his money, flock and cattle which left with him. Thus, Rashi brings proof from Ruth that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression—as there, it cannot refer to the departure of their property. For it is written there that she said (Ruth 1:21), “Hashem has brought me back empty,” indicating clearly that she had no property. And in Ruth, Rashi brings a proof from here, because we might think that it makes an impression only if no tzaddik remains behind, as was the case there. But where there are tzaddikim, how do we know that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression? Thus Rashi proves it from here, as Yitzchok and Rivkah remained, yet Yaakov’s departure still made an impression. (See Tzeidah L’Derech, who offers a lengthy explanation.)