This intentional clouding and redundant misconception which the Jews of tradition hold to, and the Christianity of tradition blindly adopts, that Ephrathite only in the case of the ancestral line of King David means one being of Bethlehem defies reason, that after stating twice that the family of Elimelech was of Bethlehemjudah that it would have to be so reduntantly again stated in the form of 'Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah'. This is but a 'hiding' of the true ancestry of the Messiah in Judah rather than stating he was of Ephraim from whom the Jews have coveted the identity of the Messiah, as the whole of the Book of Ruth has been editorially turned to be by the further added emphasis of the line of Boaz the Jew over Mahlon the Ephrathite written into the last verses of the 4^th chapter of Ruth. Surely the fact is that this entire family of Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion were 'Ephrathites', having a separate meaning from being merely of Bethlehem. In all other references in the Bible and in the book of Jasher as well, the term 'Ephrathite' always means 'Ephraimite'. This continuous and erroneous redundancy is further explored in item number 19.

Also explored elsewhere in item number 10 above is the fact that the first and prior meaning and definition of the word Ephrathite when it first appears in the Old Testament in Judges chapter 12 is Ephraimite. As further explored there, the Hebrew word which is translated Ephraimite in Judges is here in Ruth 1:2 translated as Ephrathite meaning and being the same word.

"And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz." ~ Ruth 2:1

Some suggest that since Elimelech, Naomi and Boaz are said to be of the same family, that therefore, like Boaz, Elimelech and Naomi must be Jewish or of Judah. And thus they conclude that it is of no significants that the true and legal line of inheritance is that of Elimelech and Mahlon since they are all of Judah. But why isn't Elimelech's and Mahlon's Jewish ancestory then stipulated rather than just Boaz's? But what is of more interest is the fact that families can be of different houses and still be considered as being family and brothers. This is discussed in more detail in item number 16. But briefly Jacob and Laban where said in the Bible to be brothers and Laban was not of the House of Abraham, Issac, Jacob or Israel, yet they were of the same Semetic family of Abraham's father Terah. Also Christ and John the Baptist were so considered of the same family as 'cousins' but they were not of the same tribe as John was a Levite and Christ was a son of the House of David.

The fact being here is that the family of Elimelech is that of being Ephrathites and that Boaz did perform according to the Law of Moses to raise up seed to the dead. this meant that the first born son of the marriage of Boaz and Ruth would be the rightful heir of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon. This Law of Moses if further discussed in item number 17. The book of Ruth is very clean, clear and simple in stating that Boaz was in the process of raising up seed to the dead by his marriage to Ruth the wife of Elimelech's first born son Mahlon (Ruth 4:5 & 10). And it explicitly states Obed to the be Son of Naomi meaning of the house of Elimelech.

As a part of Boaz's duty to redeem the house of Mahlon and Elimelech and to act as surrogate father to raise up seed to the dead, Boaz had to purchase the rightful lands of the family of Elimelech for the sole purpose of then providing them to the rightful and legal 'heir', even Obed the son, of the House of Elimelech. This was the sticking point as to why 'such a one', the nearer kinsman of Elimelech would not marry Ruth and perform the duty as will be covered here after. This means that the lands of Obed, Jesse and the House of David were of the lands of Elimelech the Ephrathite/Epraimite.

That the lands of Ephraim did so include a part in Ephrath is supported in three to five circumstancial evidences. First, though Judah does claim Jerusalem and there abouts today, it is a fact that Jerusalem and thereabouts was in truth a city of the tribe of Benjamin according to the original distributaion of the land inheritances. Second, it is also true that Zelzah is recorded as being of the site of Rachel's tomb and it belonged to Benjamin also, the borders there of. Third, as also descendant of Rachel, the house of Joseph/Ephraim held a right in the 'hill country' and a part claim in the land about the tomb of Rachel. This may be seen, fourth, in that it was Rachel who did mourn for the dead children of the slaughter of Herod of the babes of 'Rama'. And Rama was the hill country which was included in the claims of the tribe of Ephraim. This hill country of Ephraim was also where, fifth, the Levite family of Zacharias and John the Baptist had their assignment to live and minister in as a part of Ramah, the lands of Ephraim. And thus John the Baptist became subject to the slaughter of Herod and was taken by Elisabeth and hid in the wilderness. And when Zacharias was approached to reveal where it was that 'his son', a recognized promised one by the people, he refused to tell and was murdered at the temple. And there is even another likely suggestion which supports the concept and idea that lands about Jerusalem to Bethlehem did contain such land inheritances by those whe descended from Joseph, for just where were the ancestral lands of the family of Lehi but in the rual area about Jerusalem, likely possibly near unto Ehrath themselves? And Lehi had lived in the land of Jerusalem all of his life. And rather than his family being refugees from further north, it is likely that as a part of the kingdom of David, serving with the princes of the tribes of Joseph in David's courts; the families of Lehi and even Laban, did always posses such land inheritances in and about Jerusalem/Bethlehem and Rachel's tomb.

And thus it was and is that the lands of the house of Rachel did include Jerusalem, Bethlehem/Zelzah, Ramah and round about the tomb of Rachel. And such lands were but usurped by Judah in and through, for the most part, David and his turning unto Judah though Israel/Ephraim had the greater claim in David and not only because they supported and defended him in war against Judah. The very Jewish perspective of the Bible cannot just write these things out, they are there as just previously so listed. Do not sell the claims and rights of the houses of Rachel out when it can be shown and listed that such as Elimelech the Ephrathite held possess in Bethlemhem, that the tribe of Benjamin held lands and rights from Jerusalem to Zelzah, that the ministering Levites of Ephraim were so included in the realm of Ramah, that Lehi of the tribe of Mannaseh held lands about Jerusalem possibly toward and near Bethlehem and that when Rachel wept for her children murdered by Herod, it was all this land round about in the hill country of Ramah which was of the lands of David which were the lands of the houses of Rachel, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, and not of Leah or of Judah. And just because of the recorded traditions of the Jews in not to keep the genealogy according to the birthright, let that usurption not also take the inheritances of the houses of Rachel away.

"And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. . . . And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying. There is a son born to Naomi, and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David." ~ Ruth 4:14 & 17

And though the book of Ruth as compiled by the Jewish compilers then proceeds to give only the ancestry of Boaz as the blood line of Obed, Jesse, and David, The clean, clear and simple truth is that Obed was of the house of Elimelech, Naomi and Mahlon according to the rule of law and inheritence. Only the family of Elimelech is recorded as being Ephrathites. Boaz, even though he was also of Bethlehemjudah was never set out as being an Ephrathite as distinctly where the family of Elimelech. One must ask why was Boaz's ancestry given and not the more rightful Law of Moses line of ancestry have been given as stated by the women that Obed was most assuredly the 'son of Naomi.'

Now let us clarify how it could easily be that Boaz and Elimelech could be of the same family. Jacob and Laban where of the same family by marriage and by a long past ancestry. Likewise Boaz and Elimelech would have been related as both being descendants of Jacob and of the House of Israel in that broad sense. But more closely Elimelech and Boaz would have been related by marriage. So it was with Mary the mother of Christ and her cousin Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist. Boaz could well have married a sister, aunt or neice of Elimelech and therefore be considered as being of the family of Elimelech by such marriage. Boaz could then be of the tribe of Judah and Elimelech of the tribe of Ephriam, an Ephraimite or Ephrathite as appears to be the case here.

It is most interesting that the women in their statement to Naomi stated that because of her now having 'seed' that 'his name may be famous in Israel.' It brings to mind that Elimelech, whose name means 'My God is King', may have been aware that the line of promise from Ephraim may have been through his house. Could it be that the House of Elimelech was aware that by right of the first born through Ephraim, they where in line to the covenant blessings of the Covenant of Abraham directly as being the ancestors of one such as Christ the Messiah who would most certainly 'be famous in Israel?'

There is nothing in the book of Ruth that would prevent the fact that Christ was legally of the House of Ephraim. And there is very much which would support such a conclusion. Perhaps alone, such would not be enough, but the over whelming additional facts of the matter as presented in the rest of these items does most assuredly lead to such a conclusion. Elimelech was an Ephrathite as was his first born son Mahlon. Obed was raised up as seed to the dead and is clearly stated to be of the House of Naomi. Boaz was a kinsman, a 'brother' (see item 18 but he was not the closest of kin. One must wonder also it 'such a one' as rejected Ruth to wife was of which tribe, Ephraim or Judah and what was lost to his family because of so rejecting the obligation of performing according to the Law of Moses the task of a 'brother' to raise up seed in Israel to his brother's house (Ruth 3:12-13 and 4:1-6).

"THEN went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and , behold the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by, unto whom he said, Ho [Ploni Almoni] such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. And he said unto the kinsman [Ploni Almoni], Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must but it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
    And the kinsman [Ploni Almoni] said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritacne: redeem thou my right to thyself, for I cannot redeem it. ~ Ruth 4:1-6

Ploni Almoni, the nearer kinsman and most likely also an Ephrathite/Ephraimite as was Elimelech, when he understood that the family land he had right to 'redeem' for so it impliedly reads, would not remain his [Ploni Almoni's] land, but it would be passed to the seed of the dead that he would be expected to raise up of Ruth unto Elimelech and Mahlon. And Ploni Almoni did determine that he 'could not' redeem it as it would diminish his own more immediate family's inheritance by that cost of that land which would pass away to Ruth's son and back and unto the family of Mahlon and Elimelech. And though Boaz was but kinsman by maternal marriage, he was to his credit willing to buy that land of family inheritance to redeem it eventually back and unto Ruth's son, who was Obed, the 'seed of the dead', the heir by the Law of Moses, the Law of God, the heir of Mahlon and Elimelech and not only as to the land but also of the covenant which came by way of the family down from their ancestors Jacob, Joseph and Ephraim.

The King James version of the Bible has the tendancy to at times lose something in the translation from one language to another. It is difficult and even impossible to yield all implications and connotations of a common phrase and its intent in one language when the other language had no such simple word or phrase which means all the same that is meant in the original language. And often what is settled for is merely 'one aspect' of meaning, thus an over simplification of what is really being said in one language is significantly lost by such a translation into another language. Such is the case when the common Hebrew phrase of 'ploni almoni' is translated into 'such a one'.

Anonymity is but one facet of the Hebrew phrase of 'ploniy almoni'. Among the worlds 'equivalents' which might be use are such phrases as 'John Doe' or 'John Q. Public'. But the Hebrew equivalent of 'Ploni Almoni' is used beyond person name reference, it could be used for place names as well. Thus it applies to all 'anonymous or irrevelant names' and not just to 'anonymous persons'. Now there are various reasons why a person or place is to be 'hid' in anonymity. And we will discuss this further.

But let's point out that the 'anonymity' aspect of 'ploni almoni' is but one of its implications of translations. Another such translation can be given as '?Mr. Son of Mr. Son' or what might be over simplified into 'so and so' as does another such overly simplified translation. In the Hebrew it is used to state in terms of anonymity what is actually quite well understood by the context. Such is the usage in 1 Samuel 21:2 when King David is giving a matter of confidence or secrecy to a matter and its place.

"And David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such (ploniy almoni) a place." ~ 1 Samuel 21:2

When one wishes not to more particularly name or specify an item, place or person for whatever reason, they may be purposefully hidden in anonymity. Thus the simple anonymity of 'ploni almoni' seems to further imply that there is a purpose behind why the anonymity is being stated and that it is not just simply a matter of not knowing who it is that is being spoken of which the simple phrase of 'so and so' might just imply. And certainly 'Such A One', whether complentary or derogatory, fails to convey very little of these other understandings. But there is much more to this story.

What has been preserved by the translation 'Such A One' is a certain degree of honor or esteem, whether earnstly meant or sarcasticlly implied. In the case of Boaz's address to his near next of kin via Elimelech and Samuel's original intent, if Samuel did use 'ploniy almoni' rather the the man's actual name of lineage, it certianly would have been a title or honor. But as to later Jewish editors and readers of the phrase, a certain connotation of praised mockery may have entered in in considering missed opportunity the man made by refusing to marry Ruth from whence the Messiah's lineage was to proceed from the house of Mahlon and Elimelech. And this may have been heightened by the fact that 'Ploniy Almoni' was the nearer kinsman and perhaps an Ephraimite as were Elimelech and Mahlon, and there by the parenting right of bloodline to the ancestry of the Messiah did fall to the house of Judah though by the legallity of of the Law of Moses it did come through the house of Mahlon and Elimelech to who Boaz was raising up seed to the dead, making Christ of both houses of Joseph/Ephraim by right and Judah by blood. Which in itself is a most interesting analogy as Judah did cause the Lord to had his blood spelt and it is by Ephraim that the Lord will come again in righteousness in fulfilling the requirements of law by his fulfilling atonement. But there is still more implied by the use of 'ploni almoni'.

When Boaz meets his 'kinsman' who is closer related to Elimelech than he is, he may actually have stated ?Ahi bat Ahi? which is a closer equivalent of 'ploni almoni'. And 'ahi' means 'brother' or 'kinsman'. Thus he could have been stating 'kinsman of my kinsman.' It should be understood that the Heberw term 'brother' goes beyond one's immediate sibling. It is a term which Abraham used to call his wife, his sister. And it was a term by which Laban called his nephew Jacob 'his borther'. So in another sense, the use of 'ploniy almoni' may have been a greeting of one kinsman to honor another kinsman, while still not stating the name of the kinsman.

Another possiblity, as alluded to, is that is was a Hebrew euphemism for 'Mr. so and so the son of Mr. so and so'. In such a euphemism, the condensed form of 'Ploni Almoni' would have lost the 'ben' which would have made it 'Ploni ben Almoni'. In the book of Ruth where each character is so well defined, to just call 'Such A One' 'so and so' seems most inappropriate and this give further cause to consider that the person's anonymity was being more highly preserved by the use of 'Ploniy ben Almoni', indicating a kinsman of so extended lineage, perhaps likely the lineage of Elimelech as he was the nearer of kin. And it raises the concept that this 'Ploni Almoni' was actual a sibling brother of Elimelech and not just a 'kinsman' brother.

In Rashi 4:1 it basically states that 'Ploni Almoni' was used because 'Ploni Almoni' was used to hide the man's identity because he did not want to redeem his brother's property and therefy 'failed' to discharge his family duty. This opens up a whole new realm of possibilities from saving the individual person's 'face' to the actual 'hidding' of the legal and rightful descent of Obed, Jesse and David from the view of the world if indeed 'Ploni ben Almoni' was brother to Elimelech and therefore also an Ephrathite meaning Ephraimite rather than Judite as was Boaz.

The lexicon definition of 'Ploniy' is 'a certian or particular one'. And the lexicon difinition of 'Almoni' is also 'someone or a certain one'. But the root words from which 'Almoni' is taken mean such things as the masculine widower, bound in silence, and forsaken. And the root word from which Ploniy is taken means such things as distinguished, wonderful and set apart. This later set of connotations might just draw the picture of the translated 'Such A One!' as being of a high and 'royal' line, even the line from which the Messiah was to come as promised and set apart. Perhaps 'Such A One!" did not want to 'mar' (Ruth 4:6) his inheritance as he felt that since his (elder line kinsman) 'brother Elimelech' was dead, that the right of the family to bear the promised Messiah, son of Joseph, now fell to him and he did not want Ruth's the Moabitess' son to mar his own son's right of passage to become the ancestor to the Messiah. This would be a 'spiritual asperation', but there is a temporal aspect to the matter also.

Of course this 'marring' of one's 'inheritance' might be merely a matter over wealth. Ploni Almoni may have only been concerned over the loss of finacial wealth as it would have drawn upon his own family's estate in order to redeem the lands of the poor house of Elimelech, which had been sold to another (Lev. 25:25). Certainly Naomi and Ruth were poor having to gleen in the fields for food. What property that had been of family inheritance of Elimelech would have been sold due to the famine and depeletion of the family's wealth. When Naomi and Ruth returned to Bethlehem, they were poor. And to 'redeem' the property of Elimelech was by right of law a kinman's right. Ploni Almoni was willing to buy (redeem) the property for himself and his family, but he was not willing to pay out his own estate wealth to raise up seed to the dead which required the turning around and giving what he had paid for of Mahlon's properties at least, to the first born son of Ruth causing a 'marring debt' out of the value of his own estate.

And then there is the other aspect to anonymity, and that is to hide something. Was the shame of Ploni Almoni being hide by not precisely naming him. Was the actual Ephraimite ancestry being hid and the ancestry of the family of Elimelech being hide and the genealogy of the Jewish Boaz being set forward and above that of the rightful house of ancestry of Mahlon and Elimenech for the purpose of 'steeling away the Messiah' from Ephraim and having Judah prevail by obtaining him in their bloodline? Certainly the future events of David's selection of Judah over Ephraim or Israel have these overtones.

On the one hand, the Jewish hand, it might be presented that in Megillah Ruth it refers to this closer relative who refused to do yibum with Ruth as 'Ploni Almoni' because he is from the Jewish perspective 'irrelevant' to the story of Ruth and the ancestry of Christ. But the use of such 'generic terms' of anonymity do not always prove to make someone or something insignificant but more to be hidden from view. Thus another interpretion is offered of 'Ploni Almoni', Ploni meaning 'hidden' and Almoni meaning 'nameless'. This would mean that the other name for 'Tov' (Hebrew Towb or Tobiah: Tov means 'good' and is also a head of a family who could not show their ancestry to be of Israel. Tov is used in the telling of the story of Ruth and may or many not be the actual name of this person) the brother Elimelech being 'Ploni Almoni' is concernig the hidden Messiah or Messiah ben Yosef. And that Mashiach ben Yosef remains 'hidden' yet 'revealed' in the realm of the 'hidden' Oral Torah. And it only through the hidding of the identity of Elimelech's brother that the linage of Messiah ben Joseph remained hidden and the linage of Messiah ben David revealed as being of Judah. But they were in fact but one and the same Messiah.

It should be noted that the word 'Ploni' is often used in the rabbinic literature when it is 'necessary' to use an anonymous name. In most often implies 'person X' or 'rabbi X'. And sometimes the proporgators of the ancestry of the members of the tribes of Israel will 'Ploni Almoni' as representing the anonymous ancestor of Mr. so and so, the son (ben) of Mr. so and so. Where Levitical lines are to be protected, yet known by someone, such a common notation is applicable. Interesting is the fact that in the book of Ruth, just such a usage was used to cover the person and ancestry of the nearest of kin to Mahlon and Elimelech while the linage of Boaz was completely given and emphasised. (see Sugya 5, 16, 17, 18, 21)

Now, in not mentioning 'Such A One!', perhaps nothing has been herein resolved. But certainly it should be obvious that our King James translation does not yield indepth understanding to the words and writings of the Old Testament. With the possiblities of 'Ploniy Almoni' being so much more than just 'Such A One!', it can easily be seen that Christ or the Messiah in the Old Testament can of itself be quite the enigma. Such has been the words of the Old Testament in their understandings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moses and the rest. Muddled with such levels of understanding and all the while killing and destroying the prophets who only could lead the way to the true light of knowledge and understanding, not having the 'light' of 'enlightenment' to follow.