Did Ruth uncover Boaz' feet, or something else?

Question

Naomi advises Ruth as follows, in Ruth 3:

One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home[a] for you, where you will be well provided for. 2 Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. 3 Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”

Boaz clearly likes this, saying in verse 10:

“The LORD bless you, my daughter,” he replied. “This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor.

Now, it is my understanding that in many cases, the "feet" are actually a euphemism for another part of the male anatomy. Given the situation and the tone, should I infer that Ruth was actually doing a bit more than unlacing Boaz' sandals?

Answer 1

Short answer: No. You shouldn't.

And that's basically because, to use the quote that is mis-attributed to Freud: "Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar."

It is possible that a literal reading will work fine here. She uncovers his actual feet (and lies down there, in a humble position), which eventually wakes him. Despite being startled (v8) (perhaps by this) he finds out what she wants and is very flattered that she has thought more prudently than a young person typically might.

So we can read this literally without any real problems.

We then come back to the use of "feet" as euphemism and also the use of the expression "lie down" (v4) often has the connotation of sexual intercourse. Is there some sexual act going on here? Or is the uncovering the uncovering of something more than just feet?

I'd be very careful about making such assumptions given the moral character attributed to both Boaz and Ruth, especially given Boaz's care to make sure everything is done properly in chapter 4.

In a note in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, Kalland adds:

"In recognition of the sexual innuendos of Ruth’s uncovering Boaz’s feet, the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac were all careful in their translations to make it clear that only the place of Boaz’s feet was involved."

If we want to study this passage we should probably carefully consider the moral understandings of the period and which actions would be considered appropriate and permissible in that society. I really don't know enough to say.

But inferring that more is going on just on the basis of the word use is clearly not justified.

Answer 2

You can if you want, because the Hebrew word for "foot" and "leg" coincide. So she could have been exposing as much of the leg as you desire, including up to the waist. But the connotation of sex is subtle.

A similar construction occurs in Judges 5 regarding Ya'el, Chever's wife, Wikisource translation here

Between her legs he crouched, fell, lay.(S) Between her legs, crouched, (R) fell(S). In that he crouched, there he fell, plundered.(S)

The translation in KJ and other places is "At her feet", again using the ambiguity of leg/foot. But the context is "Between her legs", and the connotation that it is inbetween the legs makes it more natural to interpret it as "legs". In this sense, offering "milk" vs. "water" also becomes a natural euphamism for sex (although it doesn't have to be read this way).