Now we're getting somewhere. If we were indeed hearing the story for the first time, we would not, as I have done, have read the story through several times, and translated it into our own tongue, and laboured carefully over every word to see if we could hear what those ancient children gathered around the fire might have heard. But we have looked at this story, and we have not understood it. We have been told it is good, but we have not had it told to us as a dramatic presentation that is meant to grip our life as we grasp in hope some promised blessing that we aren't quite sure we are a part of.
We knew we were in trouble - like Naomi, but we hear there was hope, that the One we hoped in had provided bread back home, so we turn back as she did
and she emerged from the place there where she was and her two daughters-in-law with her
We need mercy to learn grammar. Naomi is speaking. So no preterite, but direct speech, an imperfect form? Yes. But a jussive - a third person imperative - a plea - a prayer to Hashem for mercy as indeed we might pray for those who could not accompany us that they have mercy of that sort as we have intimated the beginnings of for ourselves. What is this 'with you' with a male second person plural ending immakem? These two are women - why is it not immaken, the female plural second person ending? (Seven times in Ruth we will find this anomolous apparently masculine ending in this highly gendered language - see Campbell page 65 where he surmises it is an archaic feminine dual ending.) The odd ending occurs again in this same phrase - עֲשִׂיתֶם. We would expect עֲשִׂיתֶן Mercy indeed.
and she kissed them and they lifted up their voice and wept
It's a cliffhanger - an opening without a closing - to be continued...