Ruth/Clinging to God
1. The Departure of Elimelech
The Book of Ruth opens:
“And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land. And a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the fields of Moav, he, his wife, and his two sons.” (Ruth 1:1)
This man is Elimelech. His wife is Naomi, and his two sons are Mahlon and Chilion. Soon after arriving in Moav, Elimelech dies, and after 10 years his sons die as well (Ruth 1:3–5). Naomi is left bereft, but her daughter in law Ruth the Moabite cleaves to her and becomes the ancestress of David.
2. The Puzzle of Elimelech’s Death
Why did Elimelech die in Moav? His name sounds noble — Eli-melech (אֱלִימֶלֶךְ), “My God is King.” Would a man with such a name abandon his people during famine? And why is his death and the death of his sons framed as judgment, while Ruth — a Moabite outsider — emerges as the true redeemer?
3. Traditional Answers
Midrash Ruth Rabbah 1:4: Elimelech was a wealthy leader who fled to avoid giving charity. He was punished by death in exile.
Bavli Bava Batra 91a: connects Mahlon and Chilion’s deaths to their marriages with Moabite women.
Zohar Chadash, Ruth 78c: Elimelech represents kingship (Malchut) disconnected from its Source. His sons, whose names mean “sickness” and “destruction,” are doomed channels. Naomi (Shekhinah) survives to redeem the spark in Ruth.
Rashi (on Ruth 1:1): the famine is part of divine providence, setting the stage for Ruth’s loyalty and David’s legitimacy.
4. Why These Answers Are Not Enough
Here is the puzzle: in Tanakh, names reveal deep meaning. Mahlon (sickness), Chilion (destruction), and Orpah (turning the neck) match their fates. But Elimelech? His name is noble. Could such a name attach to a coward who abandoned the poor of his own people? If this was truly so, then Torah would have given him a different name, more suitable for someone with such a moral defect. Additionally, why blame him for leaving during famine, when Abraham went to Egypt (Gen. 12:10) during a famine and Jacob went to Egypt at God’s command during a famine (Gen. 46:3–4), and yet they are not condemned?
5. A Deeper Solution
a) The Meaning of Elimelech
The more precise meaning of Elimelech is not “God is my King”, for that would be in Hebrew “El-Malchi”, but instead his name is “Eli-Melech” — “My God is King.” This implies that he is attached to the external emanations, the office of the king, the throne, the power of the king, not the “soul” of the King, He clings not to Ein Sof, the Infinite, but to the sephirah Keter that channels Ein Sof.
b) The Problem Suggested by His Name
This is the flaw: worshipping the throne of the King, rather than the One who sits upon it. Attachment to the garment, not the Essence, the sephirah Keter, not the Ein Sof.
This is the flaw: worshipping the throne of the King, rather than the One who sits upon it. Attachment to the garment, not the Essence, the sephirah Keter, not the Ein Sof.
c) Why He Could Not Provide
Shefa (divine flow) is not the sefirah Keter in and of itself, but the Infinite Light flowing through it. Elimelech was clinging to the sephirah, the “pipe” that channeled Ein Sof, but not the “essence” Ein Sof itself. When the poor demanded bread, i.e. the Ein Sof, he could not provide, for all he had was the pipe that channels the “bread”, but not the “bread” itself.
Shefa (divine flow) is not the sefirah Keter in and of itself, but the Infinite Light flowing through it. Elimelech was clinging to the sephirah, the “pipe” that channeled Ein Sof, but not the “essence” Ein Sof itself. When the poor demanded bread, i.e. the Ein Sof, he could not provide, for all he had was the pipe that channels the “bread”, but not the “bread” itself.
d) Why He Had to Leave
Knowing that he had no “bread” to provide because he had no power to cling to Ein Sof, but only to the sefirah Keter that channels it, he went to Moav to retrieve that power. Why Moav? He knew that he could find that power in Moav, that hidden spark, that kavanah because he knew the story of Lot’s daughter. After Sodom’s destruction, believing the world ended, and there was no life on earth, she consorted with her father while he was asleep to give birth to new life (Gen. 19:31–33). Her father was unconscious, so her act was not physical lust, but pure desire to sustain life. Her intention was: “There is nothing above or below; only my Father remains.” This is the truest clinging, deveikut — cleaving to the Life of Life (Chayei ha-Chayim). She brought that spark, that kavanah into that world, and that’s how her son Moav was born and his nation who carried his name also carried that spark inside Ruth, who was a Moabite. Elimelech’s journeyed to Moav in order to retrieve that spark, because it is the desire to cling to God’s essence, Life itself, as a child clings to the Father, instead of a servant to the King.
Knowing that he had no “bread” to provide because he had no power to cling to Ein Sof, but only to the sefirah Keter that channels it, he went to Moav to retrieve that power. Why Moav? He knew that he could find that power in Moav, that hidden spark, that kavanah because he knew the story of Lot’s daughter. After Sodom’s destruction, believing the world ended, and there was no life on earth, she consorted with her father while he was asleep to give birth to new life (Gen. 19:31–33). Her father was unconscious, so her act was not physical lust, but pure desire to sustain life. Her intention was: “There is nothing above or below; only my Father remains.” This is the truest clinging, deveikut — cleaving to the Life of Life (Chayei ha-Chayim). She brought that spark, that kavanah into that world, and that’s how her son Moav was born and his nation who carried his name also carried that spark inside Ruth, who was a Moabite. Elimelech’s journeyed to Moav in order to retrieve that spark, because it is the desire to cling to God’s essence, Life itself, as a child clings to the Father, instead of a servant to the King.
e) Israel’s Demand for a King
The evidence for this faulty clinging to the King, instead of the Father, we read later, when Israel asked prophet Shmuel to anoint a king for them. God replies: “It is not you they have rejected, but Me they have rejected from reigning over them.” (1 Sam. 8:7). Once again, the people seek the external crown (Keter) as throne, not Ein Sof as essence. They relate to God as the King, not as the Father. And that's what God told Shmuel: they want, or cling to a King, but not Me, Ein Sof. Saul embodies this defect, and his reign did not last.
The evidence for this faulty clinging to the King, instead of the Father, we read later, when Israel asked prophet Shmuel to anoint a king for them. God replies: “It is not you they have rejected, but Me they have rejected from reigning over them.” (1 Sam. 8:7). Once again, the people seek the external crown (Keter) as throne, not Ein Sof as essence. They relate to God as the King, not as the Father. And that's what God told Shmuel: they want, or cling to a King, but not Me, Ein Sof. Saul embodies this defect, and his reign did not last.
f) How Ruth Solves the Problem
Ruth inherits Lot’s daughter’s spark. She clings to Naomi when Naomi has nothing — no husband, no sons, no wealth. Her words — “Your God is my God” (Ruth 1:16) — are pure clinging, deveikut to God Himself. She wants God, the Ein Sof alone.
Ruth inherits Lot’s daughter’s spark. She clings to Naomi when Naomi has nothing — no husband, no sons, no wealth. Her words — “Your God is my God” (Ruth 1:16) — are pure clinging, deveikut to God Himself. She wants God, the Ein Sof alone.
g) David as Fulfillment
From Ruth comes David. His name is spelled as Dod, meaning Beloved. And who is his Beloved? He answers it in his Psalms which overflow with longing for God alone: “Whom have I in heaven but You? And none upon earth that I desire besides You” (Ps. 73:25). He loves and clings to God alone, not the Heavens, not even Gan Eden, not Kesser, but God alone, nothing else. This is the spark of Ruth, which she inherited from the kavanah of the daughter of Lot. David’s throne endures because it is not throne-worship but love of Ein Sof alone and nothing else.
6. The Kabbalistic Principle that Ties It Together
The Zohar teaches: Malchut derives from Binah (Zohar II:123a, III:11b). Malchut is the “daughter,” Binah the “mother.”
Binah’s desire is not for Chochmah (wisdom) nor for Keter (crown), but for Ein Sof itself.
Binah longs to align with Ratzon Elyon — the Supernal Will, called Hefetz Chesed (“Desire for Lovingkindness,” Micah 7:18).
Her desire is to “do Chesed to Ein Sof,” not for herself, but as pure devotion.
David is Malchut and inherits this desire for Ein Sof. This is in contrast to the desire to cling to Chochma (Wisdom), or even Keter (Crown), as did Elimelech and Saul, eventually it loses the flow of shefa, resulting in famine. When it inherits Binah’s kavanah, to cling to Ein Sof alone, such as Ruth and David, then the attachment is eternal, the shefa flows, and there is satisfaction, as the name Ruth implies, for it comes from the root Riva רִוָּה , meaning satiation (Berakhot 7b)
From Ruth comes David. His name is spelled as Dod, meaning Beloved. And who is his Beloved? He answers it in his Psalms which overflow with longing for God alone: “Whom have I in heaven but You? And none upon earth that I desire besides You” (Ps. 73:25). He loves and clings to God alone, not the Heavens, not even Gan Eden, not Kesser, but God alone, nothing else. This is the spark of Ruth, which she inherited from the kavanah of the daughter of Lot. David’s throne endures because it is not throne-worship but love of Ein Sof alone and nothing else.
6. The Kabbalistic Principle that Ties It Together
The Zohar teaches: Malchut derives from Binah (Zohar II:123a, III:11b). Malchut is the “daughter,” Binah the “mother.”
Binah’s desire is not for Chochmah (wisdom) nor for Keter (crown), but for Ein Sof itself.
Binah longs to align with Ratzon Elyon — the Supernal Will, called Hefetz Chesed (“Desire for Lovingkindness,” Micah 7:18).
Her desire is to “do Chesed to Ein Sof,” not for herself, but as pure devotion.
David is Malchut and inherits this desire for Ein Sof. This is in contrast to the desire to cling to Chochma (Wisdom), or even Keter (Crown), as did Elimelech and Saul, eventually it loses the flow of shefa, resulting in famine. When it inherits Binah’s kavanah, to cling to Ein Sof alone, such as Ruth and David, then the attachment is eternal, the shefa flows, and there is satisfaction, as the name Ruth implies, for it comes from the root Riva רִוָּה , meaning satiation (Berakhot 7b)
The source of this aspect of Binah is in:
Zohar II:128a and Zohar III:122a, where Binah is called “teshuvah” and her longing is always “to return to Ein Sof.”
Eitz Chaim (Sha’ar Teshuvah ch. 1, by the Arizal), Binah’s essence is described as yearning to ascend and be united with Ein Sof.
Comments
Post a Comment