Ruth is famously one of the two books named after a woman. It comes in our standard 21st century Bibles immediately after the book of Judges. A book that ends with some not very nice or Godly things happening, including to unnamed women. But let us not get carried away with ourselves! One of the key questions of this idea is: When did Ruth start becoming immediately after the book of Judges*? Is this a later novelty of the Church, or does it precede Jesus? * In some recognizable sense, not necessarily appearing one after another in some single codex.

I want to ask a question about Ruth the Moabitess and King David. >Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: And Ruth was a Moabitess, AND, the great grandmother of King David. >Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest. MY QUESTION IS Logically, how can David be lawfully accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord' (let alone, be selected by the LORD to be King of Israel,) when he was clearly only 3 generations away from Moab heritage? I am searching for any scriptural explanation, which would justify David being accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord', taking into account the clear "even to their tenth generation" prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3. And, doesn't Jewish heritage follow the mother?

[**Sex Before Marriage Is Not A Sin**](https://cluecho.com/8834/uncategorized/sex-marriage-not-sin/) I found this article that says that sex outside marriage is not a sin. Some samples are > Ruth and Boaz > > Really? Where does the Bible give a green light to premarital sex? > Perhaps the most striking example is in the story of Ruth, though > there are other examples as well. According to the Book of Ruth, when > the recently widowed Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi were faced with > a famine in Ruth’s homeland Moab, they returned to Israel impoverished > and with little hope of survival. Ruth took to gleaning in the fields > to find food for herself and Naomi. The owner of the fields, a > relative of Naomi named Boaz, saw Ruth and was pleased by her. When > Naomi heard about it, she encouraged Ruth to adorn herself and > approach Boaz at night while he was sleeping to see what would happen. > Ruth took this advice, resting with him until morning after first > “uncovering his feet” (in Hebrew, “feet” can be a euphemism for male > genitals). The next day, Boaz goes to town to find out whether he can > marry her, and, luckily, another man with a claim to Ruth agrees to > release her. They do marry and together they produce Obed, the > grandfather of King David. > > None of this would have been possible if Ruth had not set out to > seduce Boaz in a field, without the benefit of marriage. [The Bible’s Contradictions About Sex](http://www.bu.edu/articles/2011/the-bibles-contradictions-about-sex/) Another is David and Betsheba. It's not a sin because Batsheba is not technically married. [David and Bathsheba](https://torahideals.com/essays-and-imaginings/david-and-bathsheba/) says it's not sin at all. Yet, not having sex outside marriage seems like the most talked about rules in christianity second only to believing Jesus is God. So what would be a good counter-argument? Also is there reasonable reason to say that this is very open to interpretation and that the bible is simply not clear about the idea? Is it okay to say that, yes it's sin and no it's not a sin is well within possible interpretation?

In bible (Ruth 4,7 ) it's written that before closing a deal, it was used that one of the sides took his shoes off: > Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; **a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour**: and this was a testimony in Israel. In Talmud there is a debate on which side took his shoes off. One says it was Boaz (Buyer), and the second opinion says it was the second side (seller). My question is if we can find some evidence in the history science which can supports one of the opinions?

It seems to me that according to this law the first-born child of Boaz and Ruth should have been recorded in the line of Mahlon: >If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. *Deuteronomy 25:6 KJV* Boaz clearly mentions this when he purchased the land: >Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. *Ruth 4:5 KJV* mar mine own inheritance - is why the other relative was unwilling to redeem the property. Yet, Jesus, David, Solomon were all recorded as belonging to the lineage of Boaz, not Mahlon. Questions: 1. Why was it recorded like that? 2. Is this the norm or the exception? 3. Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?

Why is Ruth called 'the wife of Mahlon' (Ruth 4:10) whereas in the beginning of the story she is the wife of Elimelech?

Do we have a single definitive original text of the book of Ruth? That is, in the original Hebrew / Aramaic? If so, how many words are in the original, and does this make it the shortest book of the Old Testament?

Was Ruth's husband, Boaz named after the column by the temple of Solomon or vice versa? Or was this a quiescence? Was this a common name for boys? **Ruth 2:1 ESV** > Now Naomi had a relative of her husband's, a worthy man of the clan of > Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. and **2 Chronicles 3:17 ESV** > He set up the pillars in front of the temple, one on the south, the > other on the north; that on the south he called Jachin, and that on > the north Boaz.