Since verse 3 begins with the result of what was anticipated in the dialogue between Ruth and Naomi, it is appropriate to introduce it by a particle such as So. In other languages the equivalent may be “Therefore,” “As a result,” or “And so then.”

It may be important in some languages to specify more clearly the kind of fields; for example, “fields of grain” or “fields where grain was being cut” (the equivalent of “harvest fields”).

The workers in this context would in some languages be “the harvesters,” “the men cutting the grain,” or “the men gathering the grain.”

Picking up the heads of grain may be ambiguous in some languages, since it might seem to imply that Ruth was likewise harvesting. Therefore it may be necessary to repeat what has already been said in verse 2, namely, “picking up heads of grain which had been left.”

Verse 3 is to some extent repetitious of what has already been included in verses 1 and 2. This fact was already sensed by some ancient translators. The second verb in the sequence “set forth-went-gleaned” is omitted in most Septuagint manuscripts, Peshitta, and Vulgate. It is also possible to understand the first part of verse 3 as a conclusion to verse 2, while the second part of the verse could be the introduction to the section beginning with verse 4. On the other hand, the two parts of verse 3 can be closely combined as in New American Bible: “The field she entered to glean after the harvesters happened to be the section belonging to Boaz of the clan of Elimelech.” Though NAB’s translation, “The field she entered to glean after the harvesters happened to be the section belonging to Boaz of the clan of Elimelech,” disregards the place of the disjunctive accent atnach.

It so happened translates what is in Hebrew more or less literally “her chance lighted upon a field.” This Hebrew construction occurs elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes 2.14-15, in a context where the noun is normally rendered as “fate.” It is, however, questionable whether any distinction can be made between “chance” and “fate” in the Hebrew. Hebrew miqreh does occur in other places (1 Sam 6.9; 20.26) with the meaning “accident,” but the construction wayyiqer miqreh is typical of Ecclesiastes (see the dictionaries). This should warn one against making too artificial (and too modern!) a distinction between the meanings in Ruth and Ecclesiastes. Tamisier’s statement (op. cit., ad loc.), “cette circonstance fortuite élimine tout plan préconçu,” may be true on the sentence level; it is certainly not true on the level of the discourse. Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc.) first makes the distinction between “chance” and “fate” and then abolishes the same distinction in saying that Yahweh dictates the “chance.” He is nevertheless right, only not in his formulation, since he fails to reason on the two different levels, that of sentence and that of discourse. Septuagint in vocalizing miqreh instead of miqreha (“chance” for “her chance”) and in reading thus periptomati (by “lucky chance”) [see H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1951, s.v.] may have been aware of the ambiguity of the Hebrew expression and may have solved the problem on the sentence level. On the other hand, some translations, though perhaps not consciously, operate on two levels at the same time. So Dhorme “sa chance voulut” and BJ “sa chance la conduisit.” This is a happy solution in French, but in a number of languages, where one cannot have an inanimate subject of an event, it cannot be applied.