Shavuos Ruth - 5777
Shavuos Ruth - 5777
Rabbi Hal Miller
Was Elimelech really such a bad person? What do we know about him? He only appears
in the first three verses of Megillas Ruth, where we learn:
1:1 "a man went from Beit Lechem in Yehudah to sojourn in the fields of Moav, he and his
wife, and his two sons."
1:2 "The man's name was Elimelech...they came to the field of Moav and there they remained."
1:3 "Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died, and she was left with her two sons."
Nothing there sounds like the basis of a story. Even adding in the previous clause of the first
verse, "there was a famine in the land," on the surface we don't see anything negative about
this guy. So why does he have such a bum rap?
Midrashim abound. They explain that he was one of the wealthiest and most influential men
of Israel, a true leader. They explain that he deserted his post to save himself, leaving all his
charges in deep trouble. They find many lessons for us from this approach, valid lessons that
we should endeavor to learn. But these same Midrashim tell us other things as well, and these
seem to conflict with the impression we get from the above.
The word 'man' in this verse is the Hebrew word 'ish'. Rashi says, "The word ish denotes not
merely a person but a personage, a man of importance, either in learning or in social status,
hence the inference that he was an exceedingly wealthy man, one of the city's notables." So
we ask, who was this ish?
We learn that he was a descendant of Nachshon ben Aminadav, the prince of the tribe of
Yehudah. Nachshon was the brave individual who jumped into the Reed Sea until it covered
his head, at which point G-d parted the sea for the Jews to escape the Egyptians. Pretty solid
yichus for Elimelech.
Many comment upon his name. Literally, 'eli', to me, 'melech', the kingship. Is that important?
Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein, son of Rav Moshe) writes, "Rather than simply identifying the
man, Scripture introduces the word sheim, name. In scriptural parlance, this word implies that
we are being told not merely who the person is, but also what he is, his values and his mission.
Thus we must analyze the names to learn what they represent." Accepting that, we must ask
how this name explains who this man was. Torah Temimah gives us, "R'Meir expounded the
name as revealing the man's character, 'unto me (eli) shall the kingdom come,' giving
evidence of his arrogance." But he also gives us R'Levi, who said to interpret it, "Elimelech, my
G-d is King'." According to R'Levi, this name is an indication of how strong was Elimelech's
faith in G-d, which is a good thing, not a bad one. Kol Dodi translates it as "to the king",
referring to the idea that the Davidic line was intended to come from him, and that this was
broken and given to Boaz when Elimelech sinned. According to the Maggid of Dubno, this
name is expounded as "kingship is coming to me." He says this indicates that "Elimelech
had an improper attitude toward his wealth."
For the moment, we set aside the name issue and move through our verses.
"A man went", according to Kol Dodi implies that "this great man deserted his city because
he despaired of finding a way to provide sufficient food for the populace in the face of the
famine. In his modesty he felt that he could not exercise leadership in the tragic situation,
but he had no right to abdicate his responsibility to the community." Certainly this implies
that Elimelech had a good heart, was humble and modest, and apparently made some
effort to solving the problem, only to determine he was not up to the task. These are good
qualities, even though his "abdication" of responsibility was not. Again, we see a good man
who just wasn't as great as some of the others we read about, but definitely not evil or bad.
"To sojourn". This means a temporary journey. Elimelech did not intend to stay in Moav,
but to return when some set of circumstances allowed for it. This would indicate his love
for his people and land. Once more, good traits in a man who just wasn't perfect.
"In the fields of Moav." Kol Dodi says, "Although Elimelech left Eretz Yisrael, he did not
desert the values of Judaism. He chose to sojourn in the rural areas, the fields, where he
would not be witness to the thievery and immorality that were likely common in the cities."
Daat Mikra says this means that he didn't stay in one city, but moved around place to place.
Sounds like a guy trying to preserve his family, not do something terrible. Torah Temimah
cites R'Levi, who said, wherever 'field' is mentioned, a city is connoted. This seems a bit
incongruous, as one might think that 'city' meant 'city', and 'field' meant something else.
What it does show, though, is that cities can be places of pretty serious problems, and it
would be well for us to avoid them if possible!
"And there they remained." Kol Dodi points out that while Elimelech lived, his sons
remained true to Judaism. It was only after his death that the sons married Moabite women.
If he held the family together in observance of Torah during his lifetime, he had to have
some solid positive qualities.
So, where are we? There's this guy, wealthy and influential, humble and modest, who is
unable to come up with a successful plan to guide his nation through a famine. He moves
his family out of town to a place that has food. While there, he keeps his family observant
of Torah law. He dies there, and his sons go off the derech. While he may not have been
of the standard of Moshe Rabbeinu, why did he deserve the strong negative reputation
placed upon him?
The Maggid of Dubno defines a Jewish ruler as "one whose very presence strikes the fear
of G-d in the hearts of the people. The ruler should not need to chastise the people with
lashes, or even with words...A person who is thoroughly righteous, and rules over his
impulses, can exercise rulership over the people by virtue of his fear of G-d alone." The
Maggid points out that the beginning of our scroll tells us that these events took place in
a time when "the judges judged", meaning they had to lead the people by way of the
lashes he referred to. In other words, leadership at the time was not good. But that has been
true at a great many points throughout history. Only the most evil leaders were pointed out,
and the others were left to hide in the pages of the history books. Why Elimelech?
The Maggid returns us to focus on the name issue. He writes in a chapter entitled
"Exploiting Assets", that, "to grasp the nature of Elimelech's error, we must examine why
G-d provides certain people with extra wealth." He begins with the haftorah from Yom
Kippur morning, Yeshayahu 58:5-7, in which the prophet addresses the people who are
complaining that G-d did not accept their fast and prayer. Yeshayahu says, "Can such be
the fast I choose, a day when man merely afflicts himself?..Do you call this a fast and a
day of favor to Hashem? Surely this is the fast I choose...to undo the bonds of injustice...
Surely you should break your bread for the hungry." The Maggid asks why the fast of
Yom Kippur is tied to giving bread to the hungry. He says that G-d is saying, "If you truly
wished to honor Me, it would have been better to give out your bread to the hungry, then
while afflicting yourselves, you would have given Me real pleasure by giving life to the
poor. Your depriving yourself of food gives Me no such pleasure." The one who thinks
that kingship is coming to him, who has bread and wealth, is not using those assets
as G-d intended unless he is applying at least some of them to taking care of the poor.
Koheles challenges us in 7:13-14: "Observe G-d's acts, for who can straighten what He
has twisted? Be pleased when things go well, but in a time of misfortune reflect, G-d
has made the one as well as the other, so that man should find nothing after Him."
In Vayikra Rabbah [34:5], Rabbi Tanchum, son of Rabbi Chiya explained this as, "if
misfortune strikes your fellow, see how you can provide for him and sustain him, so
that you may receive reward." The Maggid tells us, "The simple meaning of this Midrash
is that some people are granted wealth because others are poor. If poverty did not exist,
then wealth would not exist either." Then in Devarim [15:11], the Torah says, "Destitute
people will never cease to exist within the world, therefore I command you saying, you
surely must open your hand to your brother, your poor, and your destitute, in your land."
At this point, we might think that Elimelech violated a Torah command by not sharing
what he had with his destitute neighbors. He would not have been the first to fail in
this, but there may still be some details left out before we judge him here.
The Maggid points out some other rules that may get Elimelech off the hook. First,
he cites the rule that "whoever is more closely related to the giver is accorded greater
priority," which is often abbreviated as "family first". The Chafetz Chaim, in "Ahavas
Chesed", chapters 5 and 6, discusses this prioritization: Jew before non-Jew, poor
before rich, one who needs food before one who needs clothing, woman before man,
relative before neighbor, neighbor before other resident of the city, resident of the city
before nonresident, etc. These are prioritized in order as well--a relative from another
city comes before a nonrelative neighbor. Following this argument, Elimelech needed
to take care of his family first. Of course, once he had taken care of them, he still had
other obligations with the rest of his wealth.
This line of reasoning has a hitch in it. We are told not to exceed 20% of our income
in tzedakah, as it may lead us to become needy ourselves. To this, the Maggid answers,
"As for the amount that a wealthy person should give, in truth he should give everything
he has beyond what he himself needs in order to live." This could easily be beyond the
20% line, especially for someone, as we are discussing here, who is wealthy. He adds,
"G-d gives a person material assets only to sustain himself over the course of his lifetime,
not for any other purpose." From this we see that anything else in one's possession was
not given to him, but merely deposited with him on account, to be applied later where
G-d placed the need. He compares Elimelech with Esther, where Mordechai told her
that her position in the palace was given her just so she could assist her people. The
Maggid says that Esther responded correctly but Elimelech did not.
However, since Esther had someone (Mordechai) to teach her the lesson, enabling
her to act appropriately, but Elimelech did not have such a teacher, perhaps his
misdeed might not be considered as serious as it would have otherwise been. We can
read this into the words of the Sfas Emes, when he says, "Even the misled actions of
the righteous can be informative. Ruth's father-in-law Elimelech, who acted improperly
in fleeing to Moav at a time of starvation in the Land of Israel, unwittingly initiated a
scenario which resulted in the birth of King David, and which will reach its ultimate
climax with the arrival of David's descendant, the Moshiach." What the Sfas Emes
is saying is that Elimelech himself was righteous, although he made a mistake. If so,
why the severe negative reaction to him? Sfas Emes says that "Elimelech was
severely punished precisely because, as a community leader, a descendant of Yehudah
and forerunner of the royal house of David, he should not have abandoned his people
at a time when the need for charitable deeds was greatest.
In the end, Elimelech was a righteous individual, along the lines of Noach. Neither
was perfect, both made very human mistakes. Judaism does not demand perfection
of its leaders, case in point Moshe Rabbeinu. Why was Elimelech not granted the
same level of honor and forgiveness? We look to the types of mistakes made.
Noach wanted to honor G-d upon setting foot back onto dry land. He chose a poor
way of doing it, but his intent was good, and was on behalf of what was then all of
humanity. Moshe, the most humble and most dedicated servant of G-d who ever
lived, slipped once in all the times he demonstrated that dedication. His intent was
good, and on behalf of all the Jewish nation. Elimelech had the opportunity to help
the entire nation, but chose to limit himself to just helping his family. While his intent
may still have been good, he left the nation hanging out to dry when he had the
wherewithall to do something more. For that he was punished, and we look at him
as the bad guy in our story.