Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries (Das Alte Testament im Dialog / An Outline of an Old Testament Dialogue) [New ed.] 9783034316743, 9783035108507, 3034316747

Citation preview

Jonathan Grossman

Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries

DAS ALTE TESTAMENT IM DIALOG an

outline

of

an

old testament Vol. 9

Peter Lang

dialogue

Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries is a literary close reading of the text as a bridge between the anarchic period of the Judges and the monarchic age that begins with the birth of David, as reflected through Ruth’s absorption process within Bethlehemite society. This bridge is constructed from three main axes: the theological perception that human actions have the power to shape and advance reality; the moral-legal perception that the spirit of the law must be privileged over the letter of the law and social conventions; and the principle that the institute of monarchy must be based upon human compassion. The commentary traces the narrative sequence through the paradigm of this three-fold cord, showing how these threads are woven throughout the book. This innovative reading is illustrated with an unprecedented psychological analysis of Ruth as a narrative of transition, using modern psychological theories. This contemporary yet textually faithful literary commentary offers new insight into the inner workings of the text of Ruth as literary masterpiece. Academic yet accessible, this work provides tools for readers of Ruth and the field of biblical narrative in general.

Dr. Jonathan Grossman is a faculty member of the Department of Bible at Bar Ilan University. His main field of interest is the Bible as literature. His book Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading was published in 2011.

Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries

DA S A LT E T E S TA M E N T I M D I A L O G an outline of an old testament dialogue

Band / Vol. 9 Herausgegeben von / edited by Michael Fieger & Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes

PETER LANG

Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien

Jonathan Grossman

Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries

PETER LANG

Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien

Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library, Great Britain Library of Congress Control Number: 2015940486

I would like to thank the Mofet Institute and the Ihel Foundation of Bar Ilan University for making the research of this study possible. Umschlaggestaltung: Thomas Jaberg, Peter Lang AG ISSN 1662-1689 pb. ISBN 978-3-0343-1674-3 pb.

ISSN 2235-5707 eBook ISBN 978-3-0351-0850-7 eBook

This publication has been peer reviewed. © Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2015 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................. 9 The Book of Ruth’s Dating and Objectives........................................ 9 The Structure of the Book of Ruth................................................... 22 Artistic Structure.................................................................................... 26 Theology in the Book of Ruth............................................................ 31 Attitude Towards the Law.................................................................... 38 The Narrative’s Employment of Legal Discourse............................ 40 Intertextuality Reflecting Violation of the Law ............................... 47 The Story of Judah and Tamar............................................................ 48 Time and Space in the Book of Ruth................................................. 53 Time......................................................................................................... 55 Space........................................................................................................ 58 Introduction to Chapter 1.................................................................... 65 Exposition (1:1–6)..................................................................................... 71 The Long Way Home: Naomi and Her Daughters-in-Law (1:7–18).............................................................. 87 Naomi’s Second Soliloquy (11–14)..................................................... 95 Naomi’s Third Soliloquy (15)............................................................. 102 “Wherever You Go, I Will Go” (16–17).......................................... 104 Silent Acquiescence (18)..................................................................... 110 Naomi (and Ruth’s) Return to Bethlehem (1:19–22).......................... 113 Introduction to Chapter II................................................................. 126 Ruth and Boaz’s Encounter in the Field (2:1–23)............................... 131 The Solitary Gleaner (2–3)................................................................. 135 Boaz and His Boy in the Field (4–7)................................................. 142 Boaz Addresses Ruth (8–9)................................................................ 156 Ruth’s Response (10)........................................................................... 161 Boaz’s Response (11–12).................................................................... 163 Ruth’s Reaction (13)............................................................................. 167

Lunchtime Conversation (14–16)...................................................... 169 The Remains of the Day (17)............................................................ 172 Ruth’s Return to Naomi (18–22)....................................................... 174 The Structure of Ruth 2..................................................................... 186 Introduction to Chapter III................................................................ 193 Ruth and Boaz’s Encounter at the Threshing-Floor (3:1–18)........... 199 Naomi’s Suggestive Suggestion (1–5)............................................... 202 Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing-Floor (6–13)................................ 212 Boaz’s Reaction (10–13)...................................................................... 227 Daybreak (14–15)................................................................................. 235 Uncovering and Covering................................................................... 236 Ruth’s Return to Naomi (16–18)....................................................... 240 Naomi’s Reaction................................................................................. 247 The Structure of Ruth 3..................................................................... 250 Introduction to Chapter IV................................................................ 253 Before the Law (4:1–12).......................................................................... 261 Gathering at the Gate (1–2)............................................................... 261 The First Dialogue – the Redeemer Consents to Redeem the Field (3–4).................................................................. 267 The Second Dialogue – From Redemption to Acquisition (5–8)............................................................................ 278 “The Wife of the Deceased” – From Two Widows to One Couple................................................................................ 283 From the Redeemer to Boaz ............................................................. 285 Boaz’s Declaration (9–10)................................................................... 293 The People’s Blessing: Security and Estate (11–12)....................... 297 Two Mothers in Bethlehem (4:13–17).................................................. 305 Marriage and Birth (13)....................................................................... 305 The Choiring of the Town: Let Your Name be Called (14–15)............................................... 309 The Feminine Signature (14–17)....................................................... 313 “The Father of Jesse the Father of David” (17)............................ 323

6

Appendix – The Lineage of Peretz (4:18–22)..................................... 327 Afterword.................................................................................................. 333 Reading the Story in Light of Winnicott ........................................ 335 Bridges................................................................................................... 340

7

Introduction

The Book of Ruth’s Dating and Objectives Opinions regarding the time of the book of Ruth’s composition are polarized, generally falling under one of two adamant approaches: some date its compilation to the period of the united monarchy, during David or Solomon’s reign,1 where others postpone its writing to the period of the Second Temple (although some argue that it originates in between, during the reign of Hezekiah or Josiah).2 Obviously, 1

2

For example: C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 2; Trans. by J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 437; S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Meridian, 1956) 454–56; J. M. Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth (Leiden: Brill, 1955) 16–32; W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962) 26–29; G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965) 23–28; M. Weinfeld, “Ruth, Book of,” Encyclopedia Judaica 14.522 (Heb.). For the claim that the book of Ruth was composed earlier, in the period of the Judges (with the exception of the report of David’s birth at the story’s end) see: L. B. Wolfenson, “The Character, Content, and Date of Ruth,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 27 (1911) 285–300. He himself is convinced that the story was written earlier, mainly based on the customs that feature in the narrative, such as the removal of the shoe, for example.The basis for this approach can be found in the Babylonian Talmud: “Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth” (B. Bat. 14b). Among those who adopt Wellhausen’s approach and date its compilation later: A. Bertholet, Das Buch Ruth (KHAT, Tübingen 1898) 49; Ernst Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament, Revised and Rewritten by George Fohrer; (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968) 226; R.J. Meinhold, Einführung in das Alte Testament: Geschichte, Literatur und Religion Israels (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1919) 336; R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941) 718; P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953) 12–13; J. Meinhold, Einführung in das AlteL. Vesco, “La date du livre

as many have commented, the question of its dating colors the understanding of its objectives. Those who claim that Ruth was written during the united monarchy tend to place emphasis on the themes of kindness, or upon David’s genealogy; those who date the book to the period of the Second Temple tend to read it in polemical discourse with Ezra’s condemning of marriage with foreign women. While I do not wish to address the question of Ruth’s dating in these pages, I nonetheless seek to distinguish between the latter and the question of the narrative’s objectives. Of course, it is not always possible to do so, given that different periods raise different issues that must be addressed.3 This is evident in the relationship between the two parameters in the context of our narrative: whoever is convinced that the de Ruth,” RB 74 (1967) 235–247; Ernst Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament: Geschichte, Literatur und Religion Israels (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1919) 336; A., Revised and Rewritten by George Fohrer; (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968) 226; A. LaCocque, “Date et milieu du livre de Ruth,” RHPR 59 (1979) 583–93; J. L. Vesco, “La date du livre de Ruth,” RB 74 (1967) 235–247; Y.Y. Zakovitch, Ruth, Mikra Leyisra’el (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 33–35 (Heb.); F. Polak, “Epic Formulae in Biblical Narrative and the Origins of Ancient Hebrew Prose,” Te’uda: Studies in Judaica 7 (1991) 9–54 (Heb.); Y. Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (Boston: Brill, 2000) 86; Alexander Rofé, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2006) 191–93 (Heb.); A. Rofè, “Gōren Haśśěʿōrîm in Ruth 3:2 – Rabbinic Hebrew in a Biblical Book,” Language Studies 11–12 (2008) 283–286 (Heb.). For the claim that Ruth was compiled during Hezekiah’s reign in particular, see: W. W. Cannon, “The Book of Ruth,” Theology 16 (1928) 314–15; W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder, (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962) 29 (who is inclined to date the story later, but raises the period of Hezekiah’s reign as a convenient possibility); M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos, 1992) 201 (who mentions the periods of Hezekiah or Josiah as likely candidates, but still favors the period of David’s reign as the most suitable time of its compilation [202]). See also Gray’s review: J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (NCBC; London: Eerdmans, 1967) 398–400. Adele Berlin writes that “Nowadays, opinions incline towards its compilation during the period of the Return to Zion.” (“The Historical Novellas: Ruth, Esther and Daniel,” in Biblical Literature: Introductions and Studies [ed. T. Talshir; Vol. 1; Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben-Zvi, 2011] 417–27). 3 Gray, Ruth, 400.

10

text’s main objective is to legitimize marriage with foreign women will favor the period in which this issue comes to a head,4 but the reverse order may also transpire: as mentioned above, one who is certain that the text was compiled during the period of the Second Temple will seek out social conflict that the text seems to address, and the question of foreign women is an obvious candidate. Even so, I believe that the interdependence of these parameters may be severed – so that dating the text to the time of the Second Temple, say, does not necessitate the conclusion that the issue of marriage to foreign women forms the underlying basis for its compilation, for those who returned to Zion faced other challenges, particularly in relation to their conception of the reinstitution of the Judean kingship. Therefore, even if the question of dating is left open (similarly to Harrison, and others),5 there is room to address the question of the story’s objective. I will first review some of the main positions that have emerged in relation to the story’s objective. Some scholars have contested the very idea of looking for an “objective” within the book of Ruth. Yehezkel Kaufmann, for example, writes that “within the book, there is no hint of an ‘objective,’ nor the faintest suggestion of the tension of a religious denominational war. The story is idyllic, all peace and tranquility… Ruth’s fate is told for story’s sake, without “objective.”6 However, I favor the more accepted position in research, which holds that Ruth does in fact harbor “objectives.” It can be reasonably posited that attempts 4

5 6

Thus, for example, after asserting its objective as a polemic against separatism, Yaira Amit writes: “It thus seems that the book of Ruth was written in wake of a polemic concerning marriage to foreign women that took place during the Second Temple period” (Amit, Hidden Polemics, 86). R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004) 1059–62. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1960) 211 (Heb.). Similar arguments were made by: H. Gunkel, “Ruth,” in Reden und Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 88–89; R. Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Customary Law,” in A Light unto My Path (ed. H. Bream, R. Heim, C. Moore; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974).

11

to detect the story’s objective stem – consciously or unconsciously – from the book’s integration into the biblical canon. Thus, for example, Moshe Weinfeld attempts to justify his search for the story’s objective: “We have not found stories in the Holy Writ that serve no kind of religious-didactic purpose.”7 The conflicts hinted at within the story touch upon ethical-ideological issues (notably, attitude towards the Other), and the characters are illuminated through their attitude to the Other, presenting the reader with models of appropriate behavior, and behavior that the author frowns upon. It is therefore problematic to say that the story is lacking in didactic objective.8 However, Jack Sasson is correct in asserting the difficulty of pinpointing a single, exclusive objective within the book of Ruth9 – like every good story, the story of Ruth is multifaceted and multilayered, and several themes can be traced within it. Indeed, scholars have raised a wide range of objectives, and here I wish to present five of the notable approaches among them:

7 8

9

12

M. Weinfeld, “Megillat Rut – Takhlitah Ve-Reka Chibbura,” Turei Yeshurun 1 (1966) 10. Scholarly disputes regarding the concept of the objective within a story is beyond the scope of the study of the book of Ruth, and beyond the scope of Bible Studies in general – rather, it is a fundamental question that relates to storytelling and story-writing at large. Goethe, for example, complained about his classic work, Faust, to his young friend Eckermann in a letter dated May 6th, 1827: “The Germans are, certainly, strange people. By their deep thoughts and ideas, which they seek in everything and fix upon everything, they make life much more burdensome than is necessary… do not imagine all is vanity, if it is not abstract thought and idea. They come and ask what idea I meant to embody in my Faust; as if I knew myself, and could inform them” (Conversations of Goethe with Johann Peter Eckermann [Ed. J.K. Moorhead; Trans. by John Oxenford; Cambridge MA, Da Capo, 1998] 205). His words were to no avail, and many studies and debates have been dedicated to the meaning of Faust and its objectives. The work has overshadowed its creator. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd ed.; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 232.

1. The Genealogy of King David. The story ends with the presentation of Obed as David’s grandfather (4:17), leading some to conclude that these lines are the main objective of the entire story.10 Driver and Hubbard read the book of Ruth as “an introduction to Davidic kingship” that fills in the genealogical gaps of David’s line in the book of Samuel, one that glorifies David through his ancestry.11 Hals considers the genealogical objective of the book of Ruth in a theological light: divine providence led to his birth.12 A different formulation of this approach claims that this book was written in order to reinforce the Davidic line during periods in which it was challenged (even, perhaps, after the split between Judea and Israel).13 Indeed, the story’s conclusion encourages this reading, although, as others have commented, linking the Davidic dynasty to a Moabite woman does not help justify his descendants’ right to reign, and if this were indeed the narrative objective, then Ruth’s origins would more likely have been downplayed.14 2. A Moral Message – the Importance of Hesed, Kindness: There is no doubt that the theme of kindness and compassion is central to 10 See different formulations of this idea in: W. Dommershausen, “Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle,” in Theologie im Wandel (ed. J. Neumann and J. Ratzinger; Munich: Wewel, 1967) 394; Joüon, Ruth, 2; Y. Zakovitch, Inner-biblical and Extra-biblical Midrash and the Relationship Between Them (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009) 244 (Heb.). 11 Driver, Introduction, 453–54; R. L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 39–42. 12 R. M. Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 17–19. 13 A. A. Anderson, “The Marriage of Ruth,” JSS 23 (1978) 172; R. E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature (FOTL 13; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 87. 14 See on this topic, among others: H. H. Rowley, “The Marriage of Ruth,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterly, 1952) 185; E. Würthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth (HAT 18; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1969) 3; Sasson, Ruth, 186. And compare to the words of the Babylonian Talmud: “Doeg the Edomite said to [Saul], If you’re inquiring about whether or not he is fit to rule, you’d best ask whether or not he’s fitting to be part of the community or not, for he is descended from Ruth the Moabite” (Yebam. 76b). Although of course, if we are to adopt Gerlemann’s (aforementioned) opinion that the story was written before the deuteronomic prohibition of marriage with Moabites, then this problem is less acute – although the question of why King David is presented as the descendant of a foreigner still stands.

13

the narrative, and already in Midrash Ruth Rabbah, Rabbi Zeira comments that the story comes to teach about the importance of kindness and its great reward (2:14).15 Many modern scholars have adopted this approach, such as Goitein, Rebera, Davis, and Garsiel, who show how the theme of kindness is in fact the backbone of the entire story;16 or Vellas and Würthwein, who emphasize the elements of kindness in the story that relate to family loyalty.17 However, even though the theme of kindness and family loyalty is 15 See below, at the beginning of the discussion about the book of Ruth’s attitude towards the law. 16 S. D. Goitein, Bible Studies (Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1957) 49–58 (Heb.); B. Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2:20 Reconsidered,” BT 36 (1985); E. F. Davis, ‘’All That You Say, I will Do’: A Sermon on the Book of Ruth,” in Scrolls of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs (ed. P. S. Hawkins and L. C. Stahlberg; New York: Fordham UP, 2006) 3–8; M. Garsiel, ‘’The Literary Structure, Art of the Storyteller and Development of Plot in the Book of Ruth,’’ Hagut Ba-Mikra 3 (Tel-Aviv:1979) 82 (Heb.) “The theme of kindness and its reward is the main focus of the book of Ruth.” Many have adopted this approach, or a variation of it. 17 B. M. Vellas, “The Book of Ruth and its Purpose,” Theologia 25 (1954) 201–210; Würthwein, Ruth, 5–6. As I will emphasize below, in my discussion of chap. 2, Rebera and Goitein’s approach is correct: the story is carefully designed to encourage the reader to reject family loyalty as the underlying motives for the kindnesses performed. Rather, these acts stem from compassion and appreciation for another’s own kindness. The approach that perceives family loyalty as the narrative’s objective can be added to the approach (mentioned below, p. 7) that sees the importance of levirate marriage and perpetuation of the name of the dead as the story’s main objective (such as: D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (New York: Mack Publishing, 1974) 170–72; Vellas, “Purpose,” 209; Driver, Introduction, 454; Gray, Ruth, 401; S. Glander, “Ruth: on the Relation Between ‘Frame’ and ‘Narrative’ as Indication of Meaning,” Bet Mikra 28 (1983) 150–155 (Heb.); F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther (WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996) 48–53). Nonetheless, the ceremony performed in Ruth is not levirate marriage in the classic sense (see below, in my introduction to chap. 4), and it is therefore problematic to claim that the story’s main objective is to encourage levirate marriage (see further rejection of this possibility in the words of O. Singer, “The Purpose of the Book of Ruth – Defense and Apology, not Protest and Disputation: A New Look in the Light of J. Licht’s Research on the Biblical Narrative,” in Fifty Years

14

inarguably central to the story, it does not necessarily serve as the story’s objective – rather, it may serve another objective that is reinforced by the thread of kindness woven throughout the story.18 3. Encouraging Observance of the Law of Levirate Marriage and Redemption. Gray, who holds this view, argues how the narrator already emphasizes Boaz’s family ties in his introduction in the beginning of chap. 2, thus paving the way towards the redemption which is fulfilled at the end of the story.19 Indeed, the story’s culmination in Ruth and Boaz’s marriage strengthens the argument that this marriage is the purpose of the story, but once again, let us differentiate between a central motif – even a particularly prominent one – and a story’s objective. Central motifs are designed to reinforce of Dead Sea Scrolls Research (ed. G. Brin and B. Nitzan; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2001) 25 (Heb.). 18 It should be noted that the word “kindness” is only mentioned three times in the text, and its precise meaning in these cases should be examined. In S. Bendor’s wake (“The Significance and Growth of Kindness (Hesed) in the Bible,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 10 (1986) 47–59 [Heb.]). Rozenson claims that as the term “kindness” (‫ )חסד‬is associated with the word “covenant” (‫)ברית‬, its meaning is therefore “a favor which contains an element of duty in regard to family duty, covenant or [some other kind] of agreement” (Compare also: K. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, Missoula: Scholar’s, 1978); A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. by K. C. Hanson), Continental Commentaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 45). Therefore, Rozenson claims, the text makes limited use of this term because Ruth is acting out of a superior place that out of the duty associated with ‫ ;חסד‬for Ruth is not obligated in any way (I. Rozenson, A Treatise of Megillot [Jerusalem: Michlelet Efrata, 2002] 80–82). Gow claims that if the theme of ‫ חסד‬was the narrative’s main objective, then we would expect this word, or its synonyms, to be more prevalent (Ruth, 116). And indeed, those who hold that the theme of kindness is the book’s main objective tend to overemphasize the text’s use of the word, as F. Meltzer does in his discussion of key terms in the book of Ruth: “the expression ‫ חסד‬is one of the key expressions for the book’s purpose” (Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra series; Jerusalem: The Rav Kook Foundation) 11 [Heb.]). See also Singer, Purpose, 24–25, who adopts ‫ חסד‬as a key term in the story, but rejects the notion that it is the story’s main objective. 19 Gray, Ruth, 370–71. See also in the discussion of chap. 4.

15

the objective and are therefore necessarily related to it, but they are not necessarily the actual objective that motivates the writing of the story in the first place. 4. A Polemic Against Ezra’s Opposition to Marriage with Foreign Women.20 According to this approach, Ruth’s foreignness (her Moabite-ness, no less!) is emphasized, so that the reader can trace the process of her acceptance into the Israelite community and her transformation into a role model to the extent that she merits bearing King David himself. This reading, too, is not unproblematic. Rowley already argues that the story can equally be read as one that supports the exclusion of foreign women, seeing as how Ruth is presented as an obvious exception, who commits to a sincere covenant with the God of Israel, and it is therefore difficult to use her character and marriage as an example for intermarriage in general.21 Some have claimed that the book of Ruth is completely lacking in polemical tension – in the words of B. M. Vellas: “A book which was written in those troubled times of Ezra and Nehemiah as a protest against those men could not possess that beautiful atmosphere and those idyllic surroundings which, so skillfully, the author of Ruth creates, nor could it be possible to possess an unforced, serene and calm tone of style.”22 I am not convinced by Vellas’s claim that the narrative is completely “serene and calm,”; that Ruth’s reception in Bethlehem is completely “idyllic” and devoid of social tension as she struggles for acceptance in Bethlehemite society 20 A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judenthums (trans. by Y. L. Baruch; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1949 [Heb.]). An extensive biography that adopts this approach can be found in: Rowley, “Marriage,” 173, comment 1; A. B. Ehrlich, Mikra KiPheshuto (New York: Ktav, 1969) 393 (Heb.); A. Meinhold, „Theologische Schwerpunkte im Buch Ruth und ihr Gewicht für seine Datierung, “TZ 32 (1976) 129–37; A. LaCocque, „Date“; Zakovitch, Ruth, 18–20; Amit, Hidden Polemics, 95–98. 21 Rowley, “Marriage,” 173. 22 Vellas, “Purpose,” 207. Ilana Pardes also cites his words, and comments that Gunkel phrases this similarly (I. Pardes, “Creation According to Eve,” in Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).

16

(tension reflected, for example, in the words of the supervising boy in 2:6–7); nor do I accept the assumption that polemical arguments cannot be presented in “serene, calm” guise, although Vellas is correct in stating that the subject of marriage with foreign women is not discussed openly in the story. Indeed, many have vehemently rejected this approach, for example, Weinfeld, who writes that this theory has “absolutely no basis in the text,”23 or as Kaufmann puts it: “The question of mixed marriages is not at all hinted to. Ruth is unique and special in her character, her kindness and her love. How can this story be of any use in defending mixed marriages in general?”24 In fact, in a certain sense, there are hints scattered throughout the text that reflect a critical stance of intermarriage. This is most strongly conveyed through the unexplained death of Naomi’s sons in the exposition – unexplained but immediately preceded by the information that they married Moabite women and settled in Moab (which I discuss below). This reading is not binding, but it is highly unlikely that the narrator would have juxtaposed the sons’ marriage and death to allow such interpretation if his objective was to legitimize marriages of this very kind. I very much identify with Athalya Brenner’s summary of this issue: “In the book of Ruth, there is no explicit opinion regarding the question of mixed marriages with foreign women. Ruth’s tale, as it is told, may serve as ammunition against both advocates and adversaries of exogamous marriage.”25 5. Justification of Ruth – and the Davidic Dynasty’s – Moabite Origins. This approach is favored by Gerlemann, Gow, Singer and Schwab. Using similar terms, all four express how the story seeks to validate Ruth, the mother of the Davidic dynasty, despite her Moabite

23 Weinfeld, Encyclopedia, 522. 24 Kaufmann, Religion (Vol. 2), 211. See also Singer’s criticism of this approach: Singer, “Purpose,” 28–29. 25 A. Brenner, The Book of Ruth: Literary, Stylistic and Linguistic Studies (Tel Aviv: Afik and Sifriyat Po’alim, 1988) 72 (Heb.). See also Amit’s response to Brenner (Amit, Hidden Polemics, 95).

17

origins.26 In contrast to the previous approach, advocates of this objective do not read the text as a legitimizer of intermarriage in general, but rather as a validating exploration of Ruth and her acceptance within Israel. According to this approach, the objective is indeed polemic, but is not directed against the separatism of Ezra – rather, it addresses those who undermine David’s right to rule: “to justify King David’s partially foreign ancestry and to purify him and his House from the stain of assimilation.”27 The different approaches mentioned here are all based on narrative components, but, as Singer comments: In general, the various topics that comprise the work, such as kindness, the law of levirate marriage and redemption, the loyalty to the land of Israel and so on and so forth, neither practically nor conceptually govern all its narrative components, and therefore do not convey its complete message.28

The book of Ruth, for all its brevity, is a rich and profound work comprising an intricate network of themes, and the various approaches mentioned do not, I believe, encompass and unify these themes, do not illuminate this work as an organic unit, for they are all based on specific themes within this network. I wish to propose an objective that does unify the multiple strata in this work, one that does touch upon the profound depth of this rich, enduring tale. The theme that weaves the story’s narrative threads together is the concept of compassion towards the Other, and it is this compassion which serves as a preamble to Israelite monarchy, to the birth of David. Ruth, in this

26 Gerlemann, Ruth, 5–11; Gow, Ruth, 132, 199 (who shows a similar perspective can be found in sources as early as Midrash Ruth Rabbah [8:1] 132, comment 42); Singer, “Purpose,” 29–36. G. M. Schwab, “Ruth,” in Numbers – Ruth (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) 1294 (but see there alternatives options). 27 Singer, “Purpose,” 29. 28 Singer, “Purpose,” 26. See also: E. L. Greenstein, “Reading Strategies and the Story of Ruth,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (ed. A. Bach; New York and London: Routledge, 1998) 211–231.

18

work, represents the ultimate “Other”29: her foreign origins are noted at several crucial turning points in the story, not in order to raise the question of intermarriage but to discuss the general question of how to relate to the foreigner, to the underbelly of society. Ruth is a woman, a widow, a foreigner, lodging with her widowed mother-in-law, and without each other’s help, and without the help of society, they would not be able to survive;30 the book of Ruth is, in the words of Marques, a “survival guide.”31 The story presents Ruth’s kindness and compassion towards her mother-in-law and Boaz’s kindness and compassion towards Ruth, and this itself serves as David’s lineage, as a process which culminates in the founding of the Israelite kingship: monarchy has a place so long as the king is concerned not with himself but with his subjects, and with the weak and needy among them in particular. The book of Ruth’s objective, therefore, can be defined as a bridge suspended between the book of Judges and the book of Samuel.32 The book explicitly opens in the period of the Judges (“And it came to pass in the days when Judges ruled”), and is embedded with other, gentler allusions that invite the reader to read the story against 29 See a discussion of Ruth’s “ultimate” otherness in: A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 88; LaCocque, Ruth, 3; Judith A. Kates and Gail Twersky Reimer, Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story  (New York: Ballantine, 1994), xviii–xix; O. Avnery, The Threefold Cord: Interrelations between the Books of Samuel, Ruth and Esther (Ph.D. Thesis; Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2012). 30 Berlin also favors this direction over the claim that the book serves as a polemic against Ezra, but in her opinion, Ruth’s otherness is d0esigned to emphasize the women’s relationship: “it seems more correct to explain Ruth’s foreignness as a means of emphasizing the fact that the mutual responsibility the women took on towards each other results from free choice rather than family duty” (Berlin, Novellas, 419). 31 M. A. Marques, “Los caminos de sobrevivencia: una lectura del libro de Rut,” Revista de Interpretación Bíblica Latinoamericana 63 (2009) 66–72. 32 Among others: B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978) 25; S. Bahar, “‘And It Was in the Days When Judges Ruled’: What’s the Connection Between the Book of Judges and the Book of Ruth?” Bet Mikra 35 (1990) 149–154; Zakovitch, Midrash, 51–52.

19

a backdrop of the concluding stories of the book of Judges (chaps. 17–21).33 In contrast, the story concludes with the mention of David, and its final verses subtly allude to the opening of the book of Samuel – the townswomen’s description of Ruth to Naomi: “Who is better to you than seven sons” (4:15) echoes Elkana’s words to Hannah: “Aren’t I better to you than ten sons?” (1 Sam 8),34 and the elders’ blessing to Boaz: “through the offspring that the Lord will grant you from this girl” (Ruth 4:12) recalls Eli’s blessing to Elkana: “May the Lord grant you offspring from this woman” (1 Sam 2:20).35 This story is most conveniently placed, therefore, where it is placed in the Septuagint: between the book of Judges and the book of Samuel. Bezalel Porten claims that Elimelech’s very name – which opens the story – is consistent with this framework: “The story opens in the period of the Judges and with Elimelech, whose name means ‘My God is King, and ends with David, the king chosen by God.”36 David Jobling, in a more drastic proposition, offers the book of Ruth as an alternative to the story of Saul’s kingship – for it presents a journey parallel to the beginning 33 See: E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 35–36 (he mentions surprising linguistic connections between the end of Judges and the beginning of Ruth in order to prove that the latter was written after Judges had been deuteronomistically edited); E. H. Merrill, “The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985) 130–41 (“Bethlehem trilogy”); T. Linafelt, Ruth (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Minnesota: Liturgical, 1989) xxv–xxii; R. Grant, “Literary Structure in the Book of Ruth,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991) 426; M. Morgenstern, “Ruth and the Sense of Self: Midrash and Difference,” Judaism 48 (1999) 131–146; Zakovitch, ibid. This is in contrast to G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh 1903) xxxii. 34 The substitution of 7 for 10 is not significant as both are typological numbers that express multiplicity (Campbell, Ruth, 164). Brenner surmises that the author of Ruth wanted to link this verse with another part of Hannah’s story, to her song of thanksgiving in 1 Sam 2:5: “until the barren one has borne seven” (Brenner, Ruth, 114). 35 For other hints to the Davidic dynasty embedded in the text, see: Hals, Theology, 21–34; Zakovitch, Ruth, 32–33. 36 Porten, “Rhetorical,” 25.

20

of the book of Samuel, one that skips over Saul’s reign and arrives directly at the kingdom of David.37 If so, the book of Ruth’s objective is to sketch out a fitting model of behavior towards the weak and underprivileged member of society, one that serves as a bridge between the anarchic havoc of the end of the period of the Judges and the beginning of the Israelite Monarchy.38 Moreover, this objective is yet more specific. The question of relation to the Other is set within a world of legal and social conventions that do not allow the full realization of compassion. Each scene in the narrative presents a set of conventions that must be bent or broken in order to advance Ruth’s acceptance into Bethlehemite society. The author of Ruth seems to hold the conviction that accepted norms must be shattered in order to allow compassion towards the weak to be fully realized. This objective is consistent with the claim that Ruth was compiled at the beginning of the Monarchic period, but it is also easily reconciled with the argument that its compilation dates to the period of the Second Temple. While the exiled Judeans who returned to Jerusalem were conscious of the need to renew the monarchy, they were faced with severe social obstacles. The figure of David must have served as a monarchic prototype to aspire to: “There were certainly those who wished to restore the Davidic dynasty to its rightful place, a goal which became historically evident with the immediate appointment of Sheshbazzar the son of Jeconiah.”39 Even if this was not Davidic kingship in its fullest sense, hope for a renewed monarchy no doubt filled the hearts of the exiles who returned home: “Once the political framework had collapsed, there was no practical, historical need for monarchy. But now the concept of monarchy took on the ideal form 37 D. Jobling, “Ruth Finds a Home: Canon, Politics, Method,” in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, (ed. J. C. Exum and D. J. A. Clines; Sheffield: Trinity, 1993) 133. See also Avnery, Threefold, 231–33. 38 Compare: Y. Ziegler, Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2015). 39 B. Oppenheimer, “The Prophets of the Return to Zion,” in The World History of the Jewish People: The Restoration – The Persian Period (ed. H. Tadmor; Jerusalem: Am-Oved, 1983) 147–64.

21

of the re-blossoming of a branch from the tree of Jesse, and became an embodiment of hope that former glory would be restored.”40 The crisis that emerged as a result of such hopes colliding with the harsh political, economic and social reality speaks for itself. In this context, the upper class’ exploitation of the weaker sectors of society deserves special mention: On the day of your fasting, you do as you please, and exploit all your workers… Is this the kind of fast I have chosen… Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? … Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loosen the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? (Isa 48:3–7)

Thus the book of Ruth is especially fitting for the time of the Second Temple: the author seeks to convey that the founding of kingship in Judea must be preceded by mutual compassion; that enduring monarchy can only be established when all the hungry are sated; when all those in tatters are clothed; when the poor wanderer is provided with shelter. The objective I propose weaves various accepted opinions into one complex moral message: the book of Ruth is a bridge between anarchy and monarchy that can only be crossed through kindness and compassion towards the Other: kindness and compassion which break convention to privilege the spirit of the law over its letter.

The Structure of the Book of Ruth The main plot of the book of Ruth follows the structure of the classic story: the narrative opens with a description of Naomi’s great strife 40 S. Talmon, “The Beginning of the Return to Zion,” in The History of the Nation of Israel: The Return to Zion – the Days of Persian Rule (ed. H. Tadmor; Jerusalem: Am-Oved, 1983) 28–39.

22

following the death of her husband and sons (rising action; conflict), and, following two encounters between Boaz and Ruth, Naomi’s family is built anew (falling action; resolution). In fact, the plot rests on two narrative complications, both of which are solved through Boaz. The exposition already presents two separate crises: famine and death. While Naomi only returns to Bethlehem after she hears that “the Lord had taken note of His people and given them bread” (1:6), both problems remain. Upon her return to Bethlehem she is still a destitute widow. When Ruth encounters Boaz in the field (chap. 2), the problem of sustenance is solved when Boaz shares his bounty with Ruth and entreats her to glean on his field for the rest of the harvest season. In this respect, Boaz takes the place of the providing husband who cares for his wife’s needs. In the scene at the threshing floor, which is resolved at the gate scene (chaps. 3–4), the problem of continuity is solved when Boaz takes Ruth for a wife and she bears a son – Obed. Each of the three protagonists take on a certain role, which they play on both narrative threads: 1. Naomi is the “victim,” the suffering figure in need of salvation. She is passive in relation to the two other protagonists of the story, and the narrator reveals very little information about her. Her soul-baring soliloquy in chap. 1 conveys, above all, her role as suffering victim – and she will be saved only through the actions of the other characters in the story, who act for her sake. This is the case in both chap. 2, when Ruth goes out to the field to glean to provide for them both, and in chap. 3, when Ruth steals away to the threshing-floor. Although Naomi is the one who propels the plot by urging Ruth to go to the threshing-floor, events actually unfold far away from her, without her knowledge or supervision. Her absence and distance from the action is not merely geographical, but rather reflects how unfolding events stray from her original intentions. This process is consistent with the general narrative

23

tone: the one in need achieves salvation through the kindness of others – the victim is unable to bring about her own redemption.41 2. Ruth represents the figure of the heroic mediator: she is the one to bring salvation to Naomi’s doorstep, fulfilling this role on both narrative axes. She ventures out into Boaz’s field to glean (chap. 2) and through her the family line is resurrected (chaps. 3–4). In this context, the first words that the narrator has Naomi utter in the narrative: “May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me” (1:8) relate not only to her past relationship with her daughters-in-law, but also anticipates the entire plot. The kindness realized in the story as a result of Ruth’s deeds is twofold: she returns to Naomi’s house bearing grain to fill her empty stomach, and a child to fill her empty arms. 3. Boaz is the “saviour figure.”42 While Ruth must spur him to action to solve both their hunger (until Ruth comes to glean in his field, he has not helped Naomi out of his own initiative) and their bereavement (Ruth must approach him upon the threshing-floor to move him to take action), in both cases he immediately reacts to her needs with kindness that far exceeds her expectations, acting to end the two widows’ distress out of choice. K. M. Saxegaard reads Boaz as the one who “brings God’s blessing into the

41 Defining Naomi as a victim does not prevent her from being the hero of the story. As LaCocque shows (Ruth, 6) the other figures in the story are presented in terms of their connection with Naomi (“Naomi’s husband”; “her sons”; “her daughter-in-law,” “her husband’s kinsman”), and the story opens with her tragedy and concludes with her consolation. 42 Sasson also defines them thus, and Mieke Bal opposes this definition. In her opinion, these readings are based on the implications – often, unconscious – of a masculine reading of a text that is derived from the classic myth pattern in which the male character is the hero who saves the weak, defenceless women (M. Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Indiana­ polis: Indiana University Press, 1987) 78. However, it is difficult to find proof in the text to support her claim that the narrator mocks Boaz. See also Ed. Greenstein, “Lethal Love by Mieke Bal (a review),” Journal of Religion 69 (1989) 395–96.

24

narrative,”43 and her words are justified in the text (2:4,12 ; 3:10), but as I will show in a theological discussion of the story, the relationship between the actions of God and people is more complex. Thus, all three protagonists play the same role on both narrative strands of the plot. Between Naomi the victim and Boaz the savior stands Ruth the Moabite, the foreigner, as mediator. She is no mere mediator walk-on; she is presented in an unusually heroic light, and every single one of her acts is performed for another’s sake.44 She is the one who brings Boaz’s seed into Naomi’s house: seed from his field that she has gathered in her arms; and seed she carries in her womb to perpetuate the name of Naomi’s deceased sons – “a son is born to Naomi” (4:17). Each scene, in fact, concludes with Ruth presenting Naomi with a gift from Boaz – in chap. 2, she gives her leftover parched grain that Boaz hands her; in chap. 3 she gives Naomi the six measures of grain that Boaz has folded into her apron; and in chap. 4 she presents her with Boaz’s son. Moreover, she is the sole mediator between them – Boaz and Naomi do not meet within the narrative, nor is any dialogue related between them. Despite the fact that they never meet, they use similar language and expressions throughout the narrative,45 which reflects their similar backgrounds and mindsets 43 K. M. Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 154–55. 44 An example of such a walk-on character is the figure of Hathach in the book of Esther, who mediates between Mordechai and Esther in chap. 4. Both Ruth and Hathach mediate between two Israelite figures, a man and a woman – but while Mordechai and Esther require only a temporary mediator, Naomi and Boaz do not exchange a single word for the duration of the narrative. Whereas Hathach disappears in the heat of Mordechai and Esther’s exchange (and the disappearance of a mediator symbolizes the breaking point of Persian norms and their submersion into a deeply Jewish discourse), Ruth’s mediation only becomes stronger and more significant, to the point that she herself becomes the indispensable founder of an Israelite dynasty. See: J. Grossman, “The Vanishing Character in Biblical Narrative: The Role of Hathach in Esther 4,” VT 62 (2012) 561–571. 45 T. Cohn-Eskenazi and T. Frymer-Kensky, Ruth (JPS; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011) 49.

25

– and nonetheless, two Israelites from Bethlehem need the help of a Moabite girl in order to communicate with each other. Regardless of any technical explanations for their failure to meet (perhaps Boaz resented Elimelech and Naomi’s departure from Bethlehem in time of famine; perhaps he thought that the closer redeeming kinsman was taking care of them, etc.) this disjunction plays a clear literary role, one that allows Ruth to fulfill her role as dedicated mediator who offers her very self as a solution to both problems.

Artistic Structure As it often happens, the straightforward linear plot also conceals a complex artistic-literary pattern. Frederic Bush argues that the book of Ruth contains four main sequences (according to the number of chapters), and each sequences is composed of three scenes.46 Others have commented that the story’s structure is even more complex, and arranged in a chiastic structure. While there is dispute regarding the precise division into components, the general structure can be presented thus:47

46 Bush, Ruth, 56. 47 For similar structures, see: S. Bertman, “Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth,” JBL 84 (1965) 165–168; B. G. Green, A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth (Ph.D. Diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1980); B. Porten, “Structure, Style, and Theme of the Scroll of Ruth,” Association for Jewish Studies Newsletter 17 (1975) 224–25; Porten, “Rhetorical,” 23–24; K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 1–5 (and for a discussion of the slight differences between them see Nielsen, page 1 comment 1); Linafelt, Ruth, 28–30; Schwab, “Ruth,” 1309. In contrast, David Dorsey proposes a concentric model with Ruth’s arrival in Boaz’s field marking the turning point of the entire narrative (D. A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1999] 126).

26

a. 1:1–7 Death in Moab b. 1:8–22 Ruth’s voluntary commitment to Naomi (in contrast with Orpah); The women of Bethlehem speak to Naomi, who gives herself a new name c. 2:2–23 Ruth and Boaz’s encounter in the field (Ruth asks Naomi if she should go to the field, and Naomi consents / Ruth arrives at the field / Boaz inquires after her identity / Boaz urges Ruth to remain in his field, blesses her and gives her food / Ruth reports back to Naomi, who reacts). c’. 3:1–18 Ruth and Boaz’s encounter at the threshing-floor (Naomi urges Ruth to go the threshing-floor and Ruth consents / Ruth goes down to the threshing-floor / Boaz inquires after her identity / Boaz urges Ruth to remain at the threshing-floor, blesses her and gives her food / Ruth reports back to Naomi, who reacts). b’. 4:1–17 Ruth is legally recognized as part of Naomi’s family (Boaz as opposed to the anonymous redeemer). The women of Bethlehem speak to Naomi and give a name to Naomi’s heir. a’. 4:18–22 The family is re-established in Bethlehem

According to this structure, the story can be divided into two main parts: chaps. 1–2, and chaps. 3–4.48 Bertman is convinced that the significance of this structure is purely literary: an aesthetic convention; designed to produce narrative balance, and so on and so forth.49 Nielsen proposes that this structure is designed to create the impression of order: the great tragedy that opens the story serves as a platform for redemption so great that it leads to the birth of a royal dynasty in Israel. This order contributes to the sense of divine providence, of the hand of God that sends forth famine and salvation at will.50 This chiastic structure emphasizes the theme of reversal, of renewal: in context of both plot and character. The story opens with death, and ends with birth and life; the grave loneliness of two childless 48 This structure is valid even when tracing the characters’ actions, as suggested by Shimon Bar Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 (1980) 154–173. 49 Bertman, “Design,” 168. 50 Nielsen, Ruth, 5.

27

widows is healed with a new family; tragedy is transformed into the promise of royalty. This reversal is especially apt in the framing units of the story (a-b/ b’-a’). For now, it suffices to mention the motif of “naming,” which is noticeably repetitive in these units: “The name of the man was Elimelech/ the name of his wife was Naomi/ and the name of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion…and they married Moabite women, the name of one was Orpah and the name of the other was Ruth (1:2–4).” This motif can be traced throughout the story, culminating in the final scene of the narrative in chapter 4: “to perpetuate the name of the dead on his estate…and I am also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, wife of Mahlon for a wife, to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his estate, and the name of the deceased will not be cut off from amongst his brothers and the gate of his hometown…be valiant in Ephratah and let your name be called in Bethlehem…and the women said to Naomi, Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today, and they called his name in Israel… and the neighbors gave him a name, saying, A son is born to Naomi, and they called his name Obed, who is the father of Jesse, who is the father of David (4:5–17). In the final scene, this theme is particularly emphasized through its repetition throughout the rapidly shifting perspectives: Boaz asks the anonymous redeemer to perpetuate the deceased’s name; when he refuses, Boaz does so himself; the elders at the gate bless Boaz that his name will be called in Bethlehem; the women also bless the child that his name be called in Israel; and finally, the narrator relates how the neighbor-women name the child, using language that emphasizes this naming. This intensive repetition of the concept of naming hints that this name will indeed be perpetuated: Naomi lost her family, but she is comforted by her new one; Elimelech’s family was almost wiped out, but it is successfully perpetuated on his estate.51 51 See, in particular: Porten, “Rhetorical,” 24; G. H. Cohen, “Name-Giving in the Book of Ruth,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 2 (1986) 151–160 (Heb.); Saxegaard, Character, 57–63; and below, in the discussion of chap. 4.

28

The chiastic structure of the story also guides the reader to trace the unfolding of this reversal in the central units of the story, that is, in Ruth and Boaz’s twin encounters (c-c’). These characters drive the plot, generating its rebirth. Thus, the chiastic structure reflects the central plot: the transition from tragedy to redemption through human action, action which stems from kindness and compassion.52 Moreover, this structure allows the reader to track Ruth’s reception by the Bethlehemite community, which is notably different in the two halves of the story – chaps. 1 and 2; and chaps. 3 and 4. Despite Boaz’s moving address to Ruth in the field, her social status proves to have changed only in the threshing-floor scene, when for the first time, the reader (as well as Ruth herself) learns that the people of Bethlehem and the town elders see her as a “valiant woman,” and Boaz reveals that he is prepared to take her for a wife.53 Summarizing the scene of the threshing-floor, Hubbard writes: Ruth’s social status rose remarkably. For the first time she emerged as a person addressing Boaz with her own name (3:9). She was no longer ‘the Moabitess’ (2:6) – strange, unwelcome, despised. She was no longer a lowly šiphâ (2:13) but an āmâ (3:9) able to propose marriage. More importantly, she was a ‘worthy woman,’ a good match for a man of Boaz’s standing.54

The reversal in Ruth’s status in chap. 3 exceeds the confines of the threshing-floor scene and touches upon the entire structure. In their encounter at the field, Boaz already showers kindness upon Ruth, but he only accepts her as an Israelite upon the threshing-floor. In chap. 2, 52 For another discussion of the theological message hinted through the structure, see: J. Grossman, “The Structure of the Book of Ruth and its purpose,” in El Asher Telchi: Studies in the Book of Ruth (ed. E. Buchris; Jerusalem: Ketav Va’Sefer, 2002) 49–63 ( Heb.). 53 Some have claimed that at the end of the story, Ruth is still ostracized and related to as the Moabite woman (A. Levine, “Ruth,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary [ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe; Louisville: John Knox 1992] 78–79; in greater detail Avnery, Threefold, 134–54). According to this reading, Ruth’s status does not improve. For the course of the story, I will argue that Ruth’s status does change, and the attitude of others changes towards her. 54 Hubbard, Ruth, 229.

29

in both the reader and Ruth’s mind (and perhaps even in Boaz’s), Ruth needs compassion in the field because of her very otherness, her foreign­ness, because she does not belong. In contrast, in the scene upon the threshing-floor – which opens the second half of the story – Ruth begins her legal and social integration into Israelite society, becoming part of Boaz’s own people. The plot reversal expressed through this chiastic structure emphasizes another principle, one especially pertinent to this discussion: Ruth joins Naomi in chap. 1 out of the goodness of her heart,55 and this voluntary action is justified through this pure motive -the story’s conclusion with legal validation of this act only comes as post-facto affirmation. With regard to these two interconnected processes – the emotional and legal aspects of Ruth’s commitment to Naomi – the former is presented before the latter, and is thus illuminated as both its predecessor and its premise. In this narrative, the role of the law is to endorse emotional expression that stems from kindness and compassion. This idea reflects one of the most profound, fundamental concepts of the book of Ruth – the question of perception of the law and legal norms.

55 This is the accepted reading. Other readings have been offered here and there, Ahuva Ashman’s suggestion among them: “However, it is likely that the choice of Ruth (a childless widow) is made not only out of compassion for her motherin-law, but also due to the possibility that Naomi has her husband’s property in Judah (Ruth 4:3, 5, 9). Elimelech’s property will not only sustain the two widows, but will present Ruth with a better chance of remarriage … if so, Ruth’s decision to join Naomi was more carefully calculated than Orpah’s, for her mother-in-law’s possessions included her dowry, Elimelech’s property in Moab, and his portion in Judah” (A. Ashman, The Story of Eve: Daughters, Mothers and Strange Women In Bible (Tel-Aviv: Yedi’ot Ah aronot and Sifre Hemed 2008) 58 (Heb.), and see below, in the discussion of the theology of the book of Ruth). Ashman’s reading, however, overlooks the order in which information is relayed to the reader. In chap. 1 the reader has no knowledge of Elimelech’s field, and Ruth is characterized, therefore, regardless of this information. As many have commented, the narrator characterizes Ruth as an altruistic character in different ways, and it is problematic to base Ruth’s decision to join Naomi on the existence of Elimelech’s field, which is not even mentioned in chap. 1. ▪

30

Theology in the Book of Ruth While some claim that it is difficult to detect theological statements within the text and Ruth ought to be read as an aesthetic work that has no ramifications on the understanding between God’s relationship with the world,56 these positions barely dot the scholarly horizon. The prevalent position holds that the story’s design is given to questions of theological significance, primarily concerning the bearing of divine providence upon the plot. In relation to this issue, I first wish to present two approaches that pertain to a more general position in relation to the story and its characterization. The predominant opinion perceives the narrative as an idealized story which presents “pleasant,” “gentle” characters; one that hardly contains conflicts; a story that, in Goethe’s words, is “the most charming and ideal” of all the stories of the Bible. Some scholars have challenged this approach, and claimed that complications and tensions can be found within the story, and even if they are not evident at first glance, they are readily revealed in its analysis. According to this approach, the characters are not typical “types,” but complex, developing characters with shifting motivations and fluid inner worlds, subjected to criticism of the narrator himself.57 Fewell and Gunn, for example, claim that Naomi, on her part, would have preferred that Ruth – the Moabite “inconvenience” who clings to her – stay in Moab;58 Ashman suggests that Ruth has ulterior 56 Kaufmann, Religion, vol. 2, 211–14. See also this position as taken by Vellas, “Purpose,” 204–05; Sasson, Ruth, 249. 57 Linafelt, Ruth, xiii–xvii; D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990); Ashman, Eve; P. Galpaz-Feller, Naomi: A Mother of a Nation – a New Reading of the Book of Ruth (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2010) 57 (Heb.). 58 Fewell and Gunn, Redemption, 72–76, and they are even harsher in their article “‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth,” JSOT 40 (1998) 99–108. See also: Cohn-Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky,  Ruth, lxvi; T. Linafelt, “Narrative and Poetic Art in the Book of Ruth,” Interpretation 64 (2010) 117–129, who does not adopt this stance, but does admit

31

motives for joining Naomi (such as Elimelech’s property);59 similarly, Galpaz-Feller argues that Naomi is moved to act by her interest in securing the plot of land: “Naomi relies upon the laws of society, but she will use deception to exploit them to achieve her end.”60 Linafelt follows Boaz’s actions and claims that despite the obvious generosity that Boaz showers upon Ruth in the field (chap. 2), the reader cannot help but wonder why Boaz did not approach them before Ruth came to his field – and why he presses her to continue gleaning instead of providing the two widows with some of his own food. This criticism is consistent with Mieke Bal’s reading, who claims that Boaz is presented as a figure suffering from sexual performance anxiety, and even his name, which suggests strength, should be read in an ironic light.61 With regard to Naomi returning from the fields of Moab, Linafelt – similarly to Fewell and Gunn – argues that her lament that she has returned “empty” reveals tension between the mother-in-law and the daughterin-law, tension not usually mentioned by scholars, and, in his opinion, it is no surprise that the neighbors in chap. 4 must remind Naomi that her daughter-in-law loves her. These readings rely on information provided in the text itself, but they remain unconvincing. The characters of the book of Ruth are (reasonably) typical, unchanging figures characterized by their unwavering morality and sensitivity to their environment,62 and we will address any deviations from these typical roles in their proper place. Nonetheless, I wish to adopt Linafelt’s stance in relation to a single character – to the representation of God. The accepted approach reads God’s character, its possibility, and the reader must fill in the gaps – as they must fill in other narrative gaps related to characterization – based on his or her general sense of the character. 59 Ashman, Eve, 58 – her words are cited above. 60 Galpaz-Feller, Naomi, 57. 61 Bal, Lethal Love, 78–79. 62 Because of the consistent nature of the characters’ representation (ie, there is no character development), Humphreys argues that Ruth should be considered a “short story” rather than a “novel.” W. Humphreys, “Novella,” in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature (ed. G. Coats; JSOTSup 35; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 85.

32

too, as stereotypical: God governs reality and dictates the actions of all, even if His presence is covert. Some have even perceived divine providence as the force that leads to the Davidic dynasty as the story’s main objective. Thus, for example, Frederic Bush defines the narrative’s main theme: “Yahweh’s gracious provision of fruitfulness for field and womb.”63 Similarly, Kirsten Nielsen seeks to explain the story’s connection to the story of Judah and Tamar as the hand of God enabling the founding of the Davidic line,64 and, in Hubbard’s words, “Yahweh is indeed very much at work… Why did the writer apparently present divine providence with such conscious understatement? Evidently, he wanted to stress two things about Yahweh’s work in the world: its hiddenness and continuousness.”65 This approach has been adopted by Campbell to the extent that he reads God as “the primary actor in the drama,” even though he remains in shadow.66 Hals, who devotes an extensive study to the question of theology in the book of Ruth, sees the story’s theology as consistent with that of other biblical narratives (such as Joseph, Esther and the question of David’s heir), where the hand of God is hidden but remains the main propeller of the plot,67 and in the words of Radday and Welch: The story of the book of Ruth is a natural, practical story, seemingly a tale of flesh and blood alone, with no intervention from above. However, things are not as they seem, for all is really unfolding according to the will of the God of Israel. He is the one who guides the path of man and woman – as if from behind the scenes… it follows that the narrative’s objective is neither social, nor even genealogical, but theological.68 63 Bush, Ruth, 52. 64 Nielsen, Ruth, 14–17. 65 Hubbard, Ruth, 70. 66 Campbell, Ruth, 28–29, and others phrased this similarly: P. Humbert, “Art et lecon de l’histoire de Ruth,” RTP 26 (1938) 284; Rudolph, Ruth, 33; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Joshua, Richter, Ruth, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969) 259–260; Hubbard, Ruth, 67. 67 Hals, Theology. 68 Y. Radday and J. Welch, “The Structure of Ruth,” Bet Mikra 24 (1979) 187 (Heb.). Saxegaard phrases this similarly: Character, 34–35. See also: Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (ed. T. Longman and P. Enns;

33

Here, too, Linafelt takes a different approach – claiming that it is difficult to understand why scholars argue for God’s government of the story despite the fact that He is openly introduced at its end, when He grants Obed’s conception (4:13).69 God, as he writes, is not “hidden” in the story, but rather, simply “absent” (until 4:13).70 Indeed, the narrator, surprisingly enough, does not incorporate comments pertaining to divine intervention in the story, and the reader therefore receives the impression that the plot develops through the characters’ actions and decisions, rather than through hidden reasons connected to divine will. Although Linafelt seems to be overlooking subtle hints of God’s providence as one parameter that has bearing on the plot (as Hals, and others in his wake, show),71 the author’s failure to mention God at several critical narrative crossroads is somewhat surprising, especially as he ultimately presents the birth of David as a result of divine will, similarly to other birth stories of heroes in the Bible. It appears that according to the book of Ruth, God acts in partnership with man: He creates windows of opportunity, but the characters themselves must choose what path to take. Unlike the usual concept of “dual causality” in the Bible, wherein two sets of footprints can be traced throughout the narrative, and every agent propels the plot forward with His, his or her own agenda, here, God presents the circumstances, but the characters themselves must decide how to react to them.72 Therefore, Gow writes inaccurately when he comments that: “The marriage of Ruth the Moabitess to Boaz, and the birth of Obed Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008) who read God as the true redeemer even in Ruth chap. 4. 69 Linafelt, Ruth, xvi. 70 Linafelt, Ruth, xvii. 71 Many perceive the “dual causality” present in the story as the narrative’s expression of a theological perspective expressed in other biblical narratives. In this particular context, Ruth has been compared to the story of David inheriting the kingship; to Esther; and the story of Joseph. See, for example: Hals, Theology, 34–53; Weinfeld, Encyclopedia, 520; D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 81. 72 A similar approach has been taken by: W. S. Prinsloo, “The Theology of the Book of Ruth,” VT 30 (1980) 330–41; K. D. Sakenfeld, Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster and John Knox, 1990) 14–16; R. L. Hubbard Jr.,

34

who becomes the grandfather of David, are thus seen to be the result of divine providence.”73 Ruth’s marriage to Boaz results directly from choices freely made by characters in the story. God brings the characters together at critical points in the narrative – notably, in chapter 2, as I discuss in context – but they are the ones who come together in a way that will allow Obed to result from their union – it is only once Boaz chooses to take Ruth for a wife that the Lord “granted her pregnancy” (4:13) resulting in the birth of the grandfather of King David. This theological notion can serve as the basis of the analogy between the story of Ruth and the story of Abraham’s servant and Rebecca in Genesis 24.74 Common themes are already evident at first glance: both stories are concerned with family continuity, which is enabled by the mother of the line’s willingness to leave her father’s house and her homeland behind her and marry a kinsman in the land of Israel. Moreover, both women are characterized by their kindness – to the extent that it can be said that this kindness is what awards them the right to mother the dynasty. Beyond the similar components of the plot, the very language of the stories seems to be intentionally allusive:75

“Theological Reflections on Naomi’s Shrewdness,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989) 283–92. 73 Gow, Ruth, 112. 74 My intention is not only to define both of these stories as “short stories,” (like Humphreys, “Novella,” 85), but to ascribe them with intentional intertextuality. See: Weinfeld, Ruth, 12; Hals, Theology, 44–47; Meltzer, Ruth, 13–14; Zakovitch, Ruth, 28–29; O. Singer, “Sediments of Language from Biblical Literature in the Book of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 44 (1999) 56–57 (Heb.); Grossman, “Structure,” 58–63; G. H. Cohen, Studies in the Five Megilloth (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education: 2006) 122–26 (Heb.). Nonetheless, this does not prove that this is the main subject of the story, as Porten suggests: “About fifteen parallels to Genesis 24 prove that the subject of the book of Ruth is God’s way of matchmaking a young widow with an aging bachelor” (Porten, “Structure,” 227). Rather, this intertextuality is designed to serve the main objective. 75 For other, more marginal connections, see: Cohen, Studies, 122–125.

35

Ruth Go, return, each woman to her mother’s house (1:8) May the Lord deal kindly with you (1:8)

Abraham’s Servant and Rebecca And the girl ran and told her mother’s house (Gen 24:28) And deal kindly with my master Abraham (12) For wherever you will go, I will go Will you go with this man, and she said, (1:16) I will go (58) And it happened, by chance (2:3) Please allow it to happen today (12) Whose girl is this (2:5) Whose daughter are you (47) Blessed is the Lord, who has not with- Blessed is the Lord, God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld His held His kindness from the living and kindness and faithfulness from my the dead, and Naomi said to her, This man is a redeeming kinsman (2:20) master, for on my journey God has guided me to the house of my master’s brother (27) If you will redeem, then redeem, but if he If you will show kindness and faithfulwill not redeem, tell me, that I may know ness to my master, tell me; and if not, (4:4) tell me, so I may know which way to turn (49) And Boaz took Ruth and she became And he took Rebecca and she became his wife (4:13) his wife (67)

While this intertextuality clearly contributes to Ruth’s status – for by comparing Ruth to Rebecca, the author silences those who denounce a foreign woman’s integration into the Israelite nation,76 in the context of this discussion, I wish to draw attention to their analogous 76 This is based on the assumption that the author of Ruth was familiar with the story of Abraham’s servant. In Alexander Rofé’s opinion, the story of Abraham’s servant dates back to the period of the Second Temple, in which case it is likely that this story actually drew expressions from the book of Ruth (A. Rofè, “The Betrothal of Rebekah (Genesis 24),” Eshel Beer-Sheva 1 (1976) 42–67 (Heb.). Most scholars reject so late a dating for the story in Genesis (see, for example: Westermann, Genesis 12–36 [Continental Commentary; trans. by J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995] 383–84). Some of those who argue for earlier compilation do so based on similar phrases in both stories, as does Rofè, but reach the opposite conclusion (that Ruth draws from the story in Genesis – such as F. G. López, “Del ‘Yahwista’ al ‘Deuteronomista’: Estudio critico de Gen 24,” RB 87 (1980) 242–273, 350–393, 514–559(, while some rely on Ancient Eastern legends, such as the legend of Keret (K. T. Aitken, “The

36

theological perspective, particularly in relation to the characters’ decisions alongside the acts of providence.77 In both stories, the reader senses that God’s hand allows the characters to meet, but in both stories, the plot advances as a result of the characters’ free choice to act out of kindness. If Rebecca would not have decided to quench the thirst of the traveler and his camels, their meeting would have been fruitless;78 if Boaz would not have singled the Moabite girl out and treated her with such compassion, it is unlikely that events would have unfolded as they did.79 If so, the intertextuality between the two stories reflects a common theological perspective in relation to destiny and free choice. In the story of Rebecca, the author of Ruth found a theological model that is manifested in his own story: providence arranges circumstances, but does not force the characters to act. Thus, the acts of compassion and kindness performed out of free choice highlights the aspect of kindness in the story, for a plot driven by divine decree has no need for human compassion – if God’s hand takes full responsibility, then one way or another, redemption will come. The author of Ruth takes care to emphasize the characters’ free choice in each scene, their freedom to choose their own actions and reactions to the circumstances – for Wooing of Rebekah: A Study in the Development of the Tradition,” JSOT 30 (1984) 3–23). 77 For a similar (but not identical) variation of the above proposal, see: Gow, Ruth, 49–50; 103–104; Cohen, Studies, 125. 78 In contrast to Rofé, who claims that the story of Abraham’s servant’s encounter with Rebecca is similar to the story of Joseph in that “here too, God acts covertly, without revelation,” but differs because the servant’s plan is known in advance, for God “revealed it in speech and through promises to those faithful to him” so that the characters act with knowledge and intent, “able to turn to [God] in prayer, reasonably expecting that he will answer them and assist them in their initiative,” unlike the characters in the story of Joseph (Rofè, “Betrothal,” 66). In this claim, Rofè overlooks the perspective of Rebecca, who is the one who must pass the servant’s test, and who acts out of kindness without any knowledge of the greater implications of her actions. At this decisive point in the plot, God does not intervene, nor can He intervene, for this is the very point of the test. 79 Compare: Bahar, “Judges,” 153.

37

only such kindness can lead to the story’s happy end, and only such compassion can found a royal dynasty in Israel. This approach is also expressed through the book of Ruth’s unique attitude towards the law.

Attitude Towards the Law Rabbi Zeira’s words in Ruth Rabbah are well-known: “This book contains neither impurity nor purity, neither prohibition nor permission, so why was it written? To teach you the magnitude of the reward of doers of kindness” (2:14). Rabbi Zeira’s assumption that the book of Ruth is devoid of descriptions pertaining to Israelite Law is surprising. Ostensibly, chap. 2 is based on the charity law of gleaning, while chap. 4 refers to the laws of field redemption, and certainly alludes to the law of levirate marriage.”80 However, to claim that the book of Ruth centers on issues of law and Israelite custom is a problematic assumption. Much research has been devoted to the question of the narrative’s attitude towards accepted biblical law – yet a general sense of confusion prevails. Beattie is correct in claiming that reading Ruth generates a sense of historical realism, and it is unlikely that the author would have made up laws that his readers would have deemed impossible81 – but any attempt to claim that the plot is based on normative law as we know it is met with difficulties.82 In both the field scene and the legal scene at the gate, there are gaping disparities between the accepted legal norms and how they come into play in the plot. This, indeed, generates great 80 Concerning the laws and the commandments that can be found in the text, see: M. Z. Segal, Tradition and Criticism: A Collection of Articles about Biblical Research (Jerusalem, 1957) 178–185 (Heb.); A. Malamat, “The Book of Ruth in Light of Jewish Law,” Sinai 48 (1961) 152–160 (Heb.). 81 D. R. G. Beattie, “The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice,” VT 24 (1974) 251–267. 82 See, for example: Hubbard, Ruth, 48–63.

38

confusion: the claim that the author of the text invented special laws for the purpose of his writing is highly illogical, for the story seems to be based on known biblical laws (such as leqet, leaving ears for the poor to glean; field redemption by a kinsman; and in a certain sense, even levirate marriage), but each law deviates greatly from its usual form. Baruch Levine rightly claims that legal representation in a narrative ought to be read with the text’s literary agenda in mind – such deviations must be taken into account, for they are designed to achieve a particular purpose.83 This is particularly important in relation to the book of Ruth, given that the narrative sustains a complex dialogue with the legal world and its normative conventions for the course of the story.84 The narrator evidently tries to present the law within its boundaries, but the law is constantly teased out of these boundaries by human compassion. The spirit of the law triumphs over the letter of the law, or, in LaCocque’s words, the reading of Ruth generates the sense that “God is greater than His Law.”85 This can be seen as manifestation of the concept of “beyond what the Law asks,”86 but as this expansion of the law also has bearing on social conventions that are not necessarily legal (such as the question of the woman’s role and her status), it seems that what we have before us is a model of values that dictates that society should be governed by compassion rather than institutionalized law or social convention. This principle is embraced by the aforementioned Levine and Bal: Levine demonstrates how the law of redemption is recharged with new significance, so that while the author uses familiar legal discourse within a familiar semantic field, he is in fact, reconfiguring the laws themselves – (perhaps using 83 B. A. Levine, “In Praise of the Israelite Mišpaha: Legend Themes in the Book of Ruth,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God (ed. H. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 96. 84 Bal, Lethal Love, 81. 85 LaCocque, Ruth, 28. 86 Or other definitions that LaCocque brings (Ruth, 28) in Campbell’s name (Ruth, 110): “Plus factor,” and in Atkinson’s name: “love beyond the law” (D. J. Atkinson, The Wings of Refuge: The Message of Ruth [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1983], 110).

39

Roland Barthes’ terminology, we could call it “a stolen language”);87 Bal shows how the narrative reveals tension between the letter of the law and its spirit. This tension, she writes, is strung most tightly around two points within the narrative: Ruth’s identity as a Moabite clashes with the prohibition to accept Moabites into the Israelite community (Deut 23:2–4); and Boaz attempts to fuse the laws of field redemption with the law of levirate marriage.88 I believe that the model presented by Levine and Bal is manifested throughout the story, as I will discuss throughout this work.89 In this light, we can return to Rabbi Zeira’s words and reinterpret them: Indeed, the book of Ruth contains neither impurity nor purity, neither prohibition nor permission, for these are not the forces that motivate the plot. Rather, the narrative is motivated by the force of kindness and compassion for the Other, which eclipses law and social convention alike.

The Narrative’s Employment of Legal Discourse The narrative aim to reinterpret the law is also evident in the language of the text. In Geoffrey Leech’s study of the associative meanings of words, he defines a “stylistic meaning” as a certain semantic field that contains certain words, and the incorporation of words of one semantic field into a narrative based on a different subject raises associations

87 Levine, “Praise.” 88 M. Bal, “Heroism and Proper Names, or the Fruits of Analogy,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 56–58; Bal, Lethal Love, 81. She claims that every law contains certain tension that inherently limits the individual’s freedom: regulating his relationships with his environment and with other generations – those before him and those after him – but this limitation is what enables the existence of the freedom of others. 89 Compare: Schwab, “Ruth,” 1299–1303.

40

of the “area of meaning” they belong to within that narrative.90 This phenomenon is evident in the book of Ruth – the narrative’s incorporation of legal expressions is widely recognized, and the subject of several important studies. However, the position these studies take seeks to retrieve the customary legal practice from within the narrative: “To explore terms, expressions and metaphoric imagery in the Bible, to strip them of their common literary guises to reveal their technical meaning, which has been lost to the contemporary reader.”91 I wish to pursue the opposite position: rather than attempt to extract the legal customs from within the narrative, I will explore the particular literary representation of the laws as they feature in the text. Such expressions, heady with legal resonance, feature throughout the book of Ruth, but the author chose to present them in a particular light, a light that highlights the personal-ethical significance of these terms, leaving their actual legal implications in the shadows. I will point out these terms throughout my discussion of the text; for now, I will mention a few:92

90 G. N. Leech, Semantics (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1974) 10–27. For examples of this phenomenon, see: J. Grossman, Ambiguity in the Biblical Narrative and its Contribution to the Literary Formation (Ph.D. diss., Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006) 157–159 (Heb.) (there, this phenomenon is referred to as “associative defamiliarization.” 91 M. Malul, Society, Law and Custom in the Land of Israel in Biblical times and in the Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006) 36 (Heb.). See his broad discussion of other scholars who take this approach, and many examples. 92 It is difficult to discern if in all the cases listed indeed refer to a legal formulation – scholars are usually in dispute in this regard. I have omitted some cases, like the words of the elders to Boaz: “May the Lord grant the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah,” (4:11) which recalls the passage of the beautiful foreign woman – “and you shall bring her into your house” (Deut 21:12) – in light of which Bush claims that this phrase is a fixed legal formulation (Bush, Ruth, 239–240). If he were correct, this would be a good example of how the legal world is infused into the narrative context of the elders’ joy at Boaz’s marriage, but it is difficult to conclude that this phrase is a legal formula based on the phrase from Deuteronomy.

41

1. In the Ancient East, it was acceptable for a widow to remain with her late husband’s clan, however – and this is particularly evident in Assyrian law – if she has no sons (or her children are too young to provide for her), she may leave the clan and remarry, assuming she has the family’s permission to do so.93 In light of this custom, Hubbard proposes an interpretation of Naomi’s words to her daughters-in-law: “Go, return, each woman to her mother’s house” (1:8) as formal release from the clan – now, they are officially permitted to remarry.94 It is difficult to ascertain if this legal custom indeed informs the story, but if so, then it is clear that the author presents the practice of “releasing the daughters-in-law” within a personal dialogue; that the characters are motivated within a semantic field of concern and empathy. 2. Ruth’s reply to Naomi’s plea can also be interpreted in light of legal formulations, as Brenner proposes, reading Ruth’s declaration: “wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried” (1:16–17) as an echo of a slave’s pledge of loyalty to his master (as in Exod 21:5).95 This concept is developed by Smith, who refers to other biblical sources (like 1 Kgs 22:1–4; 2 Kgs 3:4–7) and extra-biblical sources (such as the first book of Maccabees 12:19–23, and Ugarithic texts found in Ras Shamra), claiming that Ruth’s words can be understood as a contractual obligation that contains legal formulations that bind her to Naomi, despite the fact that their official kinship terminated with the death of Mahlon.96 Here, too, the author empties legal formulations of their formality, representing them instead as an expression of loyalty and sacrifice. These legal formulations, in turn, were originally derived from such expressions of love, so 93 ANET 182. 94 Hubbard, Ruth, 104, n. 48. See also Ashman, Eve, 57–58. 95 A. Brenner, “Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy,” in Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 158–162. 96 M. S. Smith, “Your People Shall be My People: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16–17,” CBQ 69 (2007) 242–259.

42

the book of Ruth in fact harks back to their original significance, expressing love and loyalty once again. 3. The verb “to acknowledge” has long been recognized as a verb with legal implications (for example, in Deut 21:17).97 Daube shows how this verb functions in several biblical narratives, devotes an extensive discussion to Jacob’s “acknowledgment” of Joseph’s coat (Gen 37:33), and cites other passages where the legal significance of the verb is evident (Deut 33:9; Isa 63:16; Jer 24:5; Ps 142:5–6), among them Ruth 2:10 (“How have I found favor in your eyes, that you acknowledge me, when I am a foreigner?”) and 2:19 (“May your acknowledger be blessed”). In his opinion, these verses deliberately employ this expression for its legal connotations.98 Bush rejects this claim, arguing that in the context of a chance encounter between two characters in a field, there is no room for legal discourse.99 I am inclined to reconcile these two conflicting opinions: incorporating this legal term in the story thus depletes its legal significance, replenishing it with personal, emotional meaning. The author deliberately employs a legal term to raise legal connotations in context of an act of generosity and compassion to serve as a macrocosm of the story’s objective of reconfiguring the letter of the law to privilege its spirit. 4. The expression “spread your wing” appears to be related to the formal world of marriage and the husband’s obligation to protect his wife.100 When Ruth beseeches Boaz upon the threshing-floor to 97 This is also correct in regard to people’s relationships with each other, mainly in family contexts. See: J. Fleishman, “Did a Child’s Legal Status in Biblical Israel Depend upon His Being Acknowledged?” ZAW 121 (2009) 350–368. 98 D. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 3–8. He phrases his commentary on Ruth 2:19 most carefully: “Even where it is a question of the relationship between God and His people, the legal force of the term may be at the back of the writer’s mind” (8), and Malul makes a similar claim (Society, 157, comment 29). 99 Bush, Ruth, 123. 100 A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (Stockholm: Coniectanea Biblica; Old Testament Series 34, 1992) 136–144; Malul, Society, 217 and on.

43

“spread your wing over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman” (3:9), many read this as a formal marriage proposal. However, seeing as the reader hears this expression after Boaz has already blessed Ruth that “may you be fully recompensed from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge” (2:12), where this is clearly not a marriage proposal, Ruth’s words can also be understood as a reference to their previous exchange – as a request for protection and compassion.101 Here Ruth, in the words of Francis Landy, “literalizes the metaphor.”102 5. The most interesting wordplay revolves around the term “redemption” (‫)גאולה‬, and many have debated how to understand this term in its various appearances throughout the story.103 Naomi defines Boaz as a “redeemer” to Ruth (2:20), and Ruth refers to Boaz thus to his face (3:9); thus the closer kinsman is described by Boaz in relation to Ruth (3:12–13), and this term features in the final scene at the gate in reference to the field (4:3–6). Scholarly confusion results from the assumption that this expression retains a consistent meaning throughout the narrative. Rather, the term “redemption,” which is indeed rooted in the legal world of field redemption, also functions in the story as a general expression of family relationships. As Beattie writes: “… a statement, expression or word in a narrative context need not be interpreted so strictly as the same word would be in, say, a legal text.”104 In literature, a particular word may not retain a single meaning 101 See a wider discussion on this subject below, of the verse in question. 102 F. Landy, “Ruth and the Romance of Realism, or Deconstructing History,” JAAR 62 (1994) 298; LaCocque comments that “This process of de-metaphorization” is particularly manifested in Ruth and the Song of Songs (Ruth, 96). Nehama Aschkenasy even suggests that Ruth “uses the word ‘wing’ not only as a metaphor of protection, the way Boaz used it in an earlier scene, but in the physical sense of “the corner” of his blanket, or robe.” (Nehama Aschkenasy, “Reading Ruth through a Bakhtinian Lens: The Carnivalesque in a Biblical Tale”, JBL 126 (2007), 450). 103 See especially: J. Bewer, “The Geullah in the Book of Ruth,” AJSL 19 (1902–3) 143–148; A. R. Johnson, “The Primary Meaning of ‫גאל‬,” VTS 1 (1953) 65–77. 104 D. R. G. Beattie, “Ruth III,” JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48.

44

throughout a narrative: rather, it may serve different functions at different points, while its overall reappearance creates literary unity within the narrative as a whole.105 Thus Naomi’s words to Ruth at the end of the field scene: “This man is related to us, he is our redeeming kinsman” (2:20) can be understood as a simple parallelism: he is related to us / he is our redeeming kinsman: redeemer = relative. Some have rightly argued that Naomi’s use of the word “redeemer” hints to her suppressed hopes of legal redemption,106 but this does not reflect the word’s primary definition in this context, and at this point in the story.107 In the final scene, however, there is no doubt that the word “redeemer” dons its full legal significance – while in the scene at the threshing-floor, which serves as transition between field and gate, the use of the term, appropriately enough, takes on certain transitive ambiguity. Ruth bases her request to Boaz on the basis of his being a “redeemer,” i.e. “kin”: “spread your wing over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman” (3:9). It is unclear how the legal responsibility to redeem the family’s fields necessarily justifies a request for marriage – indeed, some have proposed that this conceptual annexation is indeed mistakenly founded,108 or based on a previously unheard of ancient law.109 However, the plain meaning of this verse seems to indicate that Ruth is simply using the term in the same sense as Naomi in chap. 2.110 Nonetheless, use of the 105 See further: J. Grossman, Ambiguity, 53–62. 106 This opinion is held, among others, by: Humbert, “Art,” 270–71; Hubbard, Ruth, 189; Zakovitch, Ruth, 83. See below. 107 As opposed to Galpaz-Feller, Naomi, 53. Bush comments, unequivocally, that Naomi’s use of the term “redeemer” is not in the legal-technical sense (Ruth, 136). In his opinion, the context is suitable for the general Biblical sense of the term: “which it is frequently used in reference to God’s action on behalf of his people” (137). Applying this meaning to Boaz in the context of Naomi and Ruth’s dialogue is also unsuitable. As I discuss above, I believe that in this context, this term is used as a synonym for “kinsman, family member.” 108 E. Robertson, “The Plot of the Book of Ruth,” BJRL 32 (1950) 218. 109 For example: A. Jepsen, “Das Buch Ruth,” TSK 108 (1937/8) 420–421; Hubbard, Ruth, 52. 110 See: Beattie, “Ruth III,” 44, and below, in my discussion on this verse.

45

term “redeemer” in such proximity to the gate scene where the term appears in its full legal sense can hardly be coincidental, and the reader can detect an element of legal obligation evoked within the intimate nature of her request.111 Boaz’s reaction has also generated notable confusion amongst commentators and scholars, for Boaz raises the problem of the closer redeeming kinsman, whose closer kinship, it later turns out, is relevant in the context of field redemption – a subject which Boaz does not mention at all for the time being (see below, in my discussion of chap. 4). The term “redeemer,” then, begins its narrative journey as a synonym for the word “kinsman, relative,” all the while suggestive of legal significance. However, in its final appearance, its initial meaning is restored: “Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today” (4:14). Assuming that the women refer to the newborn child,112 its plain meaning is, once again, “kinsman, relative,” devoid of concrete legal connotations.113 Thus, the personal, familial associations that accompany the term “redeemer” open and conclude the story, while it features in its legal sense only in the interim. 6. Scholars debate how to interpret Naomi’s actions at the end of the story: “And Naomi took the child and she held it to her bosom” (4:16). Some are convinced that the act of taking the child to her bosom constitutes a legal act of adoption.114 However, the narrative context presents this act in a different light, for the narrator does not continue in this vein and does not add “and he became a son to her” or some such expression that indicates unequivocal legal adoption. Rather, it seems that here, too, an act that raises 111 Compare: Landy, “Ruth and the Romance of Realism,” 300. 112 Some have suggested that they refer to Boaz (as early as J. Bewer, “The Goël in Ruth 4:14,15,” AJSL 20 [1903–4] 202–206), although this is the minority opinion. 113 For example: Beattie, “Ruth III,” 253; Cohen, “Name-giving,” 155, and see my discussion of the verse, below. 114 For example: Viberg, Symbols, 166–176; Malul, Society, 222. See a broader discussion of this issue in my discussion of the verse, below.

46

legal associations is integrated into the story with emphasis on the characters’ emotional experience. 7. The infusion of the legal with the personal is also striking in the elders’ blessing to Boaz at the gate scene. As Bush has commented, they commence their speech by defining themselves as witnesses – anticipating a purely legal statement – whereas their blessing deviates from the formal-legal field and focuses instead upon Boaz’s kindness to Ruth and the community’s acceptance of Ruth into Bethlehemite society.115 Thus, as I will discuss in depth below, an inherently legal scene ultimately testifies to the emotions and appreciation stirred up between the characters, so that the act of “perpetuating the name of the deceased” – a clearly legal principle – is illuminated by the compassion of the characters towards both the living and the dead.

Intertextuality Reflecting Violation of the Law The book of Ruth is saturated with allusions to other biblical narratives. Besides its close intertextuality with the story of Abraham’s servant and Rebecca (Gen 24) mentioned above, scholars have detected other narratives that inform the story of Ruth, stories from Genesis in particular. Among them are the story of Lot and his daughters in the cave (Gen 19); Abraham’s journey to Canaan and his ensuing descent to Egypt due to famine (12);116 and other 115 Bush, Ruth, 239–40. 116 “Abram returned from Egypt with great wealth, after the Lord “smote Pharaoh with great afflictions”… [whereas Naomi] returned to her land and her town after her household was smote with great afflictions during the years of her exile, and her husband and sons died. Naomi returns to Bethlehem with nothing” (Zakovitch, Ruth, 29–30). Rozenson expands on this cross-reference in context of a broad discussion of the distress caused by famine in the story: Treatise, 72–77. For a discussion of the many references between Ruth and Genesis, see: J. L. Vesco, “La date du livre de Ruth,” RB 74 (1967) 246–47; Porten,

47

stories from both Genesis and the rest of the Bible hinted to throughout the story.117

The Story of Judah and Tamar In contrast with implicit allusions found within the narrative, the story of Judah and Tamar explicitly serves as background to the entire “Structure,” 227; C. M. Carmichael, “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt,” JBL 96 (1977) 335; Hubbard, Ruth, 40; Zakovitch, Ruth, 24–30. Hals argues for a (primarily thematic) connection between this story and the story of Joseph (Hals, Theology, 34–44). Y. Ziegler, Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy (Jerusalem: Magid, 2015) 59–73. 117 For example: for connection with Job, see: W. E. Phipps, Assertive Biblical Women, )Connecticut: Greenwood, 1992) (he also compares Ruth and Naomi with David and Jonathan, as does Saxegaard, Character, 117–118); Zakovitch, Ruth, 30–31; A. Bazak, “A World of Kindness will be Built: The Book of Ruth and the Book of Job” Megadim 18 (1993) 169–175 (Heb.); Galpaz-Feller, Naomi, 36–37. R. Shoshany, “A Study of Two Tales in Midrash Ruth Zuta and Their Adaptation in Hibbur Yafeh me-ha-Yeshu‛ah,” JSIJ 7 (2008) 85–87 (Heb.). For a discussion of the connection with the acrostic “A Woman of Valor” (Prov 31), see: T. P. McCreesh, “Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31:10–31,” RB 92 (1985) 25–46; Y. Levine (Katz), “Between the Book of Ruth and the Acrostic “A Woman of Valor,” in El Asher Telchi: Studies in the Book of Ruth (ed. E. Buchris; Jerusalem: Ketav Va’Sefer, 2002) 101–109 (Heb.). For its connection with the birth story of Moses (Exod 2) see: G. Peeley-Harnik, “Naomi and Ruth: Building Up the House of David,” in Text and Tradition (ed. S. Niditch; Atlanta: Scholar’s, 1990) 163–191. For its connections with the story of the Concubine of Gibeah (Judg 19) see: W. A. Gage, “Ruth upon the Threshing Floor and the Sin of Gibeah: A Biblical-Theological Study,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989) 369–375. For its connections with the story of David and Abigail (1 Sam 25) see: Y. Berger, “Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25,” JBL 128 (2009) 253–272, and with David and Bathsheba: Y. Berger, “Ruth and the David-Bathsheba Story: Allusions and Contrasts,” JSOT 33 (2009) 433– 452.There is room for debate as to whether all these allusions are intentional (Compare: Saaxegard, Character, 12–14).

48

narrative,118 unrestricted to a particular scene.119 Tamar is mentioned by the elders in their blessing to Boaz (4:12), while the genealogical list of David appendixed to the story opens with Peretz (4:18), the son who resulted from Judah and Tamar’s union. While it is fitting to bless Boaz through the founder of his house, the head of his dynasty, the explicit mention of Tamar and Peretz seems particularly calculated to bring their story into the reader’s conscious. Various connections link the two plots, but here it will suffice to follow the main lines of each story in order to prove the similarity between them:120 1. Both stories open with family tragedy: the death of two of Judah’s sons and the death of Naomi’s two sons (and her husband). 2. Both stories follow an inversio, and conclude with birth.

118 Yaira Amit shows that the story of Ruth relies on the story of Judah and Tamar (“Narrative Analysis: Meaning, Context, and Origins of Genesis 38,” in Method and Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen (ed. J. M. Lemon and K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009) 285. 119 This analogy is so striking that West devotes his entire dissertation to the relationship between the two stories (R. F. West, Ruth: A Retelling of Genesis 38? (Ph.D dissertation; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987). 120 For a discussion of the this analogy and other connections between the two stories, see: Kaufman, Religion, part 2, 212; Rudolph, Ruth, 69; D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50) (SVT 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 17; H. Gunkel, The Folktale in the Old Testament (trans. by M. D. Rutter; Sheffield: Almond, 1987) 142; H. Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History,” VT 32 (1982) 425–37; Zakovitch, Ruth, 26–28; Y. Zakovitch and A. Shinan, The Story of Judah and Tamar (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1992) 224–26 (Heb.); Gow, Ruth, 136–41; Nielsen, Ruth, 16–17; Rozenson, Treatise, 97–98; Hubbard (Ruth, 261, comment 49) comments that in the dynasty of Jesus, Tamar and Ruth are also named amongst his foremothers (Matt 1: 1–16); E. van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997) 1–28; Aschkenasy, “Reading Ruth through a Bakhtinian”, 437–453. David Silber suggests that there is a linguistic connection between the name Tamar (‫ )תמר‬and “exchange” (‫)תמורה‬, Ruth 4:7 (D. Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kingship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster and John Knox, 1991) 163, n. 25).

49

3. The protagonist of each is a foreign woman (a Canaanite or Moabite) who has lost her Israelite husband. 4. Both women, at one point in their story, await marriage with a man who is never to marry them (Shelah; the anonymous redeemer), but are redeemed by another family member (Judah; Boaz). 5. In both stories, the woman makes an unorthodox attempt to perpetuate her in-laws’ line: Tamar dresses up as a prostitute to become impregnated by Judah; Ruth steals down to the threshing-floor in the dark of night and through this act, Boaz agrees to see to her redemption.121 6. The son Tamar bears, Peretz, becomes the head of the dynasty of Boaz. The main point of analogy lies in the plot itself, but similarities can also be found within the language of the narratives. For example, the anonymous redeemer refuses to take Ruth for a wife, explaining that “I cannot redeem, lest I destroy (‫ )אשחית‬my own estate,” (4:6), similar to the description of Onan, who refuses to have levirate relations with Tamar: “and it was when he came upon his brother’s wife he spilled his seed (‫ )ושחת‬to the ground” (Gen 38:9) – among others. At the same time, the extensive parallel between the two narratives, their shared themes and plot, also spurs the reader to note the differences between the stories. While Tamar commits an act of deception, no such act is committed in the story of Ruth – each character acts in awareness and takes full responsibility. While Tamar is thrown out of her father-in-law’s household and is forced to wait for the younger son to grow in the hope that he will take her for a wife, Naomi discourages her daughters-in-law to wait around in vain hopes of marrying the sons Naomi is too old to bear (1:8–9) – and yet Ruth 121 This point is particularly expounded upon by Gunkel. In his opinion, the underlying theme of both stories is connected to a motif found in ancient Egyptian literature, which concerns a woman conceiving with her husband’s seed – even after his death! – through magical, wondrous feats, through which the husband merits continuity. He emphasizes that in the stories of Tamar and Ruth, this motif lacks the magical aspect, and, of course, the story does not concern the actual seed of the dead husband (Folklore, 141–42).

50

chooses to stay with her mother-in-law, even at the price of the loss of potential suitors. At various stages of the story, Judah can be paralleled to Naomi and to Boaz –122 in comparison to the latter, there are striking differences. Until Judah admits that “she is right” (Gen 38:26) the story is implicitly critical of him – Tamar’s desperation is a result of Judah’s unjustified behavior towards her,123 and her resultant redemption does not arise from his own actions, but from actions performed behind his back and without his knowledge.124 Boaz appears in striking contrast, presented as a positive figure throughout the story who takes responsibility for the future of the two widows although he had nothing to 122 In some components of the narrative comparison, Judah is paralleled with Naomi (see, in particular: R. Walfish, “Judah, Naomi, and Everything in Between,” in El Asher Telchi: Studies in the Book of Ruth (ed. E. Buchris; Jerusalem: Ketav Va’Sefer, 2002) 74–81 (Heb.). At the beginning of the story, Naomi and Judah are the characters who lose their sons, and the stories both center upon the question of this family continuity. However, as I mention above, Boaz is the one who marries Ruth in a “levirate” marriage, whereas Judah himself impregnates Tamar. This technique of character reversal in analogies is prevalent in biblical literature (J. Grossman, “‘Dynamic Analogies’ in the Book of Esther,” VT 59 (2009) 394–414) and manifests itself here. 123 Judah was convinced that his sons’ death was Tamar’s fault, while the narrator reveals that their deaths were due to their “wicked” deeds (Gen 38:7, 10) (and see also: M. G. Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity (London and New York: Routledge, 2000) 114). 124 Although, at the story’s end, Judah is shown to admit his mistake, and receives two sons in the place of the ones who died at the beginning of the story. I am therefore not convinced that this story is anti-Judean, as Zakovitch and Shinan claim (“an anti-Judean story, a story that mocks the founder of the tribe of Judah, the father of the House of David” – Zakovitch and Shinan, Judah, 220; and similarly: Fewell and Gunn, Narrative, 34–45; Brett, Genesis, 112–15 [in his opinion, criticism of Judah already began in chap. 37 and continues in 38]). Amit is correct in her definition of the story as “a story of reversal”: in regard to judgment of Judah in the story, the reader undergoes two opposite processes (Y. Amit, “On Conclusions, Particularly Inappropriate Ones,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 9 (2009) 51–53 (Heb.). And see also J. Petersen, Reading Women’s Stories: Female Characters in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 119–164). For other examples of “stories of reversal,” in regard to a critical perspective of characters, see: Grossman, Ambiguity, 251–265.

51

do with their tragedy in the first place.125 Not only is Ruth’s character illuminated through Tamar’s, but Boaz stands in contrast to the figure of Judah. What, if so, is the purpose of the analogy between the stories? Clearly, if the story’s objective is to guide the reader to the monarchy and the rule of David, then the classic story to refer to is the story of the founding of the dynasty – that is, the story of Peretz. Beyond this superficial reason, it seems that there is a deeper connection between the stories. In Nielsen’s opinion, the comparison between the two stories highlights God’s intervention in the story of Ruth that leads to the founding of the royal dynasty, which does not happen in the story of Judah and Tamar, where the plot develops through human action alone.126 This approach, however, assumes that God is presented as a fully active (if partially hidden) character in Ruth’s story, an assumption which is not necessarily founded. As I discuss above, for most of the narrative, the narrator does not mention divine intervention, and similarly to the story of Judah and Tamar, the story’s happy end is a direct result of the characters’ free will. In Zakovitch’s opinion, this comparison was intended to cast the cast of Ruth in a positive light, for they do not act in secret or in deception, and the distinctions I have mentioned indeed support this reading.127 Two other contributions can be noted in light of this comparison: firstly, Tamar’s foreignness legitimizes Ruth’s – in all likelihood, Tamar’s character is well established and accepted by the author and his listeners. This is especially evident in the blessing of the elders at the gate, who cite Tamar as a role model (4:12) – comparing Ruth to Tamar effectually sends the former along the path of the latter, who has successfully integrated into the Israelite nation and is unanimously recognized as foremother of the community. As I discuss in chap. 4, 125 The reader may indeed ask him or herself why Boaz does not help the widows before he meets Ruth (see, in particular: Linafelt, Ruth, xiii–xvii; Bal, Lethal Love, 78–79), but there are no hints of criticism for this lack of action in the text. 126 Nielsen, Ruth, 17. 127 Zakovitch, Ruth, 26–28.

52

Rachel and Leah are also mentioned in relation to Ruth, and these three women of Genesis – Rachel, Leah and Tamar – serve as symbols of Ruth’s acceptance into the Israelite community.128 Secondly, the analogy between the two stories informs Ruth’s subtle dialogue with the world of law and social convention. Laws and social conventions are shattered in other biblical narratives, but in the story of Tamar, the law is broken for the purpose of family continuity. Although Tamar breaks social conventions, she wins the reader’s admiration.129 By contrarily disguising herself as a prostitute and “stealing” Judah’s seed, she manages to save Judah’s line from destruction. In the story of Ruth, too, various laws are bent, as I discuss below. Reference to the story of Judah and Tamar serves a precedent for the author of Ruth, who seeks to justify his attitude towards the law in light of his objective: to bend its formal limits in order to sustain its spirit, in order to ensure family continuity.

Time and Space in the Book of Ruth Descriptions of space and time comprise the basis of every story, and it is practically impossible to develop a plot without situating it in time and space. Time and its narrative realization has been the subject of countless studies, and some view perspective in time as the central 128 Emanueli takes a similar – but different – approach. In his opinion, “In our chapter [Genesis 38] the author does not reveal his opinion of Tamar – neither negative nor positive – but what he conceals here is revealed by another author in a different place… the author of Ruth chap. 4:12 presents the two in a single verse… Tamar serves as an ideal model, used by the people of Bethlehem in comparison with Ruth the Moabite. There, the author expresses his opinion of Tamar, what the author does not do here. Tamar and Ruth are two women whose line leads directly to King David of Israel,” M. Emanueli, “Tamar, Judah’s Wife (Gen. 38),” Bet Mikra 18 (1972) 25–32 (Heb.). Indeed, the figure of Tamar serves as a role model in the book of Ruth, a characterization which is already evident through the design of Genesis 38. 129 For example, Zakovitch and Shinan, Judah, 212–23.

53

component of fiction, such as Lessing’s definition of literature as the “art of time” (as opposed to painting, which he perceives as the “art of space”). The study of space in literature is arguably less developed,130 and while it may be perceived as secondarily fundamental in relation to time in literature, Y. Even is nonetheless correct in his assertion that “Space… is sometimes presented in literary works as realistic, non-fabricated information whose importance lies in its functioning as a pseudo-realistic backdrop for the work.”131 Moshe Garsiel brings many examples of the latter from biblical narratives, illustrating how the spatial elements of the plot sometimes function as a metaphor for its characters.132 The geographical location of the characters in Ruth seems tailor-made for the plot – Ruth gleans in “the field,” and later goes down to the “threshing-floor” because such scenery is a convenient platform for Boaz’s kindness – with his produce around him, he can easily shower the poor widows with his generosity. “The gate,” too, is a logical backdrop for a scene of legal negotiation, the place where socio-economic procedures are usually carried out. Yet this scenery seems to carry further significance, profound symbolic weight. This is already hinted – as I will discuss in depth below – in the choice of “Bethlehem” as the story’s setting. Not only is it the hometown of the family of David, but two hurdles presented in the plot – the problems of family and food – are both expressed in the very 130 Moreover, some have developed Lessing’s statement by emphasizing how discussion of space leads to discussion of visual art: “Literature is the art of time, while the arts of painting and sculpture are arts of space” (Avner Holtzman, Literature and Visual Art (Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuchad, 1997) 10). 131 Y. Even, A Dictionary of Narrative Terms (Milon Munahei HaSiporet) (Jerusalem: Academon, 1978) 153. 132 M. Garsiel, ‘’Metaphorical and Metonymical Methods of Description in the Biblical Story,’’ Bikoret U-Parshanut (Criticism and Interpretation) 23 (1987) 5–40 (Heb.). See Bar Efrat’s extensive discussion in: S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, Trans. D. Shefer-Vanson (JSOTSup 70; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 184–196; Y. Amit, “The Function of Topographical Indications in the Biblical Story,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9 (1985) 15–30.

54

name of the town – Beth (‫)בית‬, house, and Lehem (‫)לחם‬, bread.133 The name “Bethlehem” plays against “the field of Moab,” which also echoes both narrative threads: “field” recalls fertility of the earth, while “Moab” (‫)מואב‬, “from father” (named by Lot’s daughter, who became impregnated from her father) hints at human fertility.134 Beyond this wordplay, however, the narrative’s spatial depiction reflects the journey of Ruth herself.

Time In the book of Ruth, transition between scenes is marked with descriptions of time, which incorporates the element of time into the backbone of the plot. Intriguingly, these descriptions simultaneously conclude one unit while anticipating the next,135 producing a sequence of scenes interconnected through chronological transitions – a ‘Janus Parallel’ of sorts from a structural perspective: 1. Chap. 1 (the road scene) concludes with a chronological description: “they arrived at Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest” (1:22). This description provides a fitting conclusion for the women’s journey to Bethlehem, which begins when Naomi hears that “in the fields of Moab she had heard that the Lord had taken note of His people and given them bread” (1:6) – Naomi hears that the famine is over and indeed, she arrives to witness the beginnings of a bountiful harvest. This conclusion also anticipates the next scene, when Ruth ventures out to the fields to glean from this harvest. The end of the field scene (chap. 2) forms an inclusio with the aforementioned end of the previous scene: “and she stayed close to Boaz’s girls, gleaning until the end of the barley 133 Green, Field, 62–64; Nielsen, Ruth, 43, and see below, in the discussion of the exposition. 134 Compare: Rozenson, Treatise, 75. 135 Hubbard, Ruth, 228, comment 13.

55

harvest and the wheat harvest” (2:23). The harvest begins at the end of chap. 1 and concludes at the end of chapter 2.136 2. The conclusion of chap. 2 also anticipates the opening of the next scene. The end of the harvest marks the end of Ruth and Boaz’s contact in the field – and what has not yet happened between them will not happen in the field, which prompts Naomi to take action at the beginning of the next scene, when the harvest’s bounty is still piled upon the threshing-floor. 3. The scene at the threshing-floor is also situated in time – at a brief, precise moment in time: “and she said, “Sit my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (3:18). Unlike the two previous scenes’ endings, this ending situates the reader in the present. Moreover, the final verse of the chapter: “but will end (‫ )כלה‬the matter today” is in dialogue with Ruth’s report of Boaz’s words to Naomi at the end of the previous chapter: “until my entire harvest is finished (‫( ”)כלות‬2:21), highlighting the contrast between the ending of the previous scene – where Boaz’s harvest is over, as the prospects of any relationship between him and Ruth seem to be; and the end of this scene, which does not only describe an objective period of time but a subjective point in time. This contrast is also emphasized through the verb “sit” (‫)שב‬, which is used in the conclusion of both scenes: after the harvest season, Ruth returns to “dwell” (‫ )ותשב‬with her mother-in-law, while now, Naomi urges her to sit (‫ )שבי‬with her once again to await the new day in anticipation of what is to come – for in between these “sittings” with her mother-in-law, she has lain at Boaz’s feet. Of course, Naomi’s referral to “today” is the morning after the night before, and the reader, together with Ruth and Naomi, await the next scene. These transitions add to the fluid continuity and coherence of the plot, but beyond these aesthetic contributions, they create profound connections between the scenes that enhance the narrative as a whole. Each character seems to be rewarded for their actions in the previous 136 Compare: Grant, “Literary Structure,” 427.

56

scene: Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi in chap. 1 is recognized by Boaz in chap. 2, which moves him to reward her loyalty (2:11); Boaz agrees to Ruth’s request upon the threshing-floor based on her character, which he and the elders of the town have come to appreciate over the course of the harvest season (3:10–11); and, of course, the redemption of the field and his marriage with Ruth described in chap. 4 are a fulfillment of his commitment in chap. 3. The transition to the final scene at the gate, marked by the precise expression “today” (3:18) is also related to the overall movement of time over the course of the narrative. The story’s exposition spans at least ten years – the family dwelled in Moab for “about ten years” (1:4).137 This fast and furious description unfolds at a different pace than the rest of the story (until the narrator concludes the story by describing how Obed becomes the father of Jesse who is the father of David, at a pace that mirrors that of the exposition). In contrast to chap, 1, chap. 2 takes place over a few months (from the beginning until the end of the harvest scene). The next chapter describes a single night upon the threshing-floor, while the final scene depicts the events of a mere hour or two. Thus the “narrated time” (Erzählte Zeit) contracts in indirect proportion to the “time of narrating” (Erzählzeit).138 This convergence in time touches upon other chronological transitions in the story – mainly in regard to passage from day (the field scene) to night (the threshing-floor scene) and back to day (the gate scene). It may well be that the narrator has Naomi stress that Boaz will be at his threshing floor “tonight” (3:2). While Paul Joüon finds this expression problematic (why should Boaz work at night?) and prefers to interpret this as “evening,”139 I believe that significance lies in the 137 Regarding the debate in research as to whether this is a summary of their entire time in Moab or the time from the sons’ marriage until their death, see the discussion of the exposition below. 138 Günther Müller, “The Significance of Time in Narrative Art,” in: Time: From Concept to Narrative Construct: A Reader (ed. Jan Christoph Meister and Wilhelm Schernus; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2011) 67–83. 139 Joüon, Ruth, 67. Others reject this claim by commenting that the author of Ruth already uses the word “evening” (‫ )ערב‬in relation to work done in the field at evening time (2:17) so it is unlikely that the expression “night” refers

57

idea of night itself. The word “night” reoccurs in this scene (3:8,13), emphasizing the intimate atmosphere that colors Ruth and Boaz’s encounter, in contrast to their meeting in the field that takes place in broad daylight. The final scene once again sees the light of day – this passage of time is clear through the contrast between Naomi’s words to Ruth “the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (3:18) and the narrator’s description of how Ruth rises before the light of day (3:14). Symbolically, the day – which follows the night – brings tidings of the family’s rebirth, of Naomi’s salvation and security for Ruth. Through these transitions, the author manages to reflect the difference between the characters’ public encounters (which take place during the day) and their intimate encounter (which happens at night). As I discuss below, their public encounter is subject to the influence of social convention, unlike their moonlit meeting, which is seen by no one. In the darkness, Boaz can freely extend his protection to Ruth, regardless of legal procedures of redemption of field or widow.

Space The author of Ruth does not describe the story’s setting in any detail, consistent with the usual style of biblical narrative. We are not told if the field where Ruth gleans is large or small, or what direction the gate lies in relation to the city. The little information that is relayed about the landscape (“the background,” in the words of Erich Auerbach) does not deviate from typical biblical brevity, yet the setting of each scene – the road; the field; the threshing-floor; the gate – hints at the process the characters are undergoing, thus informing the plot itself. to “evening,” (Campbell, Ruth, 117; Sasson, Ruth, 65), and prefer to explain his presence as part of a night-time celebration (ritual or otherwise) wherein Boaz and his lads eat and drink at the threshing-floor, and stay to spend the night there. Sasson, Ruth, 65.

58

Each of these settings – and therefore, the entire plot – is characterized by its peripherality, its marginality, taking place at the outskirts of the city, just outside the borders of society. While Ruth and Naomi dwell within the town itself, the heart of every chapter, the main encounters between the characters, take place outside the town: Naomi and Ruth plead for the other’s future on the road to Bethlehem; Ruth and Boaz meet outside town; Boaz testifies before the town gate. This reflects their characterization as people on the outside looking in; as characters who wish to become part of the community, but are found on its fringes.140 In a similar pattern to the convergence of time, spatial depictions over the course of the narrative also gradually close in, hinting at the formation of barriers. Most of chap. 1 describes Naomi’s dialogue with her daughters-in-law on the way to Bethlehem.141 Being in a placethat-is-not-a-place, the characters are able to consider their decision without taking any local conventions into account – all ties cut loose, they may reach places they never dreamed of. The road from Moab to Bethlehem becomes a dramatic crossroads in Ruth’s life, for she does not turn back down the beaten path with Orpah, but rather chooses to take a road she has never travelled by, and that is what makes the difference. From this perspective, the “way” to Bethlehem reflects a narrative space that invites change and unexpected decisions – as well as the desperation of two women who are utterly distant from civilization, who have nowhere to belong. The next scene describes Ruth and Boaz’s encounter in the field, an open, public place, in the light of day. The field is a place of fertility, and the meeting between a man and a woman in this setting is cast in this symbolic light, anticipating human reciprocation of this fertility,142 as I will discuss below. The field is open, yet it has borders, it is outside the town, but it is near it. The threshing-floor, the backdrop of chap. 3, is a space also found 140 Compare: Avnery, Threefold, 111–112. 141 Hubbard claims that Naomi does not begin talking to her daughters-in-law until she has left Moab to ensure that they will not convince her to stay – once she is on her way, her discussion concerns the path her daughters-in-law will take, but she is already irrevocably intent on returning to Bethlehem (Ruth, 102). 142 Green, Field.

59

outside the town (2 Sam 24:18; 1 Kgs 22:10)143 a space even more clearly defined than the field. This space serves a particular purpose: upon it, the coarse, unrefined produce of the field is threshed until the edible grain is ready to be brought into the town, into the home. The threshing-floor is thus a fitting backdrop for Ruth and Boaz’s second encounter; for the next phase of Ruth’s journey towards marriage, towards becoming part of the community, part of an Israelite household. Only in the final scene, at the gate, is Ruth finally granted admission to the community itself. Thus Ruth makes her way from the road to Bethlehem, via the field and the threshing-floor, until the town gate finally opens before her. Nonetheless, there is no account of Ruth’s ensuing life in Bethlehem – while there is room to describe Ruth and Naomi (or Ruth and Boaz) in the birth scene; the narrator chooses not to do so. The narrator presents the encounter between Naomi and the townswomen of Bethlehem at the end of the story (4:14) but Ruth does not appear – thus, the story of Ruth remains a wayside tale, the story of a journey from Moab to the gates of Bethlehem. The spatial descriptions that feature in the story can therefore be considered what Gabriel Zoran refers to as a “central schema”: “The reality within [a story] is completely and utterly subjected to a single schema… there are different places and different people, but all functions within the framework of a single principle.”144 In the story of Ruth, the central schema is her journey to Bethlehem, which ends not with her physical arrival but with her acceptance into the Bethlehemite community as an Israelite. Spatial descriptions are interconnected through wordplay which weaves the narrative threads together. The verbs “‫( ”שוב‬to return) and “‫( ”ישב‬to dwell, to sit) can be considered a key word pair throughout 143 “The threshing-floor is situated in a flat, open place near the city. The Mishnah comments that a “permanent” threshing-floor should be no closer than 50 cubits from the city, so that the chaff will not reach it” (Y. Felix, “Agriculture,” Biblical Lexicon (Tel Aviv, 1965) 315, and also: H.Z. Hirschberg and S. E. Loewenstamm, “goren,” Biblical Encyclopedia, 2:559–560. 144 G. Zoran, Text, World, Space: Spatial Arrangement in Narrative Text (Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuchad: Tel Aviv University, 1997) 334.

60

the text.145 The verb root “‫ ”שוב‬features prominently in chap. 1, mentioned twelve times,146 and many have commented that this intensive repetition hints at the underlying tension – where to return? Are the daughters-in-law also “returning” to Bethlehem (for with you we will return to your people”) or are they to return to Moab (Go, return, each woman to her mother’s house”)?147 As I discuss below, this word is related to Ruth’s characterization as one who does not see herself as returning to a place, but as one who returns with Naomi, who sees Naomi as her destination: “Do not entreat me to leave you, to turn away (‫ )לשוב‬from you” (1:16). Even before the verb ‫ שוב‬bursts onto the scene, the reader meets the verb ‫ישב‬, in the description of Elimelech’s family in Moab: “and they dwelled there for about ten years” (1:4). The verb ‫ שוב‬which follows can therefore be read as a foil to the act of dwelling: Naomi dis-entrenches herself from life in Moab, and returns to Bethlehem. In the concluding verse of chap. 1, the verb ‫ שוב‬features twice, but the verb ‫ ישב‬is missing, despite expectations the reader may harbor of the women’s renewed dwelling in Bethlehem: “And Naomi returned 145 Compare: R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981) 74. Gray comments that the verb “to return” (‫ )לשוב‬is particularly dominant in the story, which reflects the anticipation of those exiled from Jerusalem to “return” to Judea (Gray, Ruth, 371). This comment is particularly interesting as a reading that sees Naomi’s family as representative of the entire nation, who suffered the pain of exile, but returned to the land and merited to see the renewal and resurrection of its name. 146 For example: Meltzer, Ruth, 11, among many others. 147 For example: Dommershausen, “Leitwortstil,” 396–398; Campbell, Ruth, 79– 80; Zakovitch, Ruth, 54 (regarding v. 7); 57 (regarding v. 10); Bush, Ruth, 84–86; Trible, “Comedy,” 165; T. Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken, 2002) 240. Alter proposes that the seemingly inappropriate use of this verb to describe Ruth’s journey in fact signifies to the reader “a progressive sense that she is actually coming back to the unknown homeland of her destiny” (Alter, Art, 74). 149. This confusion is already evident in early translations. The Septuagint read the supervising boy’s words to mean “she has barely rested (‫( ”)שבתה‬and Rudolph adopts this version, Ruth, 46–47), whereas the Vulgate translated it thus: “And she has just returned.” Most modern translations have interpreted the verb as derived from the root ‫ישב‬, “dwell.”

61

from the fields of Moab; she returned with her daughter-in-law Ruth the Moabite” (1:22). This verb pair continues to feature in chap. 2, although the ratio between them changes: the boy supervising Boaz’s reapers describes Ruth as one who “returned with Naomi from the field of Moab” (2:6). His next words contain a verb in a form so ambiguous that it is unclear whether the verb root is ‫ שוב‬or ‫– ישב‬ “she has just returned (‫ )שבתה‬from the hut”/ “she has sat down (‫)שבתה‬ but little in the hut” (2:7), although the majority opinion holds that the verb root is ‫ישב‬, sat.148 From this point on in the chapter, the verb ‫ ישב‬features: at first, Ruth sits “alongside the reapers” (2:14), and at the scene’s end, Ruth dwells with her mother-in-law (2:23). For most of chap. 3, neither verb features, and it seems that the intensive repetition of the verb ‫שכב‬, “lie,” replaces the verb ‫ישב‬, which appears only once, in the final verse of the chapter: “And she said, Sit, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (3:18). ‫ שוב‬does not feature at all in this scene. In chap. 4 the verb ‫ ישב‬returns in full force, appearing six times, and augmented with verbs of a similar sound in the women’s blessing to Naomi: “Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld (‫ )הִשְׁבִּית‬a redeemer from you today, and let his name be called in Israel. And he will renew (‫ )לְמֵשִׁיב‬your life and sustain your old age (ְ‫ )שֵׂיבָתֵך‬, for the daughter-in-law who loves you bore him, she who is better to you than seven (‫ )מִשִּׁבְעָה‬sons” (4:14–15). As I will discuss below, the expression “renew your life” (‫ )משיב נפש‬has great significance. Until this point, the concept of “‫ – ”שיבה‬in this context meaning “return” or “restoration” – has focused upon physical-geographical return, Naomi’s return to her homeland and the restoration of her estate and family name. Now, another kind of “restoration” is mentioned – spiritual, emotional replenishment, comfort and joy in her old age. 148 This confusion is already evident in early translations. The Septuagint read the supervising boy’s words to mean “she has barely rested (‫( ”)שבתה‬and Rudolph adopts this version, Ruth, 46–47), whereas the Vulgate translated it thus: “And she has just returned.” Most modern translations have interpreted the verb as derived from the root ‫ישב‬, “sit/rest.”

62

The verb ‫ שוב‬is also mentioned in this chapter – but just once, and in relation to Naomi (not Ruth)’s past – returning to the beginning of the story, and closing a narrative circle: “sold by Naomi, who returned from the field of Moab” (4:3). A brief summary illustrates the subtle inversion of the frequency of each word’s appearance: Chap. 1 Chaps. 2 & 3 Chap. 4

‫שוב‬ 12 2 1

‫ישב‬ 1 3 6–7

The story’s opening is dominated by ‫שוב‬, which features a dozen times, while the verb ‫ ישב‬is only mentioned once, in regard to Moab; by the story’s end, the verb ‫ ישב‬occurs frequently (at the gate of Bethlehem) while ‫ שוב‬occurs only once, in relation to the past. The transferal of dominance from one verb to another occurs gradually, over the course of Ruth and Boaz’s two encounters, which comprise the heart of the story (chaps. 2–3). These two verbs are antithetical: ‫ישב‬, dwelling, symbolizes passivity that stems from security and calm, while ‫ שוב‬suggests movement, dynamic activity, the search for the security of ‫ישב‬. It is clear why chap. 1 is wrought with the verb ‫שוב‬, which is but a distant, uncomfortable memory by chap. 4, where the verb ‫ ישב‬dominates the narrative – Ruth has finally achieved a stable, secure home. Moreover, Ruth (and Naomi’s) progress can be monitored by the appearance of these key verbs in the narrative. The story opens with the “dwelling” of Naomi’s family in Moab (1:4), which Naomi rejects by “returning” to Bethlehem – though this detachment does not immediately grant her “dwelling” in her once-abandoned hometown. In chap. 2, the widows’ situation takes a turn for the better when Boaz invites Ruth to “sit” with his workers, and indeed, she sits “alongside the reapers.” While this “sitting” by no means reflects complete security – for she is still a poor Moabite girl, sitting on the side – it nonetheless represents the beginning of her integration into Bethlehemite society and the promise of 63

“dwelling” to come. As I have discussed, this chapter concludes with the description of Ruth “dwelling” with her mother-in-law at the end of the harvest season, dwelling that harbors certain disappointment (as the reader expected Boaz to take certain action), yet still reflects relative security in relation to the previous chapter, where the widows have just “returned” from Moab but have not yet found their place in Bethlehem. By the end of the scene at the threshing-floor, Naomi and Ruth are sitting together in anticipation: “Sit (‫ )שבי‬my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (3:18). The final scene opens with the description of Boaz sitting at the gate and gathering the anonymous redeemer and the elders to sit down as well: from this gathering, this ‫ישיבה‬, Boaz will prepare the legal ground for the security of Ruth’s future. Thus, the narrative movement of time and space – the latter reflected through the pattern of the verb-pair ‫ שוב‬and ‫ – ישב‬reflects Ruth’s journey to ultimate security. A random pair of women is singled out from the nebulous anarchy of the days when Judges ruled, and through extraordinary kindness, finds a clear path in the darkness. As their story progresses, time slows down and their surroundings become more defined. Four chapters depict, in turn: ten obscure years; one harvest season; a single night; a fateful hour; over the course of these four chapters, the women’s movement converges in space: from the open road; to the field; to the threshing-floor; and finally, their fate is decided at the gates of Bethlehem, which mark the limits of the town. Finally, within the gates of Bethlehem, Ruth and Naomi, once lost in time and space, have found their place.

64

Introduction to Chapter I “Wherever you are is my home – my only home.” – Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte

The first chapter of the book of Ruth presents two inversely related scenes: the exposition (vv. 1–6) and Ruth’s pledge to Naomi (vv. 6–22). The story opens with catastrophe: famine, displacement, and death. The reader should not be misled by the restrained tone of the narrator, which suggests routine, order – the events so simply recounted are, in fact, depictions of utter chaos on both a social and individual scale. The promise of resolution of Naomi’s personal crisis arrives in the figure of Ruth, who, in compassion and loyalty, accompanies Naomi on her journey back to Bethlehem.1 From this perspective, chapter one raises the women’s alliance and the kindness between them as a corrective for the tragedy they endured. The author’s juxtaposition of the exposition to the scene of Naomi’s departure results in a blurring of boundaries between the two scenes. Some scholars mark v. 5 as the final verse of the exposition (Campbell, Gerlemann, Gray, Hubbard, Joüon, Morris), others claim it ends with v. 6 (Hertzberg, Sasson, Porten, Bush), while some argue that the exposition concludes with the phrase “and her two daughtersin-law” in v. 7 (Heller, Rudolph, Sacon, Trible). The exposition’s literary framework indicates that v. 6 concludes the unit, which opens with a description of departure from Bethlehem due to famine: “and there was famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to reside in the fields of Moab” (1:1), and therefore concludes the inclusio with return to Bethlehem at the famine’s end: “She started out with her daughters-in-law to return from the fields of Moab; for in the fields of Moab she had heard that the Lord had taken note of His people and given them bread.” (1:6). At the same time,

1

As opposed to Frederic W. Bush (Ruth / Esther (WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996) 59), who sees the entire chapter as three scenes, each one contributing a complication to the plot, which will only begin to be resolved in chapter 2.

v. 6 also introduces the second scene, opening another inclusio that concludes at the chapter’s end: “And Naomi returned from the fields of Moab; she returned with her daughter-in-law Ruth the Moabite” (1:22). The juxtaposition of the two parts illuminates Ruth’s compassion (the second scene of the chapter) as the potential solution for Naomi’s crisis (the first scene of the chapter). Athalya Brenner and Ilana Pardes argue that the pairing of Naomi and Ruth, together with the character of Boaz, recalls the classic biblical love triangle in which two women compete for the love of one man, as seen in stories such as Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham; Rachel, Leah, and Jacob; and Hannah, Penina, and Elkana. In each case, the division is clear: one of the pair is beloved but infertile, the other is fertile. However, in the book of Ruth, the familiar model is challenged: the women (both widowed) work together and complete each other, without tension or rivalry.2 This pairing can be explored within the broader literary convention of “travel partners.” The model of two characters journeying together is prevalent not only in biblical literature (Abraham and Isaac traveling towards the site of sacrifice; Elijah and his lad journeying to Mount Horeb; Moshe and Joshua on Mount Sinai, among others), but in texts from all periods and cultures. This model links works as diverse as The Epic of Gilgamesh, in which Gilgamesh and Enkidu set out to destroy Humbaba, the monstrous guardian of the Cedar Forest; Dante and Virgil making their way through Hell and Purgatory, Shakespeare’s As You Like It, which sees two pairs of travelers: Rosalind and Celia, and Orlando and his servant Adam3; Don Quixote and his 2

3

66

A. Brenner, “Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‘Birth of the Hero’ Paradigm,” VT 36 (1986) 257–273; I. Pardes, “Creation According to Eve,” in Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1992) 79–91. Celia, heir to the throne, attempts to comfort Rosalind, whose father has been exiled from his kingdom, saying: “You know my father hath no child but I, nor none is like to have: and, truly, when he dies, thou shalt be his heir, for what he hath taken away from thy father perforce, I will render thee again in affection; by mine honour, I will; and when I break that oath, let me turn monster” (Act I, Scene 2). This situation evokes the exchange between Jonathan, the son of

humble squire, Sancho Panza; Moliere’s Dom Juan and his indignant servant, Sganarelle; Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee in the classic fantasy The Lord of the Rings, and countless other pairs who make their way together. Frequently, one leads the way and one accompanies him: thus Enkidu accompanies King Gilgamesh on his quests; thus Celia follows her cousin Rosalind; thus Sancho Panza serves as the great knight’s squire; thus Sganarelle trails after Dom Juan; and thus Govinda escorts Siddhartha, as Herman Hesse describes: “By his side lived Govinda, his shadow, walked the same paths, undertook the same efforts.”4 Often, the hero is reluctant to be joined in his quest, and the reader witnesses his or her attempts to discourage the companion from joining him on his perilous journey.5 Frodo attempts to undertake his perilous journey to Mordor alone, but Sam refuses to leave him. Rosalind tries to dissuade Celia from accompanying her, but Celia insists: Rosalind lacks then the love Which teacheth thee that thou and I am one: Shall we be sunder’d? shall we part, sweet girl? No: let my father seek another heir. Therefore devise with me how we may fly, Whither to go and what to bear with us; And do not seek to take your change upon you, To bear your griefs yourself and leave me out; For, by this heaven, now at our sorrows pale, Say what thou canst, I’ll go along with thee. (Act I, Scene 3)

4 5

King Saul, and David, who never actually traveled together, but remain one of the most enduring pairs in biblical literature. H. Hesse, Siddhartha, trans. W. K. Marriot (Hollywood, FL: Simon & Brown, 2012) 15. Sometimes the hero successfully convinces the aide, and the two part ways – Siddhartha, for example, persuades Govinda to stay with the Buddhist Samanas, and he journeys on alone. The opposite situation may also occur, wherein the hero must convince the aide to join him – in the instance of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, for example.

67

In this light, Naomi and Ruth’s alliance rings familiar – after Naomi unsuccessfully tries to deter Ruth from joining her, the two women make their way from the fields of Moab to Bethlehem. Their shared journey, however, does not mean they share inner worlds – rather, it brings two different worlds together. Gilgamesh, the epitome of ancient urban culture, encounters Enkidu, who symbolizes the boundless wild; the innocent, naïve idealism of Don Quixote meets the practical, grounded cunning of Sancho Panza. It is this tension between the two companions, this encounter of perspectives, which motivates the story. Despite the exceptional loyalty between Ruth and Naomi, the loving daughter-in-law comes from a completely different world than her mother-in-law. While Naomi holds traditional, conservative views, Ruth brings new notions of love and loyalty to the text. These differences revolve mainly around the question of a woman’s role and what constitutes her fulfilment in life. Naomi’s first words in the narrative already reflect the social norms in the ancient world, which dictate that the only role in which a woman can find “security” (‫ )מנוחה‬is through marriage and family life: “Turn back, each of you to her mother’s house… May the Lord grant that each of you find security (‫ )מנוחה‬in the house of a husband” (1:8).6 She attempts to dissuade her daughters-in-law from accompanying her back to Bethlehem by pointing out that she has nothing to offer them, for she has no more sons for them to marry: “Turn back, my daughters. Why should you go with me? Do I still have sons in my insides that could be husbands for you? … For them, would you withhold yourselves from any man?” (11–13). To Naomi, it is obvious that her daughter-in-laws’ futures are entirely dependent on their prospects of remarriage. As she herself has no chance of bearing sons for them to marry, they have no future in

6

68

And as Trible shows, Naomi thrice mentions that the girls should find a husband in Moab. P. Trible, “A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1982; vol. 2) 166.

Bethlehem. Naomi will hold this position – overtly or covertly – throughout the story. Ruth, in contrast, presents a new set of values: her loyalty to her mother-in-law overrides the woman’s accepted need for “security,” and it is no coincidence that her famous vow to Naomi is charged with marital nuances: But Ruth clung (‫ )דבקה‬to her… Ruth replied, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people; your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may the Lord do to me if anything but death parts me from you.” (1:14–17)

The conjugal undertones of Ruth’s clinging to Naomi,7 recalls the verse in Genesis that dictates that “a man must leave his father and mother and cling (‫ )ודבק‬to his wife” (Gen 2:24)8 – essentially, her vow promises a relationship that will serve as an alternative to marriage, incorporating elements of the marriage covenant as an expression of loyalty to her mother-in-law.9 Naomi’s unwavering belief in the institute of marriage is continually matched by Ruth’s unwavering belief

7

Hubbard rightly asserts that the verb “to cling” suggests great loyalty and deep affection (Ruth, 115). See also: G. Wallis, “dabaq,” TDOT 3.80–81; E. Jenni, “dbq,” THAT 1.432; LaCocque, “Subverting the Biblical World: Sociology and Politics in the Book of Ruth,” in Scrolls of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs (ed. P.S. Hawkins and L.C. Stahlberg; New York: Fordham University Press, 2006) 23. 8 Pardes, Creation, 81, and many others, see below. 9 Compare: Trible, “Human Comedy,” 167–168; R. Alpert, “Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth,” in Reading Ruth (ed. J.A. Kates and G.T. Reimer; New York: Ballantine, 1994) 91–96; J. C. Exum, Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women (Sheffield: JSOTSup, 1996) 215; R. A. Putnam, “Friendship,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (ed. J. A. Kates and G. T. Reimer; New York: Ballantine, 1994) 53–54 ; J. L. C. Chu, “Returning Home: The Inspiration of the Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth for Taiwanese Women,” Semeia 78 (1997) 47–53.

69

in her entwined destiny with Naomi.10 As we shall see, the interplay between these views is evident throughout the narrative, reaching a crescendo at the story’s end, wherein both convictions are ultimately realized.

10 Unlike Fox and Avnery, who claim that Ruth’s decision stems from the desire to establish the name of her dead husband (E. Fuchs, “Structure, Motifs and Ideological Functions of the Biblical Temptation Scene,” Biblicon 2 [1997] 52; O. Avnery, Liminal Women: Belonging and Otherness in the Books of Ruth and Esther [Jerusalem: Hartman, 2015] 57). I believe that by this stage of the narrative, the option of reestablishing the husband’s name is not in the characters’ consciousness.

70

Exposition (1:1–6)

The exposition of the book of Ruth unleashes a dynamic sequence of events, a preamble to the main narrative that is virtually a story in itself.1 The most striking feature of the opening verses is their rapid pace – more than a decade is condensed into a few lines, while the rest of the book’s four chapters unfold over a period of about three months (concluding with pregnancy and birth, which adds another year to the story’s timeline). The details of these years remain in shadow. We are told nothing about how Elimelech spent his time in Moab, nothing about the events leading up to Naomi’s sons’ marriage with Moabite girls, and nothing about the relationship between the Israelite and Moabite families. Did the people of Moab alienate this Israelite family, or did they accept them? These omitted details convey much about the narrator’s priorities – and emphasize the bare-bones ingredients of the exposition. What can be gleaned from the sparse information that the narrator does reveal?

“And it Came to Pass In the Days When Judges Ruled” The opening verse rings familiar with its seemingly formulaic use of “And it came to pass in the days of ” (‫)וַיְהִי בִּיְמֵי‬. However, this apparent familiarity belies its singularity. This opening phrase appears elsewhere four times in the Bible: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel” (Gen 14:1); “And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Yotam” (Isa 7:1); “And it came to pass in the days of Joachim the son of Josiah” (Jer 1:3 – the beginning of Jeremiah’s prophesying); 1

Y. Tzohar, The Exposition in the Biblical Narrative (Ph.D. Diss., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2005) 25–27 (Heb.).

“And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus” (Esth 1:1), each of these instances connecting the narrative to a specific ruler. In contrast, Ruth’s story is not associated with any one person, but rather with a description of an era – “in the days when Judges ruled.”2 If no particular ruler is associated with Ruth’s story, why open the story thus at all? As I discussed in the introduction, the book of Ruth seeks to transport the reader from the age of Judges (‫ )שופטים‬to the age of monarchy. The story opens with an expression that demands to be associated with a specific monarch, but this expectation is shattered, underscoring the chaos of the period of the Judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (Judg 21:25). And it came to pass in the days of… no one.3 The vacuum created with the story’s first words is filled at the very end of the story, when the reader is told of the Davidic dynasty. Thus, the story’s opening and closing phrases situate the book of Ruth between the anarchic era of the Judges and the monarchic era of David.4 Immediately after the story is set adrift upon the shaky era of the Judges, the reader hears of the famine that ravages the ungoverned land, and of the family who seeks to escape it: “There was a famine in the land; and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to reside in the fields of Moab with his wife and two sons” (1:1). Like its preceding phrase, the place “Bethlehem in Judah” is not frequently mentioned in the Bible – cropping up only towards the end of the book of Judges 2 3

4

72

I address the literary technique of shattering coined biblical phrases in: J. Grossman, “Deliberate Misuse of Idioms in the Biblical Narrative,” Tarbiẓ 77 (2008) 23–44 (Heb.). Zakovitch argues that no specific ruler is mentioned because it has no bearing on the story: “It seems that the author of Ruth intended for it to be appendixed to the book of Judges…and [thus] began with a general opening.” (Y. Zakovitch, Ruth [Mikra Leyisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990] 46 [Heb.]). See the above introduction, and compare: Y. Zakovitch, Inner-Biblical and Extra-Biblical Midrash and the Relationship Between them (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009) 51–52 (Heb.); B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978) 23–49. Frymer-Kensky also correctly points out that the title invites the reader to sense the basic disparity between the atmosphere of the era of the Judges and the general feel of the book of Ruth (Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories [New York: Schocken, 2002] 238).

in the stories of Micah’s idol and the concubine at Gibeah (Jud 17:7,9; 19:1,18), two illustrations of the rampant corruption that characterizes the pre-monarchic era;5 and one more time in the first book of Samuel, where it describes David’s father, Jesse (I Sam 17:12).6 Once again, the book of Ruth bridges the eras described in Judges and Samuel, the former a period of “anarchy sweeping Israel as if there was no government at all,”7 the latter an era of established monarchy. The corruption of the book of Judges is associated with Bethlehem in Judah; as is the kindness that gently reshapes the social order as expressed in the book of Ruth; and eventually, the figure who restores Israel to glory arises from that self-same place. Similarly, the family’s emigration to Moab also shatters certain expectations. The book of Genesis is pervaded with stories of famine that drives families out of Israel. All three forefathers were forced to leave their promised land because of famine – and all three chose to go down to Egypt (Abraham in Genesis 12; Isaac planned to go to Egypt, although God prevented him in Genesis 26; Jacob and his family in Genesis 46). Due to Egypt’s perpetual fertility,8 “going down

5



6

7 8

I agree with the scholars who argue that these stories are satirical and mocking towards their characters (for a summary of this approach, see R. Magidov, Judges 17–18: An Israelite Story in the Service of Judean Polemic Against the North Narrative [Ph.D. Diss., Jerusalem: Makhon Shekhṭer, 2005] 34–70 [Heb.]). Regarding the story of Micah’s idol, some have claimed that “there is no overt condemnation against the making of the idol, and none against its being brought to Dan, and the author’s intention is to relate the origins of the priests of Dan, who were Moses’s descendants” (J. Liver, “Micah,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 4 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute) 879 (Heb.). The description of Jesse as an “Eprathite from Bethlehem in Judah” is particularly interesting as it relates back to the description of Elimelech’s family as “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah” (Ruth 1:2). Compare: E. J. Hamlin, Ruth: Surely There Is a Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 6. S. Talmon, “The New Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C. in Historical Perspective,” BASOR 176 (1964) 138. Egypt’s perpetual fertility is true in both literal and literary terms. See: The Nile: Histories, Cultures, Myths (ed. H. Erlikh and I. Gershoni; Boulder, CO, 2000).

73

to Egypt” in times of famine becomes a literary convention,9 a convention uncomfortably broken by Elimelech, who chooses to go to Moab instead.10 Intuitively, the reader might view Elimelech’s choice of Moab in a more negative light than a journey to Egypt. This feeling is supported by the Deuteronomical passage that mandates Israelites to act differently towards Moabites and Egyptians: “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation… Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord (Deut 23:4, 8–9). The contrast between the prescribed behavior towards each nation is clear: One may not be friendly to a Moabite, while one may not be hostile towards an Egyptian; a person who has traces of Moabite blood running through his veins, even from ten generations back, is “forever” barred from joining the people of Israel, while a person whose grandparent was Egyptian may convert to Judaism. According to Israelite law, Elimelech’s decision to live among the Moabites is a problematic one.11 9

Here, I address the question of Elimelech’s immigration to Moab as the shattering of a literary convention. For a discussion of the “realistic problems” of Elimelech’s choice to go to Moab, including political choices to go to Moab rather than Egypt, and the question of whether Moab’s climate is different enough from Israel’s to justify Elimelech’s choice of destination, see: J. Kauch, “Tracking the Ancient Moabites,” BA (1981) 33 (discussing political reasons for Elimelech’s choice); D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible (New York: Harper & Row, 1974)183; G. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London: 1894, Reprinted in 1974) 211–12. 10 Compare: J. E. McKinlay, “A Son Is Born to Naomi: A Harvest for Israel,” in Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 151–157; D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth,” JSOT 40 (1988) 103. 11 Compare: D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990) 70; A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. by K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 37.

74

At the same time that Elimelech’s actions invite criticism, the language of the verse conceals an element of promise, of redemption. The expression “a man went” (‫ )וילך איש‬occurs in only one other place in the Bible: in the story of Moses’s birth. In both instances, “the man who went” consequently disappears from the story, leaving his wife to play the central role. If this rare expression is indeed an allusion to the story of Moses, then this family tragedy masks the birth story of a hero, of a redeemer.12 Needless to say, this intertextuality touches upon the subtle dialogue between the author and the reader, and has no bearing on the characters’ actions within our story. The move to Moab is harshly criticized, criticism which stands regardless of the allusion to the birth process of a hero. Just like the story of Moses’s birth, the exposition opens with a pseudo-protagonist, “a man from Bethlehem” whose entire family is introduced in relation to him – “his wife,” “his sons.” Initially, the entire story appears to hinge upon his actions, but by the third verse, he dies, and the narrator’s lens shifts to his wife and daughter-in-law. However, the initial focus on Elimelech serves to hold him responsible for the decision to move away from Bethlehem – clearly, the blame is placed on his shoulders, exempting his wife, who was dragged into exile by her husband. Curiously, the names of the characters are revealed to us only after we have been informed of their move to Moab: “The man’s name was Elimelech, the name of his wife was Naomi, and the name of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion – Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah” (1:2). This deviates from the usual pattern of introduction in the Bible, wherein names are followed by a description, such as:

12 In contrast to my argument, Galpaz-Feller perceives the allusion to the story of Moses as one that draws contrast between the texts: “While the book of Exodus describes the man from the House of Levi going to take a daughter of Levi, resulting in birth and life…the anonymous description in Ruth concludes with termination and death, which open the plot.” (P. Galpaz-Feller, Naomi: A Mother of a Nation – a New Reading of the Book of Ruth [Jerusalem: Carmel, 2010] 12 (Heb.).

75

A river  watering the garden flowed from Eden;  from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold… The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.  The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen 2:10–14)

Or, similarly: Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.  His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes.  Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of  bronze and iron. (Gen 4:20–2)

And so on and so forth.13 Following this pattern, the introduction of the man from Bethlehem ought to read: “There was a famine in the land, and a man by the name of Elimelech from Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the fields of Moab, he and his wife Naomi, and Mahlon and Chilion his sons.”14 The initial anonymity of the characters operates on two opposing levels: on one hand, the reader senses that the actions of this nameless man are far more significant than his name, which is lost during his voluntary exile to Moab. On the other hand, the revelation of their names is not merely a conventional introduction – the names themselves become important symbols in the story.15 This ambivalent formulation introduces one of the crucial themes of the story: who receives a name, and who remains nameless; whose name is lost, and whose name is perpetuated. The “name” (‫)שם‬ becomes a Leitwort and is emphasized both through anaphora: “The name of the man was Elimelech / the name of his wife was Naomi / and the name of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion,” and through 13 The characters of Nabal and Abigail in I Sam 25:3 are introduced in a similar fashion to Elimelech’s family in Ruth. 14 Compare: K. M. Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth, Tübingen 2010, 58–61. 15 Similarly, see: Porten, “Rhetoric,” 25. Zakovitch also perceived the postponement of naming until v. 2 as a way of “giving full attention to the names,” although in his opinion, this attention should be awarded to the significance of the names themselves (Zakovitch, Ruth, 47).

76

intensive repetition of the consonants of the word, (which, vocalized differently, means “there”): “And the name ‫ ))שֵׁם‬of the man… and the name ‫ ))שֵׁם‬of his wife… and the name ‫ ))שֵׁם‬of his two sons… and they were there ((‫ … שָׁם‬the name ‫ ))שֵׁם‬of one… the name ‫ ))שֵׁם‬of the other… and they dwelt there ((‫ שָׁם‬for about ten years” (1:2–4).16 This repetition (seven times in two verses) invites the reader to trace the theme of names as it evolves over the course of the story,17 where it is lost (“there” – ‫ )שָם‬and where it is restored (“and let your name be called in Bethlehem” 4:11). While the narrative is punctuated with examples of naming and renaming (for example, Naomi’s bitter renaming later in the chapter [20]; or “and she said, the name of the man whom I worked with today is Boaz” [2:19]) the theme climaxes in the final scene at the gate. In fact, the unusual introduction of the characters in the exposition creates an entire conceptual framework which culminates in chapter 4: after Boaz declares to the elders at the gate: “I am also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate, that the name of the deceased may not disappear from among his kinsmen and from the gate of his home town” (4:10), the elders bless him in reply: “Be valiant in Ephrathah and perpetuate your name in Bethlehem” (4:11). The renewed reference to naming in conjunction with Ephratah and 16 For a discussion of the etymology of the names and their meanings, see, for example: E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 17–19; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: 1988) 89–90; A. Brenner, The Book of Ruth: Literary, Stylistic and Linguistic Studies (Tel Aviv: Afik and Sifriyat Po’alim, 1988) 88–91 (Heb.); J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 53–54. I find Sasson’s claim that the name “Elimelech” is derived from the names of two pagan gods, El and Molech, somewhat hard to swallow (17). The literal meaning of the name, “my God is king,” is more widely accepted. Interestingly, in the Septuagint, the name of the father of the family is “Avimelech,” probably influenced by Genesis or the book of Judges. 17 Porten, “Rhetoric,” 24; G. H. Cohen, “Name-Giving in the Book of Ruth,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 2 (1986) 151–160 (Heb.); D. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1999) 624; Saxegaard, Character, 57–62. They illustrate how this is fulfilled in chap. 4 as well.

77

Bethlehem closes the inclusio that begins with Elimelech’s introduction: “The man’s name was Elimelech, the name of his wife was Naomi, and the name of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion – Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah” (1:2). The townswomen’s blessing at the end of chap. 4 also participates in the recurrent motif of naming opened in chap. 1: “Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today, and let his name be called in Israel…for your daughter-in-law who loves you bore him, she who is better to you than seven sons” (4:14–15). Besides the explicit mention of naming, note that the women openly contrast Ruth with “sons.”18 Through a certain turn of events, names almost lost to the world are resurrected in Bethlehem. After this unusual introduction, without delay or dramatic pause, the narrator relates the disasters that befell the family in the land of Moab. After famine has ravaged their homeland, death ravages their family – Elimelech and his two sons perish. Garsiel and Nielsen comment that the famine and the deaths are parallel to the two words that comprise the name of their hometown Bethlehem, “Beth” = “house,” and “lehem” = bread” – their house collapses and their bread, or breadwinners, are gone.19 This collapse of house and home is alluded to in the narrator’s referral to Moab not as “the land of Moab” (‫)ארץ‬ but “the field of Moab,” (‫)שדה‬, which creates a stark contrast between the name of their hometown, Bethlehem, and their destination, the fields of Moab. The biblical “field” often serves as a foil to the town, to the stable home (Gen 33:18–19; I Sam 20:11), representing the

18 In death, Naomi’s sons are referred to as “her two children (‫( ”)ילדיה‬1:5) – an unusual term for married men. This term is part of the larger structural framework of the story, anticipating the birth of Ruth’s child who Naomi then “draws the child to her bosom” (4:16). The story opens with her mourning for her children; by its end she is comforted by Ruth’s “child (Compare: Campbell, Ruth, 56; Hubbard, Ruth, 64). 19 M. Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (trans. by P. Hackett; Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1987) 250–1; K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 43.

78

undomesticated, the uncivilized.20 This contrast warns of the danger Elimelech has brought upon himself by leaving the safety and stability of his hometown and moving to the exposed, perilous territory of the field.21 The verses of the exposition can be presented as a two-stage parallel unit, framed by the chiastic circumstances that motivate the family’s migration:22 Opening: Journeying to Moab due to famine: “…there was a famine in the land; and a man of Bethlehem in Judah, with his wife and two sons, went to reside in the field of Moab.”

20 The “field” is often contrasted to the “home” or “town,” whether in context of blessing, “Blessed are you in the home, and blessed are you in the field” (Deut 28:3), or in context of curse: “Cursed are you in the town, and cursed are you in the field” (Deut 28:16). See also: Wallis, “śādeh,” TDOT 14.39. For more textual examples, see: Jer 14:18; Ezek 7:15; 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:4. 21 The play of this contrast will continue in chap. 2: “She came and gleaned in a field, behind the reapers; and, as luck would have it, it was the piece of land belonging to Boaz, who was of Elimelech’s family. Presently Boaz arrived from Bethlehem” (2:3–4) when Ruth and Boaz meet in the field, the threshing-floor, and eventually at the town gate – seeing Ruth move from uncertainty to stability, in an opposite process from Elimelech’s move from Bethlehem to the fields of Moab. (See also my discussion in the introduction about the spatial arrangement of the narrative). 22 Bush suggests that this passage follows a chiastic structure (Ruth, 60): a. (1–2): And it came to pass in the days of the Judges… b. (3) And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. c. (4) And they married Moabite wives, one was named Orpah and the other Ruth. c’. And they lived there for about ten years. b’. (5) And the two of them also died, Mahlon and Chilion, and the woman was left, out of her two children and her husband. a’. (6) And she and her daughters-in-law arose and returned from the fields of Moab, for God had taken note of his people and given them bread. If his interpretation is correct, the connection between the sons’ marriage and death is clear, however, the connection between (c) and (c’) is weak, a weakness which casts doubt upon the legitimacy of his entire argument.

79

(2) The man’s name was Elimelech, the name of his wife was Naomi, and the name of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion – Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah They came to the fields of Moab and were there (‫)ויהיו שם‬. (3) Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left with her two sons.

(4) They married Moabite women,23 the name of one was Orpah and the name of the other was Ruth and they dwelt there (‫ )וישבו שם‬about ten years. (5) And the two of them also died, Mahlon and Chilion, and the woman was left, out of her two children and her husband.

Conclusion: Leaving Moab due to the famine’s end: “She started out with her daughters-in-law to return from the fields of Moab; for in the field of Moab she had heard that the Lord had taken note of His people and given them bread.” The two stages have a similar rhythm: at first it seems that the family has managed to overcome the obstacle of famine, for there is food enough in Moab – but the first stage ends in tragedy, with the father’s death. At the beginning of the second stage, it once again appears that the family has managed to overcome the death of the father by rebuilding the family – the sons marry Moabite girls. The family first sought food in Moab, and now they seek family continuity within its borders – but once again, tragedy strikes the family in the form of the sons’ death.24

23 Some have claimed that the verb “to marry” (‫ )לשאת‬rather than to “take a wife” (‫ )לקחת‬is the result of certain Aramaic terms entering the Hebrew language, which therefore testifies to the book of Ruth’s later compilation. (P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique [Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953] 11–13, 34). As others have noted, this verb is also used in Judges 21:23. Moreover, Hubbard comments that at the end of the story, Boaz “takes” Ruth for a wife, indicating that the author is aware of both verbs, and chooses to use different ones (Ruth, 93, comment 9). I find Porten’s claim that the author’s use of the verb (‫ )לשאת‬links their marriage to the women’s raised voices and weeping (‫ )ותשאנה קולן‬in 1:9,14) somewhat unconvincing. 24 See a similar reading in: Trible, “Human Comedy,” 162.

80

At first the narrator relates the names of the Moabite women Naomi’s sons married, in parallel to the names of the sons. While the sons are “Ephratites from Bethlehem in Judah,” the women they marry are “Moabite women.” The numbered listing of the sons’ names, corresponding to the numbered listing of their wives – “the name of his two sons,” “the name of one…the name of the other,”25 as well as the similar language of v. 3 and v. 5, “and she was left,” (‫ )ותשאר‬reinforces this parallel structure.26 This lining up of complementary verses draws attention to the fact that while the sons are always mentioned as a pair, as “two sons,”27 the women are listed individually: “the name of one… and the name of the other was…”.28 This anticipates the sons’ common fate as opposed to the separate paths their wives will take.29 25 The repeated numbering that characterizes this passage (such as the sons always being referred to as “two sons”) lends certain order and cohesion to the exposition as a literary unit, a subject I will return to. 26 Hamlin comments that the word “and she remained” (‫ )ותשאר‬recalls the word ‫שאר‬, as in next-of-kin, heir, insinuating that the Naomi was left without an heir (Ruth, 10). 27 E. van Wolde, Ruth and Naomi, (trans. by J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1997) 7. 28 Van Wolde claims that the numbering is unusual here: Orpah and Ruth should have been listed as “first” and “second” (Ruth 17). However, writing “one” and then “second, third etc” is a common biblical numbering style – see, for example, Gen 1; Exod 28:17–18; Num 11:26. 29 Brenner claims that this “twinning” is inherent in their names: Mahlon and Chilion create the impression of “two that are one” through their similar sound, “for the fate of the two similar names will be similar” (Brenner, Ruth, 89). Compare their names to: “Muppim and Huppim” (Gen 46:21); “Utz his firstborn and Butz his brother” (Gen 22:21); “And these are the sons of Dishan: Hemdan, Eshban, Yitran, and Khran” (Gen 36:26). The names’ interpretations also cement their oneness. At first the reader may interpret these names positively, “these names express yearning and desire,” but they shortly acquire a negative meaning: “and now the reader hears these names ring differently, mournfully: with sickness and annihilation” (Y. Zakovitch, “I Will Express Riddles of Old”: Riddles and Dream-Riddles in Biblical Narrative [Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2005] 131 [Heb.]). Carasick add: “pehaps we should translate Mahlon and Chilion into English: ‘Sicko’ and ‘Goner’” (M. Carasik, The Bible’s Many Voices [Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2014], 170). For more on the sons’ names and their meanings, see: M. Margalioth, “The Meaning of the Names Mahlon and Kilion in the Book of Ruth,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 1 (1980) 119–121 (Heb.). ▪

81

The narrator’s disinterest in the conjoined figure of the sons is also expressed through his failure to mention who took who for a wife. This information is only revealed at the story’s end (4:10). .30 The sons live and die as a single unit – only thanks to Ruth is Mahlon singled out and commemorated. The first stage describes how “they came to the fields of Moab and were there,” while the second stage states that “they dwelt there about ten years.” The family’s assimilation in Moab is apparent not only from the ten years spent there, but from the different verbs that mark their arrival in the first stage and the ensuing ten years of the second stage: upon their arrival they “were there,” (‫ )ויהיו שם‬but for ten years “they lived there” (‫)וישבו שם‬. This process is typical among immigrants, who initially move to another place “temporarily,” and, without any intention of “assimilating,” become permanent residents. It is unclear from the text whether the sons lived in Moab for ten years after their marriage, or if the time spent in Moab was ten years altogether.31 In either case, Sasson notes that the period of ten years evokes the story of Abraham and Hagar in Genesis 16: And Sarai said to Abram, The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, lie with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her. Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been dwelling in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife” (Gen. 16:2–3).32 30 “How incredible that the reader must wait until the end of the story to discover that Ruth was married to Mahlon. Perhaps this detail is irrelevant, and the only fact that needs to be taken into account is that two brothers from Judah married two sisters from Moab” (Van Wolde, Ruth, 8). 31 Campbell (Ruth, 58) and Hubbard (Ruth, 91, comment 2) are of the former opinion; Bush is of the latter (Ruth, 65). 32 Sasson, Ruth, 21, and Zakovitch, Ruth, 50 (in his opinion, the connection with the story of Abraham and Hagar illustrates “the period of time after which it is difficult to continue hoping for birth.”) Bush rejects this association, arguing that Ruth was married for about ten years (especially considering that Bush claims that the family lived in Moab for ten years altogether). While many allusions in the Bible can be derived from similar, rather than identical expressions, this connection is not definite.

82

While there are clear differences between the stories – Abraham takes an Egyptian concubine after ten years of dwelling in Canaan, while Naomi’s two sons marry Moabite women and dwell in Moab for ten years – the similar phrasing hints to the possibility of fertility problems in these marriages, even if no such problem is mentioned explicitly in the book of Ruth – for Mahlon and Chilion have no children. While this is never openly discussed in the text, the close reader may be concerned for Ruth’s future even if she should remarry.33 The process of assimilation in Moab, which begins subtly (“and they were there”) and becomes more explicit (“and they dwelt there”), ends in tragedy. First the father dies, then the sons – no explanation is given for their deaths, but the family’s circumstances invite the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.34 The only information revealed about Elimelech’s family is that they migrated to Moab and married Moabite women, so their deaths are presumably linked to their assimilation.35 The specific wording of the sons’ deaths, “and the two of them also died” (‫ )וַיָּמוּתוּ גַם שְׁנֵיהֶם‬recalls the death penalty of adulterers: “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, the two of them must die, (‫ )וּמֵתוּ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם‬the man who slept with her and the woman – you must purge the evil from Israel” (Deut 22:22). Seeing as 33 Compare to Hubbard, who claims that this allusion to Genesis raises “one of the major themes of the book – the question of progeny” (Ruth, 95). 34 The story’s affiliation with the period of the Judges invites consideration of the sins that led to the national punishment of famine and the individual punishment of death, considering that one of the recurring structures of the book of Judges is collective sin followed by collective punishment. Compare: S. Becher, “And it was in the Days that Judges Ruled: The Connection between the Book of Judges and the Book of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 35 (1990) 151–52 (Heb.). As Gunkel expresses regarding the death of Er the son of Judah (Gen 38 6–7): “V. 7 is based on the general principle that an early death is a great calamity and Yahweh’s punishment (H. Gunkel, Genesis – Translated and Interpreted [trans. by M. E. Biddle; Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1997] 39). There, he explicitly compares the death of Judah’s two sons with the exposition in Ruth. 35 However, Sakenfeld claims that the lack of explanation for the men’s death shows “That the answer to the question is not central to the meaning of the story. The death of the men serve to draw our attention to Naomi.” (K. D. Sakenfeld, Ruth [Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1999] 21).

83

two Israelites married Moabite women who were forbidden to them, their death may be an allusion to the penalty for forbidden relations.36 If indeed the plot opens with the two sons being punished for their assimilation and marriage with Moabite women, this basic problem is exacerbated as the plot unfolds: How can Ruth, whose presence in Bethlehem is a result of this forbidden marriage and the implied wrath of God, be integrated into the Israelite community? After the brief description of the death of the male members of her family, the narrator begins to focus on those who remain rather than those who have departed, and Naomi is revealed as the real protagonist of the story. This is an especially interesting shift in focus as Naomi was originally introduced as Elimelech’s wife – now, the tables have turned: Elimelech is referred to as “Naomi’s husband,” and the sons once referred to as “his sons” become “her sons.” Naomi becomes the reluctant heroine of the story and her entire family is defined in relation to her rather than to Elimelech.37 Her namelessness in the closing verses of the exposition – she is referred to as “she,” and more strikingly, as “the woman” – expresses the fragmentation of her identity as a result of her overwhelming loss. In the words of Trible: “From wife to widow, from mother to no-mother, this female is stripped of all identity.”38 No longer a wife, no longer a mother, Naomi is reduced to “the woman” – the woman left behind. The narrator then summarizes: “And the woman was left, out of her two children and her husband” (5). What is the purpose of stating that she alone remains? Surely the reader is capable of such simple deduction. Indeed, this grim summary accentuates the tragedy, but this seemingly superfluous phrase is in fact instrumental to the exposition as a literary unit. The considerable repetition of numbers within a few verses; the inventorial introduction of the characters; the 36 The juxtaposition of the expression “both of them” with “death” is not found elsewhere in the Bible, besides these two instances. However, Rebecca’s words to Jacob, “why should I be bereaved of both of you one day” (Gen 27:45) also refers to the death of two brothers leaving a mother bereaved (although the language of the passage is not strongly related to Ruth). 37 Compare: Nielsen, Ruth, 44; Van Wolde, Ruth, 9. 38 P. Trible, “Human Comedy,” 163. Similarly: Hamlin, Ruth, 10.

84

repetitive summary of who has died and who is left; and above all, the taut, orderly structure of the passage, is antithetical to the content its relates: upheaval due to severe famine; the death of the head of the family; the untimely death of both sons! This family’s profound, all-consuming tragedy, narrated in such concise, methodical fashion, creates the impression that an account has been settled. Justice has been done, sins have been answered for, and thus our tale begins. The exposition closes with Naomi and her daughter in-laws arising to return to Bethlehem. The verb “and she arose” (‫)ותקם‬, is not used to describe her family’s departure from Bethlehem five verses and ten years before. If the verb “and they dwelt” (‫ )וישבו‬implies that the family became entrenched in Moabite culture, then the verb “and she arose” (‫ )ותקם‬suggests that Naomi rejects this assimilation and makes the corrective move of returning – ‫ – שיבה‬and rising up from the dwelling place of her husband and sons – ‫ישיבה‬. The language of this passage hints at a certain individual-national relationship: at the beginning of the story, there is “famine in the land,” a national disaster, and an individual family – a father, mother and two sons – cuts themselves off from their people in order to escape the collective fate. Having excluded themselves from the nation in times of hardship, they are excluded from the nation in times of plenty: by the time God restores fortune to Israel, the family who thought to evade disaster has been reduced to “she and her daughters-in-law.” This irony of fate casts further criticism on Elimelech’s actions:39 Naomi perceives the hand of God in the famine’s end, whereas Elimelech failed to recognize that the famine itself came from God.40 Naomi, however, hears that God has taken note of his people while she is still in “the field of Moab” (1:6). For now, she is beyond the borders of divine kindness; she hears of “His people” while she is still on the other side, 39 For a discussion of irony in the story, mainly in regard to Naomi’s soliloquys, see: B. G. Green, A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth (Ph.D. Diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1980) 55–56. 40 Van Wolde comments that the retrospective reaction informs the reader that Naomi also interpreted the famine as an act of God from the beginning (Ruth, 10). Even if she is correct, it is no coincidence that theological interpretation of the famine is mentioned in retrospect, rather than at the beginning of the tale.

85

her family having cut itself off from “His people.” While the deaths of Elimelech and his sons seem to be linked to their flight to Moab, no explicit reason is given; an omission so rare in biblical narrative that this absence dominates the entire exposition. Naomi’s recognition of God’s hand introduces the concept of divine providence,41 a concept which has yet to be discussed as one of the fundamental questions of the book of Ruth.

41 Gerlemann raises the possibility that the verb “heard” (‫ )שמעה‬can be understood as “understood” (‘verstehen’) (G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied [BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965] 26). Whether it is understood thus, or whether its literal meaning, that Naomi heard the news from one source or another, Naomi’s perspective is still emphasized here.

86

The Long Way Home: Naomi and Her Daughters-in-Law (1:7–18)

Much of the book of Ruth is transmitted by way of dialogue between the characters,1 beginning with the description of Ruth’s pledge to Naomi and Orpah’s farewell. Each direct quotation introduces another facet of its speaker, her language and vocabulary revealing as much as her actions.2 Their dialogue essentially comprises of different monologues, through which the narrator carefully presents Ruth and Naomi’s perspective world views. Verse 7 – “She left the place where she had been living, accompanied by her two daughters-in-law;3 and they walked along the road back to the land of Judah” – seems to repeat v. 6. The lack of new information led Joüon to dismiss this verse as superfluous,4 though others argue this duplication has literary value. Sasson claims this verse 1

2 3

4

Hubbard calculates that out of 85 verses, 56 are dialogue between the characters (R. L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988] 102, n. 33). See also: P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953) 12, n. 1. “The language is designed to reveal the character’s spirit, character and status” (F. Polak, Biblical Narrative [Jerusalem: Bialik, 1999, Second Edition] 273 [Heb.]). The structure of the verse (and she left…accompanied by her two daughtersin-law”) harks back to the birth of Ruth and Orpah’s nation, Moab, when Lot and his daughters left the scene of disaster: “And Lot went up…accompanied by his two daughters” (Gen 19:30). The analogies between the two instances are discussed in various studies (See H. Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History,” VT 32 (1982) 425–37; Y. Zakovitch, “The Threshing-Floor Scene in Ruth,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3 (1979) 24–26 (Heb.); C. M. Carmichael, “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt,” JBL 96 (1977) 335; M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos 1992) 116; Hubbard, Ruth, 202, n. 27; LaCocque, Ruth, 90). Joüon, Ruth, 35.

creates suspense and alerts the reader to a new scene,5 and Zakovitch adds that the sensitive reader can detect a different emphasis between the two verses: the first narrates their departure without specifying their destination, while the second emphasizes their destination.6 Moreover, stressing Naomi’s departure from “the place she was in,” especially considering the use of the verb she “was” (‫ )היתה‬exempts her from the criticism cast on her family for actually “living” (‫)וישבו‬ (1:4) there – Naomi herself never fully settled in “that place,” and she is as unattached to that nameless place as the day she first arrived (“and they came to the fields of Moab and they were (‫ )ויהיו‬there” [1:2]). The subtle play of singular and plural nouns “and she left…and they went” raises questions about the nature of Naomi’s relationship with her daughters-in-law, and their own ties to Moab.7 Hubbard points out that this fluctuation underscores the conflict of the scene: Is Naomi going alone, or will they join her?8 This dilemma is solved in a series of exchanges between Naomi and her daughters-in-law. In this scene, Naomi makes three soliloquies which are similarly framed by the narrator,9 and each generates J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 22. 6 Y. Zakovitch, Ruth [Mikra Leyisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990] 54 [Heb.]. 7 It seems that the narrator seeks to surprise the reader by reporting that the daughters-in-law join Naomi. After the death of the father (v. 3), the narrator lists those who remain – Naomi and her sons – and recounts their next deeds (4). After the sons have died (5), the narrator once again lists those who remain – Naomi herself, without mention of her daughters-in-law. While, sure enough, the next verse opens with Naomi’s actions (and she arose”), the rest of the sentence – “and her daughters-in-law,” who were not counted after the sons’ death – comes as a surprise. 8 Hubbard, Ruth, 101. 9 Zakovitch arranges this section into four speeches according to the two key verbs “to return” (‫ )לשוב‬and “to go” (‫( )ללכת‬Ruth, 53). However, taking the actual narrative into account, which divides the speeches into dialogue, there are only three stages, as Bush unequivocally states: “On the basis of both form and content, this scene divides unmistakably into three dialogues, each separated by narrative transitions” (Ruth 71). 5

88

a reaction. Her first speech triggers an emotional outburst of kisses and tears: “and she kissed them and they raised their voices and wept” (9), and they refuse to leave her; her second speech produces a similar reaction, albeit in reverse order: “and they broke into weeping again, and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, while Ruth clung to her” (14),10 while Naomi’s third speech provokes Ruth’s famous vow, which, in turn, leaves Naomi silent: “and she ceased to argue with her” (18). Naomi’s first speech (1:8–9) contains a chiasm that expresses her hopes for their future: a. “Go, return, each woman to her mother’s house. b. May the Lord deal kindly with you, b’. as you have dealt with the dead and with me. a’. May the Lord grant that each of you find security each woman in the house of a husband.” While she initially expects each woman to return to her mother’s house (‫ )אישה לבית אמה‬to receive shelter and sustenance, she blesses them that they will eventually find permanent security in the house of a husband (‫)אשה בית אישה‬. The unusual reference to their mother’s house (and not ‘father’s house’ [Gen 38:11; Lev 22:12; Num 30:17; Deut 22:21; Judg 19:2–3]),11 leads Rudolph to surmise that Ruth and Orpah’s fathers are dead, and they are therefore 10 Despite the marked similarities between the narrative transitions, there are differences that hint to the dialogic development. The reversal of the tears and kisses can be seen thus (E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975] 71–72; Hubbard, Ruth, 115). Bush suggests a chiastic structure (F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther [WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996] 72–73) in which Naomi’s first and third speeches elicit a verbal response, while her second speech moves Ruth to cling to her and Orpah to kiss her, without verbal responses, as I discuss below. 11 Similarly, in the story of Rebecca and Abraham’s servant, Rebecca runs to her mother’s house (Gen 24:28), an example of a more complex analogy between these stories (see the discussion of theology in the introduction). The reference to her mother’s house does not seem unusual to Gunkel, however, and in his commentary on Tamar returning to her “father’s house” he writes that “It is apparently standard practice for the childless widow to return to the household of her father” (Genesis, 398) and as proof of this he brings this verse, among

89

bid to return to their mothers’ homes.12 While Naomi’s language may simply be an attempt to redirect the women’s devotion for their motherin-law back to their biological mothers, Hubbard argues that this term is used in conjunction with love, marriage, and sexuality,13 as the only other appearances of this phrase in the Bible are in this context (Gen 24:28; Song 3:4; 8:2) – as Naomi hopes that her daughter-in-laws will remarry, she bids them to return to “their mother’s house.”14 others – which implies that he deems it irrelevant if a widow is described as returning to her mother’s house or her father’s house. 12 W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962) 41. While Boaz tells Ruth he has heard how she left her father and mother (2:11), suggesting that her father is still alive (Hubbard, Ruth, 102–103), this may be an idiomatic expression which deviates from its classic meaning. Some have claimed that this expression, rather than being unusual, reflects the deep bond between mothers and daughters in biblical times, which is also evident from the aforementioned Gen 24:28 (C. Meyers, “Returning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 85–114; K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 46. Compare also to John Gray: “this may be an anachronism, alluding originally to the part of the tent reserved for the women and presided over by the mother.” (Joshua, Judges, and Ruth [NCBC; London: Eerdmans, 1967] 386). Block and Avnery suggest that it reflects a unique feminine language. (D. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1999) 633; O. Avnery, Liminal Women: Belonging and Otherness in the Books of Ruth and Esther (Jerusalem: Hartman, 2015) 31–32). 13 Hubbard, Ruth, 102–103. He also raises the possibility that the “house of the mother” played a special role in the marriage customs of the ancient world. 14 Compare: Porten, Rhetorical, 26; J. E. McKinlay, “A Son Is Born to Naomi: A Harvest for Israel,” in Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 151; Van Wolde, Ruth, 436. For a different approach, see: Jobling, “Ruth Finds a Home: Canon, Politics, Method,” in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. C. Exum and D. J. A. Clines; Sheffield: Trinity, 1993) 133. Some view this as part of the creation of a feminine discourse (Meyers, “Returning Home”; O. Avnery, The Threefold Cord: Interrelations Between the Books of Samuel, Ruth and Esther (Ph.D. Diss., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2011) 104–05 (Heb.).

90

The two houses that hopefully await them are mentioned before and after Naomi thanks her daughter-in-laws for their kindness towards her and her sons,15 here referred to as “the dead,” (8) and blesses them: “may the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead.” Here, the reader is invited to venture out of the confines of the intimate feminine dialogue and into the realms of royalty: this formula recalls David’s blessing to the people of Jabesh-Gilead, who risk their lives to give Saul a proper burial: “And David sent messengers to the people of Jabesh-Gilead, saying: Blessed are you to the Lord for dealing kindly with your master Saul, and burying him. And now, may the Lord deal kindly and truly with you” (II Sam 2:5–6). The similar language and subject matter links these passages, a connection reinforced with further similarity between David’s words and another passage that appears later in the book of Ruth: “Blessed are you for dealing kindly” recalls Naomi’s words upon hearing that Ruth gleaned in Boaz’s field “Blessed is he to the Lord, who has not failed in his kindness to the living or to the dead” (2:20);16 as well as David’s next words, which bid the people of Jabesh-Gilead to “be strong and valiant” (II Sam 2:7), evoking Boaz’s introduction in the text as a “valiant man” (2:1) and Ruth as a “valiant woman” (3:11).17 This intense intertextuality highlights the theme of “kindness towards the dead.” Like the people of Jabesh-Gilead who buried Saul and his sons, Ruth, and later Boaz,18 show kindness towards the dead by refusing to abandon 15 F. Meltzer, Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Rav Kook Foundation) 6 (Heb.). However, the kindness towards the sons Naomi refers to may well be the kindness they show in not abandoning her (Bush, Ruth, 76). 16 See: N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (trans. by A. Gottschalk; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967) 41–42. He uses this context to determine that the subject of v 2:20 is Boaz. See my discussion of this ambiguity in the relevant chapter. 17 Note that in the passage that describes the actual burial of Saul, the people of Jabesh-Gilead are described as “valiant”: “And each valiant man arose and walked all night long” (1 Sam 31:12). 18 This is yet another analogy between the story of Ruth and the story of David that Zakovitch (Ruth 32–33) and Bazak list (A. Bazak, Parallels Meet: Literary Parallels in the Book of Samuel [Alon Shevut: Hotsa’at Tevunot, 2006)] 131–43 [Heb.]).

91

her dead husband’s mother, and by rekindling his name. Moreover, this comparison casts the characters of Ruth in an even more praiseworthy light, for they also show kindness towards the living that the dead left behind. Above all, this intertexuality reinforces the book of Ruth as a prelude to Davidic monarchy, evoking as it does the burial of Saul and the founding of David’s dynasty.19 If so, Naomi’s words function on both a pragmatic level – her daughters-in-laws’ return to their parents’ home will allow them to start anew and remarry – and on a moral-theological level – for her words reveal her belief in reward and punishment (even the principle of “measure for measure”) and her regard for doers of kindness. As we will shortly discuss, her second speech contains similar theological statements, characterizing Naomi as one who interprets reality as an expression of God’s design. Note that Naomi’s only reference is to the Hebrew God, although she is speaking to her Moabite daughters-inlaw with the expectations that they will shortly return to their Moabite households and gods. As Morris suggests, Naomi’s unwavering belief in God’s omnipotence is an expression of the author’s monotheistic conviction that God’s authority extends outside the borders of the land of Israel.20 While Naomi attempts to convince Ruth to return to Moab with Orpah by saying “See, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her gods” (1:15),21 this is, as I discuss below, part 19 As I mention in the introduction, Jobling suggests viewing the agenda of the book of Ruth as a bridge between the book of Judges to the Davidic dynasty, purposely overlooking the reign of Saul (Jobling, Ruth, 131). The analogy of the passages here confirms this argument: the book of Ruth opens with an allusion to Saul’s death and burial, and here our story begins. For a broader discussion of the connection between Ruth and the book of Samuel, see: Avnery, Threefold Cord, 231–254. 20 L. Morris, Judges and Ruth (TOTC; London: Tyndale, 1968) 254. 21 See; Gray, Ruth, 388; A. Hunter, “How Many Gods Had Ruth?,” SJT 34 (1981) 427–35. Boaz’s words to Ruth in the field: “and may you be fully recompensed from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge” – also deserve attention in this context. Does Boaz assume that Ruth’s coming to Bethlehem automatically places her under the Hebrew God’s protection, or does he refer to the spiritual and psychological process she has undergone in chapter 1 (which I will shortly discuss).

92

of Naomi’s strategy to convince Ruth. Nonetheless, the opinion that Naomi expects the Hebrew God to reward the Moabite girls for the kindness they showed to their Hebrew husbands still stands, and is consistent with the author’s general theological approach of extending boundaries: God’s readiness to accept a Moabite girl into Israelite society is the other side of the coin of divine providence over a Moabite girl who remains in Moab. Kindness and compassion transcend geographical borders. This speech, Naomi’s first words in the narrative – indeed, the first words spoken in the story at all – establishes the principles that will endure for the duration of the story (although Naomi is not aware of these principles as she speaks). First and foremost is the theme of kindness. Naomi’s blessing to her daughters-in-law conceals a pattern that is essentially a microcosm of the entire book of Ruth – for she speaks of two houses, one temporary and one permanent, of which the latter can only be established through kindness. Naomi expects that through God’s “kindness” in return for the kindness they showed towards their husbands and herself, her daughters-in-law will merit to build new homes in Moab. Unbeknownst to her, the entire narrative is to unfold according to her blessing: Ruth’s first marriage, briefly mentioned and fruitless, is followed with her great kindness, which is rewarded with the establishment of her second house and the birth of her son. Through Ruth’s kindness,22 the shaky, unstable era of the Judges is followed by the establishment of the everlasting House of David. Naomi is of course unaware of the symbolic bearing her opening words are to have on the text – and little does she realize the extent of kindness that one of her daughters-in-law is about to “deal with the dead and with [her]” (1:8). Naomi’s expression of “kindness with the dead” will be fulfilled on a literal level at the end of the book, when Ruth honours the name of the dead. Naomi believes that God repays those who act out of kindness (does this, perhaps, reveal her views 22 This pattern is also manifested through Boaz, particularly in light of a midrashic source that tells of the death of Boaz’s wife on the day of Ruth’s arrival (see my discussion of 1:19, below, chap. X, comment 1).

93

about the troubles that befell her family?).23 This concept of “measure for measure,” (‫ )מידה כנגד מידה‬relating to kindness and God’s reaction to the acts of humankind, will develop along with the story. Another key element Naomi reveals is the concept of security: “May the Lord grant that each of you find security (‫ )מנוחה‬in the house of a husband.” While I will discuss this term in a marital context in chap. 3, when Naomi encourages Ruth to approach Boaz in the threshing-floor, the word ‫ מנוחה‬is also associated with inheriting a portion in the land of Israel, as in: “For you have not yet reached the security and the inheritance that the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut 12:9); “Blessed is the Lord who has given security to His nation Israel” (1 Kgs 8:56), as Gillis Gerlemann notes.24 This association is intriguing within the context of the plot: for Naomi’s daughters-in-law wish to join her, and live in the land that her God has given to her, while she insists that there is to be no security for them in Bethlehem – implying that as Moabites, they will never inherit in her people’s land. Thus ends Naomi’s first speech, which earns both a physical and verbal reaction. Because Naomi’s kisses and her daughter-in-laws’ tears are mentioned before their verbal response, the reader may interpret their kisses and tears are signs of separation,25 and therefore their response: “no, we will return with you to your people,” comes as a surprise. This refusal presents the daughters-in-law in a praiseworthy light: despite their marriage prospects in Moab, the girls cleave to Naomi. Their use of the verb “return” with regard to Naomi’s people is also surprising, as Garsiel writes: The repetition of the verb ‘return’ emphasizes their differences: Naomi is returning to her homeland, her people, and her God – unlike her daughters-in-law, 23 As opposed to Fewell and Gunn, who claim that Naomi is hinting that the girls have shown kindness – as opposed to God, who is not presented here as a bestower of kindness (Comprising Redemption, 71). 24 G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965) 18–19. 25 Compare, for example, after Absalom’s rebellion, David implores Barzilai the Gileadite to return to Jerusalem with him, but Barzilai refuses, and their exchange ends thus: “And the king kissed Barzilai and blessed him, and returned to his place” (2 Sam 19:40).

94

who are supposed to return to their mothers’ homes, their own people, and their own gods.26

Their use of the verb “return” expresses the extent of their identification with Naomi – their attachment to her is so strong that they feel they are “returning” with her to her homeland.27 Here, too, there is room to debate if the author’s unexpected use of the verb “to return” anticipates the story’s end; if it is correct to say that in deciding to journey to Bethlehem, Ruth is erasing her past, or, in light of the levirate marriage at the end of the story, she is actually journeying towards a reinvention of her past. She is, in a sense, returning to Bethlehem, where she will ultimately find a husband who will resurrect the name of her first husband.

Naomi’s Second Soliloquy (11–14) Whereas Naomi’s first speech opens with “And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law,” (1:8) the description of her second speech is more concise: “and Naomi said.” (1:11) This introduction reveals the different nature of her second speech: whereas her first speech was about their kindness and the promise of their futures, and directed to them, the second speech is a more personal lament of Naomi: her bitter reflections about herself, rather than an appeal to her daughtersin-law.28 Some claim that this soliloquy is the core of the first chapter – sandwiched between weeping and kisses; between the first and 26 M. Garsiel, ‘’The Literary Structure, Art of the Storyteller and Development of Plot in the Book of Ruth,’’ Hagut Ba-Mikra 3 (1979) 68 (Heb.). 27 See my discussion of the verb pair ‫ שוב‬and ‫ ישב‬in the introduction. 28 Compare: Fewell and Gunn, Redemption, 70–71. Some have claimed that similarities between Naomi and Job can be found in this verse, and to a greater degree, in her answer to the women of Bethlehem at the chapter’s end. See, for example, Zakovitch, Ruth, 30–31; A. Bazak, “A World of Kindness will be Built: The Book of Ruth and the Book of Job,” Megadim 18 (1993) 169–175 (Heb.); LaCocque, Ruth, 141.

95

third speech; between her family’s departure and her bitter return – the image of Naomi, grey before her time, making her way along the highway in rags and lamenting her fate, is the most poignant scene of the first chapter.29 She does not speak to anyone – she merely speaks,30 and her daughters-in-law and her readers shudder at the depth of her misery. Naomi’s speech can be divided into two parts: Return, my daughters: Why should you come with me?

Return, my daughters: Be on your way For I am too old for any man – For even if I said there were hope for me Even if I would be with a man tonight Do I still have sons in my insides Even if I would have sons That could be husbands for you? For them, would you wait until they grow? For them, would you withhold yourselves from any man? No, my daughters, for my lot is far more bitter than yours, for the hand of the Lord has struck against me.

Naomi opens both parts of her second speech with the dominant verb of the first chapter – “Return” (‫שבנה‬, from the root ‫)שוב‬, both times adding the epithet “my daughters,” which expresses her ambivalence – “my daughters,” on the one hand, brings them close, while her bidding them to “return,” pushes them away. This epithet is repeated three times in her second speech, hinting at her evolving feelings towards them: in her first speech, she bids them to return to their “mother’s house” (8), an expression which distances them and reminds them of their real mothers. Now, when Naomi calls them “my daughters,” she becomes their figurative mother. In other words, once they declare “we will return with you to your people” (10), they have separated themselves from their land, their birthplace, and from the house of their mothers, and Naomi, while acknowledging their connection, is 29 Gow, Ruth, 31–32. 30 Compare: F. Polak, “Dialogic Pattern in the Book of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 46 (2001) 193–218 (Heb.).

96

concerned for her “daughters,” and explains why they have no future in Bethlehem. Naomi’s use of the verb “return” (‫ )שבנה‬affronts her daughtersin-law’s use of the same verb to declare their loyalty to her – reminding them that their origins are in Moab, not Bethlehem, and to there they must return. Although they have connected to Naomi herself, they have no connection with the place she is heading for, nothing to do with Bethlehem. As she speaks, her language becomes harsher, more offensive – whereas in the first half of her speech, Naomi gently questions why they are not going: “why should you go (‫ )תלכנה‬with me?” – in the second half, she merely bids them to go: “be on your way!” (‫)לכנה‬. Naomi’s ironic questions reflect a bitter underlying reality. Her premise is that no one in Bethlehem would be willing to marry a Moabite widow,31 and therefore, their only option of “security” would be to marry another of Naomi’s sons (a reasonable premise, both socially and legally,32 which I will address later). The first part of Naomi’s speech is built from rhetorical questions: “why should you come with me?”;33 “Do I still have sons in my insides that could be husbands for you?” These two questions are then answered: “Be on your way, I am too old for any man.” Rather than describe the painful reality, Naomi chooses an indirect approach through rhetorical questions. Moreover, the fantasy she builds in the second part of her speech – the 31 “Neither of them can have children, it would seem, and both have lost their husbands. Perhaps Moabite women are dangerous for Israelites?” (Nielsen, Ruth, 47); see also: Fewell and Gunn, Redemption, 72–74. 32 I will not delve into the issue here of whether Naomi is under the impression that only brothers of her dead sons are able to marry her daughters-in-law in a Levirate marriage (As some claim, for example: Campbell, Ruth, 83; Morris, Ruth, 256; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Joshua, Richter, Ruth [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969] 263). The aversion towards Moabite women may also stem from social issues that are not necessarily related to the law. 33 For a comparison of Naomi’s speech with David’s words to Ittai the Gittite (2 Sam 15:19–20), especially Naomi’s question, “why should you come with me?” to David’s question, “Why should you also come with us again, and dwell with the king, for you are a foreigner” (ibid, 19), see: Hubbard, Ruth, 109, comment 18; and, more extensively: Bazak, Parallels, 135–38.

97

fantasy of having more sons – does not deny or repress her lonely reality. “Even if there would be hope for me,” says Naomi, delving into a more explicit fantasy, “even if I would be with a man tonight, and even if I would have sons,” – her words serve as a figurative fulfillment which only emphasizes her literal reality. She is only too aware of her situation, and describing the “life she could have” accentuates and intensifies her tragedy. As I have already mentioned, through this speech, Naomi focuses on her own personal tragedy, rather than on her daughters-in-law. Different tropes are used to reflect this inward reflection. The expression “in my insides” (‫)מעי‬, rather than the more appropriate referral to her womb or stomach, is conventionally used in laments as an expression of grief and loss.34 Another trope is anaphora, which lends a powerful poetic tone of lament to her words: For (‫ )כי‬I am too old for any man – For (‫ )כי‬even if I said there were hope for me Even (‫ )גם‬if I would be with a man tonight Even (‫ )וגם‬I would have sons For them (‫)הלהן‬, would you wait until they grow? For them (‫)הלהן‬35, would you withhold yourselves from any man?

Naomi’s focus on her inner world is yet more apparent in the second half of her speech: 34 Hubbard claims that Naomi’s lament that she has no more sons in her “insides” rather than in her “stomach” or “womb” expresses her strong yearning that is never to be fulfilled, as the term “insides” (‫ )מעי‬is a symbolic expression of yearning (sometimes, sexual desire, as in Song 5:4) (Hubbard, Ruth, 109). For examples of the mention of “insides” in laments, see: Isa 16:11; Jer 4:19; Lam 1:20; 2:11. Compare also: Sasson, Ruth, 24; Campbell, Ruth, 66–67. 35 Many scholars have commented on the strange grammatical feminization in this verse: “for them,” referring to Naomi’s hypothetical sons, is phrased in the feminine ‫ הלהן‬rather than the masculine ‫הלהם‬. Some have suggested that this is an error that should be corrected (Joüon, Morris, Rudolph, Campbell). Gerlemann suggests that this is an ungendered form of the word, which refers to the situation Naomi describes at the beginning of the sentence (Ruth, 17), but it seems more likely that Naomi is referring to the hypothetical sons who could have taken her daughters-in-law for wives.

98

a. Return, my daughters, be on your way b. For I am too old for any man c. For even if I said there were hope for me / Even if I would be with a man tonight / Even if I would have sons b’. For them, would you wait until they grow? / For them, would you withhold yourselves from any man? a’. No, my daughters, for my lot is far more bitter than yours,36 for the hand of the Lord has struck against me. The repetition of “my daughters” in (a) and (a’) frames her lament – her reference to her daughters-in-law acts as a springboard for introspection. Just as she is “too old for any man,” (b) Orpah and Ruth are effectively holding back “from any man” (b’) if they choose to accompany her. At the heart of this lament, at the very center of the chapter, Naomi connects her plight and the plight of her daughter-in-law with the question of being with a man, revealing the importance Naomi attributes to the question of security through marriage and relations. Naomi will never be at peace again, for she will never be with a man again, while her daughters-in-law’s futures hinge upon whether or not they will be with a man again. This comparison already implies that the real subject of her speech is Naomi herself, while her daughters-in-law play but a minor role in her tragedy. In the final line of her speech this implied suggestion becomes explicit with the cry: “my lot is far more bitter than yours, for the hand of the Lord has struck against me.”37 While her daughters-in-law have the option to return to Moab and hopefully find security through remarriage, Naomi has no secure 36 This translation is my preferred interpretation of the verse – the mem being superlative. One alternative is that Naomi means that their joining her will be bad for her “I am very bitter from you,” see, for example: Gray, Ruth, 387; E. F. Davis, “Beginning with Ruth: An Essay on Translating,” in Scrolls of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs (ed. P. S. Hawkins and L. C. Stahlberg; New York: Fordham University Press, 2006) 17–18. For the alternative that Naomi is too bitter to include her daughters-in-law in her grief, see: H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973) 12–13. 37 There may be intentional alliteration in in this verse: “my lot is far more bitter than yours” – (‫( )מר לי מאוד מכם‬Porten, Rhetorical, 28). The repetitive “m” sound lends a feeling of moaning and closure, form reflecting meaning.

99

future – “for I am too old for any man.” Naomi tries to convince them to return by showing them her own miserable fate. “The hand of the Lord has struck against me” – me, not us. Avoid my fate by returning to Moab. In the exposition, the narrator merely describes the events that befall Naomi, concluding with a banal “and the woman was left, out of her two children and her husband” (5). Here, Naomi’s own words expose the depths of her misery, the utter despair of the future that awaits her: she is to live her life out alone, too old for any man, too old to start anew. Her daughters-in-law’s reactions to her powerful speech are nonverbal: “and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, and Ruth clung to her” (14). This silence is surprising, especially considering their verbal responses to her first and third speech. Orpah’s silence is particularly peculiar: her action in itself does not reveal if she has been convinced to return to Moab. Both daughters-in-law kissed Naomi after her first speech, and both were determined to stay with her. Orpah’s kiss is only interpreted as a kiss of farewell in contrast with Ruth’s clinging to Naomi. This contrast is fairly subtle: the actions of “kissing” and “clinging” are not necessarily contrasting; “kisses” may show as much devotion as “clinging.” While contrast can be derived from the opposing word order,38 “and kissed Orpah her mother-law, and Ruth clung to her” (a word ordering grammatically incorrect in English but common in biblical Hebrew), needless to say, the narrator could have differentiated more clearly between their actions.39 38 As Campbell writes, which seems to be the plain meaning of the text. However, some have claimed that, in general, the placing of the object before the predicate does not indicate contrast, but rather, expresses parallel action (that is, here, the daughter-in-laws are acting simultaneously). See: F. I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Hague: Mouton, 1974) 66–69. 39 Hubbard, for example, attempts to make this contrast clearer to the reader by translating the text thus: “Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung tightly to her” (italics mine), similarly to the JPS translation: “and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell. But Ruth clung to her” (italics mine), or Sasson’s “But while Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, Ruth clung to her” (22). In the Septuagint, the translator added the explicit phrase:

100

The literary contribution of Orpah’s silence relates to her characterization in two separate aspects. Firstly, typically of secondary characters, Orpah’s role in the text is to illuminate the character of the hero – in this case, the character of Ruth, who chooses to accompany Naomi, as opposed to Orpah.40 The reader is only able to understand Orpah’s reaction by reading the actions of Ruth.41 Secondly, her character is judged in light of this silence. In rabbinic literature,42 she is the subject of harsh criticism, even guilty of sexual wantonness which is not even hinted at in the text: Her name is written as both Harafah and Orpah – Rav and Shemuel [differ in their interpretation]. One said that her name was Harafah and why was she called Orpah? Because all had intercourse with her from the rear [orfin]. The other said: Her name was Orpah; and why was she called Harafah? Because all threshed her like bruised corn [harifoth] (t. So†ah 42:2).

“And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law and returned to her people, and Ruth clung to her,” which clearly differentiates Orpah from Ruth (See more on this in: G. M. Schwab, “Ruth,” in: Numbers – Ruth [The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012] 1312–3). 40 In this sense, Berlin is right in saying that Orpah can be compared to the character of Vashti in the book of Esther: “serving as a foil to the female protagonist. Orpah was not evil or inconsiderate, in returning to her family she was doing Naomi’s bidding and the most logical thing. On this basis, Ruth emerges as exceptional” (A. Berlin, Esther [JPS; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2001] lv–lvi). For a comparison of Orpah to Vashti, see: Avnery, Threefold Cord, 48. 41 And from the opening of Naomi’s third speech, “See, your sister-in-law has returned to her people” (1:15). 42 On Orpah’s portrayal in rabbinic literature, see: T. Hurvitz, “An Interdisciplinary View of the Figure of Orpah,” Mo’ed 13 (2003) 38–45 (Heb.) ; G. Sasson, “The Story of David’s Captivity in the Hands of Yishbi Be-Nov in Tractate Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud – Sources, Editing, Structure and Plot in the Service of an Ideological Message,” JSIJ 9 (2009) 13–16 (Heb.); M. Michael, “Orpah and Her Interpreters: Evaluating the Justification for the Traditional-Stereotyped Readings,” Old Testaments Essays 24 (2011) 390–413.

101

However, a plain reading of the text seems to present Orpah in a favorable light.43 Indeed, not only does Orpah set off with Naomi rather than abandoning her after her husband’s death, she even declares her loyalty to her after Naomi’s first speech, only leaving her after her adamant second speech, which certainly characterizes her as a positive character. Orpah’s justified, rational decision to return to, after all, “her people,” together with her silent, unmentioned exit only serves to accentuate Ruth’s tremendous virtue.44 Contrasted with a negative secondary character, Ruth would be seen in a merely positive light; contrasted with the positive, reasonable Orpah, Ruth’s sacrifice is momentous.

Naomi’s Third Soliloquy (15) Naomi’s final speech bids Ruth to follow in her sister-in-law’s footsteps – Orpah has taken her advice, and Ruth would do well to do the same: “See, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her gods, turn away, after your sister-in-law.” Naomi’s third speech opens with the brief introduction, “and she said.”45 The first speech is introduced with, “And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law”; while her second speech opens with “and Naomi said.” This gradual curtailment suggests that the character of Naomi is moving out of the spotlight, making room for a new heroine. 43 Campbell, Ruth, 82; P. Trible, “A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth” Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1982; vol. 2) 172; Zakovitch, Ruth, 7–8; Bush, Ruth, 86. Nielsen, however, argues that Orpah’s name not being mentioned as she departs can be seen in a mildly critical light, similarly to the anonymity of the redeemer, whose actions are not particularly laudable (Ruth, 48). 44 The narrator’s omission of her actual departure moved the translators of the Septuagint to add: “and she returned to her people.” 45 In the Masoretic text.The Septuagint uses the same introduction as that of her first speech.

102

She speaks a single line addressed to Ruth, who then steps up to the stage and begins her famous soliloquy. Even in this brief line, Naomi uses the verb “to return,” (‫ )לשוב‬as in her previous speeches – although she omits the verb “to go” (‫)ללכת‬, repeating the verb “to return” instead, an obvious gap that Ruth will shortly fill. Naomi’s description of Orpah as one who has returned “to her people and her gods” contains a startling revelation. So far, her arguments have centered upon family ties: finding security through marriage versus insecure solitude in old age. Now, in a backhanded manner, she mentions the fundamental national and theological differences between them: Orpah, a Moabite like Ruth, has returned to her people and her gods. Until now, she has completely overlooked their religious disparity: in her first speech, she blesses them “May the Lord deal kindly with you… May the Lord grant that each of you find security” (9). Even when discussing her Moabite daughters-in-law, she refers to the Hebrew God. Now, Naomi suddenly mentions their religious differences. This apparent inconsistency has led Korpel to claim that Naomi’s third speech was a later addition to the text.46 However, this incongruity seems to be deliberate. Firstly, Naomi presumably thinks that she is mentioning a further inconvenience to Ruth: who wants to abandon their own gods, their own doctrines? Secondly, the reader can perceive how Naomi’s words serve as a springboard for Ruth’s soliloquy, which addresses her own nationality and religion. Naomi’s reference to Ruth as Orpah’s “sister-in-law” (‫ )יבמתך‬is striking: rather than address her with a term that links Ruth to herself (such as “my daughter”) she links her to Orpah, emphasizing that she should follow her back to Moab. Naomi’s emotions vacillate wildly: in her first speech she reminds her daughters-in-law of their families in Moab, then she addresses them as “my daughters,” and now, in this third appeal, the family who is waiting for her in Moab, who she urges her to join, is Orpah, her sister-in-law. 46 M. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Assen: Pericope 2, 2001) 89. She adds that Ruth’s reaction to her words, in which she responds to the theological challenge presented to her, is also part of this later addition.

103

The term “sister-in-law,” (‫ )יבמתך‬is unusual. While Jack Sasson proves that its meaning is indeed “sister-in-law,”47 the word is similar to the Hebrew word for levirate marriage, yibum (‫)ייבום‬, and one cannot overlook the author’s decision to use a word that elsewhere in the Bible only appears in connection with levirate marriage. Ironically, whereas Naomi urges Ruth to follow her sister-in-law (‫)יבמה‬, her actual yibum (‫ )ייבום‬results from her following Naomi.

“Wherever You Go, I Will Go” (16–17) For the first time, Ruth speaks up as a character in her own right: And Ruth said, Do not entreat me to leave you, to turn away from you and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may the Lord do to me if anything but death parts me from you. (1:16–17).

Until now, Naomi has spoken at length, and Ruth’s reactions have been described in brief; now, the tables have turned, and Naomi’s concise speech (beginning with “and she said”) is followed with Ruth’s dramatic monologue, (introducing the new heroine – “and Ruth said”).48 The spotlight has fallen on a new character. The language of Ruth’s pledge recalls Naomi’s own words, relying on the two key verbs of the passage, “to return” (‫ )לשוב‬and “to go” 47 Sasson, Ruth, 29. He proves this meaning from an ancient text of Western Semitic dialect from around 1775 BCE. In it, a man named “Azu” writes to his friend to “stop writing to me about Belasono. This woman did not want to live here with her husband, so allow her to continue living with her children in the home of her sister-in-law, (bīt ya-ba-mi-ša)." This important evidence testifies that the word “yibama” also means sister-in-law. The text was first published by S. Page, “The Tablets from Tell Al-Rimah 1967: A Preliminary Report,” Iraq 30 (1968) 87–97. 48 Compare: Polak, “Dialogic Pattern,” 211–212.

104

(‫)ללכת‬. Naomi’s omission of the verb “go” and repetition of the verb “return” is now completed by Ruth, who now declares: “Wherever you go, I will go.” Her similar language, echoing her mother-in-law’s, suggests that not only will she physically accompany her, but she will also be spiritually and emotionally attuned to Naomi. Ruth’s first words are an immediate reaction to Naomi’s bidding – after her mother-in-law asked her to “return (‫)שובי‬, after your sisterin-law,” Ruth replies, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn (‫)לשוב‬ away from you.”49 Ruth has been urged to follow in Orpah’s footsteps, figuratively and literally, but she declares that to go to Moab is to “turn back away from you.” Ruth’s application of the verb “turn away” (‫ )לשוב‬implies that to follow Orpah is to betray Naomi.50 Moreover, until now, the verb “to return” has always been connected to a geographical location – “return, each woman to her mother’s house” (8), or “we will return with you to your people,” (10) that is, to Bethlehem. Now, the verb “return” is connected solely with Naomi, indicating that

49 The plain meaning of the verb “‫ ”תפגעי‬in this context is “do not entreat me.” It appears in a similar context in Jeremiah: “So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not entreat me, for I will not listen to you” (Jer 7:16). The verb root ‫ פגע‬also sometimes indicates actual physical harm, such as in I Sam 22:18, among many others. Naomi will use this verb in this sense later on “it is best, my daughter, that you go out with his girls, so that they will not harm (‫ )ויפגעו‬you in another field” (2:22), closing an inclusio that is opened here: see below. ‫ פגע‬can also mean ‫“ ;פגש‬to meet,” as in the above examples, which may or may not allude to violence. See: F. Rundgren, “pagash – paga, Eine Wurzeluntersuchung,” ArOr 21 (1953) 336–345. For the legal implications of this verb, see: R. L. Hubbard, “The Root PG’ as a Legal Term,” JETS 27 (1984) 129–134. Ruth’s use of this verb, therefore, may imply that Naomi’s dismissal is causing her deeper pain than is apparent to Naomi and the reader. See my extensive discussion of this verb in: J. Grossman, Ambiguity in the Biblical Narrative and its Contribution to the Literary Formation (Ph.D. Diss., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006) 35–37 (Heb.). 50 Compare to Zakovitch, (Ruth, 61) who comments that “the expression to ‘turn away’ has a negative meaning, see Num 14:43: ‘You have turned away from God.’”

105

Naomi herself, rather than a geographical location, has become Ruth’s destination.51 Ruth’s answer to Naomi (16–17) is famously poetic, its meter and repetition suggesting utter devotion.52 In the words of Rudolph, Ruth’s answer is the climax of the entire chapter.53 Ruth declares her loyalty for her mother-in-law by a series of promises that reflect the course of an entire life, until death do them part.”Wherever you go” refers to their imminent journey to Bethlehem; their lodging (a verb that suggests temporary, impermanent lodging rather than a permanent home)54 refers to the life that awaits the women in Bethlehem;55 and her final promise expresses that only death will do them part. Between her pledge to lodge with Naomi and be buried with Naomi, Ruth declares that “your people is my people and your God is my 51 In translation, the verb root ‫ שוב‬is somewhat mutable, sometimes translated as “return,” “turn back,” and “turn away,” among others. For example: “So she said, ‘See, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her gods. Go follow your sister-in-law’. But Ruth replied, ‘Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you’ (JPS); “‘See now,” she said, “your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her god. Go back after your sister-in-law,’ But Ruth said, ‘Do not ask me to abandon or forsake you’” (NAB). Some scholars fail to retain the unity of the passage by translating the verb differently throughout the text, (such as Hubbard, Ruth, 114; Nielsen, Ruth, 45), but Campbell, for example, writes that “At the risk of awkwardness, a translation must reflect the similarity in wording.” (Ruth, 73). For a discussion about the tension of preserving wordplay in translation, see: E. L. Greenstein, Essay on Biblical Method and Translation (Atlanta: Scholar’s, 1989) 93–94. 52 Indeed, some have arranged her speech in blank verse, as if it were poetry (Rudolph, Ruth, 40; Campbell, Ruth, 61–62). Sasson also writes that these verses are a “very lyrical section” (Ruth, 31). Many have written in a similar vein, for example, see: P. Humbert, “Art et lecon de l’histoire de Ruth,” RTP 26 (1938) 87–88; Nielsen, Ruth, 49; M. S. Smith, “Your People Shall be My People: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16–17,” CBQ 69 (2007) 242–243. 53 Rudolph, Ruth, 42. 54 Meltzer, Ruth, 10; Zakovitch, Ruth, 61. See: Gen 32:22; Judg 19:13; Jer 14:8; Neh 13:21. 55 As opposed to Campbell, who argues that the lodging in question refers to the women’s sleeping arrangements until their arrival in Bethlehem (Ruth, 73–74). See also Bush’s criticism of Campbell’s reading (Ruth, 82).

106

God,” (16) interrupting the circle of life depicted through the aforementioned vows. Some argue that this declaration in the middle of her speech places the theological-national question at the heart of her soliloquy.56 I remain unconvinced by this structural claim, although there is no doubt that the declaration “your people is my people and your God is my God,” is of special importance within her speech, if only due to its incongruence in relation to the other statements regarding walking, lodging and burial. Naomi has already raised the national and religious differences between them: “your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her gods” (15), and now Ruth is responding to this statement by answering “your people is my people and your God is my God.” This conjunction of people and God reveals the author’s conviction of the deep connection between national identity and religious identity, so that the issue of conversion in the text is necessarily both national and religious. Yet, Ruth does not declare “The Lord is my God,” or “the God of Israel is my God,” but “your God is my God,” reinforcing the notion that Naomi, rather than any particular place, religion or identity, is her destination.57 Katrina Larkin is correct to point out that this declaration somewhat diminishes the figure of Ruth as a representative of the Other. She chooses to join Naomi’s people and is therefore not the ultimate example of the Other.58 However, Judith McKinlay is also right in asserting that the motif of otherness continues to accompany Ruth, even after her pledge,59 as will be evident when the two women arrive in Bethlehem. The two readings are not necessarily contradictory: the author wishes to emphasize that Ruth does not consider herself a Moabite, and in her devotion she is willing to change cultures if necessary – however, these changes are not readily accepted in Bethlehem. Society continues to perceive her as an Other. 56 K. K. Sacon, “The Book of Ruth: Its Literary Structure and Theme,” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 4 (1978) 6; Gow, Ruth, 37. 57 D. D. Herr, “Men are from Judah, women are from Bethlehem: How a Modern Bestseller Illuminates the Book of Ruth,” Bible Review 14 (1998) 41, 54. 58 K. J. A. Larkin, Ruth and Esther (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: T&T Clark, 1996) 53. 59 McKinlay, A Son is Born to Naomi, 152.

107

Ruth’s conclusion is particularly interesting as she seals her promises by swearing in the name of the God of Israel: “Thus and more may the Lord do to me if anything but death parts me from you,” as if immediately fulfilling her declaration that “your God is my God.” The language of her vow recalls Naomi’s blessing to Ruth and Orpah: “May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and myself ” (8).60 Each woman urges the other to act for her own interests rather than sacrifice herself, attempting to harness God’s approval in the process: Naomi bids Ruth to return to Moab for Ruth’s own sake, with God’s blessings, and Ruth swears by God that she will never leave Naomi, for Naomi’s sake.61 Thus, Gerlemann is correct in claiming that Ruth’s remarkable soliloquy illustrates how a gentile may join the people of Israel, a process that combines several factors: land, nation, and faith,62 even though Ruth’s loyal declaration stems not from theological issues, but from the devotion of a daughter-in-law for her mother-in-law. Moreover, beyond Ruth’s transition from “her mother’s house” to Naomi’s nation, her words conceal an element of social reform. Previously, when Naomi attempts to convince her daughters-in-law to return to Moab, she stresses that they will be unable to procure a husband in Bethlehem, and there is little hope for women in her society without a man to protect them. Here, Ruth creates a new scale of values: while she is aware of her lack of marriage prospects in Bethlehem, she chooses to tie her fate to that of Naomi, displaying priorities that 60 M. C. A. Korpel, “Theodicy in the Book of Ruth,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J.C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 351–374. 61 Brenner claims that Ruth’s words, “if anything but death parts me from you” (17): “sounds like an echo… of David’s lament about Saul and Jonathan: ‘Beloved and pleasant in their lives, and in their death, they were not parted’ (II Sam 1:23)” (A. Brenner, The Book of Ruth: Literary, Stylistic and Linguistic Studies [Tel Aviv: Afik and Sifriyat Po’alim, 1988] 107). If she is correct, then interestingly, as Ruth declares her loyalty unto death, she implies that death necessarily entails separation, while at the same time she evokes the death of Saul and Jonathan, who managed to overcome this separation, for “in their death they were not parted.” 62 Gerlemann, Rut, 20.

108

do not conform to those of ancient society. She chooses to stay with Naomi, rather than return to her mother’s house and remarry; she chooses insecurity and temporary lodging with Naomi over security and a stable new home; she chooses to follow Naomi, the bitter, childless widow, and risk suffering a similar fate. Naomi and Ruth’s different sets of values will both endure until the tale’s end. Ruth’s dramatic monologue leaves the reader with conflicting emotions. On the one hand, Ruth does not expect sweetness and light: her words are fraught with the grim promise of insecure “lodging,” death and burial. On the other hand, her steadfast loyalty casts her in a noble light – she understands what lies in store, and nonetheless remains true. Ruth’s character is also illuminated through the comparison of this passage to the story of Moses and his father-in-law, Hobab (Num 10:29–32).63 There, too, one character is an Israelite, and one is a foreigner; there, too, they are journeying towards the Land of Israel; there, too, the topic at hand is whether the foreigner will join the Israelite on his journey.64 However, the story is essentially an inversion of Ruth’s: Moses tries to convince his father-in-law that his decision to join him will result in great blessing: “Come (‫ )לכה‬with us and we will treat you well, for the Lord has promised good for Israel” (Num 10:29), while Naomi tries to convince her daughter-in-law not to join her, for nothing good awaits her in the Land of Israel.

63 Compare: J. H. Tigay, “Sharing Weal and Woe: Expressions of Solidarity,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. R.A. Kraft, S.M. Paul, and L. Shiffman; Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 94; Leiden: Brill) 824–825. 64 Hepner proposes that the names of the protagonists are semantically linked to characters from the story of the Children of Israel’s journey in the desert: “Naomi,” like “Hobab,” means “pleasant”; Ruth’s name (‫ )רות‬is related to the verb to “seek out security” (‫( )לתור מנוחה‬Num 10:33); and even Boaz’s name (‫ )בעז‬is related to Moses’s speech to Hobab: “do not leave (‫ )תעזוב‬us” (10:31). Indeed, Boaz is the one who does not leave the two widows to their fate (G. Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel [SBL 78; New York: Peter Lang, 2010] 906).

109

Whereas Moses asks Hobab to join them on their journey, which is immediately described as a journey characterized by “security”: “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them… to seek out security” (Num 10:33), Naomi expects similar fortune to befall her daughters-in-law if they do not join her on her journey; it is in Moab that she expects they will find “security”: “May the Lord grant that you find security in the house of a husband” (1:8–9). The narrator does not relate Hobab’s final decision, and it is unclear as to whether he was convinced to join the nation of Israel in their journey – “Do not leave us.” Reading Ruth’s story against the story of Moses and his father-inlaw, however, emphasizes the absurdity of her decision – Naomi does not promise her any of the blessing that Moses promises Hobab – on the contrary, she warns her that no blessings await her in Bethlehem – and even so, Ruth joins her: “Do not entreat me to leave you, to turn away from you and not follow you.”

Silent Acquiescence (18) After Ruth’s passionate answer, the narrative reverts to Naomi’s perspective: “When she saw her determination to go with her, she ceased to argue with her, so the two of them walked until they arrived at Bethlehem” (18–19). These lines are characterized by heavy use of pronouns – “she saw”; “her”; “with her”; “she”; “the two of them”; “they.” This anonymity creates the impression that Ruth and Naomi are not individuals, but a single entity, “the two of them.” As the narrator describes their shared journey after recounting that “she ceased to argue with her,” the reader imagines that they walk in silence. All that

110

needs to be said has already been said – now, in silent solidarity,65 they march towards their collective fate.66 The expression “the two of them walked ” (‫( )ותלכנה‬19) closes the passage that opened with their departure from Moab a dozen verses before – “and they walked (‫ )ותלכנה‬along the road back to the land of Judah” (7).67 This framework underscores all that occurred between these identical expressions, as well as the scene of their departure – Naomi and her daughters-in-law’s debate did not take place in Moab, but along the road, as they were already on their way. Ruth and Orpah did not merely make a polite offer to accompany Naomi on her journey, they actually set out with her to Bethlehem. Naomi attempts to convince them to return as the three are on their way – suspended between Moab and Bethlehem, Ruth and Orpah are torn between their past and their futures. It is no coincidence that the children of Israel are faced with trials and tribulations “on the way,” between leaving Egypt and receiving the Torah at Sinai (Exod 14–17) – thresholds, journeys and doorways often symbolize transition. Ruth’s decision to change her national and religious identity is made in such a transitory place, where she has left her origin but has yet to arrive at her destination – their surroundings reflect Ruth’s internal state. 65 Korpel, Structure, 81. In his opinion, the purpose of this silence is to prepare the reader for the shock of the Bethlemite townswomen who recognize Naomi and cry: “Can this be Naomi?” (1:19). Compare to Meltzer: “In all likeliness, silence pervaded their journey, as Naomi was lost in her memories of the home and town she left over a decade before, and was now returning to in so different a state, and Ruth was lost in her thoughts and fantasies of the unknown place she was approaching, the place where she was determined to live out her future” (Meltzer, Ruth, 11, comment 26). 66 Naomi’s silence seems a somewhat unworthy reaction to Ruth’s passionate speech. After each of Naomi’s soliloquys she received kisses, tears and declarations of love – why is Ruth’s love unreciprocated here? Perhaps the answer lies in Naomi’s steadfast conviction that women’s sole purpose is to marry and bear children – if so, she does not wish to endorse Ruth’s decision with physical displays of approval – she does not kiss or “cling” to Ruth, thereby encouraging feminine companionship in lieu of marriage. 67 Sacon, Ruth, 4–5; Gow, Ruth, 30.

111

Ruth and Naomi’s journey together, “and the two of them walked” (‫)ותלכנה שתיהם‬, recalls another biblical journey, that of Abraham and Isaac, who “walked together” (‫ )וילכו שניהם‬to make a terrible sacrifice (Gen 22:6, 8).68 Once again, a parent is accompanied by its only child, burdened with the knowledge that their shared journey is to end in extinction of their family line, unaware that their sacrifice will be rewarded with salvation and continuation.

68 Compare: Nielsen, Ruth, 50–51; Y. Berger, “Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25,” JBL 128 (2009) 254–257.

112

Naomi (and Ruth’s) Return to Bethlehem (1:19–22) Can this be Naomi?

The meeting between Naomi and the people of her hometown is charged with emotion, detected in the lines that depict her defeated return: “When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town buzzed with excitement over them. The women said, “Can this be Naomi?” (1:19). The narrator relays Naomi and Ruth’s arrival in plural form – they have undertaken this journey together – and the women of the town marvel over both of them, although they feign to ignore Ruth, asking only “can this be Naomi?” The narrator draws attention to the disparity between their clear interest in both women and their exclamations over Naomi alone, a disparity I will shortly return to. The author chooses an interesting verb to describe the excitement of the town at Naomi’s return (‫)ותהום‬.1 The plain meaning of “‫ותהום‬,” assuming its root is ‫ם‬.‫ו‬.‫ה‬, is “muttering, shouting, loud vocal noises.”2 The town is abuzz with excited rumors – Naomi is, so to 1

2

Rashi, taking his cues from midrashic literature, explains that on that day, the whole town was “mourning” (‫ )הומיה‬for Boaz’s wife, who had just died – that is, the entire community had gathered to bury her, and Naomi and Ruth happened to arrive at this communal gathering, to the great surprise of the women of the town. This commentator, and Rashi in his wake, was presumably interested in literary unity, and therefore conjectured that on the very day of widowed Ruth’s arrival, Boaz himself became widowed, ready to become Ruth’s suitor. This theory, however, deviates from the plain meaning of the test, especially as the town did not “‫ ”ותהום‬over “her” but over “them,” but this idea nonetheless has literary merit – I will argue later that through this interpretation, this scene can be connected with the scene at the threshing-floor, together with the word “empty” (‫ )ריקם‬which appears in both scenes. See below. BDB, 223. Most scholars have interpreted it thus (F. Zorell, Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti [Repr.; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 1968] 187; F. Stolz, “hmm,” THAT 1:502; G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied [BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965] 17, 20; H. Witzenrath, Das Buch Rut [SNAT

speak, the talk of the town. The town’s reaction to Naomi is narrated in two steps: firstly, there is great buzz around their return; secondly, there is the local women’s verbal reaction – “can this be Naomi?”3 The verb “‫ ”ותהם‬appears in the bible in both contexts of mourning and sadness, such as: “why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you mourn (‫( ”?)ותהמי‬Ps 42:5), as well as in contexts of joy: “and as the Ark of the covenant of the Lord arrived at the camp, all of Israel raised such a cry that the ground trembled (‫( ”)ותהם‬I Sam 4:5). How, then, can Naomi’s reception be understood? Did the townspeople grieve to see their compatriot destitute, bereaved, and widowed? Or were they perhaps somewhat gratified at the humbling of the woman who abandoned them all in their time of need? The women’s reaction to Naomi is similarly ambiguous – were her friends of old distressed to see her thus – could this poor widow be the Naomi they once knew?4 – or are they struggling to conceal their smirks as they feign concern for the woman who had the audacity to exclude herself from the collective fate?5 The reader is therefore left to wonder whether Naomi and Ruth have arrived at a community who will provide for the women and help them in their plight, or whether they will indeed be condemned

3 4 5

40; Münich: Kösel, 1975] 20; Campbell, Ruth, 75). Alternately, the root verb could be ‫הממ‬, or ‫( המה‬P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique [Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953] 43). For a discussion of the word root and its derivatives, see: H. P. Müller, “hmm,” TDOT 3. 419; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: 1988) 123 (who defines the verb as a key word in this scene); F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther (WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996) 91. “The gathering of women expresses great astonishment at the change in Naomi who has returned alone after a long absence.” (Y. Zakovitch, Ruth [Mikra Leyisra‘el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990] 63). W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962) 44. See: B. Jongeling, “Hz’t n’my (Ruth 1,19),” VT 28 (1978) 474–77, who compares this phrase to I Kings 18:17. For a discussion of how to understand these words, see also: R. T. Hyman, “Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth,” USQR 39 (1984) 189–201, 192; Bush, Ruth, 91–92 (who supports the reading of this question as a mocking one.)

114

to the lonely, pitiful existence Naomi anticipated in her lament to her daughters-in-law. In either case, the women’s question seems to be rhetorical, an expression of general astonishment.6 The language of the passage seems to imply that the women were not addressing Naomi directly, but rather talking amongst themselves, as the narrator relates “and they said” rather than “and they said to her.” Whether they are whispering out of compassion or malice, Naomi speaks to them directly, “and she said to them,” and answers their question directly, despite its rhetorical ambiguity: No, I am no longer Naomi – my life is no longer Naomi, meaning pleasant, but Marah, bitter. Naomi’s answer is presented as two stanzas that revolve around her personal tragedy:7 a. Do not call me Naomi / call me Marah b. for Shaddai has made my lot very bitter. I went away full, and empty I was returned by the Lord. a. How can you call me Naomi, b. when the Lord has dealt harshly with me / when Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me. (1:20–21).

The first lines of each stanza (a) deal with her name, forbidding the women of Bethlehem to call her thus. The second lines of each stanza (b) bemoan the fate God has dealt her. A close structural examination of the two stanzas reveals a delicate balance: in the first stanza, Naomi focuses on her name for two lines and upon God for one line; in the second stanza, she focuses on her name for a single line, and upon 6 7

This is the usual interpretation (For example: Bush, Ruth, 91; Zakovitch, Ruth, 63), as opposed to R. T. Hyman, “Questions and the Book of Ruth,” Hebrew Studies 24 (1983) 17. A similar structure is suggested by A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press, 1985) 136; M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos 1992) 39; Bush, Ruth, 90; P. Trible, “A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1982; vol. 2) 169.

115

God for two lines. This shift in emphasis, from introspection to the perception of the hand of God, reflects the general theological message of the book of Ruth (see Introduction), and is also consistent with Naomi’s character. Her belief in God’s hand is evident in her earlier laments to her daughters-in-law, and is reinforced here, in her answer to the townswomen. Moreover, the new name Naomi chooses for herself, Marah, which means “bitter,”8 echoes her second soliloquy to her daughters-in-law, which follows a similar structure to her answer to the townswomen:9 a. for my lot is far more bitter than yours, b. for the hand of the Lord has struck against me (13) corresponding to a. for Shaddai has made my very lot bitter… b. and empty I was returned by the Lord. (20–21)

Naomi stressed the bitterness of her fate in order to dissuade her daughters-in-law from accompanying her to Bethlehem, and now she continues meditating upon this bitterness, even seeking to define herself through it. Her lament about her bitterness as a result of God’s hand in her lament in v. 13 is developed here, in her answer to the townspeople.10 It should be noted that the narrator does not explicitly 8

For different opinions regarding the name Mara (‫מרא‬/‫ )מרה‬and its meaning, see: J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 32–34. For Naomi’s change of her name as based on the contrast of the words “pleasant” (‫ )נעים‬and “bitter” (‫ )מר‬see: Y. Zakovitch, “The Synonymous Word and Synonymous Name in Name-Midrashim,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 2 (1977) 107–08 (Heb.); M. Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (trans. by P. Hackett; Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1987) 251. 9 A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. by K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 55. 10 Compare: Gow, Ruth, 40. James Fischer claims that in these verses, the main conflict of the story bursts out: the tension between Naomi and God – that here, Naomi curses God (J. Fischer, “Ruth,” in The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Old Testament [ed. Dianne Bergant; Minnesota: Liturgical, 1992] 798–799).These verses, however, contain no curse: rather, they are an expression of despair.

116

explain the tragic events that befell Naomi’s family as an act of God – rather, this interpretation comes from Naomi herself. While the biblical context creates the impression that the author of the text shares Naomi’s theological views, it is no coincidence that the events are interpreted thus by the characters themselves, rather than the narrative voice. Throughout the story – until the end of the final chapter – the narrator retains an interpretive distance, a distance which allows for the expression of a theological concept of hidden Providence. Each character has the choice of whether or not to perceive God’s hand in what befalls them. André LaCocque suggests that Naomi’s new name, “Marah,” alludes to the story of Marah in Exodus 15.11 This claim is interesting in its narrative context: “And Moses led the children of Israel from the Sea of Reeds and they went out into the Desert of Shur and they walked for three days in the desert and they did not find water. And they came to Marah, and they could not drink the water from Marah, for it was bitter, which is why [the place] was called Marah” (Exod 15:22–3).

After three days, the Israelites arrived at water source whose waters were mockingly undrinkable, unable to quench their thirst. As Ruth’s name may be derived from the word ‫רווה‬, “quench,” or “saturation,”12 this allusion to Exodus hints that only through the character of Ruth will the bitterness of Naomi’s life be quenched, be rendered sweet. I wish to explore two elements of Naomi’s answer to the townswomen: her use of the name “Shaddai”; and her statement that she has come “empty” to Bethlehem.

11 LaCocque, Ruth, 56. 12 H. Bruppacher, “Die Bedeutung des Namens Ruth,” TZ 22 (1966) 12–18; Sasson, Ruth, 21; D. R. G. Beattie, Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (JSOTSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1977) 192.

117

Shaddai has made my lot very bitter Naomi’s use of the name “Shaddai” deserves special attention, considering that this form of God’s name is extremely rare in the Bible (appearing in only about ten different places).13 Her use is even more unusual as Naomi combines this name with the usual name for God in her speech: “and empty I was returned by the Lord…for the Lord has dealt harshly with me” (20–21). One reason for its evocation lies in the potential wordplay of the name Shaddai. Feivel Meltzer suggests that Naomi uses the name Shaddai (‫ )שדי‬here because of its phonological similarity to the word “devastation” (‫)שוד‬, which is relevant to the crisis she is reflecting upon, as in: “like devastation from Shaddai (‫ )שוד משדי‬it will come” (Isa 13:6).14

Another solution is that the name Shaddai reflects her theological view of the events that have befalled her: Shaddai (‫ )שדי‬is punishing her for her departure to the fields (‫ )שדי‬of Moab, which is mentioned in the next verse (1:22, and in 1:1; 2:6). However, the name Shaddai has significance beyond this insightful wordplay. Tracing the contexts in which this name appears reveals that the name “Shaddai” is significantly linked to blessings of fertility.15 Whether its etymology is derived from the word “field” (‫( )שדה‬according to Weippert, Wifall, Loretz, and others), or from the word “breasts” (‫( )שדיים‬in the opinion of Albright, Fohrer, Korpel, Zorell), it is unquestionably linked

13 The name “Shaddai” appears most frequently in Job (over twenty times). With the (problematic) assumption that the author of Ruth was familiar with Job, the use of the name Shaddai may well serve to connect Naomi’s lament with Job’s misfortunes and laments. See: Zakovitch, Ruth, 30–31; LaCocque, Ruth, 141; Bazak, “A World of Kindness.” 14 Meltzer, Ruth, 13. 15 Others have argues that the name is derived from ‫שדד‬, “All Powerful” (M. Z. Kaddari, Complete Academic Biblical Hebrew Dictionary [Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006] 220 [Heb.]); or from “protection” (Delitzsch and Lang) or from “salvation (Redford, Seebass and Görg).

118

to fertility – soil or childbearing.16 While the name “Shaddai” appears only six times in Genesis, it appears twice during God’s revelation to the patriarchs, both times promising fertility (Gen 17:1–6; 35:11). Naomi evokes this name ironically, underscoring her tragedy – her family’s rejection of the land of covenant annulled Shaddai’s blessing of fertility: now her husband and sons are dead, and she will be fruitful and multiply no more – she left “full,” and now she has returned “empty.”17 Moreover, both revelations of God as Shaddai in Genesis instigate a change in name: Abram becomes Abraham (17:5); and Jacob becomes Israel as a result of his victory over Esau’s angel (35:10).18 Both patriarchs’ names are changed as an expression of God’s abundance infused into their essence. Evoking that same Shaddai, Naomi changes her own name as a manifestation of her bereavement and loss – not as an expression of triumph or victory, but one of submission to the harsh decree she has suffered.19 Once again, naming is linked 16 For a full range of opinions, see: H. Niehr, “šadday: Etymology,” TDOT 14. 418–424; C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary (trans. by J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 257–58; HAL, “‫שדי‬,” 4:1420–22. Besides the two accepted opinions mentioned above, Fohrer’s opinion that “Shaddai” is derived from the word “demon” (‫)שד‬, as in “the Spirit that watches over me” is also noteworthy; as is the view that “Shaddai” is derived from the root “‫שדד‬,” “destroyer”; Walker suggests that Shaddai means “All-Knowing,” as derived from the Samarian word SA(G).ZU. 17 I find Westermann’s claim, that the function of Shaddai’s name does not depend on its meaning, somewhat doubtful (Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 258). As I discuss above, the semantic field of fertility seems to apply to the stories which feature this name. However, Westermann’s claim may be relevant in the context of the book of Job, where the name Shaddai is repeated intensively. 18 The relationship between the two stories that relay the change in Jacob’s name to Israel is complex, and many possible solutions have been raised – some rely on the question of the text’s emergence, and some have suggested literary-synchronic readings. See, for example: Z. Weisman, From Jacob to Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) 51–52 (Heb.); J. Grossman, “‘What You Vow, Fulfill’: The Meaning of Jacob’s Struggle with the Angel,” Megadim 26 (1996) 9–26 (Heb.); N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 241–42. 19 Compare: K. D. Sakenfeld, “Naomi’s Cry: Reflection on Ruth I: 20–21,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller

119

with continuity – or discontinuity. Naomi feels that her family line has ended, and so she erases herself by changing her name. “Shaddai’s” other appearances in Genesis are also linked to fertility and continuation. Jacob’s words to his sons are of special relevance as they focus on two sons: when Jacob sends Benjamin to Egypt, he says: “May the God Shaddai grant you mercy before the man, that he will dismiss your other brother and Benjamin – as for me, if I am bereaved, I am bereaved” (Gen 43:14). Jacob fears for the lives of Benjamin and the “other brother” (Simeon, who has remained in Egypt), and invokes the powers associated with Shaddai by using this name in the hope that they will both be saved. This reference casts Naomi’s loss in a bitter, ironic light: she herself is suffering the bereavement Jacob feared. This intertextuality is reinforced with Jacob’s words to Joseph on the eve of his death: The God Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me. And he said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers’…Now, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; … As I was returning from Paddan, Rachel died on me, in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to Ephrath that is Bethlehem (Gen 48:3–7).

The mention of Shaddai, the birth of two sons outside of Israel who continue Jacob’s line, the death of the family’s wife and mother “on the way” to Ephrath that is Bethlehem; Naomi’s story is a bitter inversion of Jacob’s. Only the wife and mother survives her family (whereas only Rachel dies, leaving her husband and two sons), her two sons die outside of Bethlehem, “on the way” to Bethlehem Naomi laments her fate to her daughter-in-law: to complete this intertextuality, the narrator evokes the name Shaddai through Naomi, the sorry matriarch of a family hovering on the brink of extinction. Here, “Shaddai” appears in bitter irony: the same Shaddai who changed the names of (ed. B. A. Strawn and N. Bowen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 129– 143, 132–134. She adds that through the allusion to the covenant of Abraham, the reader is reminded of the blessing God bestowed upon him: “and kings shall be come out of you,” a passage which alludes to Naomi, although she is unaware of this (ibid, 134).

120

the Patriarchs as a blessing of fertility bears witness to the changing of Naomi’s name out of barrenness and loss. Naomi expresses God’s meting out of punishment with three different expressions; “Shaddai has made my lot very bitter”; “the Lord has struck against me”; “Shaddai has brought misfortune against me.” Naomi feels God has struck against her personally; He has made her lot bitter, struck against her, and brought misfortune upon her. The conflict between Naomi and God is hinted at through inverted chiasmus: I went away full / and empty I was returned by the Lord – the phrase opens with “I,” and ends with the Lord’s intentions.20 God has returned her to Bethlehem. There is no accusation against God in her lament, no misunderstanding or blame: rather, Naomi’s words express her acceptance of God’s will. Through her statement that “the Lord has struck against me,”21 she manifests herself as testimony of God’s will in the world. In Kantian terms, Naomi’s words display recognition of the limitations of reason to justify providence, but they do not dispute this providence.22

20 Berlin, Dynamics, 136. She rightly adds that at the end of the story, the women of Bethlehem will “reconcile” between God and Naomi: “Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today” (4:14). 21 The meaning of the verb “struck against me,” (‫ )ענה‬is unclear. The Septuagint and the Peshitta read it as “‫עינה‬,” that is, in the Piel form of the verb, although the Qal form of the verb may mean “to testify against me” (II Sam 1:16; Isa 3:9; Jer 14:7; Mic 6:3 Hos 5:5; 7:10). I believe Zornberg is correct in her claim that this is deliberate vagueness, intended to occupy the reader with contemplation of the justice of Naomi’s suffering. (A. Gottlieb Zornberg, “The Concealed Alternative,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story [ed. J. A. Kates and Gail Twersky Reimer; New York: Balantine, 1994] 68). 22 Compare: M. C. A. Korpel, “Theodicy in the Book of Ruth,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible (ed. A. Laato and J.C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 351–374.

121

Empty I Was Returned by the Lord Naomi’s statement that she has returned “empty” to Bethlehem seems to belittle Ruth’s great sacrifice. Before and after Naomi’s words, the narrator emphasizes Ruth’s presence: “and the two of them walked together until they arrived at Bethlehem” (19) and “and Naomi returned, and Ruth her daughter-in-law the Moabite was with her” (22). Compared to the husband and two sons that she lost, Naomi has returned empty-handed, particularly as she is the lone survivor of those who left Bethlehem,23 but the narrator’s emphasis of Ruth’s presence seems to impart a message to the reader. It is conceivable that Naomi prefers not to draw attention to her daughter-in-law, given her foreign, Moabite origins – on some level, this lack of attention will provide some shelter from the prying eyes of her neighbors.24 Still, Naomi’s disregard of Ruth seems to echo that of the townswomen, who gape at the pair of them, but ask only, “Can this be Naomi?”25 It is no coincidence that Ruth is overlooked here, and the narrator’s reiteration that Naomi is accompanied by Ruth only underscores the despair of their 23 Fischer suggests that only men are taken into accounts of “fullness” and “emptiness” (I. Fischer, “The Book of Ruth: A ‘Feminist’ Commentary to the Torah?” in Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 2nd series (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 27, but this reading seems somewhat strained, considering that Naomi is speaking to the women of Bethlehem, and that she herself is the main subject of her lament. 24 LaCocque, Ruth, 55. 25 Fewell and Gunn make a similar claim (D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990) 75), which Coxon contests (P. W. Coxon, “Was Naomi a Scold?,” JSOT 45 (1989) 27). In his opinion, the story is more complex, and Naomi cannot be blamed for failing to mention Ruth in this scene. Generally, he is correct in asserting that it is careless to draw conclusions from what has not been said; however, in this case I tend to agree with Fewell and Gunn, due to the narrator’s emphasis on Ruth’s presence before and after Naomi’s lament. However, I do not share Fewell and Gunn’s general opinion that the narrator presents Ruth as a burden to Naomi, who would prefer to have returned to Bethlehem without any remainder of the Moabite period of her life.

122

situation; of Ruth’s in particular, but also of Naomi’s. For although Ruth valiantly refuses to allow her mother-in-law to return alone, there are few prospects waiting for a Moabite widow in Bethlehem. From a social perspective, Naomi is virtually alone, “empty.” In the context of our discussion, not only Ruth’s foreignness is at stake here, but also her voluntary commitment to Naomi. Apparently, her connection to Naomi is meaningless in Bethlehem, devoid as it is of any legal/ civil/customary binding, and Naomi is effectively alone from a legal and social standpoint, although Ruth bravely tags along. Nonetheless, Bethlehem society’s view of their relationship differs from that of the narrator himself, as is evident from the following verse.26 As I have mentioned, in the final verse of the chapter, the narrator has Ruth reappear on the scene: “Thus Naomi returned, and Ruth her Moabite daughter-in-law with her who returned from the fields of Moab, and they arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest” (22). Precisely when the townspeople are choosing to ignore the foreign Moabite woman who has followed Naomi home, the narrator emphasizes Ruth and Naomi’s joint arrival/return and their lodging together.27 The first two words of the verse describe Naomi’s return, while the next seven are related to Ruth. The verse is lengthy and awkward,28 but this wordiness is but a literary device to draw attention to Ruth, her connection to Naomi, and the distance she has gone to be with her: she is her daughter-in-law, a Moabite, who returned from her homeland, who returned with Naomi. Ruth has “returned” with Naomi – welcome or not by Naomi’s townswomen, Ruth has returned home: 26 Naomi’s expression, “empty,” (‫)ריקם‬, is soon to take on a new meaning later in the story when Ruth quotes Boaz as having said “do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law” (3:17). See below. 27 The author may be employing subtle word play through the words “and the town buzzed” (‫( )ותהם העיר‬19) and their arrival (‫( )והמה באו‬22) – although the townswomen address Naomi alone, they marvelled at the arrival of them both – ‫!והמה באו‬ 28 This verse is identical in all versions and ancient translations, so it is highly unlikely that this awkwardness is the result of an error (as opposed to: Rudolph, Ruth,44).

123

The paradox of the “Moabite” who returns from “the fields of Moab” to Bethlehem is emphasized by the narrator, who covertly intervenes to hint to the greatness of the daughter-in-law who sacrificed her national ties and her homeland to “return” alongside her mother-in-law.29

By emphasizing Ruth’s sacrifice and her loyalty, the narrator compensates for the townswomen’s attitude towards her, and furthermore, suggests that although Naomi perceives herself as “empty,” she is not: Ruth is with her, and hope and renewal will come from her. Ruth’s presence will prove to be God’s answer to Naomi’s lament.30 Naomi and Ruth’s return to Bethlehem is situated in time: “they arrived at the beginning of the barley harvest” (22). Many have rightly claimed that concluding the chapter thus anticipates the next chapter, which opens with the scene in the field of Boaz during harvest time, and closes with the verse “until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest” (2:23).31 However, others have also justifiably claimed that this phrase does not only open the next scene, but concludes the previous scene,32 creating an inclusio with the beginning of the chapter, when Naomi hears that “the Lord had taken note of his people and given them bread” (1:6) and is determined to return home. This closure is designed to create the impression of a “happy end,” wherein the two women return from their exile to a time of plenty and promise.33 This illusion is soon to be shattered, however, with the opening 29 M. Garsiel, ‘’The Literary Structure, Art of the Storyteller and Development of Plot in the Book of Ruth,’’ Hagut Ba-Mikra 3 (1979) 68 (Heb.); Compare: LaCocque, Ruth, 58–59. 30 Similarly: E. J. Hamlin, Ruth: Surely There Is a Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 23; T. Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken, 2002) 242. 31 For example, D. F. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth,” JBL 89 (1970) 30–31. 32 For a discussion of interconnected verses and transitional scenes, see S. BarEfrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 (1980) 145; F. Polak, Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1999; Second Edition) 113–15 (Heb.); Y. Tzohar, The Exposition in the Biblical Narrative (Ph.D. Diss., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2005) 193–203 (Heb.). 33 LaCocque saw this closing verse as the end of an inclusio that spans the entire first chapter: the first line describes the famine that forced the family to leave

124

of the next scene, whereupon the reader discovers that no one is caring for the two widows who have returned to Bethlehem. Hubbard notes that the narrator does not reveal their lodgings. Where do they live? With relatives? With friends? In Elimelech’s abandoned home?34 This information seems to be purposely withheld, creating an uneasy feel of displacement – the reader is thus unable to imagine their physical or social surroundings, and through this information gap, is able to appreciate Ruth and Naomi’s search for a permanent home, for the security they fear will forever be denied to them. In narratives that focus on wanderers or migrants, the question of place is essential – definitive – to social acceptance and identity. The narrator of Ruth and Naomi’s story fails to specify their location at the end of the chapter because, for now, Ruth and Naomi have no “place.”

Bethlehem; the final verse describes the return of Naomi in time for the barley harvest (Ruth, 59). 34 Hubbard, Ruth, 128.

125

Introduction to Chapter II Behold her, single in the field, Yon solitary Highland Lass! Reaping and singing by herself;— Stop here, or gently pass! Alone she cuts and binds the grain, And sings a melancholy strain; O listen! for a vale profound Is overflowing with the sound. (from Wordsworth, “The Solitary Reaper”)

The theme of “otherness” pervades the story from its beginning, with the family’s departure to Moab. The act of departure severs their ties with their nation and their culture, and as they arrive in Moab, they become “the Other.”1 However, as the definition of otherness is inherently dependent on perspective, it is unlikely that the reader perceives Elimelech and his family as Others in Moab. On the contrary – the intended reader of the text (of Israelite identity) feels that they have gone to live among “Others.” Even though Elimelech is the only Israelite in his new environment, the intended reader still perceives him as an Israelite who has decided to live in an “Other” culture. From this perspective, even if the family experiences alienation from their surroundings, the reader does not participate in this experience – for him or her, encounter with the Other begins with the character of Ruth. What character could possibly be a more definitive example of otherness than Ruth? She is a woman, a widow, a foreigner, a Moabite. In the ancient world, the widow’s place in society was unstable – widows were counted among the vulnerable as they had no man to protect or sustain them.2 Thus, in Exodus and Deuteronomy, widows 1 2

A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. by K. C. Hanson; Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 151. F. C. Fensham, “Widow, Orphan and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21 (1962) 129–39; C. van Leeuwen, “‫אלמנה‬,” NIDOTTE 1.413–15.

are the subject of social laws such as: “Do not mistreat or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt. Do not take advantage of the widow or the orphan” (Exod 22:20–21), which is clearly related to: “For the Lord … shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.  He defends the cause of the orphan and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt” (Deut 10:17–18).3 The joint mention of the “destitute” / “orphan” / “widow” is also prevalent in Ugaritic sources,4 reflecting the wretched situation of the widow in the ancient world. Accordingly, there are charity laws that require the owners of fields and vineyards to address the needs of the poor in their society, and the widow among them: When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the orphan and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the orphan and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the orphan and the widow. (Deut 24:19–21). Although these laws are not explicitly mentioned in Ruth 2, the scene of the field revolves entirely around them. I have yet to discuss the author’s intense involvement with the intricacies of these laws. In the above verses, the foreigner is always mentioned alongside the orphan and the widow, who has no portion in the land, and whose otherness is inherent. The character of Ruth is both “widow” and 3 4

See: O. Baab, “Widow,” IDB 4.842–43; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, (NICOT; Grand Rapids: 1988) 96, comment 21. Y. Avishor, “Prevalent word-trios in the Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages,” in Festschrift for Haim Gevariahu (ed. B. Z. Lurie and S. Avramsky; Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1990) 382–83 (Heb.).

127

“foreigner.”5 However, her foreignness is exacerbated by her specifically Moabite origin. As I discuss in chap. 1, the verses in Deuteronomy generate a negative attitude towards Moabites in particular (Deut 23: 4–7). While these verses are not openly addressed in the narrative, the deuteronomical verse nonetheless casts a palpable shadow of alienation over Ruth as she walks the fields of Bethlehem – society relates to not merely to her general otherness, but to her Moabite otherness. Moreover, Ruth is a woman. In a narrative revolving around women, wherein the narrator is particularly sympathetic towards women and Ruth and Naomi are the ones who drive the plot, it is unclear whether or not the woman represents otherness. It is also unclear as to whether in the author’s consciousness, women’s status in society justifies their definition as a minority, as a group who do not receive the privileges they deserve. However, in light of ancient societal norms, women in biblical times were inherent Others: in need of protection, in need of a husband to provide for them – Ruth and Naomi represent the weak underbelly of society that dangles helplessly from its backbone. Therefore, Boaz’s question in the field: “whose girl is that?” (2:5) emerges as a profound question which reveals the vast range of identities that confine Ruth, which define her as an Other. These “identities,” which cling to her against her will, are manifested as a social threat, lurking in the field of Boaz. Typically of biblical literature, these threats are never overtly expressed, but they are nonetheless present, as in Boaz’s words: “I have ordered the boys not to harass you” (2:9). The field and the its accompanying laws serve as an ideal testing ground to examine Boaz’s attitude towards Ruth on the one hand, and to explore the boundaries of social convention and the law on the other, as I will discuss. The setting of the fields, the ripe grain, and the barley harvest represents the fertility of the soil. This abundance is a dramatic foil to the despair of the two widows: not to only their economic hardship, but 5

I. Pardes illuminates Ruth’s otherness in a different way: “Ruth is, after all, doubly other, both a foreigner and a woman.” (Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1992] 99). As I mention above, Ruth’s widowhood – the absence of a husband to protect her and support her financially – is even more noticeable in the story than her being a woman.

128

to their loneliness and barrenness. Ruth and Boaz’s meeting in such a fertile setting hints to an end to this loneliness. Robert Alter reads the meeting of Ruth and Boaz in the field as a betrothal-type scene, noting that its details are an inversion of the classic betrothal narrative: The betrothal type-scene, then, must take place with the future bridegroom, or his surrogate, having journeyed to a foreign land. There he encounters a girl – the term ‘‫ ’נערה‬invariably occurs unless the maiden is identified as so-and-so’s daughter – or girls at a well. Someone, either the man or the girl, then draws water from the well; afterward, the girl or girls rush to bring home the news of the stranger’s arrival… finally, a betrothal is concluded between the stranger and the girl – in the majority of instances, only after he has been invited to a meal.6

According to Alter’s reading, which others have adopted,7 the meeting of Ruth and Boaz presents a complete gender inversion of such a scene: “The protagonist is a heroine, not a hero, and her homeland is Moab, so the ‘foreign soil’ on which she meets her future mate near a well is Judah.”8 I will discuss my reservations about this analysis in a close reading of this scene, but for now, I wish to emphasize that even if we should choose to adopt Alter’s proposal of a “betrothal scene,” the obvious disparity between a typical betrothal scene and the scene in Boaz’s field is that the latter does not end with marriage. The meeting of Abraham’s servant and Rebecca at the well ends with Rebecca’s journey to Canaan to meet her betrothed (Gen 24); Jacob and Rachel’s meeting at the well culminates with a double wedding, first Leah’s and then Rachel’s (Gen 29); when Moses protects the daughters of Reuel at the well, his marriage with Zipporah follows (Exod 2); but Boaz’s meeting Ruth in the field solves only her lack of fruits of the earth, but not her lack of fruits of the womb. From this perspective, the meeting of Boaz and Ruth recalls Alter’s description of Saul’s meeting with the girls in 1 Sam 9: 11–13: “The type-scene has been aborted.”9 Ruth and Boaz do eventually marry two scenes later, but after their meeting in 6 R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981) 52. 7 Similarly: Hubbard, Ruth, 187–88. 8 Alter, The Art, 58. 9 Alter, The Art, 60.

129

the field, the two part ways, and if not for Naomi’s dramatic intervention in the following chapter, the sprouting seeds of their relationship would never emerge from the soil and bear fruit.10 It is harvest time in Bethlehem: the rolling fields of ripe barley, the mounds of golden grain, and the God-given abundance are an ironically fertile backdrop for the barren plight of Ruth and Naomi. Boaz and Ruth meet; and yet Ruth returns to her mother-in-law, as lonely as before. All that remains of their meeting is an ephah of barley and some leftover parched grain.

10 Compare: M. Garsiel, “The Literary Structure, Art of the Storyteller and Development of Plot in the Book of Ruth,’’ Hagut Ba-Mikra 3 (1979) 66–83 (Heb.).

130

Ruth and Boaz’s Encounter in the Field (2:1–23) May your acknowledger be blessed

The chapter opens with the introduction of the story’s third protagonist, Boaz: “Now Naomi had a kinsman on her husband’s side, a valiant man, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz” (2:1).1 How is the nature of Naomi and Boaz’s relationship to be understood? The Masoretic text presents two different variations of the word “kinsman” – its Ketiv is “‫מידע‬,” “Medah,” and its Qere is “‫מודע‬,” “Mudah.” This difference may indeed be significant – Hubbard, for example, translates: “Now Naomi had a friend through her husband.”2 This reading is derived from the written ‫מידע‬, which in his opinion is related to the word ‫מיודע‬, which means “friend” in the context of 2 Kings 10:11: “And Jehu smote all those who remained in the House of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his ministers, friends (‫ )מידעיו‬and priests, until there was no survivor” (see also: Ps 31:12; 55:14; 88:9;19; Job 19:14).3 However, most translations favor the Qere version, “Now Naomi had a kinsman on her husband’s side” (JPS; KJV; NAB; NAU; NIV). According to this reading, Boaz was not only an acquaintance of Naomi’s, but a kinsman,4 the meaning of the word derived from a parallelism in 1

Boaz is introduced to the reader in relation to Naomi (“Naomi had a kinsman on her husband’s side”), which indicates that Boaz will be relevant to the process that Naomi undergoes in the story. 2 Hubbard, Ruth, 132. 3 This reading is already reflected in the Septuagint, and has been adopted by scholars such as: E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 87–88; J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 39. 4 Rashi, for example, comments that Boaz was Elimelech’s nephew. See also: J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (NCBC; London 1967) 390; LaCocque, Ruth, 62; K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville 1997) 53; F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther (WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996) 100.

Proverbs 7:4: “Tell Wisdom, You are my sister / and call Understanding my kinsman (‫)מֹדָע‬.” Seeing as the continuation of the verse explicitly cites Boaz as “of the family of Elimelech,” there is no real contradiction between the different readings. However, the unambiguous mention of Boaz’s kinship at the end of the verse seems to indicate that Hubbard is correct in interpreting “‫ ”מידע‬as “friend” – Boaz was Elimelech’s friend, and the reader immediately learns that he is also his relative.5 Presenting Boaz thus introduces the semantic field of friendship into the narrative – both family and friend, he acts not merely out of a sense of family duty, but out of friendship and affection. I will yet argue that Boaz’s motives for his actions are revealed during the the scene in the field.6 Stating Boaz and Naomi’s kinship up front may seem surprising from the perspective of plot – a “spoiler” of sorts. If the reader would only learn of the family connection at the end of the scene, together with Ruth (2:20), this revelation would no doubt enhance the reading experience.7 5

6

7

Zakovitch feels that the verse’s conclusion explains its beginning, and that in light of the phrase “from Elimelech’s family,” the phrase “a kinsman on her husband’s side” means a family member (Y. Zakovitch, Ruth (Mikra Leyisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 68 (Heb.). The meaning of Boaz’s name is not clear. Rudolph, in Noth’s wake, suggests that his name alludes to his role in Ruth’s empowerment (W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder, [KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962] 48); Campbell, Hertzberg and others suggest that his name can be divided into two parts: Bo (‫“ )בו‬in him,” and Oz (‫“ )עוז‬strength.” (Campbell, Ruth, 90–91; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Joshua, Richter, Ruth, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969) 267), and the full meaning of the name may be “In the strength of Yahweh I rejoice” (Hubbard, Ruth, 134). If Boaz’s name is indeed connected to courage and strength, then his name is actually explained with his introduction: “valiant man” (Zakovitch, Ruth, 69). As Polak rightly points out about the reading process: “While the partial knowledge dilutes the question of “what will happen next?” in its place arises the question: “how will it happen?” (F. Polak, Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1999, Second Edition) 175 [Heb.]). Nielsen comments that this knowledge creates a contrast between Naomi’s sojourning in Moab, where she lost her family, and her return to Bethlehem, where she is able to rely on her family members (Nielsen, Ruth, 54).

132

This particular sequence of information contributes two different aspects on two different fronts. Firstly, the juxtaposition of the introduction of Boaz with Ruth’s decision to go out gleaning amongst the poor is surprising. If Naomi has a relative in Bethlehem, and moreover a rich one,8 why does he fail to provide for them? Why must Ruth go out and glean amongst the poor?9 Josephus, disturbed by this question, takes the liberty of filling in the gap: “and when Ruth came to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law, Boaz, Elimelech’s relative, fulfilled the custom of hospitality.”10 Josephus writes this even before Naomi’s answer to the women of Bethlehem, meaning that according to Josephus, Boaz immediately took them under his wing as soon as they arrived, welcoming them into his home. This addition has no textual basis whatsoever, but it does reflect the reader’s expectations of Naomi’s relatives and ensuing disappointment at the lack of hospitality the women receive. The divergence between v. 1 and v. 2 is related to the orchestration of the developing character relationships – for there is to be no communication between Naomi and Boaz throughout the The epithet “valiant man” (‫ )גיבור חיל‬has various meanings (J. Kühlewein, “gbr,” THAT 1.400; H. Kosmala, “gābar,” TDOT 2.373–74; R. Wakely, “‫חיל‬,” NIDOTTE 2.116–26), ranging between “warrior” (Josh 5:2–3; Judg 6:12; II Sam 17:8; II Kgs 24:16, etc), “a man of talents” (I Sam 9:1), “rich man” (II Kgs 15:20). The latter meaning is derived from the identification of “valiance” (‫)חיל‬ with “wealth,” as in “and all their wealth” (Gen 34:29), or “and they looted all their wealth” (Num 31:9) (Wakely, ‫חיל‬, 122–23; M. Z. Kaddari, Complete Academic Biblical Hebrew Dictionary (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006) 296 (Heb.). See also: TDOT 4.353. The definition most relevant to our verse seems to be “wealthy man,” as Boaz is soon revealed to be the owner of many fields and the overlooker of many workers. However, it is likely that the author deliberately chose such a term in order to present Boaz in a positive light beyond merely describing his wealth. Ruth will also be described as a “valiant woman,” referring to her special, generous personality (3:11), and as the story unfolds, this meaning of the word can also be applied to Boaz. 9 Compare: Nielsen, Ruth, 53. 10 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (translated by H.ST.J Thackeray and R. Marcus; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966) 145. Josephus also goes on to describe that the other members of the town also supported Naomi: “while Naomi on her side had reserved for [Ruth] portions of some food with which attentive neighbours had provided her.” (147). 8

133

story, and Boaz’s grace is bestowed upon Naomi only through Ruth;11 but its immediate purpose is that Boaz’s lack of initiation underscores the “coincidence” in Boaz and Ruth’s meeting.12 Because the reader expects a planned meeting between Boaz and the two widows (following the introduction of Boaz at the beginning of the chapter), the element of “chance” of Ruth and Boaz’s meeting is more profound. This reading is supported by Bush’s suggestion of a covert dialogue that the author conceals between Boaz’s introduction and Ruth’s plan to go to the field (2:1–2), and her execution of her plan (3), a dialogue that is expressed through the chiastic structure of these verses:13 a. Now Naomi had a kinsman on her husband’s side, a man of substance, of the family of Elimelech, b.  whose name was Boaz. c. “I would like to go now to the fields and glean among the ears of grain, behind someone who in his eyes I might find favor.” c’. and she went, and she arrived, and she gleaned in the field behind the reapers b’. and it happened, by chance, it was the field belonging to Boaz a’. who was of the family of Elimelech.

Through this structure, it is evident how the seemingly disparate data strung together in the introduction of the chapter (1–2) all comes together… through a “twist of fate.” Secondly, the mention of Boaz’s family connection privileges the reader with information that is, for now, still withheld from the characters themselves. Although Jack Sasson claims that Ruth refers

11 C. L. Meyers, “Returning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 85–114, 93–94. 12 LaCocque, Ruth, 62 (see also p. 64). 13 Bush, Ruth, 99. He suggests a concentric structure, as he splits the third part into two: I would like to said to Naomi, “I would like to go to the fields and glean among the ears of grain / behind someone who may show me kindness.” However, the repetition in c’ of “behind the reapers” fits in better with the model suggested above.

134

specifically to Boaz’s field in her request,14 the plain reading of the text is that Ruth is unaware of Boaz’s existence at this point, Naomi herself is not expecting any assistance from him – perhaps due to the closer kinship of the anonymous redeemer – and through the first verse of the chapter, the reader learns of Boaz, but Ruth does not. This information gap plays an important part in Ruth and Boaz’s meeting, particularly in regard to the kindness he shows her, which stems from his appreciation of her kindness to Naomi, rather than out of a sense of familial duty.15 The most striking aspect of Boaz’s words to Ruth is his explanation for the kindness he is bestowing upon her (2:11–12), an explanation I will shortly address.

The Solitary Gleaner (2–3) As I have discussed, the conjunction of the introduction of wealthy Boaz and Ruth’s offer to glean ears of grain amongst the paupers of Bethlehem in the next verse is somewhat disconcerting. The reason for the lack of consideration towards Naomi and Ruth may well lie in the description of Ruth as she proposes to go to the field: “And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi” (2:2). Is her foreignness deterring the 14 Sasson, Ruth, 42–43. Basing his claim on the argument that the expression “to find favor” is always associated with a known benefactor, he concludes that Ruth is referring to Boaz here, who is mentioned in the first verse of the chapter. This claim, however, contradicts the description in v. 3 that Ruth “coincidentally” arrives at Boaz’s field. See also Hubbard (Ruth, 138, comment 13), who rightly argues that Boaz is mentioned in v. 1 by the narrator, rather than by Ruth or Naomi, so it is unlikely that either woman has Boaz in mind during their conversation in v. 2. 15 Here, Josephus also takes the liberty of filling in the narrative gaps with his own unsupported speculations: Boaz showers kindness upon Ruth due to their family connections, and because he had either admiration for her loyalty to her mother-in-law, or out of affection for her mother-in-law, an ambiguity that arises from his language (Josephus, Antiquities, 147.) The narrator chooses to present Boaz’s kindness as stemming from the former.

135

people of Bethlehem from sharing their wealth with Naomi and her daughter-in-law? Perhaps the narrator mentions her Moabite origins here not only to consider the reasons they have not received help until now, but to express the challenges that will face Ruth as she ventures out into the fields of Bethlehem. How will Ruth the Moabite be received in the field? Is she, as a Moabite, entitled to the privileges of the local paupers? As we will shortly see, Ruth’s ability to integrate within the Bethlehemite agricultural community is one of the fundamental issues in this scene.16 Ruth does not simply announce that she is going to glean in the field, but asks permission from Naomi.17 The nature of this request reinforces her characterization as one who advances the plot, but does so in the most gentle of ways: “She asks permission of her mother-inlaw to go out into the field, as if Naomi will be doing her a favor if she gives her permission.”18 I will discuss Ruth’s offer in light of the supervising boy’s words to Boaz (2:6–7). For now, I wish to draw attention to the fact that Ruth does not present the act of gleaning as a right to which she is legally entitled (the act of leaving stalks for the poor to glean is a law of charity, one of several specified in Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 24:19–22), but as a favor she hopes a field owner will grant her:

16 LaCocque makes an interesting observation that, throughout the story, Ruth is associated with “fields”: she comes from the “fields of Moab” in chap. 1, she goes to the “field of Boaz” and his threshing-floor in chaps. 2–3, and she is redeemed in a package deal with fields in chap. 4 (LaCocque, Ruth, 64). Through this association, the reader can detect a certain deep connection between the Ruth and the earth, between fruit of the earth and fruit of the womb. 17 As opposed to Campbell (Ruth, 91), and Hubbard (Ruth, 136), who claim that Ruth makes a statement “I am going to the field” rather than a request. For criticism of this view, see: Bush, Ruth, 102. Campbell and Hubbard’s reading is possible from the language of the verse “I would like to go” = I am going (T. O. Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Darton Longman and Todd, 1971) 170–71. However, in light of Naomi’s response, Ruth’s words make more sense interpreted as a suggestion or even a request. 18 Zakovitch, Ruth, 67.

136

“someone who in his eyes I might find favor.”19 There are four major approaches to this issue: a. Some have claimed that the author of the book of Ruth was unfamiliar with the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.20 This suggestion is highly problematic. While the narrator does not explicitly mention these laws, the underlying assumption of the field scene is that there are poor people gleaning; that the boy supervising the reapers is used to this, and, as emerges later in the scene, that Boaz’s instructions to his workers address the existing law. Moreover, the frequent mention (12 instances) of the verb “to glean” (‫)ללקוט‬21 – brings the commandment of leqet (‫ )לקט‬to the foreground of the narrative: “When you are harvesting your bounty, do not completely reap the corner of your field, and do not gather (‫ )תלקט‬the gleanings of your harvest (‫…)לקט‬leave them for the poor and the stranger” (Lev 19:9–10). b. Others have suggested that while the law requires field owners to allot a certain percentage of the harvest to charity, they are not necessarily eager to do so, and the poor are still required to ask their permission.22 19 Porten suggests that Ruth’s expression “I will find favor” echoes Naomi’s hope that “you will find security” B. Porten, “Structure, Style, and Theme of the Scroll of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 22 (1977) 224 (Heb.). 20 G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965) 26; A. B. Ehrlich, Mikra KiPheshuto (New York: Ktav, 1969) 396 (Heb.): “You must admit that at the time of this book, leaving leqet (gleaning) for the poor was not yet a commandment.” 21 W. Dommershausen, „Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle, “in Theologie im Wandel (ed. J. Neumann and J. Ratzinger; Munich: Wewel, 1967) 398–402; R. E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 85, 90; Bush, Ruth, 99. 22 P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953) 47; Campbell, Ruth, 111 (he rightly emphasizes that the law refers to the field owner, although the story’s perspective is through Ruth, the poor gleaner, and she must ask for permission); Hubbard, Ruth, 136–37 (alongside this, he also suggests that Ruth may be ignoring the law); F. Meltzer, Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Rav Kook Foundation) 14 (Heb.).

137

c. Some have suggested that this law was frequently violated, and kept by just a few (which explains its frequent repetition in the Mosaic Law and in the words of the prophets), and therefore, a poor person who wished to glean in a field had to ask permission of the field owner.23 d. In Morris’s opinion, Ruth is unaware of the details of the law, and therefore presents the gleaning of grain as a kindness granted by the field owners, although, unbeknownst to her, she is legally entitled to do so.24 However, this premise of this question is flawed, for the narrator is not reporting the accepted conventions of gleaning in the fields of Bethlehem in general, but specifically from Ruth’s perspective – in which case, Morris’s claim is preferable, although his reading is also problematic: if the concept of gleaning was legally based, is it likely Ruth would have come up with this idea herself ?25 Rather, I believe that Ruth’s dismissal of the legal element of gleaning is consistent with her characterization as one who is attuned to the “spirit of the law,” and therefore relates to the act of gleaning as a fulfillment of kindness. Even if the field owner is legally required to leave the gleanings of his field for the poor to gather, she still perceives this as a kindness. Technically, as the narrator relates, Ruth “gleaned in the field behind the reapers” (2:3), but in her eyes, she is in fact gleaning behind “one whom in his eyes she has found favor.” Rejecting the “letter of the law” and its resulting conventions in favor of action based on kindness is one of the fundamental “conversions” of the entire narrative. In this instance, Ruth’s focus on kindness is in no way revolutionary: indeed, the law is kept and realized through Ruth’s 23 Bush, Ruth, 104; A. P. Ross, “The Daughters of Lot and the Daughter-in-Law of Judah: Hubris or Faith in the Struggle for Women’s Rights,” Exegesis and Exposition 2 (1987) 79. 24 L. Morris, Judges and Ruth (TOTC; London: Tyndale, 1968) 270. 25 Hubbard debates whether these were social norms throughout the entire ancient east (Ruth, 136–37). Even if so, it makes sense that Ruth discusses the accepted customs with Naomi before she leaves for the field, rather than relying on the customs of Moab.

138

gleaning; Ruth blends in amongst the paupers, who follow the reapers in accordance with the law, and yet, she relies not upon the law itself, but upon the empathy which is behind the law and maintained through it. The narrator does not mention these laws explicitly in order to present the act of gleaning as an act of kindness rather than as a legal norm. Through Ruth’s perspective, the letter of the law becomes soft, compassionate spirit, and in this light, the language of the characters is similarly transformed. Naomi refers to Ruth as “my daughter” over the next two chapters – through her kindness, Ruth has become a daughter to Naomi, though this relationship is not legally recognized. This epithet serves as an inclusio: thus Naomi bids Ruth to go to the fields, “go, my daughter” (2:2),26 and thus she concludes the chapter upon her return: “it is best, my daughter, that you go out with his girls” (2:22). In the next chapter, revolving around the scene of the threshing-floor, Naomi begins by saying, “My daughter, I must seek security for you” (3:1), and similarly, she concludes the entire chapter by bidding Ruth to “stay, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out” (3:18). In other words, whatever happens in the fields and in the threshing-floor, their relationship stays the same – Ruth and Naomi, bound by kindness, have become mother and daughter to each other, and it is not surprising that Naomi refers to Ruth thus. However, it is surprising that Boaz, too, calls Ruth “my daughter”: his first words to her are “Listen, my daughter” (2:8), and later, when he recognizes her in the threshing-floor, he remarks, “May the Lord bless you, my daughter…and now, my daughter, have no fear” (3:10–11). Until their meeting in the field, Boaz and Ruth have never come face to face, and yet he refers to her with a close, affectionate term, which reflects his great capacity for empathy and kindness. Also characterized by his 26 Fewell and Gunn claim that Naomi’s laconic reply to Ruth belies her ambivalence regarding Ruth’s joining her, due to her Moabite origins (D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth,” JSOT 40 (1988) 100–03). I find it more convenient to perceive this as the author’s desire to emphasize the contrast between Naomi’s passivity and Ruth’s activity at the beginning of this scene, a contrast which is inverted in the scene of the threshing-floor.

139

compassion, his admiration of Ruth’s empathy instantly draws them together – the language of the narrative adapts itself to this special emphasis on kindness. Moreover, Boaz’s reference to Ruth as “my daughter” serves an additional, literary purpose. This language reflects the process Ruth is undergoing, from being under her mother-in-law’s protection, to gradually coming under Boaz’s – he is becoming the providing, protective father figure (“spread your cloak over your robe over your handmaiden” [3:9]).27 This language is also misleading – for the reader, and, as we will see, Ruth, is led to perceive Boaz as a father figure rather than as a potential husband (as opposed to her mother-in-law, who has high hopes for their marriage). Naomi calling Ruth “my daughter” at the end of the scene reflects Ruth’s return to Naomi’s house, her insistence upon the same hierarchy she established for herself in the first chapter. Ruth will not leave Naomi’s authority, even when Boaz is about to redeem her. The emphasis on the compassion that motivates the scene and overrides legal and social conventions is also expressed through the sequencing of Ruth’s arrival at Boaz’s field. After the reader is informed that Ruth has arrived at the field and has begun her gleaning, the narrator adds that Ruth, coincidentally, by chance, has arrived at the field belonging to the aforementioned Boaz (2:3). From Ruth’s perspective, she leaves Naomi, arrives at the field, and begins her task, unaware that she is gleaning in the field of her kinsman. This “coincidence” (accentuated through the double expression, “and it happened, by chance” [‫ )]ויקר מקרה‬is emphasized to illustrate the disparity between Ruth’s understanding of the events she is experiencing, and the reader’s more panoramic understanding of these events. From Ruth’s perspective, her arrival at Boaz’s field is truly a coincidence – she does not even know him.28 The reader, however, who knows of the kinship between Naomi and Boaz, is invited to interpret this “coincidence” differently. In the words of Hals: 27 See the conclusion’s discussion of reading the story in light of Winnicott. 28 As I have mentioned, this contradicts Sasson’s position. This verse, in my opinion, emphasizes the coincidental nature of Ruth’s arrival in Boaz’s field.

140

The author’s real meaning in 2:3 is actually the opposite of what he says. The labeling of Ruth’s meeting with Boaz as “chance” is nothing more than the author’s way of saying that no human intent was involved. For Ruth and Boaz it was an accident, but not for God… By calling this meeting an accident, the writer enables himself subtly to point out that even the “accidental” is directed by God.29

The development of the plot as a coincidental unfolding of events, and its development as a realization of Divine intention, is fused in the principle of dual causality, a principle so prevalent in biblical literature,30 that it has been claimed that “the entire biblical narrative, as presented to us, in all its components and dimensions, expresses the principle of dual causality.”31 However, as I discuss in the introduction, the book of Ruth does not fulfill the principle of “dual causality” in the classic sense. Rather, this verse illustrates how God brings the characters together, but the plot is only propelled by the characters’ free decision to act out of kindness. Here, the narrator focalizes solely through Ruth, and does not hint at God’s hand in this turn of events – as discussed in the introduction, the only explicit mention of God’s intervention in the entire story is found at its opening, when God ends 29 R. M. Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 12. 30 I. L. Seelugmann, „Menschliches Heldentum und Gottliche Hilfe – Die doppelte Kausalität im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken, “TZ 19 (1963) 385–411. He does not relate to Ruth in any of his examples); Y Kaufmann, The Book of Joshua (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1959) 128 (Heb.); D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 81; Y. Kiel, “On History and Historiography in the Bible,” in Society and History (ed. Y. Cohen; Jerusalem: The Ministry of Education, 1980) 351–368 (Heb.); Y. Elitzur, Israel and the Bible: Studies in Geography, History and Biblical Thought (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1999) 253–60 (Heb.); J. Grossman, “The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle in the Narrative of Absalom’s Rebellion,” Biblica 88 (2007) 558–566. 31 Y. Amit, “Dual Causality – Another Perspective,” Beit Mikra 38 (1993) 44. Here, the author holds a different opinion than that which she held in her previous article, where she suggested that the principle of dual causality reflects the beliefs and opinions that were prevalent in Judah beginning at the end of the eighth century BCE, that is, mainly reflecting the Deuteronomical school (Amit, “Design”).

141

the famine in Bethlehem (and even this is expressed through Naomi’s perspective, [1:6]) and at its end, when God allows Ruth to conceive (4:13). In between, the story seems to advance “by chance,” which emphasizes the free will and choices of the characters themselves. Boaz “happens” upon Ruth, but he chooses to treat her kindly, and the coincidence of their meeting allows his great compassion – rather than any forced sense of family duty he may have – to shine through.

Boaz and His Boy in the Field (4–7) The hand of fate continues its work: “Just then (‫)והנה‬, Boaz arrived from Bethlehem” (2:4). Adele Berlin lists three uses of the word “‫”והנה‬ in the book of Ruth:32 a. To express emphasis or surprise in direct speech (as in 1:15: “See (‫)והנה‬, your sister-in-law has returned”). b. To indicate a shift of perspective in the narrative (as in 8:3: “and behold, (‫ )והנה‬a woman was lying at his feet!”). c. To draw the reader’s attention to a particular detail (as in our verse). According to Berlin, the word “‫ ”והנה‬is used here not merely to indicate chronological continuity, but to emphasize the coincidence that Boaz has suddenly arrived at his field. This is part of the meta-narrative, from the narrator to the reader.33 Is the arrival of the field owner a routine event? Does he regularly come to check his workers’ progress?

32 A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 91–95. 33 This reading is reinforced by the narrator’s relaying that Boaz had come “from Bethlehem” – he happened to visit his field when Ruth was there. Boaz’s arrival, like Ruth’s, is coincidental.

142

While it is difficult to say,34 the word “‫ ”הנה‬seems to imply that Boaz’s arrival at this particular time is unexpected. While Boaz’s brief exchange with his workers has no bearing on the plot, it illuminates the general atmosphere of this particular field, and reveals the nature of Boaz’s relationship with his workers. Boaz does not bid his workers to work harder, but rather, blesses them in God’s name: “The Lord is with you” (4). In response, Boaz’s workers also emerge as people to whom God’s name comes readily to their lips, who are fond of their employer: “May the Lord bless you” (4). Beyond contributing to characterization, the prevalence of the name of God also has impact on the scene as a whole. The narrator is intent on emphasizing the hand of coincidence and hiding the hand of Divine Providence in this picture, and it is the characters who are the ones to infuse the scene with holiness. The workers’ response to Boaz – “May the Lord bless you” has additional value: the last time God’s name was mentioned by a character, the atmosphere was bitter: Naomi was mourning her fate to the women of Bethlehem, crying that “the Lord has struck against me” (1:21). Now the name of God features in an atmosphere of plenty: God is also the source of blessing. Here are the beginnings of change, the lifting of Naomi’s curse: God has taken away, and God can restore. The narrator gives no hint of what Boaz sees that prompts him to turn to the “boy supervising the reapers” and ask “whose girl is that?” (2:5) The reader’s imagination is free to roam: perhaps Ruth is especially beautiful,35 or perhaps her exceptional personality is evident;36 34 Compare: Meltzer, Ruth, 15, comment 14. 35 Rabbi Moses Alshich claims that her startling beauty prompted the supervising boy to remind Boaz that the girl in question was a Moabite girl, so he should not be seduced by her looks. Similarly, Ibn Ezra comments that the people of Bethlehem loved Ruth because of her beauty (in his commentary on Ruth 3:10). See further: Y. Eisenberg, “Loyalty and Love in the Book of Ruth,” Shana b’Shana 42 (2002) 33–50 (Heb.). 36 “Did Boaz usually inquire after girls? Rabbi Eliezer said that he perceived wisdom in her: She would glean two ears, but not three. In the Mishna it says: He perceived modesty in her: the standing ears she gleaned standing, the fallen ears she gleaned sitting” (t. Sabb 113b).

143

perhaps her clothing is obviously foreign, or perhaps Boaz already recognizes the faces of the usual people who come to glean, and notices the newcomer; perhaps the other poor people are harassing her; or perhaps, there is nothing unusual about his question: “The field owner would routinely inquire about people who entered his field, so no unregulated strangers would come in.”37 Any one of these options is feasible, but it is no coincidence that the narrator chose to omit this information. Although this is a story of courtship (according to Alter, this is a “marriage-type scene”), this is no “romantic tale.” If the narrator would have lingered over the way in which Ruth caught Boaz’s eye, the reader may well have interpreted his incentive to marry her later on as one of love or desire for her. This lack of information maintains a neutral scene in which romance and sexuality play no part.38 Boaz’s detachment is also expressed in his question, “Whose girl is that?” (rather than “who is that girl?”). Frederic Bush claims that this formulation is appropriate in the ancient world, where every girl “belonged” to her father before her marriage, and to her husband afterwards. Boaz does not ask who her father is or who her husband is, because he does not know if she is single or married.39 Once again, the phrasing of this question seems to indicate that Boaz is not interested in Ruth romantically, for it makes her unknown “owner” the subject of the question, rather than Ruth herself. The question “whose” (‫)למי‬, concerning the unknown identity of a person’s owner, crops up in two other stories in the Bible: when Jacob sends messengers to his brother Esau: “And he commanded the first, saying, When you meet Esau my brother, and he asks you, saying, To whom (‫ )למי‬do you belong, and where are you going, and whose are these before you” (Gen 32:18); and when David seeks to reveal the identity of the young Egyptian: 37 Meltzer, Ruth, 15. 38 Ruth is one of the few women in the Bible who is not described as beautiful. This description is possibly withheld from the narrative to prevent the story’s focus on kindness and resurrection of the name of the dead from drifting into the realm of the romance and seduction narrative. See also: T. Cohn-Eshkenazi and T. Frymer-Kensky, Ruth (JPS; Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011) 32. 39 Bush, Ruth, 112–13.

144

“and David said to him, To whom (‫ )למי‬do you belong, and where do you come from” (2 Sam 30:13).40 In both instances, the question “to whom does [this person] belong” is directed at a servant or messenger who is indeed “owned” by someone, someone whose identity is of greater interest than the messenger himself. The language of Boaz’s question, therefore, is designed to check the reader’s conjectures of romantic notions.41 Much ink has been spilled over the supervising boy’s reply to Boaz (2:6–7).42 First of all, I must point out that although Boaz only asks “whose girl is that,” the boy chooses to reply at length, describing not only her ties with Naomi, but her unusual activity in the field, an issue which I will return to. The boy’s description of Ruth is one of the most baffling statements in the entire narrative.43 This difficulty is already evident in Ruth’s supposed words, as reported by the boy: “‫“ – ”אספתי בעמרים‬let me gather amongst the sheaves.” (2:7) This request is problematic on a level of both linguistics and content. From a linguistic perspective, the prefix ‫ ב‬in “‫ ”בעמרים‬is not entirely clear, although most commentators and translators have reasonably interpreted it to mean “among

40 J. M. Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth (Leiden: Brill, 1955) 23. 41 As opposed to Campbell, Ruth, 93–94. There is no need to stray from the text and claim that “this is a typically arrogant question of an easily-angered senior manager… the question probably indicates anger or aggression… from this perspective, Boaz’s question is both coarse and humiliating” (W.R. Garr, “Ruth 2:7,” Language Studies 11–12 (2008) 28 (Heb.). This reading is inconsistent with the portrayal of Boaz in the narrative. 42 In order to emphasize the unusually problematic nature of the foreman’s words, Campbell did not translate all his words in the main body of the text (Ruth, 85) but instead offered different readings in his commentary (94–96). 43 “The verse is undoubtedly the most difficult Hebrew in the whole book.” (T. Linafelt, Ruth [Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Minnesota: Liturgical 1989] 31). For an extensive discussion of the problematic nature of the verse, see: M. S. Moore, “Two Textual Anomalies in Ruth,” CBQ 59 (1997) 238–243.

145

the sheaves,”44 “among” being a common meaning of the relational prefix ‫ב‬.45 The resolution of this syntactic ambiguity, however, exacerbates the semantic problem: If Ruth indeed asked the supervising boy for permission to “glean among the sheaves,” then she has broken the accepted social conventions to an extreme, unlikely degree: “It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that Ruth would make a request so contrary to customary practice.”46 The “sheaf ” in the bible is a bundle of grain ready to be transported. The poor people who circulate in the field are entitled to gather the leftover stalks of grain that fall during the harvest. It has twice been recounted that Ruth specifically went to the field to “glean” – once in her request to Naomi (2:2), and once by the narrator (2:3), and it is highly unlikely that Ruth would ask for the unique privilege of gathering also among the bundled sheaves,47 a privilege not customarily granted to the poor who come to glean.48 44 JPS; NASV; NAU; NEB; NIV; RSV; Campbell, Ruth, 94; Rudolph, Ruth, 46, comment b; Sasson, Ruth, 38, 48; Zakovitch, Ruth, 71. An alternative interpretation of this prefix, one which solves the problem of content, emerges from the Aramaic translation of Ruth: “‫אצבור כען ואכנוש שובלין באלומיא‬.” This means that Ruth wished to glean stalks of grain and gather them into sheaves (bundles). This reading is developed by Bush (Ruth, 114) who translates the verse so that the prepositional letter ‫ ב‬is not relational, but adverbial: “She asked, ‘May I glean stalks of grain and gather them in bundles behind the reapers?’” This reading obviates the need to explain Ruth’s peculiar request to gather among the sheaves—for she never made such a request. Rather, she intends to gather the stalks of grain that she has gleaned “into bundles.” However, this explanation is problematic in itself – for why would Ruth need to ask permission to do so? 45 BDB, 91. 46 Bush, Ruth, 114. 47 This problem cannot be dismissed with the claim that Ruth, as a Moabite, was unaware of Bethlehemite custom (as P. Galpaz-Feller suggests, Naomi: A Mother of a Nation – a New Reading of the Book of Ruth (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2010) 50 [Heb.]). Ruth is the one who suggested that she go and glean, showing that she was aware of this custom, and in the field, she certainly took note of the behavior of the other poor people around her. 48 For a discussion of the textual change from sheaves (‫ )עומרים‬to plural of cut grain, swath (‫)עמירים‬, see: Joüon, Ruth, 49; Rudolph, Ruth, 46. Michael Moore

146

As difficult as it is to understand the boy’s remarks, these words clearly serve an important role in the shaping of the story and its underlying intent. The special place awarded to the boy’s long, detailed answer is already evident in the narrator’s introduction to his remarks: “And the boy supervising the reapers answered and said . . .” (2:6). In a passage of dialogue, a pronoun usually suffices, for example, “and he answered,” or he said.”49 This repeated assertion of identity underscores his words – the supervising boy’s answer, problematic as it is, must therefore contribute to the plot and the understanding of the characters. Edward Campbell suggests viewing Ruth’s request, as quoted by the boy, as an unanswered request. That is, Ruth had indeed asked the boy to gather among the sheaves, but her request was held in abeyance because the field’s owner was not present and it was not within the overseer’s authority to grant her request. On the basis of this theory, Campbell interprets the boy’s description of Ruth as “standing from morning until now” literally: Ruth is standing in the field, awaiting the field owner and his answer.50 Jack Sasson adopts this approach, adding that Ruth “was deliberately presenting the overseer with a request he was not in position to grant.”51 According to Sasson, Boaz initially refuses her request, only granting her permission to gather among the sheaves after their shared meal (2:15).52 also favors this claim (M. Moore, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, NIBC, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000). 49 Compare: J. Roth-Rotem, “The ‘Minor Characters’ in the Story of the Book of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 49 (2004) 80 (Heb.). 50 Campbell, Ruth, 96. See further: M. S. Moore, “Two Textual Anomalies”, 239; G. M. Schwab, “Ruth,” in Numbers – Ruth (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) 1322. 51 Sasson, Ruth, 47. This suggested reading is based on Sasson’s aforementioned conviction that Ruth knows of Boaz and is deliberately attempting to meet him. See a further discussion of this reading in: Y.-M. Min, “Problems in Ruth 2.7,” The Bible Translator 40 (1989) 438–441. 52 Sasson, Ruth, 56. For criticism of this reading, see Bush, Ruth, 155–16. Hubbard also favors this reading, although contrary to Sasson, he claims that Boaz agrees to Ruth’s request to glean amongst the sheaves at the beginning. He claims that the special permission granted in v. 15 should be understood as

147

The various suggested readings of this verse are based on two underlying assumptions, of which neither, in my opinion, is imperative. The first assumption the aforementioned scholars have made is that the supervising boy is actually citing Ruth,53 although this exchange is not related by the narrator: The narrator’s clever withholding of the information, rather than reporting it when it happened (between vv. 3 and 4), enabled him to introduce the notion of coincidence in vv. 3–4. Now, through a flashback in indirect speech, he finally informed the audience, presumably since knowledge of her words was necessary to understand what followed.54

Adele Berlin too, in a discussion devoted to the biblical phenomenon of withholding information until a later point in the story, cites Ruth’s request from the boy as a typical example, as the reader only learns of this request from the boy’s report to his master.55 However, must we necessarily understand the boy’s words as a direct citation of Ruth’s request? The verb “to say” (‫ )אמר‬in the Bible often expresses a thought or plan, especially when it explains the intentions underlying a certain action. Thus, for example, the narrator describes Jacob’s actions before he meets Esau: “And he divided the people that were with him, and the flocks and the herds and the camels, into two camps; saying (‫)ויאמר‬: ‘If Esau should come to the one camp, and smite it, then the camp which is left shall escape’” (Gen 32:7–8). Presumably, Jacob is not speaking to anyone in particular; rather, the narrator employs the word “‫ ”ויאמר‬as a means of revealing the protagonist’s thoughts, as if to say, “and he said to himself.”56 This style is used not only by the narrator, but also by other characters in describing the actions of Boaz’s command to his reapers, in which he informs them of Ruth’s privileges at the beginning of the day (Ruth, 154). 53 “Now, it emerges that she said these words to the boy who supervises the reapers” (Meltzer, Ruth, 15). 54 Hubbard, Ruth, 147–48. 55 Berlin, Poetics, 96. 56 BDB, p. 56; HALOT, 1: 66, and similarly, later in Ruth: “So I thought [‫ ]אמרתי‬to inform you, saying, ‘Buy [it] before those who are sitting and before the elders of my people” (Ruth 4:4).

148

others. Thus, for example, Sasson suggests interpreting Ruth’s report to Naomi about Boaz’s gesture: “And she said, ‘These six measures of barley he gave me; for he said (‫ )אמר‬to me: do not go empty unto your mother-in-law’” (3:17). Her words are not a direct citation of what Boaz says, but rather, her interpretation of his actions.57 This usage can similarly be applied to the supervising boy’s report. His words are not a citation but a description of Ruth’s actions: she never made such a request. When she arrives at the field, she begins gleaning stalks of grain, joining the other poor people of the town. The boy here is simply describing Ruth’s actions: why she is doing what she is doing (gleaning) – “because she said (‫[ )ותאמר‬thought to herself, intended] to glean the stalks and gather them into bundles.”58 The boy’s remarks to Boaz do not inform the reader of anything new; the discussion between Ruth and the supervising boy, which researchers attempted to recreate in light of the boy’s words, never actually occurred. The interpretation of the boy’s words as the direct quotation of a request that Ruth actually made is probably based on the addition of an expression of request, “please let me glean,” (‫ – )אלקטה נא‬one speaking to oneself, or an explanation of one’s actions, does not require such an expression. However, this interpretation is inherently wrong, as the word ‫ נא‬in this context should not be read as “please,” but as “now,”59 a common use of the word, found in many contexts, such as: “And the Lord said (‫)ויאמר‬, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great… I will go down now (‫ )נא‬and see’” (Gen 18:20–21); “And Moses said (‫)ויאמר‬, I will turn aside now (‫)נא‬, and see this great sight” (Exod 3:3). 57 Sasson (Ruth, 101) as opposed to Campbell (Ruth, 129) and Zakovitch (Ruth, 99), who saw these words as a quote of Boaz. I agree with Sasson, not only in that this is Ruth’s interpretation of the events, but that it is not at all obvious that Boaz gave the measure of barley for that reason. See below, in my discussion of the relevant verses. Similar debates arise in other places in the Bible, such as in Genesis 32:21; 2 Sam 16:3. 58 Thus Rashi suggests in his commentary: “and she said – in her heart.” Campbell also raises this possibility, although he does not develop it. 59 See BDB, 609; Lambdin, Introduction, 170–71.

149

This reading leads to the next, more significant step in deciphering this verse. The second assumption made by the aforementioned scholars is that the information the boy relates to his master is accurate. However, these verses present the boy’s perspective of Ruth’s actions, and, accordingly, his words reflect his own interpretations and perceptions, rather than an objective, accurate description of Ruth and her actions.60 This point is critical in resolving the difficulty raised earlier: how does Ruth dare to ask for such an extraordinary privilege, one so contrary to local custom? The answer is, quite simply, that Ruth never asked for such a privilege; rather, it is merely the perspective of the supervising boy and the characterization of Ruth that he projects.61 60 The importance of determining the perspective of the narrative in literature has been discussed by some of literature’s greatest scholars. For example, see Cleanth Brooks and Robert P. Warren, Understanding Fiction (New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1943); W. C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961); Norman Friedman, “Point of View in Fiction: The Development of A Critical Concept,” PMLA 70 (1955) 1160–1184; B. Romberg, Studies in the Narrative Technique of the First-Person Novel (Stockholm: Lund: Almquist and Wiksell, 1962); S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Routledge, 2002); Genette, famously, prefers the term “focalization,” as this term encompasses the character’s processing of memory, emotion and thought (G. Genette, Narrative Discourse (trans. By Jane Lewin; London: Ithaca, 1980). This distinction is relevant to our verse in that the words of the supervising boy disclose his feelings towards Ruth beyond what is apparent from the scene. Some scholars have insisted on the importance of such focalization in the biblical story, for example, see: M. Bal, Narratologie (Paris: Klincksieck, 1977); Berlin, Poetics, 43–82; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 129–152; D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Narrative, 112–119; Pollack, Biblical Narrative, 324–30. Later on in her work, in contrast with the above theory, Berlin argues that the supervising boy’s words should be considered a reliable source of information: “Ruth’s words are quoted within the speech of the foreman. Yet this is the first we hear of this encounter; the scene in which Ruth actually spoke to the foreman is not included in the narrative” (96). 61 This reading is valid even for those who claim that the boy is quoting an actual request made by Ruth, as even read thus, the reader encounters her words as the boy chooses to report them.

150

The differences between Ruth’s intentions (as she describes them to Naomi), and the boy’s description of her are apparent when the v. 2 and v. 7 are compared: Ruth to Naomi (2:2) And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi I would like to go down now to the field And I will gather the ears of grain Behind someone who in his eyes I might find favor

The supervising boy (2:7) And she said I would like to glean now And gather amongst the sheaves Behind the reapers

There are three slight but significant differences between Ruth’s words and her words as reported by the boy:62 1. Ruth uses only the verb “to glean,” which connotes delicate, precise gathering. The narrator also uses this verb later in describing her work in the field: “So she gleaned in the field” (2:17). The boy, however, mentions the verb “to glean” and then immediately adds the verb “to gather,” which, unlike the former term, suggests a heavy-handed, coarse manner. The difference between the two verbs is aptly illustrated in the story of the Israelite’s complaints about the manna and the quail in the desert (Num 11). The narrator describes how the Israelites “gleaned” the manna: “Now the manna was like coriander seed… The people went about and gleaned (‫ )ולקטו‬it” (Num 11:7–8). In contrast, the narrator describes the people’s greedy harvesting of quail with the verb “gather”: “And the people rose up all that day and all the night and all the next day to gather the quail, he that [gathered] least gathered (‫)ויאספו‬ ten heaps” (Num 11:32).63 62 As opposed to Meltzer, Ruth, 15. 63 In modern translations this distinction is lost, as the two verbs are often both translated as “gathered.” On the importance of distinguishing between these two verbs in the stories of the manna and the quails, see: H. Fisch, “‘Eldad and Medad are Prophesying in the Camp’ – Structuralist Analysis of Numbers XI,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 2 (1986) 45–55 (Heb.).

151

2. This difference is critical: Ruth’s plan is to glean among “the stalks of grain,” while the boy describes her as coming to gather among “the sheaves.” 3. Ruth tells Naomi she is going to glean “after one in whose eyes I may find favor.” It stands to reason that she is referring to the field’s owner, who can give her as much as he sees fit – this statement, as I have mentioned, reveals her focus upon the kindness and compassion behind the laws of charity required of field owners. In contrast, the supervising boy reports that she wishes to glean (and gather) “behind the reapers,” reflecting a more technical approach to these laws of charity (see also 2:3), following its letter but disregarding its spirit. Through these differences, the reader is awarded a glimpse into the supervisor’s mind, for his words reveal his attitude towards Ruth.64 Many scholars perceive the supervising boy as a positive character who seeks to present Ruth in a favorable light to his master, and much praise has been showered upon him. Yair Zakovitch, for example, writes that the boy’s mentioning of Ruth’s Moabite origins is an attempt to impress Boaz with her loyalty: The boy, too, shares the perspective on Ruth’s coming to Beit Lehem as a return, and his words therefore express sympathy for Ruth. Ruth’s Moabite origins are mentioned twice in the scriptures, a fact that serves to glorify the impression of her clinging to her mother-in-law. Moreover, the boy’s refraining from saying that Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law clarifies that it was not a familial judicial commitment that had motivated Ruth to act as she did, but rather her spirit, the spirit of grace.65 64 As I mention at the opening of this discussion, it should be noted that Boaz inquires only of the woman’s identity, and all the added information is volunteered by the overseer (Bush, Ruth, 128). 65 Zakovitch, Ruth, 71. Hubbard writes similarly: “One must not miss, however, the narrator’s design in this surprisingly lengthy report… [through it,] Ruth was to emerge as an admirable character—indeed, a model of true devotion.” Hubbard, Ruth, 153. See also: Rudolph, Ruth, 49; B. Zimolong, “Zu Rut 2 7,” ZAW 58 (1940/41) 156–158. Similarly, Roth-Rotem writes: “[The supervisor] reveals both his positive assessments of Ruth, and his superiority over her” (“Minor Character,” 79). In his opinion, “the supervisor’s words criticize Boaz’s

152

Contrary to this approach, I believe that the boy is characterized as having reservations regarding Ruth and her conduct in the field. Such a reading has been suggested by Moshe Garsiel: According to our evaluation, the supervisor intended to condemn her, and these are the signs that attest to it: he does not say her name, and does not mention her familial affinity with Naomi, for him she is simply a “Moabite girl that returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab.” This anonymity, which emphasizes the foreign origin, reflects contempt.66

While the boy takes note of her diligence, as some have commented, this diligence only increases the boy’s reserve towards the Moabite girl, as I will soon clarify. The various differences between the boy’s description and Ruth’s words to Naomi all attest to the supervising boy’s feeling that Ruth is all too eager in her gathering of grain. He seems to insinuate to his master, the field’s owner, that this girl is not like the other gatherers, and that she must be carefully watched because she gathers too much grain. This is suggested by the shift from the verb “glean” to the verb “gather,” as well as by the change in reference to the place of gathering. The grain left behind by the reapers is sparse, whereas among the sheaves the gatherer is able to collect grain by the armload, a custom which is, understandably, not acceptable in the fields of Bethlehem, behavior towards Naomi and Ruth in Bethlehem” (80). I believe more criticism is directed towards Ruth, as I will shortly discuss. 66 M. Garsiel, “The Literary Structure, Plot Development and Narrator’s Intentions in the Scroll of Ruth,” Hagut Ba-Mikra 3 (1979) 71 (Heb.). See also: D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “Boaz, Pillar of Society: Measures of Worth in the Book of Ruth,” JSOT 45 (1989) 49, and compare to the words of Avi Hurvitz, “Ruth 2:7 – ‘A Midrashic Gloss?,” ZAW 95 (1983) 121–123, who claims that the foreman overseeing the reapers “speak[s] in an apologetic and confused manner because he is not sure whether the ‘boss’ will approve of the fact that overseer has given Ruth his permission to stay… inside the house reserved specifically for Boaz’s workers.” According to his claim, the supervising boy is indeed fond of Ruth, but is nervous that his superiors will not approve of the privileges he has allowed her. A similar approach is found in G.A. Rendsburg, “Confusing Language as a Deliberate Literary Device in Biblical Narrative,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 9 (2009) 30–31 (Heb.).

153

deviating as it does from the accepted charity laws.67 The boy is not aware that Ruth perceives even her minimal rights as a poor person, the charity law of gleaning itself, as a kindness (as is evident to the reader from her words to Naomi). He does not participate in the discourse of kindness that Ruth and Boaz share – rather, he views her as one who sees only stalks and grain and sheaves before her.68 What causes the supervising’s boy’s apparent reservation towards Ruth – why does he perceive her in such a harsh light? The answer may lie in his description of her to Boaz: “she is a Moabite girl.” Zakovitch takes note of this unflattering reference and writes, “The text presents Ruth on the lowest rung of the social ladder. From here on in, she has nowhere to go but up.”69 While this epithet indicates this social lowliness, it is not the “text” itself that presents her thus, but the words of the supervising boy. The boy emphasizes her origins in the attempt to turn his master against Ruth: “a Moabite girl…from the fields of Moab.”70 A foreigner, bringing all her strange foreign ways with her – perhaps in the fields of Moab, the poor gather all they can get their hands on, with nary a regard for the field owners, but that’s not how we act here, in the fields of Bethlehem. The boy’s failure to 67 As opposed to Reuben Garr’s approach, which argues that the supervising boy is trying with all his might to convince Boaz to allow Ruth to glean amongst the bundled sheaves (Garr, Ruth 2) 30–31. 68 This difference is especially significant considering Ruth’s words to Naomi, which express her hopes that she will find favor in his eyes, a recurring motif in the chapter (Campbell, Ruth, 96). In any case, in the eyes of the reader, the supervising boy who omits this expression from Ruth’s words is not attempting to bring Boaz and Ruth closer together, but rather seems to be intent on creating distance between them. As I have mentioned, Sasson (Ruth, 42–43) surmises that Ruth’s use of the expression “to find favor” indicates that she is aware of Boaz. Even if it is unlikely that Ruth herself is thinking of Boaz (see the above discussion), the reader is invited to sense the narrator’s intentions through the juxtaposition of v. 1 and v. 2, that perhaps Ruth will find favor in the eyes of Boaz. In light of this, the supervisor’s failure to participate in the discourse of kindness that Ruth and Boaz share seems to be severing the potential connection between Ruth and Boaz. 69 Zakovitch, Ruth, 71. 70 Compare: Hubbard, Ruth, 137.

154

mention Ruth’s family ties to Naomi here, undermining their connection by merely mentioning that Ruth “came with Naomi,” shows his disapproval of the family’s Moabite intermarriage – disapproval that may well reflect the opinion of Bethlehemite society at large. The boy’s subsequent remarks can also be interpreted in this disparaging light: “She has been on her feet ever since she came this morning. She has rested but little in the hut” (2:7). The difficulty of this verse has generated many reactions,71 the most common reading interpreting this clause as a description of Ruth’s unique diligence: she has worked all day, barely stopping to rest.72 This reading is evident in most modern translations, for example: “She went into the field and has worked steadily from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter.” (NIV); “She has been on her feet ever since she came this morning. She has rested but little in the hut.” (JPS); “and ever since she came this morning she has remained here until now, with scarcely a moment’s rest.” (NAB). Preceded by his emphasis on her threatening foreignness, this description can be read not as admiration of her diligence, but as a warning to his master: take heed of the Moabite woman, with her greedy Moabite ways – she has been gathering grain since the morning, barely stopping to rest. 71 For a review of a range of opinions, see: M. S. Moore, “Two Textual Anomalies in Ruth,” CBQ 59 (1997) 238–243. In the words of Hubbard: “The last words of v. 7 are the most obscure in the entire book” (Ruth, 150). D. R. G. Beattie claims that this part of the verse is a “midrashic gloss” (“A Midrashic Gloss in Ruth 2:7,” ZAW 89 (1977) 122–24). Hurvitz, however, rejects this and claims that in these words the boy is presented as confused and apologetic (“Ruth 2: 7,” 122–23). For more on this issue, see Michael Carasik, “Ruth 2,7: Why the Overseer Was Embarrassed,” ZAW 107 (1995) 493–94. 72 “This is commonly interpreted as, ‘she came and stood on her feet and gathered stalks of grain from early morning till now, and only a short while ago did she stop and go sit in the house (= a booth that serves as a place of rest and shelter for the reapers).’ According to this intepretation, the boy emphasizes Ruth’s diligence to Boaz” (Yair Zakovitch, The Scrolls [Olam Ha-Tanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidzon-Ati, 1994], 88 [Heb.]). Rabbi Joseph Kara (French, 1065–1135) suggests an opposite reading – in his opinion, the boy tells Boaz that although Ruth has been working since the morning, she has gleaned only a small amount for she who sits at home (i.e., Naomi) (Kara’s commentary on Ruth 2:7).

155

With careful attention to the shifting perspectives in the story, the problematic verse (7) is solved. Ruth’s strange “request” to “glean amongst the sheaves,”73 is in fact the supervising boy’s exaggerated perception of her actions, which is distorted by his awareness of her otherness. Like all secondary characters, the literary function of the supervising boy is to illuminate the hero.74 Boaz, who turns to Ruth kindly (“my daughter”), is characterized by his profound kindness, kindness which is amplified in contrast to the supervising boy’s antagonism towards her otherness. Moreover, as opposed to the other minor characters in the story (Orpah in chap. 1 and the redeemer in chap. 4) the supervising boy actually advances the plot, influencing Boaz’s behavior, as it will emerge from v. 15.

Boaz Addresses Ruth (8–9) In contrast to the alienation emanating from the words of the supervising boy (“a Moabite girl who returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab”), Boaz turns to Ruth gently, intimately: “my daughter” (8). Not only does he address her in an unexpected way, but the fact that 73 This reading is also consistent with the Aramaic translation mentioned in footnote 54: “May I glean stalks of grain and gather them in bundles behind the reapers?” The problematic aspects of this translation are also solved in light of this reading – for the boy is warily taking note that Ruth has managed to “glean” so much grain that she is even able to bundle it into sheaves of her own. 74 I do not intend here to conclude definitively that the boy should be perceived as a “‘minor character” rather than “background” or an “extra” in the plot (a common role in biblical narrative; see Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 23). However, since this boy advances the plot—as I will soon demonstrate—it is possible to consider him an actual minor character. As for the role of the minor character in biblical narrative, see Uriel Simon’s important study “Minor Characters in Biblical Narrative,” JSOT 46 (1990) 11–19; Polack, Biblical Narrative, 255–61. Regarding minor characters in Ruth, see, e.g., Zakovitch, Ruth, 7–8; Saxegaard, Character, 57–74.

156

he speaks to her at all must not be taken for granted. The hierarchy in the field is especially apparent: Boaz is the wealthy field owner; below him is the supervisor of the reapers; below him are the reapers, Boaz’s workers; far below them are the poor people who come to glean all that the reapers have left behind; and the supervising boy’s words suggest that Ruth, a “Moabite girl,” is below them all. Ruth’s degraded status is suddenly elevated when Boaz, the apex of the social pyramid, turns to her and refers to her as “my daughter.” The reader is also alerted to this change with the narrator’s referral to her as “Ruth” (as opposed to “Ruth the Moabite,” the supervising boy’s appellation): “And Boaz said to Ruth,” as if they are of equal standing. However, as I have mentioned, the term “my daughter” is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it expresses great intimacy, but on the other, this intimacy is that of a father and his daughter, an intimacy which rules out any romantic potential. This collapse of hierarchy in the field also reflects a deviance from social conventions. It is already clear that Boaz does not retain managerial distance from his workers from his friendly greeting to them, but as he turns to the foreign Moabite girl, all social conventions are completely shattered. After all, Ruth is a woman, poor, foreign – and of the worst sort, too – she is Moabite, and Boaz’s heartfelt, personal words to her instantaneously dissolve these deep-rooted social barriers, as Brenner eloquently writes: [Ruth’s] foreign origin is only important insofar as it emphasizes and elevates her character, but beyond that, it has no significance. She says to Boaz: “How have I found favor in your eyes, that you acknowledge me, when I am a foreigner?” (2:10); and Boaz answers her: “I have been told of all that you did for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband, how you left your father and mother and the land of your birth and came to a people you had not known before…” (11). In other words: the only significance of your Moabite origin is that it tells me how you left all you had and knew to follow Naomi to a place that is a home for her, but an unknown land for you. Now that you have followed through, loyally and steadfastly, your origins pose no problem. And after this conversation, Ruth achieves her goal – she is accepted into the house of

157

Boaz as “one of his maidservants,” and this is the first step in receiving formal protection and belonging to a family.75

Boaz begins his speech with the word “‫”הלוא‬: “Listen (‫)הלא שמעת‬, my daughter” (2:8). While typically a word that indicates a question, the rhetorical quality of this question serves instead to establish a fact.76 Unbeknownst to Boaz, his words echo Ruth’s own words to Naomi when she asks her permission to go out to the field: Ruth to Naomi (2:2) I would like to go now to the field and glean amongst the ears of grain Behind someone who in his eyes I might find favor

Boaz to Ruth (2:8) Do not go to another field to glean Don’t go elsewhere, but cling to my girls Keep your eyes on the field they are reaping, and go behind them, for I have ordered the boys not to harass you, and you may go to drink from what the boys have drawn

From this comparison, it is evident that Ruth’s expectations have not only been fulfilled, but exceeded. The field owner has invited her to come to his field regularly, and even offers her to drink from the water that is specially drawn for his workers.77 Despite the obvious affection Boaz displays towards Ruth, his words reveal the difficulties Ruth is liable to encounter in the field: he reassures the vulnerable Moabite girl that he has commanded the reapers not to touch her.78 Boaz will instate a similar command twice 75 A. Brenner, “Foreign Women in the Bible,” Beit Mikra 30 (1984/85) 183–84 (Heb.). 76 G. R. Driver, “Affirmation by Exclamatory Negation,” JANES 5 (1973) 107–114. 77 I find it hard to accept Joüon’s claim that Boaz is inviting Ruth to partake of the wine that the workers drink together and join them in their drinking. While water is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, the accompanying verb “drawn” is appropriate for water (as Campbell also argues, Ruth, 98). 78 Although Boaz uses past tense here (“I have commanded,”) this should not be understood as something which has already been said (as Sasson also writes, Ruth, 121), as he has just been informed of the identity of the woman gleaning in his field. There is no need to adopt Hubbard’s claim (Ruth, 158) that

158

more, “do not shame her” (15), and “do not reproach her” (16), which reveals the extent of the danger Ruth is in as she gleans to sustain herself and her mother-in-law. Zakovitch explains that this repeated admonition is directly related to Ruth’s special treatment: “The greater the kindness [bestowed upon her], the greater the resentment of the boys who have been ordered to facilitate this kindness.”79 However, seeing as Boaz mentions this issue immediately, before speaking to the boys, it appears that as a foreign, unknown girl, with no friends or family to protect her, Ruth is especially vulnerable to being harassed.80 Block reads Boaz’s protection of Ruth as an antecedent of anti-sexual harassment policies in the workplace – I believe, however, that Ruth is especially vulnerable because of her foreignness, rather than her gender.81 In any case, Boaz emerges as a protector of Ruth, apparently in contrast to the dominant atmosphere in the field. Boaz’s words contain three expressions of particular interest, but as their main literary function comes into play later in the chapter, I will mention them here only briefly: 1. The verb root ‫כ‬.‫ל‬.‫“( ה‬go”) is repeated three times: (“do not go… go after…go and drink”). The significance of this repetition will be revealed in Boaz’s words in v. 11. 2. Boaz’s mention of his “girls” (“don’t go elsewhere, but cling to my girls”),82 features later on, when Ruth recounts Boaz’s words

79 80 81 82

his words are only fulfilled in v. 15 (especially considering that the imperative form differs slightly there). Boaz’s language implies that as soon as he utters his command, it will be put into effect instantly, as if it had always been the case (as Bush suggests, Ruth, 122). Boaz is a man of action, and this is also evident from similar use of tense in 4:4. Zakovitch, Ruth, 80. Zakovitch himself explains Boaz’s first words to Ruth similarly: “to prevent her being harassed, as the foreign, helpless one” (Ruth, 75). D. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1999) 660: “Boaz is hereby instituting the first anti-sexual-harassment policy in the workplace recorded in the Bible.” Among scholars, there are different approaches to these “girls”: Joüon claims that these were reaper-women reaping in the field, and Boaz was therefore offering Ruth to drink with women, not among the men. However, this opinion

159

to Naomi in v. 21, as if Boaz had said “boys” (‫ )נערים‬rather than “girls” (‫)נערות‬. 3. The verb root ‫ק‬.‫ב‬.‫( ד‬to cling) is notable, a Leitwort in the first half of the story (1:14; 2:8; 2:21; 2:23). As I have mentioned, Boaz’s offer to protect and sustain Ruth is read as a betrothal type-scene by Alter. However, practically, this is no betrothal scene at all – if not for the story’s end, there would be no reason to assume that an older man who benevolently turns to the Moabite girl, calling her “my daughter,” will take her for a wife. Although Alter is correct that certain literary elements in this scene are characteristic of a betrothal scene, these elements only emphasize what remains unfulfilled in the field. Not only does their meeting end in disappointment, but from the beginning, their interaction is not characterized by romance or courtship. On the contrary, the narrator is careful to steer the plot away from this direction, continuing the theme of Ruth’s pledge to Naomi in chap. 1: she has not arrived in Bethlehem with expectations of finding a husband, but out of loyalty to Naomi. Here in the field, despite the appearance of Boaz, Ruth continues to “cling” to her mother-in-law, as we will soon see.

would have him omit the words “with my lads” which Ruth repeats to Naomi later on (Ruth, 52). Dalman claims that the reapers are followed by female gatherers who collect what they have reaped and these are the women Boaz refers to (G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (vol. I, part 2; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964) 17. If this is the case, then Boaz is shattering convention in his generosity, as poor people were not supposed to gather ears together with the gatherers, but rather follow after them (as Bush emphasizes in Ruth, 121. This stance has been adopted by Campbell, Ruth, 98; Gerlemann, Ruth, 23; Gray, Ruth, 391; Rudolph, Ruth, 49).

160

Ruth’s Response (10) Ruth’s verbal response is preceded by her physical response, which is to fall to the ground and bow. With this act, Ruth restores the accepted hierarchy of the field – she is not responding to Boaz as his equal, but first “bows to the ground” in acknowledgment of his superiority. Her ensuing words disclose great surprise, probably mirrored by the surprise of all around her, and that of the supervising boy in particular. The dramatic reversal of her position that occurs when she is addressed by Boaz is reflected, as many have commented, in the wordplay between “to acknowledge,” ‫ להכירני‬and “foreign,” ‫נכריה‬.83 These two words, almost anagrams, are almost antithetical in meaning – their juxtaposition reflects Ruth’s surprise when Boaz addresses her.84 David Daube’s comment that the verb “to acknowledge” is associated with legal discourse is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, as through this verb, Ruth expresses her appreciation that Boaz accepts her as one with the legal status of “stranger” (‫)גר‬, which entitles her to certain legal privileges (mainly pertaining to the right to glean with the poor).85 While some have justifiably countered this claim,86 as this does not seem to be the main topic of their exchange, I believe Daube is correct insofar that the use of this particular verb, with all its legal connotations, is not coincidental.87 Here, like in other places in the narrative, the author is hinting to the letter of the law, 83 Moreover, these sounds are repeated in the word “I am”: “‫– ואנכי – נכריה‬ ‫”להכירני‬ 84 See more on this topic in: Sasson, Ruth, 51; Campbell, Ruth, 98–98; Hubbard, Ruth, 162; LaCocque, Ruth, 70–71. 85 D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947) 7–8. In his view, the verb in 2:19 should also be understood thus. 86 Like Bush, Ruth, 123. 87 Even Daube himself does not claim that this term has full legal implications, rather, the use of the verb is only “colored” by legal significance (ibid). Among the host of examples he brings of the word “to acknowledge” (‫)להכיר‬, he cites: Deut 21:17; 33:9; as well as noting its acute significance in the story of Joseph and his brothers (ibid, 8–10).

161

while restructuring the setting of the narrative according its spirit. In this case, Ruth’s words hint to the legal action of recognizing the Other as a member of society with certain rights, while this legal discourse is colored by her gratitude for Boaz’s compassion. Her opening words – “How have I found favor in your eyes” – are of special significance in context of the chapter. The expression “to find favor” is repeated three times in this scene: in Ruth’s request to Naomi (2); and twice in her reply to Boaz, here and in v. 13.88 This phrase connects her words to Boaz’s offer to “keep [her] eyes on the field [his workers] are reaping, and go behind them” (9).89 Boaz, in his words, directs Ruth’s eyes to his own field, and Ruth, in her words, refers to Boaz’s eyes as they see her. Ruth’s view of the field is a realization of Boaz’s view of humanity. Ruth’s answer to Boaz ends with a question: Why is he bestowing such kindness on a foreigner like herself ? The reader, however, is aware that Ruth is not quite so foreign – through her connection to Naomi, she is somewhat related to Boaz himself. Moreover, the word “foreigner” (‫ )נכרי‬can also convey that a person is “not of the family,” as in the verse: “I was like a stranger (‫ )מוזר‬to my brothers / a foreigner (‫ )נכרי‬to the sons of my mother” (Ps 69:9).90 Sasson surmises that Ruth’s reference to herself as “not of the family” hints that she is interested in being part of his family – an opinion consistent with his claim that Ruth is aware of Boaz’s family connections with Naomi,

88 Compare: Campbell, Ruth, 100; P. Trible, “A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1982; vol. 2) 171–72. LaCocque claims that this repetition stems from the fact that “Biblical authors gladly repeat three times the same motif ” (LaCocque, Ruth, 69). Zakovitch wrote: “Although Ruth indeed wished to find favor in the eyes of a field owner, to actually do so exceeds her expectations.” (Zakovitch, Ruth, 75). 89 For the wide range of possible understandings of this combination, see: Joüon, Ruth, 53; Campbell, Ruth, 97–98; Hubbard, Ruth, 157; Sasson, Ruth, 42–43. 90 BDB, 648–49. See further: M. Guttmann, “The Term ‘Foreigner’ (nkry) Historically Considered,” HUCA 3 (1926) 1–20; J. Hoftijzer, “EX xxi 8,” VT 7 (1957) 388–91.

162

and she fully intended to arrive at his field.91 Seeing as the text emphasizes that Ruth arrives at Boaz’s field by coincidence, however, this wordplay seems to be directed from the author to the readers, skipping over the heads of the heroes as they encounter each other among the sheaves of barley. Her statement that she is a stranger to Boaz clears the stage for his disclosure that she is not a stranger to him, but in fact, she is family.

Boaz’s Response (11–12) To great surprise (the reader’s, not Ruth’s), Boaz does not reveal that the special attention he pays Ruth is because of their family ties. As I have discussed, one function of introducing the reader to Boaz at the beginning of the chapter is to generate surprise at this point in the plot. For after Ruth’s question, the reader awaits revelation, only to be disappointed. Even if Boaz did not wish to volunteer this information, after Ruth asks him directly, one would expect him to show his cards. In fact, her question, “‫מדוע‬,” echoes the description of Boaz as Naomi’s husband’s “kinsman” (‫ – )מודע‬which raises the reader’s expectation that Boaz will reveal his identity as Naomi’s, and therefore Ruth’s, kinsman – an expectation which is promptly shattered.92 Beyond contributing to the general reading experience, (which is enhanced by every twist in the plot), Boaz’s withholding of their family connections underscores the information he does choose to tell her. Because the reader expects Boaz to tell Ruth that he has acted kindly towards her out of family duty, the spotlight is thrown instead upon his alternate motives – his choice to match kindness for kindness, 91 Sasson, Ruth, 51. See also P. Humbert, “Art et lecon de l’histoire de Ruth,” RTP 26 (1938) 257–286. 92 Campbell points out that Ruth’s question “How have I…” (‫ )מדוע‬as opposed to the more prevalent question in the book of Ruth, “why” (‫( )למה‬1:11,21), is another example of the key verb root ‫ע‬.‫ד‬.‫“( י‬to know”) in the story. (Campbell, Ruth, 98). I find this wordplay doubtful – see also Hubbard, Ruth, 161.

163

his compassion for her born out of admiration for the compassion she showed Naomi. Thus, Ruth’s loyalty and kindness emerge as the underlying force that drives the plot, rather than the question of family duty.93 Boaz’s response is composed of two parts: the first addresses Ruth’s past (2:11), and the second, his hopes for her future (2:12). In his description of her past, Boaz emphasizes the sacrifice she made in leaving her family and homeland. He blesses her that in return, he hopes that God will spread His wings over her, protecting and guarding her, and in this respect, he presents God as a replacement for the father and mother that Ruth left behind. This is the climax of the exchange between Boaz and Ruth, and essentially, of the entire scene (which I clarify below, in a discussion of the chapter’s structure). It is no coincidence that God is twice mentioned as the One who will repay Ruth for her kindness: “May the Lord reward your deeds, and may you be fully recompensed from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge!” (12).94 These words disclose a subtle theological statement: Boaz presents God as the One who will recompense Ruth for her kindness, whereas in the narrative context, these words serve as an answer to Ruth’s question as to why she has received such attention from him. In other words, while Boaz blesses Ruth that 93 Against Humbert, “Art,” 269. 94 For a discussion of the wordplay between “ ‫ ”ישלם‬and “ ‫שלמה‬,” see: Sasson, Ruth, 52; Hubbard, Ruth, 166; Zakovitch, Ruth, 76–77. Hubbard (ibid) claims that there is a deliberate link between “recompense” (‫ )משכרתך‬and the other appearance of this word in the Bible, in the story of Jacob and Laban (regarding Rachel and Leah in Gen 29:15, and regarding the sheep in 31:7, 41). I am not certain that this is indeed a deliberate allusion, but if so, M. D. Gow (The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose [Leicester: Apollos 1992] 54–55) is correct in asserting that this verb has special relevance to Leah’s conception and birth of Issachar (“and Leah went out to meet him and she said to him, Come, for I have earned you (‫ )שכר שכרתיך‬with my son’s mandrakes…God has recompensed me for that that I gave my maidservant to my husband, and his name shall be Issachar (‫[ )יששכר‬Gen 30:16–18]). In this light, the reader may detect a blessing of fertility in Boaz’s words to Ruth (though Boaz himself is unaware of this allusion), a foreshadowing of what is to come.

164

God will repay her, he himself is fulfilling that blessing.95 This is also supported by Boaz’s use of the verb “to go” – as I have mentioned, he repeats this verb three times (not to go from his field, to go with his girls, and to go drink from his vessels). Now, the literary function of this verb is fully realized: in this verse, Boaz also repeats it: “how you left your father and mother and the land of your birth and went (‫ )ותלכי‬to a people you had not known before (2:11). This connects Boaz’s bidding Ruth to “go” in his field to her “going” with her mother-in-law.96 This link is also suggested through repetition of the verb root ‫ב‬.‫ז‬.‫ע‬, “to leave.” Boaz’s words show profound appreciation for her act of “leaving” her mother and father and clinging to her mother-in-law. In return, Boaz commands his workers to “leave” extra grain for Ruth (16), and eventually, Naomi praises Boaz and/or God (an ambiguity I address below) that they have not “forsaken” (‫ )עזב‬their kindness (20).97 Through the different uses of this verb, the author hints that Boaz’s measure-for-measure perception of kindness (leaving grain in recognition of Ruth’s leaving her parents).Naomi, in turn, interprets Boaz’s kindness as God’s kindness, as I will discuss below. Thus, Boaz himself fulfills the blessing he prays that God will bestow upon Ruth, which reflects the theological view of the book of Ruth that dictates that the acts of people advance Divine will. God does not govern Boaz’s actions, but Boaz freely chooses the path of compassion, fulfilling His plan.98 Boaz’s words contain two strong allusions. Firstly, as many have commented, God’s command to Abraham (while he was still Abram) echoes in the background: “Go from your country, your people, and 95 As Rauber notes, among others (D. F. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth,” JBL 89 (1970) 32). 96 Moreover, the repetition of the word “go” harks back to Naomi’s speeches to her daughters-in-law in chap.1. Naomi repeatedly begs them to “go,” (1:8,11) – whereas Boaz begs Ruth not to “go” – through Boaz’s acceptance of Ruth, she is also accepted in Naomi’s eyes, as I will discuss later. Ruth’s words to Naomi, “Wherever you go, I will go” is also echoed here, in the field, as an explanation for Boaz’s entreating her to remain in his field and not to “go” to another field. 97 E. van Wolde, Ruth and Naomi (trans. by J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1997) 43–44. 98 See the introduction, and see the discussion of 2:20 below.

165

your father’s house, to the land which I will show you” (Gen 12:1).99 This comparison obviously portrays Ruth in a positive light, as one who answers God’s call. Both the author and the implied reader are conscious of Abraham as the prototype of “the immigrant to Canaan,” who is promised God’s blessings as a reward for this journey.100 The subtle comparison between Ruth and the founder of the Israelite nation also legitimizes Ruth as a member of this nation, for she is following in the footsteps of their forefather. As I mentioned in chap. 1, Naomi and Ruth’s journey to Bethlehem recalls Abraham and Isaac’s journey towards their sacrifice (1:19). If so, then Boaz’s equation of Ruth’s journey with Abraham’s first command renders Ruth’s rites-of-passage a reverse version of Abraham’s: first, Abraham leaves his homeland, and his trials eventually culminate in his command to sacrifice his son; whereas Ruth first makes the decision to sacrifice herself completely to Naomi, and now, meeting Boaz, she begins her journey of acceptance into the nation of Israel. Within the context of our story, the second allusion in Boaz’s words is of yet greater impact. His description of Ruth as one who “left [her] father and mother” was literally fulfilled when Ruth chose to ignore Naomi’s bidding to “return to her mother’s house” (1:8). Boaz’s language also recalls the passage of woman’s creation in Genesis 2: “Therefore, a man must leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).101 At first glance, it 99 See, among others: Gerlemann, Ruth, 26; Hubbard, Ruth, 165; Zakovitch, Ruth, 76; Nielsen, Ruth, 59; LaCocque, Ruth, 71 (who emphasizes that, in contrast with the commandment to Abraham, Ruth also explicitly left her mother, not only her father); J. Fentress-Williams, Ruth (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2012) 74–75. 100 In fact, a comparison between these two emigrations to Canaan casts Ruth in a profoundly positive light, seeing as Abraham was commanded to leave his homeland by God, whereas Ruth voluntarily left, out of compassion and kindness (B. G. Green, A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth [Ph.D. Diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1980] 231; Trible, “Comedy,” 172). 101 Van Wolde, Ruth, 43–44; Hubbard, Ruth, 164; LaCocque, Ruth, 73. Nielsen (Ruth, 48) also noted the significance of the verb ‫ דבק‬and in Gen 2 in relation to Ruth 1:14: “and Ruth clung to her.” Garsiel (Structure, 69) interprets this

166

seems that this allusion charges Boaz and Ruth’s meeting with marital connotations, strengthening readings such as Alter’s “betrothal typescene.” However, a closer look suggests that the opposite is in fact true, considering that the verb “cling” (‫ )דבק‬actually refers to Boaz’s female workers: “cling to my girls” (2:8). Once again, Boaz presents himself as a father figure, rather than a potential husband. His bid that Ruth “cling” to his girls reinforces the image of Ruth clinging to Naomi in chap 1: “and Ruth clung to her” (1:14). If so, then the relationship emphasized here is Ruth and Naomi’s, rather than Ruth and Boaz’s. I must stress that these elements are crucial in defining the story’s major themes: this negation of romance serves to emphasize that this story is not a marriage plot. Boaz does not approach Ruth as a potential suitor, nor out of family duty, but out of appreciation for her for her loyalty and kindness towards Naomi.

Ruth’s Reaction (13) In order to trace the process Ruth undergoes over the course of her exchange with Boaz, let us compare her first reply to Boaz with her second: Her First Response (10) And she fell on her face and bowed to the ground, and said to him How have I found favor in your eyes, that you acknowledge me

And I am a foreigner

Her Second Response (13) And she said I will find favor in your eyes, my master, for you have comforted me, and have spoken to the heart of your maidservant And I am not so much as one of your maidservants

intertextuality to the glorification of Ruth’s character, for in the creation story, man is bid to leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, whereas Ruth clings to the mother of her husband when all seems lost.

167

Through the comparison of her responses, it is clear that Ruth’s attitude towards Boaz is progressing: she feels more comfortable in his presence, more protected, or, in her own words: “comforted.” The first difference between her responses is the most obvious: rather than throw herself to the ground in submission, exhibiting her subordination with every new sentence (like Abraham in Gen 23), she has “found her feet.” The different verbs she uses also reflect this change: at first, Ruth is overwhelmed that Boaz has even “acknowledged” her, and now she relates to their developing relationship: he has also “comforted” her and “spoken to her heart.”102 The different ways Ruth refers to herself also reflects this change: she is no longer “foreign” to him, but “his maidservant.” While a maidservant is obviously subordinate to her master, this term reflects a certain relationship, as opposed to the detachment associated with the term “foreigner.”103 The recurring expression of “finding favor,” which Dommers­ hausen claims is a key phrase in the chapter,104 is also repeated here in future tense, which suggests the promise of a relationship in the future.105 This expression represents realization of the hopes Ruth expressed in v. 2, which have been wildly surpassed – as Hubbard 102 The formation of the words “speak” and “heart” in an expression appears in the Bible as a general expression of comfort (see, for example, Gen 50:21; II Sam 19:8; Isa 40:2), as well as in contexts of courtship, of a man placating or courting a woman (Gen 34:3; Judg 19:3; Hos 2:16). Is this double meaning fully realized in the words of Ruth? (Compare: LaCocque, Ruth, 74). 103 Here too, the author seems to attempt to distance associations of marriage from the text (for now). U. Cassuto (The “Quaestio” of the Book of Genesis [Translated from the Italian: M.E. Artom; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990; Heb.] 91–96) and Sasson (Ruth, 53–54) claim that the word “maidservant” (‫ )שפחה‬is biblically associated with enslavement to a master, while the word “handmaid” (‫)אמה‬ is related to concubines or even intimacy. For now, Ruth defines herself as a “maidservant,” language that changes in the scene of the threshing-floor, when Ruth will refer to herself as a “handmaid:” “And she said, I am Ruth your handmaiden, spread your robe over your handmaid, for you are a redeemer” (3:9, see below). 104 Dommershausen, Leitwortsil, 400. 105 Or even as an expression of hope (Campbell, Ruth, 100; Joüon, Ruth, 56; Hubbard, Ruth, 168).

168

rightly comments, through this phrase it is clear that Ruth is beginning to feel at home, at least when she is together with Boaz.106 Here, too, the author’s theological views are expressed. A moment before, Boaz blesses Ruth that God will recompense her, and here, Ruth is already replying that “I will find favor in your eyes, my master, for you have comforted me, and have spoken to the heart of your maidservant.” Nielsen suggests that there is special significance in Ruth’s use of “my master,” (‫ )אדוני‬, which in the Bible sometimes refers to God, Similarly, the verb “comforted,” in which the verb root ‫ נחם‬is in piel form, often refers to God comforting his creations (Isa 12:1; 51:12; 52:9; 61:13; Ps 71:21; 119:82). This, in her opinion, expresses the disparity between Boaz, who expects God to recompense Ruth for her kindness, and Ruth, who perceives Boaz as the one acting kindly towards her.107 However, in light of the author’s beliefs, I read this not as a dispute between the views of two characters, but as a form of completion– Boaz’s blessing that God will recompense Ruth for her kindness is fulfilled by the kindness of Boaz himself.

Lunchtime Conversation (14–16) Boaz’s words to Ruth and his boys during their meal can be seen as an extension of their first exchange – reading vv. 14–16 thus demonstrates how his kindness towards her increases as the chapter progresses. Just as Ruth gradually feels closer to Boaz, he feels more and more need to protect her. Whereas he initially promises Ruth that she will be safe from physical harm (9), he goes beyond his promise, forbidding the boys to harass her even verbally: “and Boaz commanded his boys, saying, do not shame her…and do not reproach her” (15–16). At first he allows Ruth to drink from the water drawn for his workers, and now he invites her to partake of their food, even “handing her parched 106 Hubbard, Ruth, 168. 107 Nielsen, Ruth, 60.

169

grain” himself (14). The physical description of their setting also illustrates the growing closeness of the characters: in his first words to her, Boaz says: “Keep your eyes on the field they are reaping, and go behind them” (9), and now he bids her to “sit alongside the reapers” (14) – she is now equal to them in Boaz’s eyes.108 The narrator draws special attention to the finer details of this scene: “Come over here, eat from the bread, and dip your piece in the vinegar. And she sat alongside the reapers, and he handed her some parched grain, and she ate and was sated, and had some left over” (14). The added detail of Boaz’s invitation to “dip your piece in the vinegar,” which in no way advances the plot, describes his attitude towards her. Not only does he invite her to glean in his fields regularly, fulfilling the requirement of charity, but he actually invites her to partake in the communal meal and dip her bread in the condiments along with his crew. The reader can imagine how meaningful such an invitation would be to a lonely stranger who has left all her family behind. Boaz does not merely hand her a piece of bread out of pity, fulfilling her physical needs, he also invites her to sit and dine with them, handing her special delicacies himself.109 Before, Boaz hints that Ruth has followed in the path of Abraham, who leaves his parents and birthplace. Now, Boaz also seems to be following in his forefather’s footprints, showering hospitality upon those who cross his path (Gen 18:8). Boaz, like Abraham, does not offer mere bread and water, but takes pains to provide his guests with 108 Of course this difference is techinically due to the fact that in the field, Ruth and the workers are in constant motion, and to gather properly she must walk behind them after they have cut the grain, whereas now, sitting down to eat, she is able to sit alongside them. Symbolically, however, there is still significance in her position relative to Boaz’s own workers. Even if Zakovitch is correct that the description of her seating is an expression of her modesty, as she sits “next to the reapers” rather than “among them” (Ruth, 78), the main point of this phrase is the fact that she sits as one of Boaz’s workers. 109 Parched barley or wheat was considered a delicacy, as is evident from the fact that Abigail takes some as one of the presents she brings to appease David: “and she took two hundred loaves of bread and two skins of wine and five prepared sheep and five measures of parched grain…and she loaded it on the donkeys” (I Sam 25:18).

170

delicacies, and serve them himself (Ruth 2:14).110 The narrator also specifies that Ruth does not eat all of the parched grain she has been served, but leaves some over. For now, let us interpret this as an expression of the ample meal she has enjoyed: after she is full, she still has food left over.111 However, it will later emerge that Ruth saves some of her delicacy to share with Naomi, which I will address in context. Boaz’s words to his boy, “You are also to let her glean amongst the sheaves, and do not shame her” (15) also develop the plot itself, harking back to Boaz’s conversation with his supervising boy. Some scholars have commented that because Boaz only gives permission for Ruth to do so here, in v. 15, her apparent request to glean among the sheaves in v. 7 does not fit in with the plot.112 However, read as the boy’s exaggerated depiction resulting from his perception of Ruth as the threatening Other, Ruth never made such a request.113 Until now (as the narrator describes, unlike the supervising boy claims), Ruth has gleaned only “among the ears,” and now, Boaz grants her permission to glean beyond the boundaries that the laws of charity dictate.114 This specific command can be read as a reaction to the supervising boy’s words: while the supervising boy had hoped to turn his master against the “Moabite girl” by portraying her as one who exploits the laws of charity, not only does his master refuse to restrain the girl, he even uses the boy’s own words to bestow extra kindness upon her. It is no 110 Just as Abraham and Sarah will bear a son following this encounter, does Boaz’s generous hospitality anticipate the birth of his own son? 111 See, for example: N. Aschkenasy, “Language as Female Empowerment in Ruth,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (ed. J. A. Kates and G. Twersky Reimer; New York: State University of New York Press, 1994) 41. 112 Campbell, Ruth 94: “It is incongruous to have Ruth request and receive permission to glean among the sheaves here [= v. 7]” 113 Hubbard claims that since in this verse Boaz is not speaking to Ruth, but to his lads, there is no issue at all about granting permission to Ruth (Ruth, 176). The narrator emphasizes this by describing Ruth’s actions” “and Ruth arose to glean,” immediately followed by Boaz’s command, “and Boaz commanded,” so the reader would expect that Boaz is about to address Ruth. However, Boaz turns instead to his workers. 114 Compare: LaCocque, Ruth, 75.

171

coincidence that Boaz admonishes his workers “not to shame” Ruth (15). He no doubt senses the antagonism of the supervising boy (and perhaps the reapers) towards her, and therefore specifically instructs them to change their attitude.115 This reading is reinforced within the structural framework of the text, as Boaz’s warning to his boys not to shame her as she gleans among the sheaves (15) is parallel to the boy’s complaint that Ruth is gleaning among the sheaves without permission (7).116 Thus, the relation between the normative law and the kindness that Boaz bestows upon Ruth is fully realized: without openly confronting the law, the author presents the characters operating within the law, but also far beyond it. The boy who supervises the reapers (who represents the aloof attitude of the people of Bethlehem towards Ruth), keeps within the letter of the law, but his attitude towards her does not reflect the spirit of the laws of charity. In contrast, Boaz’s operation of his field is motivated by kindness, which expands the spirit of the law so fully that, effectually, he bypasses the law completely.

The Remains of the Day (17) Boaz steps down from the stage and the narrator resumes focus on Ruth: “and she gleaned in the field until the evening, and she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley” (17). After Boaz’s great generosity and a good meal, she resumes her place in the field – gleaning away, no doubt, with renewed vigor. Indeed, the fact that the narrator recounts the amount of grain she manages to glean indicates that this information contributes to the reader’s

115 For a discussion of the actual danger to Ruth in the field (considering Boaz’s words in v. 9 and Naomi’s words in v. 22), see: D. Shepherd, “Violence in the Fields? Translating, Reading, and Revising in Ruth 2,” CBQ 63 (2001) 444–461. 116 As I show in my discussion of the chapter’s structure, below.

172

understanding of the scene.117 Scholars have debated how much an “ephah” is, but it is largely accepted that it amounts to something between 20–25 liters,118 a very considerable amount that reflects both Boaz’s generosity, and Ruth’s diligence.119 It is unlikely that most poor people return from a day’s gleaning with so much produce, and Ruth probably manages to do so thanks to the special allowances Boaz makes for her. The amount mentioned – “an ephah” – may also serve a literary function within the story,120 based on the intertextuality between the story of Ruth and the story of Hannah and Elkanah (1 Sam 1). When Hannah weans Samuel and brings him to Shiloh, the narrator relates that “she took him up with her when she had weaned him, with three bulls and one ephah of flour and a skin of wine, and she brought him to the House of the Lord” (1 Sam 1:24). While this reference alone might not be sufficient to draw a parallel between the two stories, this detail has significance because of the profound intertextuality that is already evident between them.121 Reading Ruth’s offering to her mother-in-law 117 Most scholars have understood the letter ‫ כ‬at the beginning of the word “‫”כאיפה‬ (“about an ephah”) as a comparative kaf, a prefix denoting “like, about.” However, Talmon claims that this particular “kaf” as a kaf of verification, meaning “exactly an ephah of barley.” See: Campbell, Ruth, 104. 118 Albright suggests that an ephah is 22 liters. Others have proposed around 36–39 liters! See: O. Sellers, “Ephah (Measure),” IDB, Vol. 2, 107; O. Sellers, “Weights and Measures,” IDB, Vol. 4, 834–835; R. Scott, “Weights and Measures of the Bible,” BA 22 (1959), mostly 29, 31; Rudolph, Ruth, 50; Gerlemann, Ruth, 27; Joüon, Ruth, 62; Hubbard, Ruth, 179. 119 Zakovitch, Ruth, 80. 120 There may well be wordplay between the amount Ruth gleaned, “‫”כְּאֵיפָה שְׂעֹרִים‬, and Naomi’s question upon her return home two verses later: “and her motherin-law said to her, where (‫ )איפה‬did you glean today?” (2:19). See: B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978) 36; LaCocque, Ruth, 77. 121 Many have noted the intertextuality between the end of Ruth, “who is better to you than seven sons” (4:15) and Elkanah’s words to Hannah at the beginning of I Samuel: “Am I not better to you than ten sons?” (I Sam 1:8). For a reading of Ruth in conjunction with the story of Hannah, see, for example: D. Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam; Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1998) 105–09, 173–75, and see below the discussion of Ruth 4:15.

173

against Hannah’s offering to God, the reader becomes aware of a sense of missed opportunity: Hannah is giving an ephah of flour to God to thank Him for the birth of her son. Ruth is returning to her motherin-law with that same amount of barley, but she has no husband, no son, no continuity – she has gathered the fruits of the earth, but she is still waiting to be blessed with fruit of the womb.

Ruth’s Return to Naomi (18–22) Ruth arrives at Naomi’s home in the evening, after a hard day’s work. The large quantity of grain she has gleaned leads the narrator to open the next verse with the verb “carry” (‫)ותשא‬: Ruth “carried [it] and arrived at the town” (2:18). The narrator relates that she arrives at “the town” rather than at “Naomi’s house,” which establishes a connection between Ruth’s arrival in town at the end of this chapter, and Boaz’s arrival in town at the end of the next chapter (at least according to the Masoretic text) which I discuss below. Moreover, from a symbolical perspective, Ruth will only be granted a “house” in the final chapter (4:11), so it is no coincidence that the author does not use the phrase “Ruth’s house” or “Naomi’s house” at this point in the narrative. When Ruth gives Naomi the parched grain that she had “left over” (18),122 the reader realizes that even as Ruth is hard at work in the field, and even when Boaz graces her with gifts and delicacies, she has been constantly thinking of Naomi, even saving some of Boaz’s personal

122 The Vulgate version is preferable here: “And [Ruth] showed her mother-in-law what she had gleaned,” because in this version, the first three phrases describe Ruth’s actions, and only then does Naomi reply verbally (and indeed, some scholars favor this version: Rudolph, Ruth, 50; E. Würthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth (HAT 18; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1969) 13, and so do some translations: NAB, RSV). For problems with the proposed version, see: Bush, Ruth, 133; Hubbard, Ruth, 180, comment 3.

174

gift to her for her mother-in-law.123 The word order in this verse shows how eager Ruth is to share the treat with her: rather than the expected sequence, “and she took out what she had left over, and gave them to her,” the narrator relates that “she took out and gave her what she had left over.” The deferral of the direct object to the end of the sentence creates the impression that Ruth has been waiting impatiently to give Naomi “what she had left over” for her. Beyond the fact that Ruth’s generosity and love for her mother-in-law is emphasized, with this gesture, the relationships in the story are clarified: Ruth takes part of the delicacy Boaz personally “handed to” her, and presents his offering to her mother-in-law. In chap. 1, Ruth turns her back on the prospect of remarrying in Moab in order to accompany Naomi; and this pattern seems to be repeating itself here: Ruth does not interpret Boaz’s gesture as one of courtship, for she is thinking only of her mother-in-law. The format of the dialogue of this passage reinforces Ruth’s reverential attitude towards Naomi: Naomi opens their exchange, and Ruth does not speak until she is spoken to. Naomi also has “the last word” in their conversation, which Ruth, presumably, accepts without question.124 Naomi opens by asking Ruth, “Where (‫ )איפה‬did you glean today?” The unexpectedly large amount of grain Ruth has brought home has no doubt led Naomi to wonder what field has such an abundant yield,125 and she uses a double form of “where” to ask the field’s location (19),126 123 Fewell and Gunn’s proposed reading (D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth [Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990] 98), which casts criticism upon Ruth for giving Naomi the remainder of the food only after she was sated, is a reading that does not take the narrative situation into account, and is generally insensitive to the story’s characterizations. 124 In Bush’s opinion (Ruth, 131–32), the dialogue between the women is concentrically constructed (around Boaz’s blessing and Ruth’s discovery that he is kin, v. 20). To my mind, besides the obvious frame of Naomi beginning and ending this conversation, the proposed structure is unconvincing. 125 Linafelt and Saxegaard propose that Naomi understood that something unusual had happened in the field when she received the ready-to-eat food that was left over from Ruth’s meal with Boaz (Linafelt, Ruth, 40; Saxegaard, Character, 97). 126 As opposed to Hertzberg (Ruth, 270) and Hubbard (Ruth, 183), who claim that Naomi immediately understood that Ruth was incapable of gleaning such an amount unaided.

175

though she immediately raises the alternative that Ruth has gleaned this amount not because she has been in a remarkable field, but because of a remarkable field owner. This realization leads her to exclaim: “May your acknowledger be blessed!” (19). This language connects Naomi’s exclamation with Ruth’s words to Boaz: “How have I found favor in your eyes, that you have acknowledged me” (10).127 Just as Ruth feels “acknowledged” in Boaz’s presence without even knowing of their family connection, Naomi similarly blesses Ruth’s unknown benefactor, without realizing he is her husband’s kinsman.128 Thus, Ruth’s being acknowledged before (and therefore regardless of) her family ties, and in spite of her foreignness, becomes a recurring motif in this chapter. Ruth immediately clarifies that her yield is thanks to the field’s owner – “and she told her mother-in-law all she had done with him” (19). The choice of the pronoun with him (‫ )עמו‬is somewhat surprising. From the point of view of plot, a different preposition would be more suitable (such as “by him,” “in his field,” etc). Ruth’s choice of “with him,” reflects Boaz’s attitude towards her, and how comfortable she feels in his company. She did not merely glean on his property; she shared a meal with him and his workers. She feels “with him” – although all she shares “with him” at the moment is his crop, and nothing more. Ruth’s answer to Naomi is unusually structured, first describing how Ruth told Naomi whose field she had been in without informing the reader of her actual words, and then switching to direct quotation, revealing Boaz’s identity at the end of the verse (“what she did (‫)עשתה‬ with him… and the name of the man who I worked (‫ )עשיתי‬with”).129 127 Nielsen, Ruth, 62–63. Campbell claims that the ordering of the verse is surprising and was intended to emphasize the word “your acknowledger” (Ruth, 134). If this is indeed the case, then Ruth’s “acknowledger” is even more central. However, others have dismissed the claim that the ordering of the verse is unusual (Bush, Ruth, 134). For implementation of this motif, see: Humbert, Art, 94, comment 3; LaCocque, Ruth, 77. 128 Hubbard, Ruth, 184. 129 This unusual, repetitive structure has led some to claim that this language is superfluous or awkward, though I believe it has acute literary value. See: Sasson, Ruth, 59 (who claims that both verses indeed relay the same content, but suggests a division between “‫ ”דבר‬and “‫ ;)”אמר‬Campbell, Ruth, 106; Bush, Ruth, 134.

176

This structure recalls the withholding of the name of Elimelech and his family in the story’s beginning (1:1–2). As in chap. 1, this delayed naming operates on two levels: it emphasizes that Boaz’s actions are not because of Ruth’s family connection to him, but because he values kindness in itself – his actions are more important than his identity; and it increases the reader’s suspense as he or she awaits Naomi’s reaction to the identity of this field owner. Firstly, Ruth shows Naomi her yield, then she “tells her all she did with him,” and finally, she reveals… “and the name of the man… who I worked with… today… Boaz!” (19). Naomi’s Revelation (20) Naomi has already blessed Ruth’s benefactor, but now, upon learning his identity, she blesses him once more: “And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed is he to the Lord, who has not forsaken his kindness to the living or the dead! And Naomi said to her, This man is our redeeming kinsman!” The repetition of “And Naomi said” marks the two themes of her reply, and their order, clearly.130 Zakovitch reads this dichotomy as Naomi’s chronological reaction as she herself processes Ruth’s information: In the Bible, a second introduction of the speaker without their speech having been cut off by another person often represents their “second thoughts,” understanding dawning upon them through their first words…[as she blesses him,] Naomi becomes aware that Boaz holds the key to a change in their circumstances, and she already can see redemption on the horizon.131

From his words, it follows that the two sentences are pertinent to time: her first words relate to what Boaz has already done for the two

130 Porten, Rhetoric, 83; Hubbard, Ruth, 188. 131 Zakovitch, Ruth, 83. It is worth noting that the double heading of a single monologue functions on many levels, as Meir Shiloah has long since shown (“And He Said…and He Said,” in Sefer Korngreen [ed. A. Weiser and B. Z. Luria; Tel Aviv: Niv, 1964] 251–67 [Heb.]).

177

women, while her second comment is connected to possibilities of the future – he could redeem them.132 However, Naomi only reveals Boaz’s family connection in her second statement. As Naomi is showering blessings on Boaz, God, and their kindness towards the living and the dead, Ruth is still unaware that Boaz is her kinsman. In other words, Naomi is blessing Boaz for his generosity, blessings well deserved regardless of the fact that he is family. If Naomi were to immediately relate their connection, the blessing would be interpreted as gratitude for the family duties he has fulfilled. Distinct as her statements are, however, each stands in its own right: moreover, the reader is able to sense the great excitement that seizes Naomi. Her discovery that Boaz is the one who showered her daughter-in-law with kindness arouses Naomi to bless God (or Boaz in God’s name, an ambiguity I will shortly address), and then, so to speak, in her great excitement she suddenly remembers that Ruth is not aware of a vital fact, and so she opens her mouth to speak again. Like Boaz, who first blesses his workers in God’s name, and only then inquires about the unknown girl in the field, Naomi, too, blesses Ruth’s benefactor in God’s name, and only then turns to her and discloses his identity. The language of Naomi’s blessings has been the subject of many linguistic debates, for the referent of her words is unclear: “Blessed is he to the Lord, who did not forsake his kindness to the living or the dead” (20). This could refer to Boaz, who is blessed to the Lord because he did not withhold his kindness (“who” [‫ ]אשר‬being a causal adjunct), or to God: Blessed is Boaz to God, to the same God who did not withhold His kindness (“who” being an apposition).133

132 Similarly: Gow, Ruth, 59. 133 Sasson (Ruth, 60) defined this debate as whether the word “who” (‫ )אשר‬is a conjunction or pronoun. For a discussion of the word “‫ ”אשר‬before a past-tense verb, see: J. MacDonald, “Some Distinctive Characteristics of Israelite Spoken Hebrew,” BiOr 32 (1975) 167–68. For a discussion of whether the word “his kindness” (‫ )חסדו‬is a direct object (He has not failed in his kindness) or the subject of the sentence (the kindness did not fail), see: K. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Missoula: Scholar’s, 1978) 104–07.

178

Glueck supports his claim that this phrase refers to Boaz with the following arguments:134 1. In no other place is God found to bestow kindness upon the dead. 2. In Ruth 1:8, and 3:10, there are two similar phrases which unambiguously refer to people, not God, dealing kindly with the dead. 3. This verse is clearly related to 2 Sam 2:5: “and David sent messengers to the people of Jabesh-Gilead, saying to them, Blessed are you to the Lord, for dealing kindly with your master, with Saul, and burying him.” In this case, it is clear that the people who deal kindly with the dead are the people of Jabesh-Gilead, not God.135 However, some insist that Naomi refers to God’s kindness in this verse.136 To counter the reference to David and the people of JabeshGilead, Campbell brings a verse from Genesis 24:27, where God is clearly the one who has not forsaken his kindness: “Blessed is the Lord, God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his kindness and faithfulness to my master.”137 This linguistic ambiguity has continued to intrigue the next generation of scholars: Rebera rejects the cross-reference with Genesis 24, and Bush, adopting his conclusions, emphasizes that the verse in Samuel is more closely related to our verse than the verse in Genesis, and that Glueck’s argument therefore stands (Boaz being the subject).138 Additionally, some have suggested that the language of the blessing – “who has not forsaken (‫ )עזב‬his kindness” – is an anagram of Boaz’s

134 N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (trans. by A. Gottschalk; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967) 40–42, and so, for example, Gow, Ruth, 60, comment 35. Sasson also supports his reading, albeit with certain doubt (Sasson, Ruth, 60). 135 This connection alone suffices for LaCocque to conclude that the subject is Boaz. 136 Sakenfeld, Hesed, 104–7 (who relies on the connection to Gen 24 mentioned below); Hertzberg, Ruth, 270; Morris, Ruth, 280; Rudolph, Ruth, 50; Gray, Ruth, 393. 137 Campbell, Ruth, 106. 138 B. Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2:20 Reconsidered,” BT 36 (1985) 317–327.

179

(‫ )בעז‬name: ‫בעז ~ עזב‬,139 wordplay which is more significant if Boaz is indeed the sentence’s subject. In spite of Rebera and Bush’s convincing argument, the cross-reference between our verse and Genesis 24 is not easily dismissed. This allusion is but one of several that connect the story of Ruth and Boaz and the story of Rebecca and Abraham’s servant (see the introduction). Nonetheless, the story of David and Jabesh-Gilead is also significantly related, and it is not surprising that some scholars, oscillating between the two possibilities, have remained undecided.140 I read this as a case of intentional ambiguity, designed to generate two simultaneous readings: the phrase “has not forsaken” refers both to Boaz and to God,141 thus expressing how God’s kindness is manifested through the actions of Boaz. In this sense, the allusion to the story of Rebecca and Abraham’s servant is elucidated: there, too, the servant thanks the God of his master for arranging his meeting with Rebecca, although this meeting would not have come about if not for Rebecca’s own kindness in drawing water for the servant and his camels.142 This ambiguity is consistent with the special theology of the book of Ruth. Boaz is not God’s puppet, acting out divine will, but rather he freely chooses to act out of kindness, thus allowing God’s will to be fully manifested through the elective actions of mankind. Naomi’s second statement conceals deep emotional turmoil: “this man is our redeeming kinsman!” (20). The meaning of “redeeming” in this context – and the sense that Naomi herself intends – is “family member, kinsman,” although the term also anticipates the legal redemption that will take place in chap. 4. Naomi is suddenly able to imagine a way out of the two widows’ dismal situation – “she already 139 Porten, Structure, 225; Van-Wolde, Ruth, 44; Sasson, Ruth, 60; Hubbard, Ruth, 186. 140 Hubbard, Ruth, 186. 141 This possibility is raised by M. J. Bernstein, “Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative,” JSOT 50 (1991) 16, comment 1: “There is little doubt that these ambiguities were intended by the author.” 142 I discuss the convergence of divine and human agency at length in the introduction.

180

can see redemption on the horizon.”143 In chapter one, the reader has already met with Naomi’s perspective that her daughters-in-law’s future hinges on the possibility of remarriage, finding “security” in the shape of a husband. As she supposes that there is no such possibility for them in Bethlehem, her words to them are shrouded in pessimism. Now, as Naomi suddenly realizes that there are prospects for Ruth, everything changes. One such change is reflected in her use of the plural: “our redeeming kinsman.” When Naomi first returns from Moab, she laments to the townswomen how she has arrived “empty” (1:21), and the reader can sense that she is unwilling to fully accept Ruth. Now, as Naomi defines Boaz as “their” redeeming kinsman, it seems that Naomi’s attitude towards her daughter-in-law has changed for the better.144 This inclusion is a crucial moment in the plot: the moment that Naomi senses that there is a chance of family “redemption,” Ruth is readmitted into the bosom of her family.145 In other words, Naomi holds fast to the values she lays out in the first chapter: her daughtersin-law must remarry, and only thus will their suffering come to an end. Ruth’s Reaction In response to Naomi’s great excitement, Ruth offers more information: “And Ruth the Moabite said, He also said to me, Stay close to my boys until all my harvest is finished” (21). Ruth confirms the generosity Naomi is blessing – ‘not only did he give me all this, but he even invited me to join him for the entire harvest season.’ Early commentaries already note the slight change Ruth makes to Boaz’s words when she reports them to Naomi:

143 Zakovitch, Ruth, 83; and similarly, Hubbard, Ruth, 189. 144 In this context, I am disregarding the epithet “my daughter,” which expresses love and solidarity even more than it expresses kinship – after all, Boaz also refers thus to Ruth before he admits to their family connection. See: Trible, “Two Women,” 263. 145 Compare: Pardes, Creation, 86; Nielsen, Ruth, 63.

181

And Ruth the Moabite said, ‘He also said to me, Stay close to my boys’ – Rabbi Hanin the son of Levy said, She is certainly Moabite: [Boaz] said, ‘Stay close to my girls,’ and she said, ‘Stay close to my boys,’” (Ruth Rabbah 11).

The Midrash notes the change in gender Ruth makes – for Boaz tells her to “stay close to my girls” (2:8), while she reports to Naomi that he told her to stay close to his boys – and criticizes her for her Moabite insensitivity to the laws of modesty in Bethlehem, which he feels explains Ruth’s epithet in this verse, “Ruth the Moabite.”146 Assuming this gender change – from ‫ נערתי‬to ‫ – נערים‬is not an error in the Masoretic text,147 Ruth’s modification is significant.148 Although “‫ ”נערים‬may serve as a general term for Boaz’s workers, and not just his male workers, in light of the difference between Boaz’s words (“my girls – ‫ – ”נערותיי‬2:8) and how Ruth quotes him, the difference is probably intentional.149 Moreover, Naomi’s answer uses Boaz’s original language – “his girls” (22). Eshkenazi and Frymer-Kensky may well be correct in claiming that Ruth is convinced that there is more grain to glean in the male worker’s part of the field, and she is expressing her appreciation for Boaz’s generosity – but it is more likely that the narrator is hinting to Ruth’s otherness. The disparity between her language and the language of Boaz and Naomi emphasizes her otherness – particularly when she is trying to imitate Naomi in her language by saying “he also said.” Boaz and Naomi’s language reflects 146 LaCocque adopts this approach (Ruth, 78–79). In the Septuagint Ruth is not referred to here as “the Moabite,” and this description is replaced with “to her mother-in-law.” The Peshitta and the Vulgate omit “the Moabite” without replacement. Presumably, the translators of these versions were troubled by the repetitious and, in context, surprising description of Ruth as a Moabite. Some prefer the Septuagint version (Rudolph, Ruth, 51; Joüon, Ruth, 64–65), but for various reasons the Masoretic text is preferable here, although it is surprising (Bush, Ruth, 130–31; LaCocque, Ruth, 79, comment 42). 147 Zakovitch suggests amending Ruth’s quoting of Boaz: “cling to my female workers (‫( )נערות‬Ruth, 84–85), an amendment which indeed appears in some manuscripts of the Septuagint. But others (like: Campbell, Ruth, 107; Sasson, Ruth, 62; Bush, Ruth, 139) prefer the Masoretic version. 148 As Nielsen claims (Ruth, 64). 149 Eshkenazy and Frymer-Kensky, Ruth, 45.

182

the accepted social conventions in Bethlehem (automatically saying “girls”), while the language of Ruth (who inadvertently says “boys”) belies her otherness.150 For now, as she accepts Boaz’s first kindness, she is still a Moabite girl, not fully aware of field etiquette.151 This will have changed by the end of the harvest season, by the time she ventures down to the threshing-floor. This issue may also explain the narrator’s unexpected, alienating description of Ruth as a “Moabite” in this verse (2:21) – for once Boaz has admitted her to his field, and Naomi has acknowledged her as family, it is odd that the text reverts to her Moabite identity. Hubbard suggests that the narrator mentions her origins to emphasize the magnitude of her accomplishments in the field: “foreigners were unaccustomed to such treatment in Israel!”152 However, if this were the case, the description “Moabite” would have been more suitably placed 150 At the same time, it should be noted that Boaz first tells Ruth to glean with “his girls,” but afterwards, he allows her to glean “amongst the sheaves,” which may well be the male workers’ section (particularly as he admonishes his male workers not to admonish her when she gleans there). Ruth may therefore be telling things as they are, while Naomi cannot believe that Ruth would receive such privileged treatment. According to this reading, Ruth and Boaz are part of a conversation to the exclusion of Naomi. 151 See also: K. M. Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (FAT 47; Tübingen: Siebeck, 2010), 125–126. Therefore, Nielsen is correct in asserting that Ruth’s words should be compared to her decision to cling to her motherin-law in 1:14:(“The Ruth who in 1:14 linked her life to another woman is apparently choosing to stay close to the men”) (Ruth, 64), though to my mind, her decision does not reflect a change in Ruth’s loyalties, but to the contrary: by staying close to the workers she is distancing herself from Boaz, thus remaining close to her mother-in-law. Bush mentions the disparity between Naomi’s words “girls,” and Ruth’s words, “boys,” but adds that this difference should not be over-analyzed – Naomi is probably of the opinion that the foreign Ruth will feel more comfortable in the company of women (Bush, Ruth, 139). 152 Hubbard, Ruth, 190. He adds that through this emphasis, the reader is able to detect something unusual in the story: “could God be behind it?” (ibid.). I believe that with this comment, Hubbard deviates from the story’s fundamental lesson: that the one responsible for Ruth’s warm reception in the field is not God, but Boaz – the owner of the field, the human, who freely chooses to act kindly towards Ruth.

183

when Ruth, gleaning in the field, receives special attention from Boaz. Here, this epithet is designed to differentiate her from Boaz and Ruth, Israelites from birth. Her language reveals that she is still an outsider at this point, an important landmark for the overall course of the plot. For now, the widows no longer need fear hunger, but they have yet to solve the problem of family continuity, and Ruth has yet to integrate herself into the Bethlehemite community. Naomi’s answer reverts to Boaz’s language: “go out with his girls.” The expression “It is best, my daughter” (‫)טוב בתי‬, can be read simply as Naomi’s agreement with Ruth that going to Boaz’s field is indeed a good option – “it is good that you do so,” but it can also be read as “it is best, it is preferable.”153 The first option simply reflects Naomi’s joy at Boaz’s invitation, whereas the second option gently draws Ruth into the Bethlehemite discourse, guiding her how to integrate into the community through her language, as if to say: “it is best, my daughter, that you go out with the girls, and not the boys, for that is how things are done in Bethlehem.” The final verse of this scene testifies to Ruth’s readiness to cast off her otherness: indeed, taking Naomi’s advice, “she clung to Boaz’s girls, gleaning until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest, then she dwelled with her mother-in-law” (23). On the one hand, Ruth does as Naomi bids, staying close to Boaz’s girls, and not his male workers. Over the course of the harvest season, she learns the ways of Bethlehem. However, not all goes according to Naomi’s plan, and this is reflected through the language of the verse. It is no coincidence that Ruth’s actions are described with the verb ‫דבק‬, “to cling,” according to her own words: “stay close (‫ )דבק‬to [Boaz’s] boys” (21), rather than the verb Naomi uses, “go out” (‫)תצאי‬. There is only one person Naomi wishes for Ruth to “cling” to – she is not interested in Ruth becoming close to Boaz’s girls. By describing how Ruth does “cling” to them, 153 Joüon (Ruth, 65), Rudolph (Ruth, 51) and Hubbard (Ruth, 182) prefer this reading, relying on II Sam 18:3: “It would be better (‫ )טוב‬now for you to give us support from the city” – there, it is obvious that the meaning of the word ‫טוב‬ is “preferable.” This reading is also found in the Vulgate, but the vast majority of translations reflect the first reading, that the idea is a “good” one, including Luther’s translation, as Rudolph comments (ibid.).

184

as Boaz bids her, the narrator hints to a dialogue developing between Boaz and Ruth, a dialogue that will deepen at the threshing-floor. For now, both Boaz and Ruth use the verb “cling” in reference to his female workers – neither seems to be interested in marriage for marriage’s sake. Indeed, the curtain falls upon the picture of Ruth “returning to her mother-in-law.” The reader who identifies with Naomi can sense her disappointment, for after her revelation that Boaz is a redeeming kinsman, she no doubt hopes for another encounter between Boaz and her daughter-in-law in the field, a meeting that will bring them closer.154 At the end of this scene, however, Ruth is still settled in with her mother-in-law, as she declared in chap. 1, rather than building a new home with a new husband, as Naomi longs for her to do.155 The narrator also hints to these two divergent stances, and to Naomi’s frustration, through a comparison of Ruth’s reaction and Ruth’s actual words. Ruth quotes two things that Boaz says to her: 1. “Cling to my boys” 2. “Until all my harvest is finished.” Naomi relates only to his first words, ignoring the time he specifies:156 “It is best, my daughter, that you go out with his girls, so they won’t harm you in a different field.” It seems that Naomi is not expecting Ruth to remain a mere gleaner in Boaz’s field for very long. She is sure that by the end of the harvest season, Boaz will marry Ruth. However, the narrator’s focus on the two aspects Ruth specifies to Naomi – 1. “And she clung to Boaz’s girls, gleaning” 2. “until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest” underscores the third detail the narrator adds: 3. “she dwelled with her mother-in-law.” 154 See: Garsiel, Structure. He argues that every scene in the story raises the reader’s expectation higher, but each ends in disappointment (with the exception of the final scene). 155 Compare: Hubbard, Ruth, 193. 156 Nielsen, Ruth, 64.

185

The previous chapter ends with the grand opening of “the barley harvest.” This agricultural description is an expression of the earth’s fertility, which will hopefully sustain the two barren widows. Indeed, through Boaz’s kindness and generosity, they need not fear hunger. Now, as the season comes to an end, the time of abundance is drawing to a close, and the reader can sense Naomi’s disappointment that Ruth is still living with her – Boaz has offered his grain, but not his seed.157

The Structure of Ruth 2 To conclude the discussion of this chapter, I would like to summarize its events within an artistic-literary framework, which, in light of the above analysis, reflects the correlation of form and content evident in this scene. While some scholars have proposed a chiastic structure,158 I believe that the chapter is most meaningfully arranged into seven scenes which center upon the praise Boaz bestows upon Ruth, that is, into a concentric model:159

157 Compare: Trible, “Two Women,” 265; Porten, Rhetoric, 32; Hubbard, Ruth, 194. 158 See different divisions as suggested by: Y. Radday and J. Welch, “The Structure of Ruth,” Beit Mikra 24 (1979) 180–87 (Heb.); Y. T. Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (ed. J. W. Welch; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981) 50–117; Gow, Ruth, 72–73; A. Boyd Luter and R. O. Rigsby, “The Chiastic Structure of Ruth 2,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993), 49–58; Bush, Ruth, 110. 159 I follow the definitions of chiastic and concentric as proposed in S. Bar Efrat’s article: “S. Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 (1980) 154–73.

186

a. 1:22: Setting and time: “Thus Naomi returned (‫)ותשב‬, and Ruth her Moabite daughter-in-law with her … at the beginning of the barley harvest.”160 b. 2:1: Boaz is introduced as kin: “a valiant man, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz.” c. 2: Ruth asks Naomi for permission to go to the field: “I would like to go now to the field.” d.  3: Ruth’s arrival and gleaning in the field: “and she went, and she arrived, and she gleaned in the field behind the reapers. e. 4–7: Boaz and his workers: “and she said, I will now glean, and gather amongst the sheaves behind the reapers.” f. 8–9: Boaz speaks to Ruth: “and you may drink from what the boys have drawn.”161 g. 10: Ruth’s reply to Boaz: “How have I found favor in your eyes, that you acknowledge me, when I am a foreigner? h. 11–12: Boaz speaks of Ruth’s kindness to Naomi, and how she will be recompensed by God. g’. 13: Ruth’s reply to Boaz: “I will find favor in your eyes, for you have comforted me.” f ’. 14: Boaz’s words to Ruth: “Come over here and eat from the bread.” e’. 15–16: Boaz and his workers: “She may glean also amongst the sheaves, and do not shame her.” d’. 17: Ruth resumes her gleaning in the field: “And she gleaned in the field until the evening.” c’. 18: Ruth returns to Naomi: And she arrived at the town and she showed her mother-in-law what she had gleaned.” b’. 19–22: Naomi tells Ruth that Boaz is kin: “And the name of the man who I worked with today is Boaz.” a’. 23: Conclusion, marking the setting and time: “Until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest, and Ruth dwelled (‫ )ותשב‬to her mother-in-law.”162

160 As mentioned above, the concluding verse of chap. 1 can be seen both as the conclusion of the previous literary unit, and as the beginning of the unit we are now discussing. 161 For a chiastic arrangement of Boaz’s words, see: Linafelt, Ruth, 33. 162 H. Gunkel, “Ruth,” in Reden und Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 65–92, claims that the chronological description “and the wheat harvest” is a later addition, as in the next scene, Boaz is still winnowing the barley at the threshing-floor. Others have rejected this idea (see, for example, Bush, Ruth, 140), as the winnowing of barley may have been done after the wheat harvest.

187

The framework of the meeting in the field (a,b,c – c’,b’,a’) takes place in Naomi’s home in Bethlehem, and, as many have noted, the scene’s framework relates the dialogue between Ruth and Naomi.163 In other words, Naomi is her home base, from where Ruth leaves at the beginning of the scene, and returns to at its end. An astute play on words is expressed through this frame: the verse that opens this structure relates that “Naomi returned (‫ )וַתָּשָׁב‬and Ruth her Moabite daughterin-law with her,” and the scene ends with “and Ruth dwelled (‫)וַתֵּשֶׁב‬ with her mother-in-law.” ‫ וַתָּשָׁב‬and ‫ וַתֵּשֶׁב‬are derived from different verb roots and they have different meanings, but the similar sound and appearance framing the concentric structure creates an analogy between them.164 As I discuss in the introduction, this wordplay is part of a covert dialogue that develops between these two verbs over the course of the story. In this instance, the correspondence of “to return” and “to dwell” reflects the two widow’s progression over the course of the harvest season. Before the scene in the field, they are in motion – they have just returned, and by the end of the scene, they are at rest – they are dwelling. While Naomi is still hoping that the seeds of Boaz and Ruth’s relationship will blossom and bear fruit, the fact that she is “dwelling” shows that she has achieved stability, if only on an economic level. The relationship between the two women has It is worth adding that no other versions or ancient translations support this claim. 163 Campbell (Ruth, 109) insists that the repeated epithet of “Moabite” (used by the narrator thus in 2:2;21) further emphasizes the context of the scene. 164 Alter, The Art, 59. The phenomenon of phonologically similar words placed in parallel to each other is a common in prophetic literature (see, for example, J. Grossman, “‘Structural Ambiguity’ in Ezekiel 33–38,” Beit Mikra 49 (2004) 194–224 (Heb.), and in biblical literature (see, for example, J. Grossman, Ambiguity in the Biblical Narrative and its Contribution to the Literary Formation. Ph.D. Diss. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006) 112–23 [Heb.]). For further examples from the book of Ruth, see B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978) 39, who, in light of the structure of chap 3, draws a connection between “Boaz ate and drank (‫)וישת‬, and was merry-hearted, and he went to lie down at the end of the grain-pile (‫( ”)הערמה‬3:7) and” “he measured out six measures of barley, and he tied it (‫ )וישת‬on her, and she left for the town (‫( ”)העיר‬3:15).

188

also progressed over the course of the harvest season: whereas at the end of the first chapter, Naomi is dominant and Ruth is described as her foreign appendix: “Thus Naomi returned, and Ruth her Moabite daughter-in-law with her,” by the end of the second chapter, Ruth becomes the subject of the sentence: “And Ruth dwelt with her motherin-law.” Campbell also comments on the link between v. 1 and v. 19 (b and b’) in that both of them mention Boaz’s name and the fact that he is of Elimelech’s family.165 As I have discussed, in the first verse of the chapter, Boaz is introduced only to the reader, whereas in v. 19, his kinship bursts into Ruth’s consciousness. Here, too, comparing these verses indicates a positive development in the plot. The first time, Boaz is described as “Naomi’s husband’s kinsman…of the family of Elimelech” – while his introduction raises the reader’s hopes for a family reunion, the fact that Elimelech is no longer among them and has no bearing on the plot technically means that they are no longer related. However, at the end of the chapter, Naomi excitedly informs Ruth that Boaz is “our redeeming kinsman.” Moreover, whereas Boaz’s kinship is initially presented as a neutral fact, Naomi describes him as a redeeming kinsman, a description which hints to certain family obligations – she sees redemption on the horizon.166 Components (c) and (c’) contrast Ruth’s plans with their successful execution – she asks Naomi’s permission to go out to the fields and glean, hoping to find favor with a field owner; and returns with so much grain that the verse allocates Ruth’s action of carrying it its own verb: “‫ותשא‬.” Ruth’s plans have succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. This parallelism also emphasizes Naomi’s role within the story – although she is not the one to go out gleaning, Ruth gleans with her permission, and for her sake.167 165 Campbell, Ruth, 109. 166 The connection between the term “redeemer” and family obligation is also expressed in Num 5:8. Compare: R. B. Allen, “Numbers,” in Numbers-Ruth (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) 129–130.  167 As mentioned above, this is evident through Ruth’s saving of her remaining food for Naomi.

189

Ruth’s movements in space also have bearing on the literary design on the unit’s structure: firstly, Ruth leaves the house of Naomi and “goes out into the field,” and upon her return, the narrator relates that she “arrived at the town,” rather than describing her arrival at Naomi’s home (compare to 3:16). As I have said, Ruth’s arrival at the “town” connects this scene with Boaz’s arrival at the “town” in the scene of the threshing-floor (3:15, according to the Masoretic version). Nonetheless, this asymmetry is present, and will be balanced out as the story unfolds: Ruth returns from the fields to “town;” and from the threshing-floor Ruth will return to “her mother-in-law.”168 In the next narrative components (d – d’), the narrator describes Ruth’s gleaning in the field. As I discuss above, while Ruth “gleaned in the field” before and after her encounter with Boaz, these two experiences are undoubtedly antithetical. The full dangers of gleaning only become apparent to the reader once Boaz has protected her from them: before Boaz turns to her, Ruth is subject to the unwanted attentions of the workers and the taunting of the other poor people around her as she scrounges for leftover grain among the cut stalks, whereas afterwards, she is left in peace and allowed access to the plentiful grain that lies around the sheaves. The relationship between Boaz’s exchange with his workers in the first half (e) and the second (e’) plays a crucial role in the formation of the plot and Boaz’s character. The supervising boy’s exaggeration becomes a reality through Boaz’s kindness. The correlation of these corresponding components profoundly mirrors the narrative’s attitude towards the law, and it is evident how this scene sees the law shift from legal formulations to a stance that arises from empathy towards the Other, from compassion towards the weak. The laws of charity do not suffice for Boaz: he scorns society’s antipathy for otherness – that selfsame antipathy which necessitated the existing laws of charity – and

168 In any case, neither in the beginning of the scene, nor at its end, is the “house” of Naomi mentioned. For now, the women have no real home. Such a home will only enter the picture when Boaz takes Ruth for a wife and brings her to his home (4:11–12).

190

expands these laws, stretching them beyond breaking point, shattering social conventions. Boaz’s words to Ruth in (f) and (f ’) are parallel in the attitude Boaz displays towards her, and here, too, the reader can trace the development of their relationship: At first he offers water, and then he offers food; at first, he invites her to drink from what his workers have drawn, and eventually he, himself, the owner of the field, lets roasted grain drop from his fingers to hers. As I comment above, Ruth also grows closer to Boaz, as is evident from her responses in (g) and (g’). The central axis of the entire chapter (h) is the praise Boaz showers upon Ruth for the kindness she has dealt with Naomi.169 In this speech, Boaz mentions God as One who will deal kindly with Ruth in the future, and, in fact, this is the only time in the story when a character openly expresses admiration for Ruth’s kindness. It is interesting that the author chooses to place Boaz’s acknowledgement of Ruth’s kindness at the heart of the chapter, rather than focus upon Boaz’s own kindness with Ruth. Yet it is clear why Boaz’s heartfelt words to Ruth are revolutionary, in both Ruth’s consciousness and the reader’s: the supervising boy’s disparaging remarks about the “Moabite girl” suggest that Ruth is not entirely welcome in the fields of Bethlehem, a feeling which is reinforced by Boaz’s concern for her safety. Boaz acknowledges her origins and praises her otherness as an emblem of her great sacrifice – the central axis of the chapter, therefore, marks the transformation of the attitude of Ruth’s environment towards her. From the moment that Boaz expresses his appreciation for all she has been through, everything changes: the arduous task of gleaning becomes bearable; the workers in the field leave her in peace; Naomi accepts her as part of her family. Mere acknowledgement of the Other is the first step towards social reform. Boaz’s words address her past (“I have been told of all you did with your mother-in-law”) and bless her future (“May the Lord repay you for your deeds!”), a fitting bifurcation for the central axis of a 169 Even in alternative structures proposed by scholars for this unit, these verses serve as a central axis. See: W. S. Prinsloo, “The Theology of the Book of Ruth,” VT 30 (1980) 334; Bush, Ruth, 131–32; Gow, Ruth, 53–56.

191

concentric structure: the transition in time harbors the concept of Divine Judgment within it, the expectation for a better future in light of the good deeds of the past. The pivotal point in this chapter also interprets Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi in different ways: in relation to her past, she is presented as one who joined Naomi in kindness (“all you did with your mother-in-law,” [11]) and journeyed towards “a people you had not known before.” In relation to her future, Boaz views Ruth’s deeds in a theological light: “may you be fully recompensed from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge!” (12). Like circles on a pond, Ruth’s choice to follow Naomi has much greater implications: her great kindness leads to her journey towards an unknown people, an upheaval of national identity; and her pledge to Naomi and Boaz’s blessing are related to an upheaval of religious identity: from now on, Ruth is under the protection of “the Lord, the God of Israel.”

192

Introduction to Chapter III So people can’t sleep,  So they go out where elms and oak trees keep  A kneeling vigil, in a religious hush.  The harvest moon has come!  And all the moonlit cows and all the sheep  Stare up at her petrified, while she swells  Filling heaven, as if red hot, and sailing  Closer and closer like the end of the world.  Till the gold fields of stiff wheat  Cry ‘We are ripe, reap us!’ and the rivers  Sweat from the melting hills. (from Ted Hughes, “The Harvest Moon”)

Ruth and Boaz encounter each other in a fertile setting: in chapter two, they meet in the field amongst the ripe barley; in chapter three, they are surrounded by piles of Boaz’s harvest on the threshing-floor. This fertility is a fitting background for their developing relationship, for theirs is not a romantic one, but one born out of a desire to maintain Elimelech’s seed, to perpetuate the name of the dead. It is therefore appropriate that their first meeting takes place during reaping time, while their second encounter takes place on the threshing-floor, where the wild gold grain of the field is prepared for home use. Thus, the threshing-floor is a symbol of transition between the field and the home, one that reflects Ruth herself, who comes from the “fields of Moab” and is about to be accepted in a house of Bethlehem; who has been out in the fields all season long and is finally about to enter her own home. This transition will be completed at the gate in chapter four, wherein the “gate” as a symbol of threshold is central to the scene. In the field, Boaz praises Ruth for the process she has willingly undergone, leaving all she knows and coming “to a people you had not known before” (2:11), whereas by the threshing-floor, her position has

already changed, and he is able to say: “for all the elders of my people know that you are a valiant woman” (3:11). As I discuss in the introduction, Ruth and Boaz’s encounter in chap. 2 is presented in parallel to their encounter in chap. 3. In order to discuss the contrast between the scene of the field and the scene of the threshing-floor, I will first present the similarities between the plots and their development in both scenes:1

The instigation:

Ruth goes out: Boaz asks about Ruth: Identification:

Boaz and Ruth’s dialogue:

1

The Encounter in the Field (chap. 3) And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, I would like to go now to the field …

And she went out… And Boaz said to his boy … Whose girl is that? And the boy who was supervising the reapers answered, saying, she is a Moabite girl… And Boaz said to Ruth, Listen, my daughter, do not go to another field to glean… may you be fully recompensed from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge…

The Encounter in the Threshing-Floor (chap. 2) And Naomi her mother-inlaw said to her, My daughter, mustn’t I seek security for you, so that you will be best off… And she went down… And he said, Who are you? And she said, I am Ruth, your handmaiden

Spread your wing over your handmaiden… And he said, Blessed are you to the Lord, my daughter, your last kindness is greater than your first, that you have not gone after younger men… now, my daughter, do not fear, for all you say I will do for you.

Compare: P. Trible, “Two Women in a Man’s World: A Reading of the Book of Ruth,” Soundings 59 (1976) 265; B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978) 37–38; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 196.

194

The Encounter in the Field (chap. 3) Boaz gives … he handed her some food to Ruth: parched grain… and she gleaned in the field until evening… it was about an ephah of barley. Ruth returns to And she carried it and arrived Naomi: at the town… and she told her mother-in-law all she had done with him, and she said, The name of the man who I worked with today is Boaz… he said to me, Cling to my boys. Naomi’s conclu- And Naomi said to her sion: daughter-in-law, It is best, my daughter…

The Encounter in the Threshing-Floor (chap. 2) Take the shawl you are wearing and hold it out, and she held it out, and he measured out six measures of barley, and he put it on her. And he/she arrived at the town.2 And she came to her mother-in-law, who said, Who are you, my daughter, and she told her all that the man had done to her… For he said to me, Do not go empty to your mother-in-law. And she said, Sit, my daughter…

This comparison raises manifold facets, many of which I will address in a close reading of the chapter. For now, I want to focus on the difference between the atmospheres of the two encounters, and how they stem from the different settings in place and time. The Setting in Place: Ruth and Boaz first meet in “the field”: in public, surrounded by people, in plain view of all. The people around them are not just passive onlookers, but actual characters who interact with the protagonists and advance the plot. The boy supervising the reapers informs Boaz about Ruth; Boaz admonishes his workers not to admonish Ruth; Boaz offers Ruth to drink from the water his “boys have drawn” (2:9), and of course, the expression that most strongly illustrates this public aspect is Boaz’s suggestion that Ruth “stay close” to the other girls in his field. In contrast, the encounter on the threshing-floor is hidden from the public eye, seen by no one else. Moreover, Boaz openly states that their rendezvous should be kept secret: “and he said, It must not be known that the woman came 2

See my discussion of the verse in question, below.

195

to the threshing-floor” (3:14). Thus the plot develops, from a public encounter to a private, intimate one; from an encounter with all eyes upon them, to one witnessed by their eyes alone.3 The Setting in Time: The marked difference in time between the encounters contributes even more to the understanding of the atmosphere of each scene. Ruth and Boaz meet in the field in broad daylight. Ruth only gleans in the field by day, as the author emphasizes: “and she gleaned in the field until the evening” (2:17). The encounter at the threshing-floor, on the other hand, takes place in the dark of night. Here too, the element of time is emphasized, and explicitly noted by Boaz himself: “Stay here tonight…lie down until the morning” (3:13). This information is so important that the narrator relates its actual execution: “and she lay down at his feet until the morning, and she arose before a person could recognize his friend” (3:13). The differences between the time and place of each encounter are of course correlated: The public meeting in the field happens in the daytime, when people are around, whereas the intimate, private rendezvous takes place in the dead of night. However, the element of night plays an important role in this scene beyond the intimacy associated with its darkness. The night sky is a characteristic backdrop of a subversive process, an unlawful process. Lawbreakers who want to avoid being caught act in the dead of night, like one who wishes to smash the altar of his father but fears his father’s wrath and the wrath of those around him: “But because he was afraid of his family and the townspeople, he did it at night rather than in the daytime” (Judg 6:27); “Heartless youths” who desire to lie with “a strange, foreign woman” do so “at twilight, as the day is fading, when the dark of night sets in” (Prov 7:9). Night symbolizes the break of conventions – its concealing shadows invite the unusual, the subversive, the forbidden, to hide within its darkness – and so the night is a convenient setting for stories that stray from what is natural, that test and shatter the boundaries of nature (such as the Exodus from Egypt, or the Israel’s unnatural defeat and looting of the Arameans [2 Kgs 7]; and many more). 3

E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 130–32.

196

The book of Ruth makes thorough use of this night symbolism. For whatever reason, Boaz does not act out of his own initiative, and does not turn to Ruth and offer to “redeem her.” This may have different explanations, but above all, it is a question of perspective. The reader, who has heard Naomi’s perspective, may wonder why Boaz fails to act, but in fact, other perspectives are involved: in the field, Ruth does not convey to Boaz that she is looking for a husband – she even saves her leftovers for Naomi, as if she has who to come home to, and that is all she needs. As we have seen, the suggestion of romance hovers above Ruth and Boaz, but the narrator takes care that it does not actually settle upon them. As I will argue in chap. 3, Boaz is also the under the impression that the closer redeeming kinsman will take action, rather than him.4 In any case, Boaz’s lack of initiation serves the author’s predisposition to advance the plot through the breaking of laws and conventions. The scene at the threshing-floor represents the conflict between the accepted “norms” and the women’s ability to be redeemed and to perpetuate the name of the dead. Read thus, the problem of why Naomi fails to approach Boaz (or the anonymous redeemer) and ask him to redeem Ruth is solved. Many solutions have been proposed, which are usually related to realistic aspects of the plot.5 However, if read as a literary plot device, then the lack of communication between Naomi and Boaz is clear: the plot is not meant to be resolved in a straightforward, conventional way, but in the dead of night, in obscurity, through bending social conventions and bypassing the letter of the law. The night represents the subversive, the progressive, the alternative. The 4

5

As Hubbard suggests (Ruth, 205). He adds that in all likeliness, the anonymous redeemer failed to take action because he left the task to Boaz, whereas Boaz assumed that the anonymous redeemer would take action because he was next of kin. Alternately, he also suggests that their inaction was due to Ruth’s being a Moabite (ibid.). However, this dilemma and solution should be considered literary rather than realistic. Concerning this issue, see: P. Humbert, “Art et lecon de l’histoire de Ruth,” RTP 26 (1938) 274; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Joshua, Richter, Ruth, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969) 274; E. Würthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth (HAT 18; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1969) 17.

197

whole world is asleep; and so is the law, its courts, and its clerks who work from nine until five. In this scene, Naomi, too, understands that the letter of the law must be circumvented in order to fulfill its spirit; politeness and etiquette will not bridge the chasm – a leap of faith is required, into the darkness, into the midnight breeze that stirs of the husks of the threshing-floor. And so, a moment before the protagonists are to approach the gate of the town and all its accompanying legal discourse and procedure, the author has them meet alone, face to face, with the harvest moon and the whispering heaps of barley their only witnesses. The night before the morning after; the night after the day before.

198

Ruth and Boaz’s Encounter at the Threshing-Floor (3:1–18) Blessed are you to the Lord, my daughter

Not only does the reader sense disappointment at chap. 2’s conclusion, “and she dwelled with her mother-in-law” (2:23) – Naomi herself is not pleased with the turnout of events, and she is the one who instigates Ruth’s midnight venture. Unlike the previous scene, which opens with Ruth’s request to go a-gleaning in the field, here Naomi is the initiator, and Ruth submits to her request. This disparity reflects the difference between the roles played by the two female protagonists: Ruth is the bread-winner, concerned for their livelihood, while Naomi is absorbed with the question of Ruth’s marriage; Ruth is busy gleaning in the field, while Naomi would have her put her bundles aside and focus on finding herself a husband, finding herself long-term “security.” How is Naomi’s suggestion to be understood, and, on a fundamental level, what takes place at the threshing-floor? One of the underlying questions of the chapter is whether there is any sexual contact between Ruth and Boaz that night, and whether this is Naomi’s intention in the first place. Beyond the importance of actually understanding of the story, this question has vital implications for the characterization of the protagonists and their underlying motivations. The different readings of this chapter generally fall under one of two extremes: some claim that no sexual content is present in the chapter, neither in Naomi’s suggestion, nor in Ruth and Boaz’ interaction, while, at the other end of the scale, there are those who argue that Naomi sent Ruth in order to seduce Boaz, and that is indeed what happened. Hamiel’s reading is a good example of the former:

All is instructed, explained and designed in order to maintain Ruth’s modest, careful behavior, and to ensure that nothing will distract from the clear goal – to draw Boaz’s attention to the act of redemption.1

According to this approach, the purpose of Ruth’s going down to the threshing-floor is to “draw Boaz’s attention to the act of redemption.” Naomi’s intention is to orchestrate an intimate situation in which Boaz will be unable to evade, and therefore forced to deal with, the issue of Ruth’s redemption, as Tamara Cohn Eshkenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky write: “Naomi aims to skirt this issue by contriving a less formal and more personal arrangement for Ruth as Boaz’s protégée.”2 To this end, Ruth steals down to the threshing-floor in an attempt to generate a private dialogue with Boaz. Despite the danger that Boaz might exploit Ruth’s vulnerability, in the words of Hubbard, Naomi “gambled that he would not take unfair sexual advantage of the situation.”3 This approach interprets Ruth’s uncovering of Boaz’s feet as a symbolical act which constitutes a marriage proposal of sorts.4 In contrast, some have claimed that Ruth’s appearance to Boaz at the threshing-floor is a seduction scene. This is Beattie’s interpretation, H. Y. Hamiel, Biblical Study – The Book of Ruth (Jerusalem: Hamehaber, 1987) 212 (Heb.). See also: S. L. Gordon, The Bible with a New Commentary (The Five Megilloth; Tel Aviv: Masada) 19–22; Würthwein, Megilloth, 17–18; R. E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 93; D. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1999) 685–86. 2 T.C. Eskenazi, and T. Frymer-Kensky, Ruth (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011) 49. F. Meltzer also phrases this similarly (Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Rav Kook Foundation) 6 [Heb.]). Meltzer, like Gordon, mentioned above, is convinced that Ruth’s words to Boaz in 3:9 were what Naomi bid her to say, but the narrator chose to be brief in the scene of Naomi and Ruth’s exchange, saving her words for the climactic scene of the threshing-floor. I will suggest that the difference between what Naomi tells her to and what Ruth actually says play an important role in the characterization of the different characters, and make an important contribution to the understanding of the plot. 3 Hubbard, Ruth, 204. 4 P.A. Kruger, “The Hem of Garment in Marriage: The Meaning of the Symbolic Gesture in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek 16:8,” JNSL 12 (1984) 86. See also: Block, Ruth, 691. 1

200

who expresses that the night’s events actually constitute an act of marriage, and therefore proposes to follow the text of the Kethiv in 4:5: “and Ruth, the wife of the deceased, I have acquired (‫ – ”)קניתי‬Boaz presents himself as one who has already “acquired” Ruth, and he is referring to the events of the night before.5 If there indeed is sexual contact on the threshing-floor, then in a sense, the plot reaches a climax in this scene, thereby prompting Glanzman to comment that the original nucleus of the narrative culminates on the threshing-floor, with the ultimate fulfillment of the intimacy and connection between the characters.6 It is difficult, however, to accept the claim that the original nucleus of the story ends here. As Moshe Bernstein comments, as the “closer kinsman” is suddenly mentioned in this scene, an unexpected wrench thrown into the works of the plot, it cannot be said that everything is solved on the threshing-floor. On the contrary, the seeds of the next scene have already begun to sprout.7 Bernstein’s words conform to the general design of the narrative: as Moshe Garsiel shows, every scene raises the reader’s expectation that the “problems” are about to be “solved,” whereas the end of each scene, a new problem takes shape.8 The scene at the threshing-floor follows this pattern, as Boaz’s generous offer seems to be on the verge of solving the main problem 5

6

7 8

D. R. G. Beattie, “Kethibh and Qere in Ruth IV 5,” VT 21 (1971) 493. See also Leggett’s reservations towards Beattie’s conclusions (D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth [Cherry Hill, NY: Mack Publishers, 1974] 233), and Beattie’s response to his criticism (D. R. G. Beattie, “Ruth III,” JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48. See also: C. M. Carmichael, “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt,” JBL 96 (1977) 333–34. G. S. Glanzman, “The Origin and Date of the Book of Ruth,” CBQ 21 (1959) 203, comment 5. Similarly: J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 66. M. J. Bernstein, “Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative,” JSOT 50 (1991) 16–17. M. Garsiel, “The Literary Structure, Art of the Storyteller and Development of Plot in the Book of Ruth,’’ Hagut Ba-Mikra 3 (Tel-Aviv: 1979) 66–83 (Heb.).

201

of the plot, until he reveals a new complication – the existence of a closer redeemer. Whether seduction scene or not, the true nature of events can only be determined through a close reading of the text itself.

Naomi’s Suggestive Suggestion (1–5) Naomi is the one to prompt Ruth to go down to the threshing-floor, and as this brings Ruth closer to the realization of a family and fertility, it is appropriate that marriage-centric Naomi should be the instigator of this scene. However, as it emerges later, Ruth manages to steer the course of events away from Naomi’s original intentions, and although Naomi is the initiator, her signature is not evident in the scene’s conclusion.9 Naomi’s suggestion to Ruth is a classic example of “double entendre.” Athalya Brenner, among others, already detects such ambiguity in her first words, “My daughter, mustn’t I seek security for you, so that you will be best off,” claiming that Naomi’s ulterior motives are evident: Naomi’s efforts will also improve her own situation, and to this end, she is using Ruth. While she claims that she is acting in Ruth’s own interests, rather than her own: “My daughter, mustn’t I seek security for you, so that you will be best off,” we must remember that Naomi has the most to gain from the course of events, and she will take over the nurturing of Ruth’s son as soon as he is born.10 As opposed to Herman Gunkel (“Ruth,” in Reden und Aufsätze [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913] 76), who claims that in this scene, Naomi is presented as one who wisely takes initiative, and Ruth is merely following out her commands. See below. 10 A. Brenner, The Book of Ruth: Literary, Stylistic and Linguistic Studies (Tel Aviv: Afik and Sifriyat Po’alim, 1988) 26 (Heb.). Similar: P. Galpaz-Feller, Naomi: A Mother of a Nation – A New Reading of the Book of Ruth (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2010) 57. Stadler rightly argues against this reading (J. H. Stadler, “Die Figur der Noomi-Mara im Buch Rut,” lectio difficilior 2 (2007). As she shows, most 9

202

According to Brenner’s reading, in this scene Naomi emerges as an egoistic character who casts her daughter-in-law out into the perilous night (and all its potential humiliations) for the sake of her own continuity, or, in Brenner’s words, to “take over” Ruth’s son. This reading, however, is inconsistent with the general tone of the narrative, including the tone of the dialogue of this chapter. Naomi’s repetition of the word “you” (“Mustn’t I seek security for you, so that you will be best off ”) is designed to reassure the reader that Naomi truly has Ruth’s best interests at heart, and in her eyes, such security will only arrive in the shape of a husband and the birth of a son.11 However, Brenner is correct in claiming that Naomi’s words conceal a certain underlying dimension, as I will shortly discuss. Naomi’s mention of “security” recalls her words to her daughtersin-law on the way to Bethlehem in chap. 1. There, Naomi bids Ruth and Orpah to return to their homes in Moab, blessing them that they will find “security in the house of a husband (1:9). Now, as Ruth has refused the security awaiting her in Moab, Naomi is the one who is concerned for her, who seeks “security” for Ruth in Bethlehem. However, as Gow comments, in chap. 1, Naomi prays that God will provide her daughters-in-law with security, whereas here, Naomi herself takes action towards this end,12 as Hubbard writes: “Naomi began to answer her own prayer.”13 This development reflects the most fundamental theology of the book of Ruth, in which the character themselves act out the will of God.14 scholarship heaps praise upon Ruth, but relates to Naomi as a secondary character (“Nebenfigur”). 11 As LaCocque emphasizes, among others (A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary [trans. by K. C. Hanson; Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004] 82–83). 12 M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos 1992) 74. 13 Hubbard, Ruth, 199. 14 Compare: I. Pardes, “Creation According to Eve,” in Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 86 (she perceives this as a hint to the development of Naomi’s character, who understands that the responsibility to find “security” for her daughter-in-law rests upon her shoulders).

203

After this opening, Naomi discloses her plan to Ruth. She opens her words with a rhetorical question, “mustn’t I (‫ )הלוא‬seek security for you, so that (‫ )אשר‬you will be best off ” and now, she frames her plan with similar language “Isn’t (‫ )הלוא‬Boaz our kinsman, that (‫ )אשר‬you were one of his girls” (3:2). By drawing a parallel between these two utterances through repetition, Naomi’s idea is implied before she states it explicitly: We must find security, and Boaz will be at the threshing floor tonight. In the previous chapter, Boaz was the one to repeat the rhetorical question “‫הלוא‬,” (2:8, 9), and now Naomi echoes his words. This is not the only time that Boaz and Naomi use similar language (for example, most significantly, they both call Ruth “my daughter” – they are both interested in Ruth’s security; additionally, in chap. 2, they both emphasize that Ruth go out to glean with “the girls,” rather than “the boys,” which Ruth herself suggests – which indicates that despite the lack of dialogue between them throughout the narrative, they share Bethlehemite conventions, unlike foreign Ruth). The corresponding language between the two scenes also underscores what has not yet happened: at the end of chap. 2, Naomi says “It is best (‫)טוב‬ that you go out with his girls,” (2:22), and here, Naomi says, “Mustn’t I seek security for you, so that you will be best off (‫)ייטב‬. Now, isn’t Boaz our kinsman, that you were one of his girls.” In chap. 2, Naomi hints that Ruth will be best off being in Boaz’s field, as one of his girls, in the hope that their acquaintance will lead to something more, but Boaz remains passive: now, she sees that in order to achieve that best of states – that security – she must take action. While some have argued that Naomi’s suggestion can be arranged in a concentric structure,15 I find that it is more suitably arranged into a chiastic structure:16 15 Porten, “Rhetorical,” 38–39; Gow, Ruth, 65–66; K. K. Sacon, “The Book of Ruth: Its Literary Structure and Theme,” AJBI 4 (1978) 3–22; F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther (WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996) 146–47; Y. T. Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (ed. John W. Welch; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981) 73–74. 16 T. Linafelt, Ruth (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Minnesota: Liturgical 1989) 48.

204

a. And now, isn’t Boaz our kinsman, that you were one of his girls, (‫ )הוא‬winnowing barley on the threshing-floor tonight (2). b. So bathe, anoint, and dress yourself, and go down to the threshing floor (3). c. Do not make yourself known (‫ )תודעי‬to the man until he has finished eating and drinking (3) c’. When he lies down, make sure you know the (‫ )וידעת‬place where he lies (4), b’. And come and uncover his feet and lie down (4), a’. And he (‫ )הוא‬will tell you what to do (5).

If this structure is indeed a conscious design on the author’s part, its significance lies mainly in the character’s placement within this proposed structure. As Porten emphasizes, it is Boaz’s actions that open and close the chiasm of these lines – he (a) is winnowing barley on the threshing floor, and (a’) he is the one who will tell her what to do.17 Naomi wishes to place Boaz in the spotlight, even if he wishes to evade it; she hopes that by doing so, he will be encouraged to take action. The next two components, (b) and (b’), describe what Ruth must do: she must get ready and go down to the threshing-floor (b), and after he has supped and lied down, she must reveal his feet and lie down next to him (b’) – again, her actions revolve around Boaz, what he does, and what he will hopefully be moved to do. The central components of Naomi’s words, (c) and (c’) make special use of the verb root ‫ידע‬, “know” – first, Ruth must be careful not to make her presence known, and when the time is ripe, she must know where he lies, uncover his feet, and lie down beside him. The question of what is revealed and what is concealed lies at the heart of this scene. From Naomi’s highly suggestive language, there is no doubt that she is hinting at sexual enticement – and yet, her language is intentionally inexplicit. As I have discussed, the deliberate vagueness of Naomi’s words sets the tone for the entire shadowy scene: this ambiguity takes on a life of its own, overstepping the narrative boundaries and infiltrating the representation of the characters themselves. The reader cannot even be sure how Ruth understands Naomi’s words – do the subtleties of Naomi’s double-entendres elude her foreign ears, 17 Porten, “Rhetorical,” 39. According to his proposed concentric structure, Boaz is placed at the central axis of this structure.

205

or are the sexual overtones as clear to Ruth as they are to the reader?18 As suggestive as they seem, Naomi never uses any of the usual expressions that describe sexual relations in the Bible.19 Naomi does not say, “lie with him,” or “and he will come to you,” or any explicit expression. In fact, her entire speech can be interpreted – and indeed, some have interpreted it thus – as an innocent request that Ruth go down to the threshing-floor, approach Boaz when he is alone, and there, wait for him to tell her what should be done. Nonetheless, as many scholars comment, Naomi’s language is highly suggestive, heavy in expressions that could be interpreted as being completely neutral, but are in fact expressions that are sexually loaded.20 The words “come”; “know”; “lie”; “his feet”;21 “uncover”; all raise sexual connotations, and 18 See a broader discussion in: J. Grossman, Ambiguity in the Biblical Narrative and its Contribution to the Literary Formation (Ph.D. Diss., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006) 232–38 (Heb.). 19 Bernstein, “Multivalent Readings,” 16. 20 Hertzberg, Ruth, 275 (he also adds the verb ‫ ;)פרס‬Campbell, Ruth, 131–32; Y. Amir, “The Book of Ruth,” Hagut BeMikra 2 (1976) 198–99; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (NCBC; London 1967) 417; Sasson, Ruth, 69–79; Y. Zakovitch, Ruth (Mikra Leyisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 89–90 (Heb.); Bernstein, “Multivalent Readings,” 18; Bush, Ruth, 155. 21 There is no unanimity regarding the meaning of the term “his feet” (‫)מרגלותיו‬. See the dispute between K. Nielsen (Ruth: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997] 206, who argues that the phrase “uncover his feet” raises sexual connotations), and Bush (Ruth, 153 – who argues that the phrase in itself is not sexually loaded). See also: I. Rashkow, “Ruth: The Discourse of Power and the Power of Discourse,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (wd. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 37–38 (she refers to Exod 4:25; Judg 3:24; 1 Sam 24:4), and E. M. Menn, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 98, n. 189 (“… the word ‘feet’ is used euphemistically for the genitals”). This phrase is most ambiguous: how much of Boaz’s feet must Ruth uncover? How far is she to lift his covering? (Campbell, Ruth, 121, emphasizes that this ambiguity is intentional. See also: P. Trible, “A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives [ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1982; vol. 2] 177), and compare with Gray, Ruth, 394: “This word, like ‘lie down,’ which has often the sexual sense, poses the problem of what actually happened on the threshing-floor.”

206

so many such expressions in a single scene reinforces the reading that Naomi intends for Ruth to seduce Boaz at the threshing-floor. This is especially evident in v. 4: “and when he lies down, make sure you know the place where he lies, and come and uncover his feet and lie down.” In such a suggestive context, there is even room to wonder if Naomi’s reference to eating and drinking has sexual implications: “do not let your presence be known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking” (3:3). Gow notes that this combination of verbs has sexual significance, primarily in light of a similar combination in the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:11; 12:3).22 This claim is reinforced by other biblical narratives, such as the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, in which the expression “the bread which he eats” seems to be a euphemism for sexual relations (Gen 39:6, in light of Joseph’s word in 39:8–9); and the words of the foolish woman in Proverbs 9:17: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is delightful, “concern a woman enticing a man to enter her home.23 In such a context, the mention of eating and drinking seems to intensify the sexual ambience of her words. 22 Gow, Ruth, 67, comment 9. 23 Some have proposed to apply this symbolic meaning to Reuel’s words to his daughters (Exod 2:20), therefore viewing Moses’s invitation to “eat bread” with the family as a hint to a marital relationship, mainly in light of the familiar pattern originating with the story of Rebecca and Abraham’s servant, and the story of Jacob and Rachel meeting at the well (V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995) 461; G. Rendsburg, “Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible: An Eclectic Collection,” in Puns and Pundits: Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (ed. S. B. Noegel; Bethesda: CDL, 2000) 152; Grossman, Ambiguity, 127–28. For a discussion of the role of food in this type-scene, see: R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981) 61–77). In Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 1996) 408 (and in his commentary to line 104). B. Foster suggests that also in Samarian creation myth, “Ishtar’s descent to the Netherworld,” “the eating of bread” symbolizes sexuality. When Ereshkigal curses Asushunamir, saying “aklī epinnēt āli lu akalka” (ANET, 108) – the food of the city’ gutters shall be thy food. Foster comments that the significance of the food mentioned (aklī) alludes to sexual relationships, and more specifically, to homosexual relations.

207

Beyond the language Naomi uses, the content of her words seems to command Boaz’s actual seduction, rather than mere conversation between Ruth and Boaz. The site in question – the threshing-floor – was a traditional hideaway for lovers or pleasure seekers in ancient times,24 and may have even been a site of ritual orgy.25 The dark of night is an ideal time for illicit encounters. Above all, Naomi’s detailed instructions to Ruth to bathe, anoint herself with oil, and change her clothes, take on full significance only if this passage is read as the preamble to a seduction scene. Nevertheless, those who claim that Naomi was not proposing Boaz’s seduction also argue that these expressions need not be read in such a light. Paul Joüon, for example, claims that Ruth’s washing and dressing was instructed out of respect for Boaz, who is high above her in the social hierarchy,26 while Bush, who claims that Ruth’s preparations for a sexual encounter would have been more elaborate, requiring yet more cosmetics (like in the story of Judith [10:4]), reads her bathing and dressing as the signification of the end of her mourning period (in light of 2 Samuel 14:2): Hence, the most likely explanation of Naomi’s instructions to Ruth is that they mean that she should end her period of mourning and so signal her return to the normal activities and desires of life, which, of course, would include marriage. This change in her appearance, with its symbolic meaning, would indicate to Boaz both her availability and the seriousness of her intentions.27 24 As in: “do not rejoice, Israel, do not exult like the nations, For you have been unfaithful to your God; you love to hire yourselves out like a prostitute at every threshing floor” (Hos 9:1). See: R. Robertson, “The Plot of the Book of Ruth,” BRJL 32 (1950) 216; Hubbard, Ruth, 196, 201. 25 H.G. May, “Ruth’s Visit to the High Place at Bethlehem,” JRAS (1939) 75–78; W.E. Staples, “The Book of Ruth,” AJSL 43 (1937) 153–57. In light of this identification, Nielsen (Ruth, 67) draws a parallel between the scene of the threshing floor and Elkanah and Hannah’s pilgrimage to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, where Hannah prays to bear a child. However Gray correctly claims that this reading is exaggerated (Gray, Ruth, 417). 26 P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953) 68. 27 Bush, Ruth, 153. See also: B. Green, “The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth,” JSOT 23 (1982) 61.

208

This reading is reinforced in relation to Tamar, who also wears widow’s weeds (Gen 38:14, 19) in accordance with an ancient custom which would also have applied to Ruth.28 While these are plausible arguments in themselves, their neutrality seems implausible in context: the significance of Ruth’s bathing, perfuming herself with oil and changing her robes cannot be extricated from the heavily nuanced language, the suggestive time and setting of their planned encounter: all seems to set the scene for a midnight seduction. Moreover, Naomi bids Ruth to act after Boaz has finished eating and drinking. The image Naomi conjures up is that of a mellow, tipsy man,29 lying alone on the threshing-floor, when suddenly, a sweet-smelling girl uncovers his feet and slips beside him.30 With this picture in mind, even her final words take on a certain loaded meaning: “he will tell you what to do” (4) – Ruth must not hold back, but let the man do as he likes – whatever he likes.31 This reading clarifies why Ruth must go down to the threshing-floor secretly, after nightfall: Naomi is anxious to set the proper mood. It is difficult to believe that Naomi would risk Ruth’s reputation in order to have her merely perform a symbolic 28 P. Galpaz-Feller, The Sounds of Garments- Garments in the Bible: Do the Clothes Make the Man? (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2008) 102–03 (Heb.). 29 If not completely drunk, as Zakovitch and Robertson suggest (Zakovitch, Ruth, 92; Robertson, “Plot,” 226–27). 30 As many have commented, this scene is redolent of the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19), which intensifies the accompanying sexual tension. However, unlike Lot’s daughters, Ruth does not take advantage of his intoxicated state to have sexual relations with him, but rather, she waits until he awakens (see also H. Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History,” VT 32 (1982) 425–37; Carmichael, “A Ceremonial Crux,” 335; Y. Zakovitch, “The Threshing-Floor Scene in Ruth,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3 (1979) 29–33 (Heb.); Gow, Ruth, 116; Hubbard, Ruth, 202, comment 27; LaCocque, Ruth, 90). 31 Naomi flits between Ruth and Boaz: “My daughter, mustn’t I seek security for you, so that you’ll be best off ” [Ruth] / “Now, Boaz is our kinsman” [Boaz] / “whose girls you were close to” [Ruth] / “He will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor tonight” [Boaz] / “Bathe and anoint yourself and dress yourself ” [Ruth] … / “He will tell you what you are to do” [Boaz]. Her words are designed to present them as equal partners, of equal agency. Compare: Porten, Rhetorical, 39.

209

act that expresses her interest in marriage, for surely such a meeting could be arranged without such physical and social risk to Ruth.32 In conclusion, while Naomi’s language is not explicit, she is effectually urging Ruth to go down to the threshing-floor to seduce Boaz, convinced that if Boaz indeed succumbs to temptation, he will spread his wings over her and take her for a wife, or at least provide for her. Naomi is frustrated with his failure to take initiative in the field, and decides to take drastic measures.33 Seducing Boaz may well catalyze their relationship, moving him to redeem Ruth – which recalls other stories in which women took sexual initiative in order to achieve their ends. This story is particularly evocative of the story of Judah and Tamar (as I discuss in the introduction). Tamar also employs sexual temptation in order to rebuild her family, in order to resurrect the family of Judah. Tamar also circumvents the law and social conventions in order to perpetuate the family name, in order to bear sons. Naomi’s suggestion to Ruth is parallel to Tamar’s initiative. No less important is the danger each woman faces when she takes this initiative. If Judah (or any of his family) had identified Tamar sitting by the road in her prostitute’s veil – without her widow weeds – before he succumbed to temptation, Tamar would have been burned to death as a whore – a death she is only spared when she produces Judah’s personal belongings. Ruth’s prospects would not be much better – after 32 Indeed, Hubbard, who is convinced that Ruth’s appearance at the threshing-floor is a symbolic act designed to hint to Boaz that he must redeem her, not a seduction attempt, attempts to deal with this difficulty by suggesting that the two potential redeemers waited for the other to act, and “Naomi’s ploy was simply an acceptable but unusual way to break the impasse” (Ruth, 205. See also: Robertson, “Plot,” 266–77). However, these readings seem to overlook the danger Ruth places herself in by going down to the threshing-floor, and it is hard to believe that a legal discussion regarding the redeeming of land, or even the redeeming of a woman, requires a woman to bathe, put on perfume, and venture out into the darkness of the night to the isolated threshing-floor, far from the bustle of the city. 33 Eshkenazi and Frymer-Kensky may be correct in arguing that Naomi is convinced that Boaz is hesitant to marry Ruth because of her Moabite origins, and therefore she attempts to orchestrate a situation which will end in less official, but nonetheless binding, marriage (Ruth, 49).

210

all, she is known in Bethlehem as “the Moabite girl,” and if that Moabite girl would acquire the reputation of being a temptress of the wealthy and honorable men of Bethlehem, she would probably be banished in shame, or worse. The Bible’s reservation towards Moabite women stems from this very source, for they tempted the Israelite men in the desert with ritual prostitution (Gen 19:30–38; Num 25:1) – and thus, Naomi is taking a great risk by casting Ruth into this role. If Boaz succumbs to temptation, then he will probably agree to take Ruth under his wing, but if not – Ruth’s reputation is at stake, and she will probably be forced to leave her mother-in-law and Bethlehem forever. Naomi’s plan, in the words of Hubbard, is indeed “clever,”34 but Fewell and Gunn are also correct in saying that it is “dangerous”35 – if Naomi’s gamble backfires, Ruth may end up losing everything. Ruth does not voice her opinion of Naomi’s bold plan, although her response may indicate that she does not entirely identify with it: “and she said to her, All you say [to me], I will do” (3:5). In chap.2, following her request to go to the fields to glean, Naomi responds by saying: “go, my daughter” (2:2) – she expresses her approval by repeating Ruth’s words: “I would like to go” – “Go.” Now, Ruth does not repeat Naomi’s language to show that they are of one mind – (for example, by saying “I will go,” or “I will go down to the threshing-floor”). Her general language – “whatever you say” – expresses her self-effacement before her mother-in-law; Ruth complies because Naomi has asked her, regardless of her actual request.

34 Hubbard, Ruth, 196. He even titles Naomi’s suggestion as “Naomi’s Clever Plan.” 35 D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990) 99.

211

Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing-Floor (6–13) “And she went down to the threshing-floor and did all that her motherin-law commanded ” (3:16). The language of these introductory lines suggests that Ruth is not acting out of choice, but out of loyalty to Naomi. In the previous verse, Ruth replies “all you say, I will do,” while the narrator reports that Ruth is following all that Naomi commanded her. From Ruth’s perspective, Naomi’s words are not merely advice, but actual orders.36 Campbell (in Freedman’s wake) claims that the prefix kaf of “all that” (‫ )ככל אשר‬is the kaf of verification, meaning that she did exactly as her mother-in-law had instructed her,37 and indeed, Gunkel writes that in this scene, Ruth is presented as an obedient girl who does exactly as she is told.38 However, even if Campbell is correct from a linguistic perspective, Gunkel’s view of Ruth’s characterization is misguided. Often in biblical narratives, the general opening statement that a person did as he or she was commanded can lead the reader astray: a careful comparison between the command itself and its implementation may yield surprising differences.39 The same is true in our case: 36 Similarly: J.W.H. Bos, “Out of the Shadows,” Semeia 42 (1988) 61. 37 Campbell, Ruth, 121. See also: Sasson, Ruth, 72. Bush (Ruth, 159–60) also writes regarding this title, “The opening of this scene is signaled by the summary statement, ‘So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her motherin-law had instructed her,’ for which summary the following verses fill in both the details and the dénouement.” 38 H. Gunkel, „Ruth, “in Reden und Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 76. 39 Nechama Leibowitz holds this position throughout her reading (see: A. Frisch, “A Chapter in Nechama Leibovitz’s Approach: On ‘Repetition Structure’ in Biblical Narrative,” in Pirqei Nehamah: Nechama Leibovitz Mem (ed. M. Ahrend, R. Ben-Meir and G. H. Cohn; Jerusalem: The Jewish Agency, 2001) 313–323 [Heb.]), as have many recent scholars. See, in particular, M. Sternberg, “Repetition Structure in Biblical Narrative: Strategies of Informational Redundancy,” Literature 25 (1977) 109–150 (Heb.). In the context of our story, see: P. H. W. Lau, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth: A Social Identity Approach (BZAW 416; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011) 104.

212

Naomi’s Words (3–4) Bathe and anoint and dress yourself, and go down to the threshing-floor Do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking When he lies down, make sure you know the place where he lies And come and uncover his feet and lie down And he will tell you what to do

Ruth’s Action (6–7) And she went down to the threshingfloor, and she did all that her motherin-law commanded And Boaz ate and drank and was merry-hearted And he went to lie down at the end of the grain-pile And she came stealthily and uncovered his feet and lay down

It is likely, but not certain, that the phrase “all that her mother-in-law commanded” (3:6) refers to Naomi’s bidding Ruth to “bathe, anoint, and dress” herself.40 The omission of these details is no coincidence: the narrator’s attempt to downplay the physical, sexual aspect of their encounter is already evident, as I will discuss below. Rashi already notes the different order of events: Naomi asks Ruth to groom herself and then go down to the threshing-floor, whereas Ruth goes down to the threshing first and only then “did all that her mother-in-law commanded”: She said to her “bathe, anoint and dress yourself,” and then “go down to the threshing-floor, but she did not do so. She said: if someone meets me when I am already dressed up, he will say: she is a whore, and therefore, “she went down to the threshing-floor” first, and only then “did all that her mother-in-law commanded” (Rashi on 3:6).

According to Rashi, Ruth only prepares herself after she goes down to the threshing-floor. His comment emphasizes the clear and present danger that threatens to blacken her reputation when she ventures out bathed,

40 F. Meltzer, Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Rav Kook Foundation) 24, unlike Sakenfeld (and others) who perceive it as “narrator’s summarizing” (Sakenfeld, Ruth, 56).

213

perfumed and dressed up41. In all likelihood, the narrator means to convey that Ruth gets ready before she leaves for the threshing-floor – as Naomi asks her – but there is literary value in rearranging the order of events, and I will return to this point later. There is a shift in focus in the narrator’s retelling of events. In Naomi’s words, Boaz’s eating and drinking are an indication of the moment Ruth is to act (“do not make yourself known until…”) whereas the narrator describes this while focusing upon Boaz (3:7). The reader knows that Ruth is waiting in the shadows, waiting to emerge and reveal herself, and this creates suspense. Boaz’s reaction to her appearance will be the decisive moment of the plot, and neither Ruth nor the reader can know if she will be welcomed or banished in fury. Another slight difference between Naomi’s best-laid plans and their execution lies in the narrator’s description of Boaz after his meal: “and he was merry-hearted” (3:7).42 This addition raises the reader’s expectations of a successful outcome: Boaz is in a good mood, and possibly even tipsy – a state most conducive for Naomi’s setup.43 In parallel to Naomi’s instructions to “make sure you know the place where he lies,” Boaz “went and lay down at the end of the grainpile.”44 Again, this is recounted from Boaz’s perspective, which 41 Cohn Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky are right when they pointed out that “even though Rashi earlier ‘tames’ Naomi instruction – by taking ‘anointing’ there as a reference to mitzvoth – here he amplifies their erotic implications.” (T. Cohn-Eskenazi and T. Frymer-Kensky, Ruth [JPS; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011] 56). 42 “A merry heart” (‫ )הטבת לב‬as a result of eating well features in other biblical stories (1 Kgs 21:7), as does sleep that results from eating and drinking (Judg 19:6). Compare: Sakenfeld, Ruth, 56. 43 Campbell (Ruth, 121–22) suggests that this expression reveals certain fear of the plan being successful, as in a drunken state, Boaz is unable to make significant decisions. However, if this was the author’s intention, a different expression would have been used, and not one which raises positive associations. 44 As Bush interprets (Ruth, 162), as opposed to A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 90–91, who claims that Naomi intended for Ruth to reveal her presence before he falls asleep. In her words, “She did not realize that her mission was a romantic one, thinking rather that she was there on secret legal business” (91). Berlin is correct in arguing that

214

allows the reader to experience Ruth’s vantage point. Together, Ruth and the reader watch as Boaz finishes his meal and lies down – the suspense builds, Ruth waits to make her move, and the climax of the story approaches. Even the description “at the end of the grain-pile” raises expectations for Ruth’s success – there he lies, at the end of the grain-pile, all alone, with no other workers or watchmen around him.45 So far, all has gone according to Naomi’s plan. The small differences I have mentioned, however, will prove to play a part in the turn this scene is about to take. Naomi’s final words that anticipate how “he will tell [her] what to do” are parallel to the dialogue that opens between Boaz and Ruth: at first, Boaz discovers “a woman lying at his feet” (3:8); after he asks her identity, she answers, “I am Ruth, your handmaiden, spread your cloak over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman” (9); and in reaction, Boaz replies, “Now, my daughter, do not fear, for all you say, I shall do for you” (11). If so, Boaz does not tell Ruth what to do, as Naomi anticipates, but rather, he awaits Ruth’s words – reflecting a major turning point in the story.46 Both of the verbs that describe Boaz’s awakening to something beside him – “and the man trembled” (‫ )ויחרד‬and “‫( ”וילפת‬which for now, I will leave as vayilafet) – are unusual, contributing to the unique design of this climactic scene.47 The fright that seizes Boaz is recounted before Ruth’s presence is discovered (and before the narrator shifts Ruth’s midnight encounter with Boaz does not have the atmosphere Naomi intended, but this disparity does not stem from Ruth’s timing. 45 Sasson, Ruth, 73. Some have even read the word “heap” (‫ )ערימה‬as an erotic allusion, either to the word “nakedness,” (‫)עירום‬, or to the sexual connotations that are associated with a heap of wheat through the Song of Songs: “Your belly is like a heap of wheat, set about in lilies” Sng 7:3. See: E. J. Hamlin, Ruth: Surely There Is a Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1996) 41; Joüon, Ruth, 70–71. 46 Among others: Campbell, Ruth, 121; Nielsen, Ruth, 71; Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky, Ruth, 62. 47 The Babylonian Talmud brings an interpretation of this unusual verb, “‫וילפת‬,” that may have powerful sexual connotations: “What is ‫ ?וילפת‬Rav said, “his flesh became as hard as turnip (‫ )לפתות‬heads” (Tractate Sanh. 19b, and in Rashi on the Talmud). The Aramaic version of Ruth, conversely, translates that “his flesh became as soft as [cooked] turnip,” a simile devoid of sexuality, and

215

to Boaz’s perspective with the word “behold” [‫)]והנה‬,48 and some have suggested that this fear may be related to superstitions about night-time demons, which are recorded in ancient eastern texts.49 More likely is Campbell’s opinion that Boaz awoke and trembled from the cold breeze that blew against his exposed feet,50 but if this indeed is the case, then the narrator’s choice of verb is surprising. The verb “tremble,” (‫ )חרד‬usually refers to fear caused by unexpected circumstances (for example: 1 Sam 14:15; Isa 19:16; Eze 32:10), rather than trembling from cold. Moreover, the following verb, ‫וילפת‬, begs interpretation. This verb is mentioned in only two other places in the Bible: “and Samson turned (‫ )וילפת‬towards the two central pillars on which the temple stood” (Judg 16:29);51 “Caravans turn aside (‫ )ילפתו‬from their routes, they go off into the wasteland and perish” (Job 6:18). Loretz claims that all three instances have a similar meaning which is derived from the Accadian verb lapātu, which means “to touch,” “to wrap hands around.”52 Loretz is convinced that on the threshing-floor, Boaz was awakened by touch – presumably Ruth’s – but most have rejected this argument, seeing as there are no such hints in the text.53 Nonetheless, this concept of “wrapping” can be interpreted E. Levine addresses this ambiguity in The Aramaic Version of Ruth (Analecta Biblica 58; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973) 88–89). 48 Berlin, Poetics, 91–92. 49 More specifically, some have attributed Boaz’s fear to the demon Lilith, (whose name, ‫לילית‬, is derived from the word night, ‫ )לילה‬a dangerous seductress who was believed to attack men at night (Sasson, in Singer’s wake, Ruth, 74–78). 50 Campbell, Ruth, 122. 51 Ruth 3 alludes to the story of Samson once more through the phrase at midnight: “‫בחצי הלילה‬,” which also features in Samson’s story (Judg 16:3). 52 CAD, L, 93; O. Loretz, „Das Hebräische Verbum LPT, “in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (ed. R. D. Biggs and J. A. Brinkman; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1964) 155–58. 53 See, in particular, Sasson, Ruth, 79. Joüon (Ruth, 72–73) suggests interpreting the verb in light of the Arabic verb “lafata” – to look around or to turn around (see a similar interpretation in D. R. G. Beattie, Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (JSOTSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT, 1977) 229; LaCocque, Ruth, 95). Sasson (ibid.) contends that Boaz was seized by a nightmare and sensed that he was in danger from some sort of demon, and therefore woke in alarm and looked around him

216

differently: this verb may well be directly related to the previous verb, “and he trembled” – Boaz, stirring and trembling from the cold wind that blows across his uncovered feet, wishes to cover himself, to wrap himself back up. Here, too, like the narrator’s choice of the verb “and he trembled,” there is surprising incongruence between the unusual words chosen to depict the seemingly banal image they conjure up – after all, the image of a man who awakens from the cold and gropes around for his blanket is hardly noble or unique. Yet this imagery touches upon a deeper symbolic interpretation. Boaz “wraps himself ” after Ruth has uncovered his feet, raising the issue of concealment and exposure that is so central to this scene. Ruth wishes to expose, while Boaz wishes to conceal. As events are being recounted from Boaz’s perspective, it makes sense that Ruth, who has not yet disclosed her identity to him, is seen by Boaz as “the woman”: “And behold, a woman was lying at his feet” (3:8). At this point in the story, Ruth is just “a woman” in Boaz’s eyes. Yet Boaz is also referred to as “the man”: “and the man trembled and wrapped himself.” LaCocque suggests that Boaz’s namelessness here is designed to link him to the nameless “woman” who lies at his feet. Thus, Boaz and Ruth are reduced to two anonymous figures, a man and a woman alone in the darkness, the perfect setting for an illicit romance, and the reader’s anticipation rises.54 This convincing explanation falls somewhat short, however, as Boaz’s name hardly features throughout the passage. From the moment he awakens at midnight, his name is not mentioned, and he is referred to as “the man” until the beginning of chap. 4: “and she told her all the man had done to her” (3:16); “for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (18).55 The effacing of Boaz’s name is especially important as one of the underlying themes of the entire novel is the “resurrection of the (‫ )וילפת‬out of wild fear. Some also favor various interpretations of this opinion, see: BDB, 542; Gray, Ruth, 394; Hertzberg, Ruth, 272). 54 LaCocque, Ruth,102–03. 55 Saxegaard comments that Boaz’s name features 20 times in the narrative, which indicates the centrality of his role. Ruth’s name, in comparison, features 12 times (Character, 146). The other side of the coin is that because Boaz’s name

217

name of the dead.” It seems that through his kindness for the living and the dead, Boaz merits to be re-named. As Ruth appears to him at the threshing-floor, his name is temporarily lost to him, just like Mahlon, Ruth’s husband, who has been wiped off the face of the text. Only in the final scene of the story, when Boaz approaches the gate to restore the name of Ruth’s deceased husband, does Boaz deserve to be named anew. Boaz, half awake and trembling from the cold, cannot identify the woman whose face is bathed in the nighttime shadow. He asks her “Who are you?” (9), breaking the silence with a question that will break the estrangement between them. In the field, he asks his supervising boy, “whose girl is that?” (2:5), asking about her indirectly; now, in the shadows of the threshing-floor, he asks her directly, to her face, “who are you?”56 In the field, he asked others who she belongs to, and now, at the threshing-floor, he asks about herself, who she is; in the field, he asked about a girl, now, to him, she has become a “woman.”57 While these differences are plot-related, they also reflect the contrast between Ruth and Boaz’s first meeting in the sun-washed, bustling field and the intimate, direct encounter that takes place in the dead of night, with no one around to come between them. This straightforward, searching question cuts to the heart of the matter: Who is Ruth? Does he really know who she is? The theme of exposure and disclosure climaxes in this question. Before, Naomi urges her “do not make yourself known… make sure you know the place… and come and uncover his feet” (3:4). This continues as Ruth goes down to the threshing-floor: “and she came stealthily and uncovered his feet” (7). The verb ‫ וילפת‬can also be read as part of this theme – “and he wrapped himself ” – his feet are uncovered, he covers himself back up, only to discover the woman lying at his feet. The narrator seeks to expose this theme through the covering and uncovering of Boaz’s feet. The special attention given to the seemingly banal question of how is mentioned so often, the narrator’s omission of his name at this point in the story is exponentially more intriguing. 56 Trible, “Two Women,” 267; Trible, “Comedy,” 178. 57 See also: Hubbard, Ruth, 211; Linafelt, Ruth, 54.

218

Ruth woke Boaz from his slumber (for why should the reader care if Boaz awoke from the cold, a bad dream, or fear of a succubus?) raises this detail to a symbolic act that underscores the important theme of covering, uncovering, and discovering; on both a physical and a psychological level. The question of discovery also touches upon the question of Ruth’s identity. When Tamar – in parallel to Ruth – seeks out Judah at the crossroads (at Petah Einaim),58 changes her clothing and covers her face (Gen 38:14), the question of identity is also inherent to the story.59 Here, like Tamar, Ruth changes her clothing, and while she does not reveal Boaz’s staff and his seal, she does reveal his feet.60 The question of identity comes to a head through Boaz’s startled query, and Ruth must answer this question twice during the course of this scene: at the threshing-floor, (9) and when she returns 58 The name of the place – Petah Ena’im, which means “Opening of Eyes,” is somewhat ironic in light of the fact that Judah did not recognize who stood before him. See more on this, and on the question of identity that is linked with the removal of Tamar’s clothing, in: Bos, “Shadows,” 42; E. M. Good, “Deception and Women: A Response,” Semeia 42 (1988) 116–117; Hamilton, Genesis 18–50, 440; M. E. Shields, “More Righteous Than I: The Comeuppance of the Trickster in Genesis 38,” in Are We Amused? Humor About Women in the Biblical Worlds (ed. A. Brenner; London: Continuum, 2003) 31–51. 59 See, among others: N. Furman, “His Story Versus Her Story: Male Genealogy and Female Strategy in the Jacob Cycle,” Feminist Perspective on Biblical Scholarship (ed. A. Y. Collins; Chico: Scholar’s, 1985) 107–16. 60 Compare: Nielsen, Ruth, 70. The garment – in biblical literature and classical literature alike – is a broad symbol of identity or function. Some stories make intensive use of this symbol, as in the Jacob cycle (Furman, “His Story”); in the story of Joseph (V. H. Matthews, “The Anthropology of Clothing in the Joseph Narrative,” JSOT 65 [1993], 32); In the stories of David and Saul (O. Prouse, “Clothes Maketh the Man: Keys to Meaning in the Stories of Saul and David,” Bible Review 14 [1998] 22–27); in the book of Esther (D. J. A. Clines, “Reading Esther from Left to Right: Contemporary Strategies for Reading a Biblical Text,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield [ed. W. E. Fowl, D. J. A. Clines and S. E. Porter; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990] 31–52).While I would not argue that the book of Ruth makes intensive use of this symbol, the question of identity is one of the underlying themes of the entire story, which also influences the symbolic meaning of her garments in this scene.

219

to her mother-in-law (16). Seeing as Boaz declares that “all the elders of my people know that you are a valiant woman,” (11), it is clear why Ruth’s identity is at stake. Here, for the first time, Ruth’s connection to Naomi’s nation is validated, and Boaz confirms that she can marry as a rightful Israelite. While Boaz acts generously to the “Moabite girl” in the field, this reflects upon Boaz’s kindness, but not Ruth’s legal status. Now, as Boaz agrees to marry her, he is effectively defining her as an Israelite who is to become his partner in the rebuilding of his family. It is no coincidence that the description of Ruth as a “Moabite” does not appear at all in this scene, and from this point onwards, Ruth’s Moabite origins are never mentioned (with the exception of Boaz’s legal statement at the gate, which I will address later).61 The theme of covering and uncovering is clear in regard to Ruth and her identity, but somewhat surprising in regard to Boaz. From the moment that he awakens, Boaz’s name is omitted from this passage; it is his feet Ruth must uncover; and he is the one who seeks to cover himself back up. Apparently, Boaz is also undergoing some sort of psychological process in this scene. This is already evident in Ruth’s answer to Boaz, for while he asks her to reveal her identity, she does so in relation to his own: “I am Ruth, your handmaiden… for you are a redeeming kinsman” (9). In the words of Gow, “The man has asked her identity, only to be told his own and the obligation involved therein.”62 Once again, the scene at the threshing-floor recalls the story of Judah and Tamar. There, too, Judah must reconfigure his identity after he has “left it” in the hands of Tamar (his seal, staff and cord, and even his seed – Gen 38:25). The process Boaz must face is similar to the self-evaluation Judah must undertake in light of the chance to rebuild his lost family. Judah does so thanks to Tamar; Boaz does so thanks to Ruth. Thus, this scene sees two parallel shifts in identity: Ruth is recognized as a member of Naomi and Boaz’s people, and

61 Sasson, Ruth, 80. 62 Gow, Ruth, 69–70. Compare: F. Landy, “Ruth and the Romance of Realism, or Deconstructing History,” JAAR 62 (1994) 301, and see also below, in the discussion of the literary structure of this scene.

220

Boaz, through pledging that Ruth will be redeemed, reinstates his own responsibility towards his family.63 Ruth’s answer to Boaz’s question contains three separate components – her name, her affiliation, and her request: “and Ruth said, I am Ruth, your handmaiden. Spread your cloak over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman.” (9) For the first time, Ruth reveals her first name to Boaz. In the field, their encounter was not of a personal, intimate nature, and her name is therefore not mentioned there. Now, when Ruth, at Naomi’s request, goes down to the threshing-floor in an attempt to establish an intimate relationship with Boaz, she reveals her name, the most fundamental aspect of who she is. Moreover, she defines herself in relation to him – “I am Ruth, your handmaiden,” – unlike the term “master,” which she uses in the field, she is now speaking to him in a more personal, more familiar way.64 Ruth describes herself as Boaz’s “handmaiden” (‫ )אמה‬twice, epistrophically concluding her first two statements. Many read this term as a synonym for Ruth’s earlier description of herself as Boaz’s “maidservant” (‫)שפחה‬ (2:13).65 However, each term raises its own connotations. “Handmaiden” is often used in marital or sexual contexts: in biblical law the term refers to a girl who is to be married to her master, or who will become his concubine.66 This change reflects Ruth’s awareness of her 63 I agree with Peter Law regarding the meaning of “‫ ”גואל‬in Ruth’s answer: “Hence, it is better to understand Ruth’s use of ‫ גאל‬in its more general sense of ‘kinsman who has a responsibility for the well-being of fellow family members. This usage of ‫ גאל‬make better narrative sense: Ruth is requesting marriage apart from any reference or allusion to levirate marriage or land redemption.” (Law, Identity and Ethics, 106). 64 Hubbard, Ruth, 211. 65 For example: L. Morris, Judges and Ruth, (TOTC; London: Tyndale, 1968) 289; Campbell, Ruth, 123; W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder, (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962) 55; Zakovitch, Ruth, 141. There, too, the epithet is emphasized through epistrophe in two consecutive phrases: “for you have spoken to the heart of your maidservant/ And I am not so much as one of your maidservants.” 66 See, in particular, Exod 21:7–11. And see: Sasson, Ruth, 80–81; Hubbard, Ruth, 211; Linafelt, Ruth, 54. These words are similar to Cassuto’s claim regarding the difference between “maidservant” (‫ )שפחה‬and “handmaiden” (‫)אמה‬. He also

221

transition from maidservant to handmaiden as she moves from the field to the threshing-floor. Ruth’s answer and request: “spread your wing over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman,”67 comes as a great surprise to the reader – not only does Ruth fail to carry out Naomi’s plans, but in making a request from Boaz, she actually does the opposite of Naomi’s words, who advises her that “he will tell you what to do.”68 This reversal will culminate in Boaz’s response to her: “Now, my daughter, do not fear, for all you say to me, I will do” (11). Ruth indeed technically fulfills Naomi’s instructions, but she does not carry out Naomi’s covert intentions. In the end, Ruth does not seduce Boaz, does not steal her way into his bed, but openly presents him with a request: “Spread your wing over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman.” The expression Ruth uses, “spread your wing (‫ )כנפך‬over your handmaiden,” refers to marriage, as emerges from Ezekiel’s use of this believes that “handmaiden” is part of a more legal discourse (U. Cassuto, The “Quaestio” of the Book of Genesis (Translated from the Italian by M. E. Artom; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 91–96 [Heb.]). Zakovitch (Ruth, 141) claimed that Hagar is referred to as a maidservant in the story where she is presented to Abram as a wife (Gen 16), but LaCocque (Ruth 95–96) argues that after this story, when she is already married to Abram, she is referred to as a handmaiden (Gen 21). 67 The word ‫ כנפך‬has many meanings in biblical Hebrew: among them, “wing,” in both a literal and figurative sense (the wing of a bird, and an expression of spreading protection; and “garment” or “cloak.” Ruth’s words to Boaz here may be literal: she may be asking him to spread his cloak over them as either a sexual and/or symbolical act, or she may be asking him to extend his protection to her. As according to the present reading, Ruth and Boaz do not have sexual contact in this scene, I have translated this word as “wing” to retain literary unity with 2:12, when Boaz blesses her in the name of the Lord, “under whose wings you have sought refuge.” 68 Campbell, Ruth, 121; Garsiel, Structure, 451; Trible, “Two Women,” 178; Sasson, Ruth, 71; Bos, “Shadows,” 62; Fischer, “The Book of Ruth: A ‘Feminist’ Commentary to the Torah?” Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 30; Zakovitch, Ruth, 93; T. Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken, 2002) 248.

222

expression (16:8).69 This can also be derived from the law that forbids certain sexual relations in Deuteronomy 23:1: “A man may not take his father’s wife, and must not uncover his father’s garment (‫;”)כנפך‬ “Cursed is he who lies with the wife of his father, for he has uncovered his father’s garment (‫( ”)כנפך‬Deut 27:20), and this expression is also prevalent in ancient Eastern literature and the Qoran.70 This expression may also reflect the custom of the bride being covered in one of the groom’s garments in some manner, which symbolizes that she is under his protection, under his wing.71 In fact, from the continuation of the story, it is clear that Boaz also interprets Ruth’s request as a marriage proposal.72 The language of this proposal notably hints to a marriage that offers protection: spreading wings an expression of custody, of guardianship, as in, for example, Deuteronomy: “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest  and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them  and carries them aloft” (Deut 32:11); or as in 69 See, for example: R. Kasher, Ezekiel (Mikra LeYisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004) 333 (Heb.); P. A. Kruger, “The Hem,” D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997) 482–83. 70 Joüon, Ruth, 73; Campbell, Ruth, 87; M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT 221; Neukirchen Vluyn 1988) 217 and on. 71 See: Smith, “Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (New edition, ed. Stanley A. Cook; London: A. & C. Black, 1903) 304: “a literal act of covering which was typically performed in the contraction of marriage.”; C. Sechelea, “The Relationship Between God’s Covenant with His People and Marriage in the Old Testament,” Studia Theologica VIII (2009) 264: “The symbolic meaning of the gesture was interpreted either as a claim of ownership, as a pledge from the groom for his provision of the bride or as referring to the two becoming one and being covered with the same clothes; in any case the gesture is clearly intended to represent a marriage forming act (cf. also Ruth 3:9) and it is probably the clearest biblical identification of the presence of an oath-gesture in marriage.’ 72 As opposed to Beattie (Ruth 3, 43), who interprets the “spreading” of Boaz’s wings (‫ )כנפיים‬in a sexual light (compare also to C. M. Carmichael, “‘Treading’ in the Book of Ruth,” ZAW 92 (1980) 258–59; Linafelt, Ruth, 55). It is worth noting that while a man’s “‫ ”כנף‬indeed appears in the Bible in a sexual context (Deut 23:1; 27:20), this equivocal language is part of the ambiguity of this scene, and this aspect does not reflect the only, or even the main, significance of Ruth’s words (Bush, Ruth, 164–65).

223

Psalm 91: “He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge” (4).” Ruth wishes to enter into a marriage in order to be under Boaz’s responsibility, rather than out of romantic motives. Her reference to herself as his “handmaiden” is therefore most apt: she is interested in a hierarchal marriage, in which Boaz is responsible for her, and she is under his responsibility. While marriages of this nature were presumably prevalent in the ancient world, there are other models of marriage presented in ancient literature and in the Bible,73 and this is by no means the only kind of marital relationship. Ruth’s expression, of course, recalls Boaz’s words to her in the field: “May you be fully recompensed from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge!” (2:12). Ruth is hinting that Boaz himself must fulfill his blessing to her, for his prayers that the Lord will spread His wings over her are not sufficient.74 This reference is consistent with the fundamental theological message of the book of Ruth: God’s bestowal of kindness is realized through the kindness of the characters towards each other. God’s protection is extended to Ruth through Boaz spreading his wings over her, a fulfillment of the blessing Boaz extends to Ruth in their first encounter. Thus, it emerges that Ruth does not seduce the slightly intoxicated man, but rather converses with him about her redemption, and asks – in language that is redolent of legal terminology – for him to spread his wing over her through marriage (or at least legally recognized concubinary).75 At this point, the reader may still wonder if Boaz is yet to succumb 73 Here, it is particularly apt to recall Jacob’s relationship with his wives, as in the scene at the gate that shortly follows, the elders bless Ruth while they compare her to Rachel and Leah, and see below. 74 Garsiel, Structure, 452; Trible, “Comedy,” 178; W. S. Prinsloo, “The Theology of the book of Ruth,” VT 30 (1980) 337. Linafelt makes a slightly different claim, focusing on Ruth: “By using the word kanap here she makes even more explicit, via a shrewd wordplay, her resolve not to wait around for the Lord but to take a gamble on Boaz and his kanap instead.” (Ruth, 55). The comparison of these two statements seems to suggest that now, Ruth has decided that Boaz’s blessing to her that she be “fully recompensed” will be fulfilled through her marriage to Boaz himself. 75 For a discussion of this dilemma, see Sasson, Ruth, 81.

224

to the lure of a perfumed woman by his feet, but Ruth’s words are already taking the plot in a different direction than Naomi anticipated. It is difficult to determine whether Ruth changes Naomi’s plans inadvertently,76 or with full intention.77 This ambiguity may be an expression of the narrator’s attempt to portray Ruth as an innocent, naïve character who fails to understand Naomi’s intentions – in this light, Naomi’s words, “and he will tell you what to do” reflect that Naomi herself is unsure if Ruth knows what she has in mind, and therefore her parting words to her daughter-in-law attempt to prepare her for anything. I am inclined to believe, however, that Ruth understands her mother-in-law all too well, and consciously decides to steer matters away from Naomi’s intended course, away from the path determined by lust and longing, and towards one governed by kindness and compassion. This reading is reinforced by the verse “and she went down to the threshing-floor and did all her mother-in-law had commanded her” (3:6). As mentioned above (p. 228–29), the presence of the verb “commanded” hints that Ruth is not comfortable with Naomi’s plan, and only goes down to the threshing-floor to please Naomi – thus, it is more feasible that she deliberately changes her plans. Assuming Ruth acts intentionally, therefore, it is worth reexamining the differences between Naomi’s plans, and Ruth’s execution. Two subtle differences emerge: Firstly, Naomi’s elaborate plans for Ruth to bathe, anoint and dress herself is not explicitly carried out by Ruth, but rather abbreviated to “and she did all that her motherin-law commanded her.” This reduces the sexual tension in the scene – while Naomi’s explicit instructions heighten the awareness of the physical act Ruth is bid to do with her body, the narrator’s omission of these details hints that Ruth is about to operate on a different level. Secondly, Naomi says “Do not make yourself known to the man… When he lies down, make sure you know the place where he lies.” Naomi’s repetitive use of the verb root ‫( ידע‬in addition to her opening words, “isn’t Boaz our kinsman (‫ ”)מודעתנו‬has clear sexual connotations. This verb root is completely omitted from the narrator’s description of Ruth’s execution. Both of these omissions dampen the strong sexual tones implied in 76 Berlin, Poetics, 90. 77 Lau, Identity and Ethics, 104–105; Fischer, “Feminist,” 30.

225

Naomi’s words – even if these differences are not obvious at first. Once the reader sees how Ruth and Boaz’s encounter is turning out, a second reading reveals how Ruth’s amendment of Naomi’s plan is evident from the beginning. In this light, it turns out that Naomi’s seduction plot is not fulfilled at the threshing-floor. Rather, Boaz agrees to “redeem” Ruth, not out of lust for her body (as Naomi contrives), but out of kindness with Ruth and their deceased family. At the end (but not at the beginning of the scene), Campbell is correct in writing: “It is not prudery which compels the conclusion that there was no sexual intercourse at the threshing floor, it is the utter irrelevance of such a speculation.”78 The “utter irrelevance” of the reading that holds that sexual interaction does take place on the threshing-floor stems from the author’s intention to present Ruth and Boaz’s union as one that could have been actualized through lust, but is rather made out of a conscious choice to act through kindness. The sexual overtones of this scene are not so much irrelevant as nullified by the character’s decision – the sexual possibilities of this scene “thrust Ruth and Boaz into a crucible of moral choice: will they again, as before, live according to the idea of hesed ?”79 The reader’s “disappointment” at the lack of romantic fulfillment in this scene, and the shift to the more legal tone of “redemption” is expressed aptly in the midrash’s comparison of this scene to the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife: “Rabbi Birkhiyah said: Cursed are the wicked. For there, it says, “and she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me, while here it says, Spread your wing over your handmaiden” (Ruth Rabbah, 6:1). The intertextuality generated by this midrash (which is also reflected in the Aramaic translation of the verses) is well based, considering that Naomi’s intentions are for a woman to seduce a man, like in the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife.80 While in the story in Genesis, the hero does not give in to his 78 Campbell, Ruth, 138. 79 Hubbard, Ruth, 196. 80 Moreover, in the story of Joseph, the temptress is the mistress of the house who attempts to seduce Joseph, the slave, whereas in the scene of the threshing-floor, the “temptress” is a poor young gleaner, attempting to “seduce” the field owner. This contradicts M. Malul (Society, Law and Custom in the Land of Israel in Biblical

226

lust, at the threshing-floor, the heroine does not even seduce the hero, who thereby saved from the snares of seduction.

Boaz’s Reaction (10–13) Boaz’s reaction recalls his answer to Ruth’s question in the field. There, too, he calls Ruth “my daughter” (2:8); there, too, he mentions God as the One who will bless Ruth (2:12); and his referral to his previous words to her is striking: “your latest kindness is greater than your first” (3:10). Here, he seems to be referring to the kindness he mentioned at length in the field – “I have heard of all that you did for your motherin-law after the death of your husband, how you left your father and mother and the land of your birth and came to a people you had not known before” (2:11).81 Her “latest kindness” is also connected to her “going” (from the verb root ‫הלכ‬, “to go”) – she has not “gone after younger men.”82 The difference between his praise of Ruth in the field and in the threshing-floor lies in the words that follow: “for all the Times and in the Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006) 221 [Heb.]), who views the midrash in question as support for the claim that Ruth made “the more brazen suggestion to get into Boaz’s bed.” 81 This is the interpretation of the vast majority of commentators and scholars. For a discussion of the alternate interpretations that Sasson suggested (“The Issue of Geullah in Ruth,” JSOT 5 [1978] 55), see: Bush, Ruth, 170. 82 Some have understood the verb “to go” (‫ )ללכת‬as an allusion to sexual relations (for example, see: Linafelt, Ruth, 57–58. This reading is already evident in the Aramaic translation: ‫ בגין‬: you behaved as a woman awaiting levirate marriage by a minor, while he matures, not going whoring after the lads, neither the poor nor the wealthy” [Levine, Aramaic, 32]). However, it seems more likely that this verb is used in its simple meaning. In chap. 2 Ruth mentions “going after” a kind field owner who will allow her to glean in his field: “I will go down now to the field…behind one in whose eyes I might find favor” (2:2). Now, Boaz describes how Ruth has found favor in the eyes of all, but she has laudably not “gone after” them, but after him.

227

elders of my people know that you are a valiant woman” (3:11). Unlike their first encounter, where Boaz says that “I have been told of all you have done” although the general attitude towards Ruth in the field seems to be somewhat hostile, it emerges that over the course of the harvest season (and, no doubt, thanks to Boaz’s acceptance of Ruth), her status has risen, and now “all the elders of ” Boaz’s people see Ruth as the “valiant woman” she is. Boaz’s words form a chiastic structure: a.  And he said, Blessed are you to the Lord, my daughter, b.  Your latest kindness is greater (‫ )היטבת‬than your first, that you have not gone after younger men, neither rich nor poor. c. And now, my daughter, do not fear, for all you have asked for I will do for you, for (‫ )כי‬all the elders of my people know that (‫ )כי‬you are a valiant woman. c’. And now, while (‫ )כי‬it is true that (‫ )כי‬I am a redeeming kinsman, there is redeeming kinsman closer than I. b’. Stay for the night, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good (‫)טוב‬, he will redeem you, and if he does not desire to redeem you, then I will redeem you. a. As the Lord lives. Lie down until the morning.

The symmetry between the two halves of Boaz’s answer is especially striking through his language: he opens and closes his words with the evocation of God’s name. In the next two components (b and b’) he uses both the root “‫ ”טוב‬and the conditional ‘if,” and in the central pair (c and c’) he opens his words with the expression “and now,” and repeats the word “‫כי‬.” These two expressions connect the characters who lie in the darkness of the threshing-floor – the “valiant woman” and the “redeeming kinsman,” but through their mutual kindness, not through sexuality. Both Boaz and Ruth are going through a process of transformation, which is also hinted to in Boaz’s words, “all that you say, I will do for you” that recall Ruth’s answer to Naomi as she departs for the threshing-floor: “All you say, I will do” (3). Through their similar language, they seem to be suited for each other. The first half of Boaz’s speech can be read as an optimistic statement, while the second half is more realistic, more aware of the complexity of their situation. Hearing Boaz’s first words, the reader 228

anticipates a happy ending – Boaz is once again delighted with Ruth’s kindness, and he will do all that she asks. His ensuing words, however, introduce an unexpected complication: there is a closer redeeming kinsman who stands between them. The repetition of “and now” emphasizes how Boaz is torn between his desire to do all that Ruth asks, and the legal obstacle that takes the form of a closer kinsman. This twist in the plot marks how Ruth simultaneous overcomes the obstacle of being accepted into the Jewish community and encounters the final obstacle she must face: the world of the formal law, represented in the figure of the closer redeeming kinsman. Boaz’s vow to see her married, as I have discussed, is an expression of her successful integration into Naomi and Boaz’s people, but no sooner has it left Boaz’s lips, it is followed by the discovery of the closer kinsman, shattering her newfound security. Boaz’s response merits close attention. Firstly, he recognizes Ruth as his benefactor (“your latest kindness is greater than your first”) despite the fact that in this scene, he is the one required to bestow his kindness upon Ruth. This reflects upon the depth of Boaz’s kind nature: not only does he treat Ruth kindly, he even takes care to give her the feeling that she is doing him a kindness. Moreover, he gives the impression that Ruth is able to marry anyone she likes: young, old, rich or poor – whereas this is probably far from the truth. In chap. 1, Naomi pleads with her daughters-in-law to return to Moab, emphasizing the bitter reality of their situation – their only chance of remarrying in Bethlehem would be if she herself bore more sons. It is highly improbable that a member of the Israelite community would willingly take a Moabite widow for a wife, although Boaz innocently overlooks this fact. His words also cut through the economic hierarchy that exists in Bethlehem (“neither rich nor poor”). It is difficult to determine whether Boaz is speaking in earnest, although, in all likelihood, his words are calculated to reassure and compliment her (“do not fear”).83 83 As opposed to Fewell and Gunn, (“Compromising Redemption,” 86–87) and Lau (Identity and Ethics, 81), who claim that Boaz, due to his intoxication, cannot recall whether or not he slept with Ruth, and is therefore happy to marry her, thus saving his honor.

229

Either way, in his eyes, the Moabite girl is an Israelite woman in every respect. This is made clear at the end of the first half of his speech: “for all the elders of my people (‫ )שער עמי‬know that you are a valiant woman.” Ruth, the Moabite girl, is mentioned in one breath with the “elders of [Boaz’s] people.” The mention of the gate (‫ )שער‬is a foreshadowing of the next scene, which will take place at the town gate, thus promising that the legal procedure that is to decide Ruth’s fate will be conducted by people who value and recognize Ruth as a valiant woman. The expression “the elders of my people” (‫ )שער עמי‬has been interpreted in various ways.84 However, it seems likely that unlike the figure of the supervising boy, who reflects the attitude of the “common” townspeople towards Ruth, the city elders represent the “official” attitude towards her, and according to Boaz, she has “officially” been admitted to his nation (if not yet legally). From this perspective, the gate Boaz mentions is a metaphor for her acceptance. Yet for now, while the elders of Boaz’s people may know of her valiance, they have yet to endorse this opinion with their actions – in the next scene, which takes place at the actual gate, both words and deeds will confirm Boaz’s words. The mention of the city elders in the intimate shadows of the threshing-floor seems incongruous – disturbing their private tête-àtête with mention of the public. This is precisely the effect the narrator wishes to achieve, for this remark dispels the last of the sexual atmosphere – like Ruth, Boaz attempts to steer their encounter away 84 This expression features in two other places in the Bible (Micah 1:9; Obadiah 1:13), and in both instances, “the gate of my people” (‫ )שער עמי‬hints to Jerusalem and the kingdom of Israel (J. M. Myers, The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth [Leiden: Brill, 1955] 36). Some scholars relate it to the general population, in the sense of “all the citizens who may pass through the town gate.” (BDB, 1044). The first edition of JPS translates it thus: “for all the men in the gate of my people do know that thou art a virtuous woman.” Others have suggested that the city gate represents the elders and the judges, the authorities of the town (Joüon, Ruth, 74; Rudolph, Ruth, 35; Campbell, Ruth, 124; Sasson, Ruth, 87. This reading is already reflected in the Aramaic translation of this verse). The 1985 edition of the JPS translation reads thus: “for all the elders of my town know what a fine woman you are.” The judges, elders and leaders of Bethlehem represent their “people.”

230

from the romantic, suggestive atmosphere of a threshing-floor at midnight.85 Boaz’s description of Ruth as “a valiant woman” is particularly intriguing. Unlike the description of Boaz as “a valiant man” in 1:2, which in context is largely an indication of his wealth and power, the “valiance” of Ruth, who is especially poor, refers entirely to her great virtue and character.86 Thus, this description draws the characters together as it simultaneously highlights the socio-economic disparity between them: one is a wealthy, important field owner, while the other is a poor outsider who gleans for her living. Boaz’s introduction by the narrator as a “valiant” man is an objective description of his wealth and power; Ruth is described as a “valiant” woman by Boaz himself, who attempts to show the perspective of the people of Bethlehem. The narrator’s description represents the normative socio-economic hierarchy, whereas Boaz’s words present a new hierarchy, one that reflects the importance of each individual’s inner world. Ruth can only be considered a woman of valor when society chooses to value a person’s character more than his or her wealth. Boaz accepts this challenge: by choosing to define Ruth as a “valiant woman,” he is reshaping social hierarchy, defining Ruth as his equal.87 The Second Half of Boaz’s Speech Boaz’s mention of the town elders dissipates the sexual tension of the threshing-floor, and now, he presents another figure that constitutes an actual legal barrier between them. Here, the reader hears of the closer kinsman for the first time, and hence the reading experience echoes

85 Even if Fewell and Gunn are correct in their aforementioned assumption, the motivation for his wanting to marry her is still not a romantic one. 86 Campbell, Ruth, 124–25; Hubbard, Ruth, 216; Linafelt, Ruth, 58; (a different tone emerges from Zakovitch’s reading: “A strong, influential woman.” Ruth, 95). 87 Compare: Fischer, “Feminist,” 30.

231

Ruth’s own reaction.88 This unexpected announcement supports the reading that Naomi is fixated on the prospects of marriage that could result from sexual seduction, but has no awareness of the legal world. While she probably knows of the closer kinsman, it does not occur to her that he might prove to be a legal impediment to Ruth and Boaz’s union – rather, she seeks to find a suitable husband for Ruth – “Boaz, our kinsman” (3:2), with no thought of the closer relative. It is unclear whether the awkward, faltering quality of Boaz’s announcement of the closer kinsman is intentional or the result of scribal error: “And now, while [Qere: if] it is true that I am a redeeming kinsman, there is a redeeming kinsman closer than I.”89 If the Masoretic text is the original version, this verse is an example of what Gary Rendsburg calls “confused language as a deliberate literary device”: language which reflects the confusion or embarrassment of the speaker through its awkwardness.90 Boaz feels compelled to mention the closer kinsman, but he is clearly embarrassed to do so. The Qere version (“while (‫ )כי‬I am a redeeming kinsman”) is more appropriate here than the Ketiv version (“Ketiv we-la’ Qere”: “if I am a redeeming kinsman”), as according to the former, Boaz repeats Ruth’s own words: “for (‫ )כי‬you are a redeeming kinsman.”91 Boaz is 88 For a discussion of whether Naomi and Ruth are aware of the closer redeeming kinsman’s existence, see: Campbell, Ruth, 123–24. He is inclined to believe that they did not know of him. I find this reading somewhat strange – how is it conceivable that Naomi, who raised her family in Bethlehem alongside her husband’s family, who knows Boaz and his ties with Elimelech, does not know of a closer kinsman than Boaz? Nonetheless, I believe that Campbell’s opinion is correct in regard to Ruth. 89 In Campbell’s words: “there are simply too many introductory words.” (Ruth, 125). 90 G.A. Rendsburg, “Confusing Language as a Deliberate Literary Device in Biblical Narrative,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 9 (2009) 27–43 (Heb.).” LaCocque makes a similar suggestion (Ruth, 100). 91 Hubbard proposes that the word “‫ ”אם‬in the Ketiv version results from dittography because of the word “‫ ”אם‬in 3:13 or “‫ ”אמנם‬in 3:12 (Ruth 208, comment 13). But see also: E. R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 1998) 154, who also justifies the Ketiv version.

232

accepting the new identity Ruth assigns to him – he takes up the mantle of “the redeemer.” The root ‫ גאל‬of redeemer is repeated six times in Boaz’s words, referring both to himself and the closer kinsman: “I am a redeeming kinsman, there is a redeeming kinsman closer than I… if he will redeem you, good, he will redeem you, and if he does not desire to redeem you, then I will redeem you.” While Boaz feels that he is legally obligated to mention the closer redeemer, he clearly prefers to redeem Ruth himself: he opens and closes his statement by asserting himself as a redeemer, and emphasizes his unequivocal intention to see Ruth redeemed (even vowing to do so), while the closer kinsman’s intentions are cast in doubt. Even as Boaz makes his impassioned vow to redeem Ruth, the scene has clearly veered away from the intimate atmosphere that envelops the threshing-floor when Boaz awakens. Ruth’s redemption has become the main focus of their meeting, whether Boaz himself is the redeemer or not. The scene is no longer wrought with sexual tension – rather, it has become a legal dialogue. This transition is evident through the verb root ‫“( טוב‬good” or “best”) as it takes on a different meaning over the course of Boaz’s response. In v. 10, Boaz declares that Ruth’s latest kindness is “greater” (‫ )היטבת‬than her first – leading the reader to assume that Boaz is excited about Ruth’s proposal to Boaz for personal reasons, that he is excited to redeem her. In v. 13, however, he uses the same root to express that it is also “good” if the closer redeemer chooses to redeem Ruth – thus, it emerges that Boaz is mainly pleased at the prospect of Ruth’s “redemption,” a term which is taken from the semantic field of law rather than romance. The legal quality of their discourse is also reflected through Boaz’s partial reference to the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy: “And if the man does not desire to take his sister-in-law” (Deut 25:7). Boaz does not say “if he does not desire to take you,” in full reference to the verse in Deuteronomy, but “if he does not desire to redeem you.” As LaCocque tastefully comments: “One will appreciate Boaz’s Freudian slip by which, instead of quoting the text of Deuteronomy literally… he hides his feelings by saying “desire to redeem.”92 This breakage of 92 LaCocque, Ruth, 102.

233

the familiar expression serves to emphasize the general shift in atmosphere. Boaz swallows his sexual desire and focuses on the legal importance of Ruth’s redemption. He is determined to see Ruth redeemed, and the question he forces himself to address is not who will take Ruth for a wife (with all the accompanying associations of love and desire), but who will redeem her.93 In fact, the very term “redemption” in connection with Ruth clarifies the unique atmosphere that accompanies this scene.94 Defining Ruth as an entity in need of legal redemption strips Ruth of the sexuality that exudes from the bathed, perfumed body of the woman lying beside Boaz in the darkness, and places her within the realm of the legal world. Boaz’s final words recall this scene’s nocturnal backdrop: “stay for the night, and if he will redeem you, good…lie down until the morning” (13). The darkness of the threshing-floor helps create the intimate and subversive atmosphere of their encounter. Yet Boaz urges her to stay “until the morning,” playing further on the symbolism of time in this scene. The word “stay” (‫ )ליני‬is the same verb Ruth uses in her pledge to Naomi in chapter one, when she declares that “wherever you lodge, I will lodge” (‫)באשר תליני אלין‬. Lodging, or staying the night, suggests temporary lodging, expressing the insecurity of the widows’ existence. Now, Boaz’s invitation for her to stay until the morning expresses the promise of security, “lie down until the morning” – she will stay with him until the light of day breaks, until the subversive atmosphere of the night has passed, and he will see her redeemed.95 93 On the literary value of breaking expressions in this kind of allusion, see: J. Grossman, “Deliberate Misuse of Idioms in the Biblical Narrative,” Tarbiẓ 77 (2008) 39–40 (Heb.). 94 Ed Greenstein suggests that this redemption does not refer to Ruth herself but “I will redeem for you, for your sake” – Boaz promises to redeem Elimelech’s family’s fields for her, as he does in chap. 4 (this was suggested to me in private conversation). However, seeing as the reader has not yet heard of the field that needs redeeming, the entity to be redeemed is interpreted as Ruth here. 95 Night (or sunset) and morning (or sunrise) often take on symbolic significance in the Bible. Night may symbolize the difficulties and insecurities the hero is faced with, which may even be embodied in the form of palpable dangers like

234

His use of the verb “lie” (‫ )שכב‬hints that she will no longer “lodge” but “lie” in the security of her own home. What is the literary function of the figure of the closer redeemer – what would the story lack if it were to culminate in chap. 3, with Boaz’s agreement to marry Ruth when she appears on the threshing-floor? One answer, which will soon be apparent, is that the anonymous redeemer’s refusal to redeem Ruth illuminates Boaz’s consent as an act of kindness that should not be taken for granted. Furthermore, this twist in the plot contributes to the narrative process as one that challenges the normative law. Here, for the first time, there is overt conflict between what the reader hopes for and what the law requires – it will soon become apparent that there is legal preference for the closest next-of-kin to redeem the deceased’s property and reestablish the family name, but through the narrative design, the reader identifies with Boaz, and anticipates that he will be the one to redeem Ruth. The narrator has orchestrated the reader to favor the culmination of the relationship based on kindness and compassion over that which the law privileges. The function of the anonymous redeemer, therefore, is to create tension between the law and human compassion.

Daybreak (14–15) Ruth and Boaz’s encounter at the threshing-floor ends with Ruth lying at Boaz’s feet “until the morning”; and Boaz’s gift of grain to her as she departs. Even if Sasson is correct in claiming that Ruth lying at Boaz’s feet is suggestive,96 the act of lying at another’s feet is not demons and descent to Hell (O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms [New York: Seabury, 1978)] 77–78), whereas morning brings salvation and relief. This symbolism is particularly powerful in the story of Jacob (Gen 28:11; 32:32). See also: A. C. Myers and D. N. Freedman, “Night,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 964. 96 Sasson, Ruth, 93–94.

235

necessarily sexual.97 On the contrary: after the sexual tension is broken by Ruth and Boaz’s dialogue and all its legal discourse, the atmosphere does not easily revert to an intimate one – rather, Boaz’s bid to “lie down until the morning” accentuates precisely what has not happened between them. Moreover, the image of Ruth lying at Boaz’s feet raises different connotations: the act of lying at another’s feet characterizes the dependency of such a relationship. Feet sometimes symbolize this dependency,98 as in Moses’s words to Pharaoh: “Go out, you and all the people at your feet” (Exod 11:8).99 Ruth lies at Boaz’s feet – and not beside him – as a symbol of her dependence upon him. This is no romantic or sexual union, but one born out of his great compassion towards Ruth and their deceased family.

Uncovering and Covering The description of the time that Ruth steals away from the threshing-floor invites special attention: “and she arose before a person could recognize (‫ )יכיר‬his friend” (14). This expression is consistent with Boaz’s counsel that “no one should know that the woman came to the threshing-floor” (14) – Ruth slips away before the revealing daylight will allow her to be recognized. Yet this detail has further significance. In their first encounter in the field, Ruth asks Boaz “why have I found favor in your eyes, that you acknowledge me (‫)להכירני‬, when I am a foreigner?” (2:10). Boaz’s acknowledgement (‫ )הכרה‬of Ruth is related to her integration into the nation of Israel; to the community of Bethlehem’s recognition of her presence in the field; to her transformation from an Other to one of their own. This “recognition” is presented in stark contrast to Ruth’s definition of herself as a “foreigner,” as an 97 Trible is therefore correct that this expression is ambiguous, and doesn’t necessarily have to be interpreted in a sexual light (“Comedy,” 316, comment 23). 98 “which follow one, hence obey or belong to one.” (BDB, 920). 99 See also: Judg 4:10; 8:5; 1 Sam 25: 24; 1 Kgs 20:10; 2 Kgs 3:9. And see below, in my discussion of the removing the shoe in the gate scene.

236

Other.100 In chap. 2, Ruth is “recognized” by Boaz, and this recognition is confirmed in their encounter at the threshing-floor. Now, at the scene’s conclusion, Ruth must slip back into anonymity, into otherness.101 Once again, she is referred to as “the woman” rather than by her first name.102 In the context of this scene, Ruth’s hiding plays an important role. Of course, on the level of plot, it is crucial that Ruth must not be seen slipping away from the threshing-floor, so as not to be accused of whoring on the eve of her redemption by Boaz or the anonymous redeemer.103 Yet her clandestine exit also mirrors the beginning of the scene, when Naomi cautions her “do not make yourself known to the man” (3:3). Ruth makes her way to and from the threshing-floor in stealth, but a world of difference lies between her two secret journeys. At the end of the scene, Ruth is hiding not from Boaz, but from the townspeople, for upon the threshing-floor she has found a confidant, someone to share in her secret, an intimate secret that will give her the strength to face society. When Ruth and Boaz part, she returns to a place in which her status is still complex, a place where a person cannot yet “recognize his friend,” but upon the threshing-floor, she has made herself a friend, one who recognizes her and values her for who she is.

100 See above, in the discussion of the verse in question (2:10). 101 While one aspect that emerges from the fear that Ruth may be recognized in the morning “when a person recognizes his friend” is that it seems that Ruth is a “friend” of the people of Bethlehem, the most obvious aspect of this verse is that Ruth does not wish to be recognized. 102 Sasson (Ruth, 95) feels that the term “woman” (‫ )אישה‬rather than “girl” (‫)נערה‬ or “my daughter” (‫ )בתי‬reflects that she is marriageable, rather than a young girl in need of help. While he is right, an alternative reading is that the anonymous term “woman” rather than Ruth’s name here presents an aspect of alienation, of the barrier that has sprung up between them. 103 Hubbard, Ruth, 221.

237

The Gift of Grain Boaz’s bestowal of barley is a complex, incongruous moment in the urgency of Ruth’s departure. Although she must hurry back to Naomi’s house before the shadows lift, time slows down as the narrator painstakingly relays how Boaz fills her shawl with grain and ties it around her. Small details are carefully noted, such as his instructions for her to hold out her shawl: “and he said to her, Take the shawl you are wearing and hold it out, and she held it out.” Even the specification of the amount he gives her (“and he measured out six [measures of] barley and he tied it on her”) seems like a surprising amount of detail.104 Later on, Ruth will interpret this gift as a present for Naomi, but this is only narrated from Ruth’s perspective, and it is not at all clear that this was indeed Boaz’s intention. Many scholars have interpreted this act as a symbol of the Boaz’s sincerity, and as an expression of his promise to see Ruth redeemed.105 Others have argued that the large amount of grain is to serve as a “cover story” in the event that she is seen coming from the threshing-floor.106 Yet the narrator’s careful attention to seemingly superfluous details (chiefly, the holding out of the shawl) gives the impression that this exchange has symbolic significance. This has been rightly read as a symbolic bestowal of Boaz’s “seed” to Ruth: he will yet share his seed with her as he shares his grain with her, she will bear sons for

104 For some reason, the narrator does not specify the measure of the barley he gives her. It is obviously not six ephah (about twenty five liters) and I believe that Rashi is correct (as opposed to Sasson, Ruth, 96; and Hubbard, Ruth, 222) in ruling out six se’im, for she would not easily carry such an amount by herself (a se’ah is about seven liters, so six se’im would be over forty liters). It may well be six sheaves, omrim (which would amount to about fifteen kilograms). 105 See. Campbell, Ruth, 138; Hertzberg, Ruth, 277; Rudolph, Ruth, 57; Würthwein, Megilloth, 19. 106 Gunkel, Ruth, 78; Humbert, Art, 279–80; Hertzberg, Ruth, 277; Hubbard, Ruth, 222.

238

him as his fields have born his fruit.107 This reading is supported by the narrator’s fixation with Ruth’s shawl: Naomi’s plan is not fulfilled, and Boaz has not removed her clothing (even here, he asks Ruth to remove her shawl herself),108 but her outer garment is removed and filled with grain as a promise of Ruth’s redemption and the promise of children who will yet be born.109 In the words of Aschkenasy, “her bulging apron serves as evidence and promise of things to come.”110 This symbolic interpretation reaches a climax when Ruth presents this grain to Naomi, for after all, Ruth accepts Boaz’s gift (in her mind) on Naomi’s behalf, which anticipates how Naomi will be the one to raise Ruth’s child, leading the townswomen to exclaim that “a son has been born to Naomi!” (4:17).111 After Boaz fills Ruth’s shawl with grain, the narrator relates that “he arrived (‫ )ויבוא‬at the town,” which is somewhat surprising as Ruth is the one who must leave immediately to avoid being seen. Myers claims that this lack of gender distinction is prevalent throughout the book of Ruth (similar to “you have done” (‫)עשיתם‬, “for you” (‫)לכם‬, “from you” (‫“ )מכם‬the two of them” (‫“ )שתיהם‬with you” (‫)עמכם‬, “they will reap” (‫)יקצורון‬, among others),112 but in this case, the verb cannot be linked to a particular subject. In some manuscripts of the Masoretic text, and some of the ancient translations (such as the Peshitta and the Vulgate), the text reads “and she (‫ )ותבוא‬arrived at the town,” and some 107 See: Carmichael, “Treading,” 259–60; Porten, “Rhetorical,” 40 (“the seed that fills her stomach was a promise for the seed that is to fill her womb”); D. F. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth,” JBL 89 (1970) 27–37 (Ruth’s carrying the grain in a shawl against her gives her the appearance of a pregnant woman); Hubbard, Ruth, 226 (who emphasizes that Naomi interprets this symbolically later on); Linafelt, Ruth, 59–60. 108 Zakovitch, Ruth, 96. 109 At its height, Naomi’s family had six members: Naomi, Elimelech, Mahlon, Chilion, Ruth, and Orpah. Perhaps this is one symbolic meaning of the six measures of barley. 110 N. Aschkenasy, “Language as Female Empowerment in Ruth,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (ed. J. A. Kates and G. Twersky Reimer; New York: State University of New York Press, 1994) 117. 111 Compare: LaCocque, Ruth, 103. 112 Myers, Linguistic, 20.

239

follow this version.113 Others have argued that the main version of the Septuagint contains “and he arrived,” like in the Masoretic text,114 and this is obviously the case in the Aramaic translation, as Boaz’s name explicitly appears in the verse.115 While both versions are well founded, it seems that in context, the reader is more interested in finding out that Ruth has made it back to town safely, unseen and unsuspected, and I favor the version that reports that “she arrived at the town,”116 although neither possibility can be ruled out.

Ruth’s Return to Naomi (16–18) While Ruth is the one who has just come back after a night at the threshing-floor, Naomi has the privilege of opening their dialogue: “and she came to her mother-in-law, and she said, “Who are you, my daughter” (16). The Peshitta’s translator, frustrated with this opening, adapted the verse to read “and she said to her, I am Ruth.”117 Nonetheless, there is value in Naomi initiating the conversation: this creates 113 Like Joüon, Ruth, 78, who claims that Boaz is unable to leave the threshing-floor until someone else comes to watch over the produce stored inside; Zakovitch, Ruth, 97. The verse is translated thus in: KJV, NAU. 114 Like the Masoretic version, the Septuagint also has versions of both ‫ ויבוא‬and ‫ותבוא‬. 115 Rudolph, Ruth, 56; Campbell, Ruth, 128; Sasson, Ruth, 98. This is the translation found in NIV and the old edition of JPS (1917). A discussion of the Aramaic can be found in Levine, Aramaic, 97, and ibid. in comment 10, regarding the manuscripts of the Masoretic text. 116 And if so, the next verse would be more suitably opened with “And she came to the town / and she came to her mother-in-law…” as found in the new JPS version: “When she got back to the town she came to her mother-in-law.” 117 The Greek translation is different, and in the Septuagint (the Vatican), this question is omitted altogether (“and she said, My daughter, and she told her…”) The Septuagint attempts to deal with a different problem: How is that Naomi can ask the woman standing opposite her who she is, and yet call her “my daughter”?

240

the impression that Naomi has been waiting breathlessly for Ruth to return from the threshing-floor. In the words of Hubbard, “One can imagine the restless night Naomi had had: fitful sleep, anxious floor-pacing, frequent prayers, occasional peeks out the door.”118 Now, when Naomi finally hears footsteps at the door, she tears it open and asks in anticipation: “who are you, my daughter.” Naomi’s question reveals profound ambivalence: the question “who are you?” casts distance, detachment, on their relationship, while “my daughter” reflects the opposite: her affection and the closeness she feels towards her – as LaCocque correctly asserts,119 the fact that Naomi calls Ruth “my daughter” indicates that her question is not to be taken literally, for she knows who she is, but rather interpreted as a question of how things stand: “How do things stand with you, my daughter,” as Hubbard translates,120 or “How is it with you, my daughter?” (the new edition of JPS),121 among other translations.122 Naomi’s question is not to be taken literally, but her phrasing contributes to the unity of the scene as it echoes Boaz’s question on the threshing-floor: “Who are you?” (9). This repetition raises the question of Ruth’s shifting identity as the central issue of this scene. In the field, Boaz asks his supervising boy “Whose girl is that,” provoking the answer that she is “a Moabite girl that returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab” (2:6); at the threshing-floor, Boaz asks Ruth who she is, and Ruth answers “I am Ruth your handmaiden” (3:9). Now, Naomi’s third question seeks to determine which answer has triumphed: if Boaz perceives Ruth as a Moabite girl, or if he embraces her as a handmaiden of his own people, willing to bring her into his own home. Ruth’s answer, “and she told her all that the man had done to her” (16) is ironic – a more appropriate answer would have been, “and she told her all that the man had not done to her.” This recalls Ruth’s 118 Hubbard, Ruth, 223. 119 LaCocque, Ruth, 105. 120 Hubbard, Ruth, 124. 121 The old edition of JPS retains the literal translation: “Who art thou, my daughter?” 122 As in: “How have you fared, my daughter?” (NAB) ; “How did it go, my daughter?” (NIV).

241

words to Naomi at the opening of the scene: “all that you say to me, I will do” – despite the fact that she fails to comply with Naomi’s plan. While Ruth appears to be acting out the wishes of others – of Naomi, of Boaz – she is in fact pulling the strings herself, propelling the plot in the direction she wishes to take it. If Ruth indeed reports Boaz’s words to Naomi, she no doubt fails to mention that she herself orchestrated Boaz’s words.123 Ruth adds: “these six [measures of] barley he gave to me, saying [Qere: to me], Do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law” (17). The repetition of “and she said,” despite the fact that her words have not been interrupted, is designed to draw attention to her next words. Here, Ruth answer deviates beyond what Naomi has asked her – she is offering new information of her own volition.124 Besides the brief, indecipherable description of “all he did,” Ruth interprets Boaz’s gift of grain as a present for Naomi. As the first part of her answer is not reported in Ruth’s own words, the reader is drawn to the second part of her answer, to Ruth’s interpretation of Boaz’s intentions. It is unclear as to whether this was indeed Boaz’s intention in presenting her with the grain,125 whether Ruth only interprets it thus,126 or whether she says this for Naomi’s benefit, secretly knowing that Boaz’s intentions were otherwise. In any case, the narrator’s focus on Ruth’s explanation, and the fact that the reader hears of it for the first time in Ruth and Naomi’s conversation,127 further characterizes Ruth as one 123 Perhaps because of this too, Naomi is so certain that Boaz will not rest, “but will end the matter today” (3:18). 124 Compare: M. Shiloah, “And He Said…and He Said,” in Sefer Korngreen (ed. A. Weiser and B.Z. Luria; Tel Aviv: Niv, 1964) 255 (Heb.): “If the first statement relates to a question before it, and answers it, then the second statement differs in that it is said out of the speaker’s own initiative, without being prompted by anyone, which explains the hiatus and the renewal of statement.” 125 Sasson, Ruth, 101, as opposed to Campbell, Ruth, 129, and Zakovitch, Ruth, 99. 126 Berlin, Poetics, 97–98; LaCocque, Ruth, 105. 127 For the literary technique of postponing information in the Bible, see: M. Weiss, Scriptures in Their Own Light: Collected Essays (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1987) 312–334 (Heb.); Berlin, Poetics, 96–99; M. Perry, “Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates Its Meanings,” Literature 28 (1979) 6–46 (Heb.); M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of

242

whose main concern is Naomi, her welfare, and her emotional state – indeed, even if Ruth correctly guesses Boaz’s intentions, the design of this answer illuminates the character of Ruth more than the character of Boaz. The phrasing of Ruth’s answer is most intriguing: “saying [to me]: do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law.” The Kethiv version (without the added “to me”) is probably the original, and the addition of “to me” may well be a dittographical error resulting from the following words, “to your mother-in-law” (‫)אלי אל חמותך‬.128 This may also be a mistaken echo of Ruth’s words to Naomi at the end of the previous scene: “for he said to me, Stay close to my boys” (2:21). On the other hand, the Qere version, which appears in the Septuagint, may add tension to Ruth’s words, as here, Ruth’s relationship with Boaz (“saying to me (‫ )”)אלי‬is pitted against Ruth’s relationship with Naomi (“to your mother-in-law”). Ruth presents her conversation with Boaz as one that centers on Naomi – from the outset, Ruth has privileged her relationship with Naomi over any possibilities of remarriage. Although she is finally acquiescing to Naomi’s request and attempting to establish a marital relationship, she continues to hold fast to the pledge she makes in chap. 1 – her connection to Boaz is only an extension for her love for Naomi. Naomi is constantly in her thoughts, and Ruth always converts Boaz’s gestures towards Ruth into an expression of her affection for her mother-in-law: she saves some of the parched grain that Boaz hands her for Naomi in chap. 2; she presents the six measures of grain Boaz has bestowed upon her to Naomi here; and she will present the child she has borne of Boaz’s seed to Naomi at the story’s end. The juxtaposition of Boaz “saying to [Ruth]” and Ruth’s transferal of his gift to her mother-in-law strongly conveys that although Boaz may soon redeem her, the wellbeing of Naomi is still Ruth’s top priority.

Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 186–229; F. Polak, Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1999, Second Edition) 153–191 (Heb.). 128 Joüon, Ruth, 101.

243

Ruth’s interpretation of Boaz’s gift is particularly significant as it is the final sentence that Ruth utters in the narrative.129 Her final words are an expression of concern for Naomi, and they are essentially a covert statement that her connection to Boaz is established solely for Naomi’s sake. The act of bestowing Boaz’s gift upon her mother-inlaw symbolizes how Ruth is in fact acting as a surrogate mother for Naomi; Naomi’s fertility will be restored, even if it must be through Ruth’s womb. The language of Boaz’s words as quoted by Ruth – “do not go empty-handed (‫ – ”)ריקם‬emerges in full significance in reference to two other similar expressions in the Bible. The first is an intra-textual reference that creates unity within the narrative: when Naomi returns from Moab, she laments to the townswomen that “I went away full, and empty (‫ )ריקם‬I was returned by the Lord” (1:21).130 As I discuss above, Naomi’s cry that she is completely empty seems to dismiss the sacrifices Ruth has made in order to accompany her. Now, Ruth finally responds: the daughter-in-law who returned from Moab with her is the one to dispel her loneliness, the one to refill her life: “do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law.”131 If Boaz’s gift of grain is a symbol of his seed, then Naomi’s lament in chap. 1 is corrected with this verse: Naomi cries that she has returned empty, without her children or family – and now, Ruth brings tidings of renewed fertility, the promise of children to come. Keeping in line with the theological inclinations of the book of Ruth, Naomi was “emptied” by the Lord, and now, this emptiness is filled by God acting through Boaz. 129 Hubbard, Ruth, 225; Trible, “Comedy,” 181; LaCocque, Ruth, 105. 130 Many have noted this connection: among them, Campbell, Ruth, 83; N. Aschkenasy, Eve’s Journey: Feminine Images in Hebraic Literary Tradition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986) 87; M. C. A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001) 163–65, 168–9; H. J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS, 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 223. 131 According to Sasson (Ruth, 101–02) the reason the explanation of the gift of grain is withheld until now is in order for the reader to hear it from Ruth, who was present as Naomi lamented how “and empty I was returned by the Lord” – Ruth herself wants to respond to Naomi’s lament.

244

Venturing out the literary unit of the book of Ruth, the word “empty” alludes to the deuteronomical law of releasing slaves:  If any of your people – Hebrew men or women – are sold to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you, that is why I give you this command today (Deut 15:12–15).

Naomi is about to be released from her predicament, and now, she receives symbolic severance pay.132 This intertextuality is more profound than it first appears. As many have noted, the deuteronomical law recalls the Exodus from Egypt: “and when you go, you will not go empty-handed” (Exod 3:21).133 The nation of Israel’s first liberation reverberates in the release of every Hebrew slave, and here, the night of Israel’s first Exodus resonates in the language that describes the night that Ruth spends upon the threshing-floor. First and foremost, Boaz awakens at “midnight,” the exact same time when the plague of the firstborns takes place: “And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exod 12:29). Midnight is a symbolic turning point, the moment that splices the night into two halves, a moment which gives rise to the meta-natural, to the otherworldly. The expression “and it came to pass at midnight” appears only in Ruth and in Exodus,134 and the intertextuality of the two passages is striking: 132 Perhaps the six measures of barley is symbolically related to the law (“and you shall work for six years”). 133 “This law of the Book of Deuteronomy is undoubtedly of ancient origin, and our passage alludes to its substance and phraseology, using similar language.” (U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [trans. by I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967] 44); B. Jacob, “Gott und Pharao,” MGWJ 68 (1924) 118–124; M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House, 1969) 86–87 (and see also Ruth Rabbah, 7:6). 134 Besides these passages, the specified time (in a slightly different formulation) only appears in the Hebrew Bible in the story of Samson, who miraculously carries the gates of Gaza away (Judg 16:3). Linafelt claims that Jacob’s struggle

245

Death of the Firstborns (Exod 12:28–33) The fulfillment And the children of Israel of the command went and did just as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron And it came to pass at midnight The exact and the Lord smote every moment134 firstborn in the land of Egypt Dismissal / And he called to Moses and invitation to stay Aaron in the night and he said, Get up, get out from amongst my people, both you and the children of Israel – go out and bless me too. Taking food upon And the people carried their departure dough, before it could rise, in bundles on their shoulders

The explanation for the bounty

3:21–22: And I will make the Egyptians kindly disposed towards this people, and when you go you will not go empty-handed.

The Encounter at the Threshing-Floor (Ruth 3) And she went down to the threshing-floor and did all that her mother-in-law had commanded her And it came to pass at midnight and the man trembled and wrapped himself. And he said, Blessed are you to the Lord, my daughter… stay for the night… lie down until the morning

And he said, Take the shawl you are wearing, and hold it out, and she held it out, and he measured out six [measures of] barley, and he put it on her. And she said, these six measures of barley he gave to me, saying [to me], Do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law.

with the angel was at midnight (Linafelt, Ruth, 53), although the text does not specify that this took place “at midnight.” Similarly, Sasson’s reference (Ruth, 74) to Solomon’s hearing of the two prostitutes and the baby is imprecise, because one of the women claims she “arose during the night,” (‫)בתוך הלילה‬, but not at midnight, (‫)בחצי הלילה‬, as in our case. 135 Nonetheless, it should be noted that both stories unfold over the course of the entire night: Ruth leaves the threshing-floor “before” (‫ )טרם‬a person is able to recognize his friend, while the Children of Israel leave Egypt “before” (‫)טרם‬ their dough has time to rise (Exod 12:34).

246

This interconnection colors the intimacy of the threshing-floor with national, historical significance,136 although the main purpose of this association, I believe, is to illuminate the personal reaction of the characters. The scene of the threshing-floor, read against Egypt’s banishment of Israel at midnight, alerts the reader to the danger of what may happen to Ruth when Boaz awakens at midnight, “trembling” – like the Egyptians, he may banish Ruth from his presence. In this context, Boaz’s welcoming of Ruth and his invitation to her stay until the morning can be read as a reversal of the story in Exodus: whereas the Egyptians awaken at midnight to the death of their sons, Boaz awakens at midnight to Ruth’s presence, and promises that Ruth will perpetuate the name of their family’s dead sons. At the stroke of midnight, God smites every firstborn in Egypt; at the stroke of midnight, Boaz vows to restore Naomi’s firstborn son’s name. Above all, read against the story of the Exodus from Egypt, the night at the threshing-floor resonates with the promise of freedom. Like the redemption of the nation of Israel, Ruth’s redemption revolves around the formation of a new national identity.

Naomi’s Reaction Just like the previous scene’s conclusion, here too Naomi has the last word: “and she said, Sit, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (18). And, just like the previous scene’s conclusion, wherein the narrator reports that “she dwelt (‫ )ותשב‬with her mother-in-law” (2:23), here, too, Naomi urges Ruth to dwell with her, to sit with her (‫ )שבי‬for the time being. However, whereas the previous scene’s conclusion presents the picture of an entire season: “and she stayed close to Boaz’s girls until the end of (‫ )כלות‬the barley harvest and the wheat harvest” (2:23); here, the scene ends with a cliff-hanger: Boaz will “end (‫)כלה‬ 136 Compare: Campbell, Ruth, 119; Sasson, Ruth, 74; Zakovitch, Ruth, 93.

247

the matter today” – the end of the story is imminent. Whereas Ruth’s dwelling with her mother-in-law at the end of chap. 2 creates a sense of disappointment, of anti-climax after Ruth and Boaz’s first encounter, the picture of Ruth and Naomi sitting together at the end of chap. 3 generates suspense and excitement – for the matter will be ended that same day.137 Naomi’s use of the verb “‫”לדעת‬: “Sit, my daughter, until you learn (‫ )תדעין‬how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today,”138 creates a literary framework for the entire chapter. At the scene’s opening, she says: “isn’t Boaz our kinsman (‫)מודעתנו‬, that you were one of his girls, winnowing barley on the threshing-floor tonight” (3:2). This framework reflects the process that unfolds over the entire chapter: In the subversive dark of night, Naomi hints at carnal knowledge: when dawn is breaking, the women await to know who will be the one to legally redeem Ruth. This wordplay draws attention to the fact that once again, Naomi and Boaz express themselves similarly: for Boaz bids Ruth to “stay for the night…lie down until the morning.” Their shared concern with the passage of night into day is symbolic of the subversive, lonely night fading with the light of the redeeming dawn and the promise of a new day. Moreover, Naomi’s final words139 in the story close a wider circle that opens with her very first words in the entire narrative. When the narrator opens her mouth for the first time, she bids her daughters-inlaw to “Go back, return (‫)שבנה‬, each woman to her mother’s house… may the Lord grant you security in the house of a husband… Return (‫)שבנה‬ my daughters, why should you come with me – do I still have sons in my insides who could be husbands for you?” (1:8–11). Her final words generate a covert dialogue with her very first words: “Sit (‫ )שבי‬my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will end the matter today” (3:18). In the opening scene, Naomi blesses her 137 Compare: Porten, “Rhetorical,” 42. 138 The verb root ‫ידע‬, which is mentioned six times in this scene, features here for the last time (in this chapter). 139 And just as the voice of Ruth will no longer be heard in the story, these, too, are the final words of Naomi (Trible, “Comedy,” 181).

248

daughters-in-law that they will find security through a new husband in Moab, and now, Ruth is about to find security with a man from Bethlehem; at first, Naomi bids her “daughters” to return (‫ )לשוב‬to their mother’s homes, and now, she bids her “daughter” to stay with her, to sit (‫ )לשבת‬and wait with her in Bethlehem. The final verse of the chapter plays on the tension between the certain and the uncertain. While Naomi is certain that Boaz will settle the matter of Ruth’s redemption, and certain that the matter will be settled that very day, she is uncertain as to how the matter will be settled – “how the matter will turn out (‫( ”)יפל‬18).140 Thus, while the main complication of the plot has been solved (whether Ruth will be redeemed), the reader is still in suspense – how will she be redeemed?141 Ruth has finally been acknowledged as an Israelite woman by Boaz, and he has agreed to see her redemption through. She has spent the night at Boaz’s feet, and placed her fate into his hands. Ruth, Naomi, and the reader must now wait to see what will become of her.

140 The term “how the matter will turn out” (‫ )נפל דבר‬usually appears with a negating word before it (such as “‫ ”אל‬or “‫ )”לא‬and it means “do not leave anything out” (Josh 21:45; 23:14; 1 Sam 3:18; 1 Kgs 8:56; 2 Kgs 10:10; Est 6:10. See also, HAL, vol. 2; 709–10). 141 Compare to Trible (“Two Women,” 270–71) who senses that the tension in Naomi’s words hints at various plans (Ruth’s plans, Naomi’s plans, Boaz’s plans) that could be fulfilled. Hubbard (Ruth, 227) suggests that the expression “the matter will turn out” is connected to the hand of fate, and is therefore redolent of determinism. Therefore, he feels that this expression in itself reflects Naomi’s certainty that Ruth’s fate is about to be determined, and her uncertainty as to what her fate will be.

249

The Structure of Ruth 3 The author of the book of Ruth seems particularly fond of concentric structures – both this chapter and the previous chapter are arranged thus.142 a. 1–4: Naomi’s words to Ruth: “Go down to the threshing-floor…do not make yourself known to the man.” b. 5: Ruth agrees: “All you say, I will do.” c. 6: Ruth goes down to the threshing-floor. d. 7: Boaz eats and drinks, “and he went (‫ )ויבא‬to lie down at the end of the grain-pile.” e. 7: Ruth acts: “And she came stealthily and uncovered his feet and lay down.” f.  8: At “midnight,” Boaz discovers that a woman is “lying at his feet.” g.  9: Ruth defines Boaz as her redeemer and asks him to redeem her. h. 10–11: Boaz’s speech: “Blessed are you to the Lord… for all the elders of my people know that you are a valiant woman.” g’. 12–13: Boaz agrees that he is a redeemer, but reveals that there is a closer redeeming kinsman. f ’.  14: Ruth lies at Boaz’s feet “until the morning.” e’. 14: Ruth arises before daylight, so no one will know she has spent the night with Boaz. d’. 15: Boaz gives Ruth a gift of grain, and they part: “and she arrived (‫ )ותבא‬at the town.” c’.  16: Ruth returns to her mother-in-law. b’.  16: Ruth reports “all that the man did to her.” a’. 17–18: Naomi’s words to Ruth: “Sit, my daughter… for the man will not rest.”

Throughout this chapter, I have explored many of the internal and external connections found within this structure and their significance in the narrative. Now, I wish to discuss how this structure illuminates this chapter in its entirety. Chap. 2 is arranged around Boaz’s praise of Ruth’s kindness and his evocation of God to bless her, and similarly, here, Boaz’s words are 142 The proposed structure has also been proposed by Gow, Ruth, 64 (as well as Nielsen, Ruth, 66). For similar structures that differ in specific details, see: Porten, “Rhetorical,” 35–42; Radday, Chiasmus, 73–74; Sacon, Ruth, 11–15.

250

the central axis, the turning point, of the entire chapter. In chap. 2, in the field, Ruth is acknowledged by Boaz, recognized for her kindness despite her foreign otherness; at the threshing-floor, she is acknowledged as an eligible Israelite woman and, in Boaz’s words, recognized by all the elders of his people for the valiant woman she is. This acknowledgement as the heart of this chapter is reflected in its concentric structure. For the first half of the chapter, Ruth is compelled to use her body to induce Boaz to action, but like Cinderella, the robes of seduction disappear at the stroke of midnight (3:8), her name is revealed – and she is acknowledged as an eligible woman nonetheless. This turning point is emphasized through the play of uncovering, covering and discovering that unfolds over the course of this scene. At first, Ruth must hide from everyone, including Boaz (see component e, above) whereas later, she must hide again, (e’) but only from society: for Boaz is now on “her side,” her confidant and patron. Before she has time to celebrate her acceptance, however, the figure of the anonymous redeemer bursts onto the scene. Now, a new dilemma arises: the second half of the chapter presents the tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law at its highest. The reader hopes that Boaz – who has recognized Ruth for the valiant woman she is, who has bent the law and broken social convention to acknowledge her kindness – will be the one to redeem Ruth, but the law, in the figure of the anonymous redeemer, bars his way.143 While Ruth’s future is taken care of, the story will only come to a “happy end” if Boaz will somehow manage to circumvent the law. If not, then Ruth’s redemption will be – from the reader’s point of view – an anticlimax, and the author is interested in building this suspense. This structure also raises the question of the relationship between the three heroes of the story: Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz. In both chaps. 2 and 3, Naomi steps up the stage at the beginning and end of the scene, but unlike the field scene, the reader receives the impression that Naomi is left out of the picture. At first Naomi sends Ruth to seduce Boaz, but this seduction never takes place; at the end of the chapter, the reader sees Ruth presenting Boaz’s gift to Naomi, claiming 143 See also: Hubbard, Ruth, 228.

251

that Boaz intended it for her, but again, the reader senses that this may not be the case. Naomi’s presence dominates the framework of events, but she is not present at the heart of the story, and she may never fully learn what takes place on the threshing-floor. The private dialogue between Boaz and Ruth that barely begins to emerge at the end of chap. 2 when Ruth follows Boaz’s bidding, not Naomi’s, and “clings” (2:23) to his girls rather than just “goes out” (2:22) is developed in this chapter. While conservative, marriage-oriented Naomi has “security” in mind for Ruth, Ruth and Boaz are determined to solve the issue of “perpetuation of the name of the deceased,” and this is the purpose that ultimately motivates their marriage. Nonetheless, both of Ruth and Boaz’s encounters end with Ruth’s return to Naomi, leaving Naomi in the picture, although she does not play an active role. Naomi has the final word in both scenes, and this similar structure allows the reader to trace the development of events: when Ruth returns to Naomi after she has encountered Boaz in the field, she brings her an abundance of grain, and even gives her the leftovers of the delicacy Boaz himself hands her. When she returns from the threshing-floor, she appears swollen with the barley concealed in the shawl Boaz has tied around her, a symbolic promise of pregnancy, which too will come. Although Naomi is, in a sense, the heroine of the story, the one Ruth returns to at the end of each dramatic scene, Ruth is the one who drives the plot, and she does so in her own way. She does not return from the threshing-floor with Boaz’s seed in her womb, but with Boaz’s promise of redemption in her heart. Now, the two women must sit and wait for the night to fade; for the dawn to break; for the new day to be born.

252

Introduction to Chapter IV Da das Tor zum Gesetz offensteht wie immer und der Türhüter beiseite tritt, bückt sich der Mann, um durch das Tor in das Innere zu sehn. (Kafka, Vor dem Gesetz)

One of the central questions of the final chapter of Ruth is whether or not it presents a case of levirate marriage. As this practice is also documented outside of the Bible,1 the question is twofold: does the custom of levirate marriage constitute a backdrop for this scene; and, if so, does it fulfill the deuteronomical law of levirate marriage, or does it reflect a more ancient custom? (These questions are, of course, contingent upon when the book of Ruth was written). There are several factors which reinforce the notion that the idea of levirate marriage is suggested throughout the narrative and culminates in the final chapter:2

1

2

C. H. Gordon claims that the Israelite custom of levirate marriage was derived from Hittite and Indian customs of levirate marriage, thus explaining that Genesis 38 emphasizes that Judah did not sleep with Tamar again after their leviratical relations in accordance with Indian custom (“Father’s Sons and Mother’s Daughters: The Problem of Indo-European / Semitic Relationships,” The Asia Minor Connection: Studies on the Pre-Greek Languages in Memory of Charles Carter [ed. Y. L. Arbeitman; Leuven and Paris: Peters, 2000)] 77–84). As I mention in the introduction, Gray even claims that the fulfillment of levirate marriage and the redemption of Ruth is encouraged throughout the text and is central to the story’s motivating themes (J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth [NCBC; London 1967] 370–71). Daube comments that as Naomi no longer has children, she can also be considered a candidate for levirate marriage, and indeed, she eventually adopts Obed (D. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law [Leiden: Brill, 1981] 39). There is room to consider if he is correct from a legal perspective – from a literary perspective, his words are certainly justified. A similar approach was also taken by: R. H. Hiers, Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law (New York: Continuum, 2009) 43.

a. Gow claims that Naomi’s words to her daughters-in-law in chap. 1 already raise the issue of levirate marriage. Naomi is convinced that her daughter-in-law will only be able to remarry her own sons, who have yet to be – who never will be – born (1:12–13), an assumption which relies on the law of levirate marriage.3 Naomi tells her daughters-in-law that if she only had more sons, they would marry them based on the custom and the law: as the brothers of the sons who have died.4 However, Naomi’s words can also read in a more realistic light: she is hinting to Ruth and Orpah that no one else in Bethlehem would agree to marry Moabite widows, and only she would agree to give them to her sons in marriage.5 b. Following Naomi’s aforementioned speech, Orpah returns to Moab, and Naomi tells Ruth, “See, your sister-in-law – ‫יבמתך‬ (from the same root as the word ‫ייבום‬, “levirate marriage,”) has returned to her people and her gods, go back, after your sisterin-law” (‫( )יבמתך‬1:15). Although the lexical meaning of “‫”יבמה‬ is sister-in-law,6 the author presumably chose this unusual word intentionally. Moreover, in the Bible, this word is usually only brought in the context of levirate marriage (Gen 38:8; Deut 25: 5–10).7 Thus, the idea of levirate marriage is already raised in the narrative’s opening scene, a Chekhov’s gun waiting to go off. M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos 1992) 146 (and see also 172, where he concludes that this is indeed a case of levirate marriage). 4 For example: H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Joshua, Richter, Ruth, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969) 263; E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 83; L. Morris, Judges and Ruth, (TOTC; London: Tyndale, 1968) 256. 5 Hubbard adds that in order to fulfill the levirate law, the sons must be from the same father, and as Elimelech has already died, this law cannot be fulfilled with marriage with any new sons Naomi may have (R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 109, and see also: D. N. Freedman, Have You Murdered and Also Inherited: Law, Ethics and Society in Biblical Narrative (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 2000) 314 [Heb.]). 6 Or husband’s brother (BDB, 386). 7 Campbell, Ruth, 72–73. See also J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 3

254

c. Boaz’s sudden mention of the closer redeeming kinsman at the end of the scene of the threshing-floor is strange and illogical if the question of levirate marriage has no place in the story. Boaz does not seem to be shrugging Ruth off with lame excuses, and, if levirate marriage is not in the picture, there seems to be no other reason to mention the closer redeemer in connection with his marriage to Ruth. If Boaz wishes to take Ruth for a wife, what could possibly stand in his way? If levirate marriage is the issue at hand, however, the closer redeemer is a relevant figure, for the closer the redeemer, the more significant the resurrection of the name of the dead becomes. This reading is reinforced by Boaz’s language: “if he does not desire to redeem you” (3:13) recalls the phrasing of the deuteronomical law: “if the man does not desire to take his sister-in-law (‫( ”)יבמתו‬Deut 25:7). d. The most striking indication of the law of levirate marriage is presented, of course, in the legal exchange at the gate. First and foremost, Boaz openly informs the anonymous redeemer that he must acquire Ruth along with the field in order to “perpetuate the name of the deceased on his estate” (4:5; 10). The phrase “to perpetuate the name of the deceased” is mentioned in the law in Deuteronomy (and only there): “and the firstborn she shall bear will perpetuate his deceased brother’s name” (Deut 25:6). Besides the similar language in itself, the similarity of the content of the two passages cannot be overlooked – both are concerned with a widow’s remarriage in an attempt to reestablish her deceased husband’s name.8

8

10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 28–29. According to Dahood, in Psalm 68:18, the term “‫ ”יבם‬refers to God – in his opinion, the phrase “̕adonāy bām” should be amended to “adon yābam” – suggesting that this should be understood in light of the Ugaritic in the sense of the creating God: “the creatress of the people” (Dahood, Psalms II [AB 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968] 143). See more about “‫ ”יבם‬in: V. P. Hamilton, “‫יבם‬,” NIDOTTE 2.392–93. See further discussions in: S. Bahar, “What is the Difference between ‫( חלץ‬halas) and ‫( שלף‬šalap)? The Purpose of Recalling the ‘Form of Attestation’ in the Scroll of Ruth (4:7),” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 20 (2010) 71–85 (Heb.). Beattie shows that a tenth-century commentator, Shelomo ▪

▪

255

e. This is similarly reinforced with Ruth’s being referred to as “the wife of the deceased” (Deut 25:5; Ruth 4:5).9 f. Another expression that links this scene to the law in Deuteronomy is mentioned in the townswomen’s blessing to Naomi: “Blessed is the Lord, who has not withhold a redeemer from you today, and his name shall be called in Israel” (4:14). This prayer-blessing recalls two phrases from the passage in Deuteronomy: one refers to the brother who is willing to marry his deceased brother’s widow – “and the firstborn she shall bear will reestablish his deceased brother’s name and his name shall not be erased from Israel ” (Deut 25:6), and one refers to the brother who refuses to marry the widow: “and his name in Israel shall be called the house of the unshod (‫( ”)בית חלוץ הנעל‬10). g. In light of the connection between chap. 4 and the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy, there is room to consider whether the scene’s opening, “and Boaz went up to the gate…and he took ten people from the elders of the town” (4:1–2) is a deliberate allusion to the deuteronomical law: “and his sister-in-law shall go up to the gate, to the elders” (Deut 25:7).10 h. The author’s intention to echo the deuteronomical law of levirate marriage and ritual-shoe removal (halisa) is also prominent in the (surprising) focus upon the shoe removal in vv. 7–8. Putting the suspenseful turn of events on pause, the narrator takes an entire verse to explain how it is ancient Israelite custom to remove a shoe ▪

▪

Ben Yehoram, already noted the linguistic connection between Ruth 4 and the laws of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy (D. R. G. Beattie, Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth [JSOTSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT, 1977] 259). 9 M. D. Goulder, “Ruth: A Homily on Deuteronomy 22–25?,” Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday (ed. H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 162; Sheffield: Shefield Academic Press, 1993) 311. The deuteronomical law forbids the “wife of the deceased” to marry outside the family: “The wife of the deceased should not go outside to a stranger,” while in the book of Ruth, the “wife of the deceased” herself can be perceived as a stranger, an outsider, who, through her marriage to Boaz, is actually admitted into the family. 10 For example: F. Meltzer, Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Rav Kook Foundation) 29 (Heb.).

256

as a symbolic expression of transaction, and at the gate, therefore, such a gesture was performed. This may be the narrator’s way of evoking the figure of the brother who refuses to wed the widow in this scene: “and his sister-in-law shall approach him in the presence of the elders, and she shall remove his shoe from his foot, and she shall spit before him” (Deut 25:9). This striking allusion hints that the closer redeemer ought to be considered akin to the brother-in-law who refuses to wed his brother’s childless widow, while Boaz represents the brother who does agree to marriage. i. Joshua Berman makes a more extreme suggestion, and argues that not only is the law of levirate marriage reflected in the book of Ruth, but the entire set of laws mentioned from Deuteronomy 24:16 until 25:10 features in the narrative according to the order in which they appear in Deuteronomy.11 In his opinion, the death of Elimelech and his sons in Moab evokes the law “a father should not be put to death because of his sons” (24:16); the field scene fulfills the laws of gifts of charity to the poor (24:17–22); Boaz’s attitude towards Ruth is an expression of the prohibition to beat the guilty party more than he deserves, “He is not to exceed this; if he goes over this limit and beats him more than this, your brother will be humiliated before your eyes” (25:3) – for Boaz is concerned for Ruth’s honor and not just for her sustenance; the prohibition to muzzle a threshing ox (25:4) is symbolically reinterpreted at the threshing-floor scene; and finally, the laws of levirate marriage and ritual shoe-removal is fulfilled in chap. 4 at the gate.12 I find this reading doubtful,13 but he reads the law of levirate marriage as it is manifested in chap. 4 as a culmination of the intertextuality 11 Goulder also claims that the book of Ruth reinterprets the deuteronomical laws in 22–25 (Goulder, Homily”). 12 J. Berman, “Ancient Hermeneutics and the Legal Structure of the Book of Ruth,” ZAW 119 (2007) 22–38. 13 The only laws from this deuteronomical section that definitely feature to some extent in Ruth are the laws of charity gifts to the poor and levirate marriage. However, the gifts of charity to the poor mentioned in this section do not include the law of gleaning, and do not even use the word “glean”– which is the central word used by Ruth’s author in chap. 2. In this respect, the laws of charity

257

between Ruth and the laws in Deuteronomy. Indeed, the Aramaic translation of Ruth already interprets the scene at the gate as a fulfillment of the law of levirate marriage,14 and Flavius Josephus also reads it thus. However, despite these indications, it is difficult to read this scene as a completely legal, normative fulfillment of levirate marriage. As many have noted, the law in Deuteronomy concerns the relationship between a widow and her husband’s brothers, while, as Naomi bitterly notes in chap. 1, her deceased sons have no brothers who will wed Ruth in Bethlehem. Moreover, the legal discussion at the gate opens with discussion of the redemption of a field, and suddenly turns into a discussion about the marriage of Ruth. If normative levirate marriage (as a familial duty) was on the table, there would be no need to open the discussion with the legal obligation to redeem the family’s field.15 In light of this deviation, some have suggested that the book of Ruth reflects a more ancient levirate custom, wherein in the absence of brothers-in-law, another family member steps in to marry the widow, as De Vaux, for example, writes: “The law of Dt 25 does not apply for Ruth had no more brothers-in-law. The fact that some near relative must marry her, and that this obligation proceeds mentioned in Leviticus (19:9–10; 23:22) are more relevant as the basis of the gifts of charity that feature in Ruth. 14 Regarding the position of the translation, see E. Levine’s discussion in The Aramaic Version of Ruth (Analecta Biblica 58; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973) 53–55; 100–03; Josephus writes that Ruth performed the commandment of ritual shoe removal with the anonymous redeemer, and even spat in his face. For further discussion of Josephus‘s reading, see: M. Köhlmoos, „Es war nunmehr notwendig, dass ich dies von Ruth erzählt habe…“: Beobachtungen zur Ruth-Erzählung des Flavius Josephus (Ant. V 318–337),” Die Welt des Orients 39 (2009) 58–71. 15 And thus, M. Z. Segal claims that Ruth’s marriage is to be considered part of the commandments of redemption, and thus, this case is documentation of a unique law which is not known to us from any other source (Tradition and Criticism: A Collection of Articles about Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1957) 180–185 (Heb.). See also: H. F. Richter, „Zum Levirat im Buch Ruth, “ZAW 95 (1983) 123–26.

258

in a certain order, no doubt indicates a period or a milieu in which the law of levirate was a matter for the clan rather for the family in the strict sense.”16

Such a custom is in fact documented in ancient Assyrian and Hittite legal records, was similarly performed by Hurrians who lived in Nuzi,17 and is presented as a background to the story of Judah and Tamar, where she orchestrates their relations despite the fact that he is the father of her deceased husbands, rather than their brother. While this is a temptingly convenient solution to this problem, it is problematic from a textual perspective. Different verses in chaps. 3 and 4 seem pointedly related to the deuteronomical laws of levirate marriage and ritual shoe-removal, and, as Yair Zakovitch has proven, the author is aware of the legal formulation of Deuteronomy, and even incorporates certain aspects into the text of Ruth.18 I am inclined to agree with Raymond Westbrook’s basic argument that ancient law should not be considered a binding legal codex equivalent to the modern perception of the law, and even if the author of Ruth was familiar with Deuteronomy 25, he may not have considered its extension something unusual.19 Even so, Boaz’s act in Ruth 4 is no subtle extension, but a dramatic amendment. It cannot be assumed that the narrator extends the actual law to apply to relatives more distant than brothers, opposing the legal guidelines in Deuteronomy. As the narrator takes care to explain the custom of shoe removal as a symbolic validation of transaction (4:7), it would make sense if he would similarly explain that there was an Israelite custom for distant relations to marry a relative’s widow – but he does not.20 Segal adds 16 R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. by J. McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 38. See further: M. Burrows, “Levirate Marriage in Israel,” JBL 59 (1940) 23–33. 17 De Vaux, ibid. 18 Y. Zakovitch, Ruth (Mikra Leyisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 21–23 (Heb.). See further: P. Cruveilhier, “Le levirat chez les hebreux et chez les assyriens,” RB 34 (1925) 524–546. 19 R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 71. 20 It is likely that the brief explanation of the custom of removing the shoe in 4:7 is a later addition by a later editor (S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of

259

that from Naomi’s words to her daughters-in-law in chap.1 – that there is no one in Bethlehem who will marry them – it emerges that there is no such custom to marry widows within the extended family. Boaz also heaps praise upon Ruth for not marrying other “boys”; if levirate marriage within the extended family was the local custom, then Ruth would be required to marry Boaz or the closer kinsman, and there would be no significance in praising Ruth for not marrying outside the family.21 In light of this complexity, I wish to define the scene thus: From a legal perspective, Boaz’s marriage to Ruth cannot be defined as an act of levirate marriage, but from a literary perspective, the scene is unmistakably designed to evoke the act of levirate marriage.22 His exchange of words and gestures with the closer redeeming kinsman mimics the motions of a ritual shoe-removal ceremony, while it is in fact a voluntary transaction that merely evokes such a ceremony. He does so not out of legal obligation, but out of kindness. Consistent with the underlying moral themes in Ruth, this final scene deals with the tension between the letter and the spirit of the law: once again, the characters act out of kindness that teases the law out of its rigid boundaries, fulfilling not the legal act itself, but the governing spirit behind it. Ruth has cast her previous life away in order to accompany Naomi; Boaz, in appreciation of this sacrifice, has extended the charity law of gleaning into a kindness beyond the widows’ wildest dreams; and here, in the final scene, the kindness shown by both protagonists continues to increase exponentially: Boaz adopts and adapts a deuteronomical law, and through this expansion, founds the most enduring dynasty of the house of Israel.

the Old Testament [New York: Meridian, 1956] 455; A. Hurwitz, “On the Term ‫ שלף נעל‬in Ruth 4:7,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 1 [1975] 45–49 [Heb.]; Gow, Ruth, 77–78). However, it is just as likely that the author of Ruth himself added this explanation (Campbell, Ruth, 149; Zakovitch, Ruth, 182). 21 Segal, Tradition, 182. 22 Sasson expresses this similarly, Ruth, 135; Bahar, “Difference,” 71–85.

260

Before the Law (4:1–12)

Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today

Ruth’s voice is not heard in chap. 4, although her presence is the backdrop of the entire scene.1 Her voice no longer needs to be heard. At the threshing-floor, she passed the reins over to Boaz, and the responsibility to deal with her affairs now rests upon his shoulders. In the previous scene, she was accepted into Boaz and Naomi’s nation from a spiritual and social perspective. Only after this acceptance does the author begin to settle matters on the legal front. This encounter with the law is the final obstacle Ruth must face in order to become fully integrated into the Israelite community.

Gathering at the Gate (1–2) The scene of redemption opens with a description of Boaz’s arrival at the gate: “And Boaz went up to the gate and sat there (‫( )וישב שם‬4:1). This description draws a parallel with Ruth, who Naomi bids “Sit, my daughter” (3:18) at the end of the previous chapter. This parallel is reinforced as the narrator places the subject before the predicate, writing “‫ ”ובעז עלה לשער‬rather than the more common order wherein the verb

1

M. Bal defines this chapter as “a masculine chapter” as Naomi’s voice is also absent from this scene (“Heroism and Proper Names, or the Fruits of Analogy,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 51–52. Her distinction is correct, although, as we will see in at the chapter’s end, the townswomen bless her with a “feminine blessing” that differs from the blessing of the elders at the gate.

is placed before the subject, “‫”ויעל בעז לשער‬.2 Ruth is sitting and waiting, just as Boaz sits and waits. The analogy of their actions, however, also underscores the difference between them: both have spent the night upon the threshing-floor, but Ruth is sitting inside her mother-in-law’s house, whereas Boaz is sitting by the town gate.3 Thus, this scene reverts to the traditional gender roles of the ancient world, with the man dealing with legal affairs while the women sit at home and wait. In the context of the entire narrative, however, this final scene emphasizes to what extent the plot, as a whole, deviates from these gender norms, for the reader knows that it is Ruth and her midnight venture to the threshing floor that has led Boaz to the gate in the morning. There is therefore some irony in the masculine assembly at the gate, as the women whose initiative led to this gathering sit at home, unseen and unheard.4 It is unclear if Boaz goes to the gate because he expects to see the closer redeemer there,5 or if he is eager to complete the redemption as soon as possible, and there is no better place to do so than the gate where the town elders and judges sit.6 Beyond the plot itself, his ascent to the gate has symbolic value. The gate is a threshold which symbolizes Ruth’s entrance into the community as a legally recognized citizen of Bethlehem (and, as we will see later, the deceased Mahlon also merits to 2 3

4 5 6

For a discussion of this style of writing and its significance, see: T. O. Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Darton Longman and Todd, 1971) 163–65. If in 3:15, Boaz is the one who arrives at the town (‫ויבוא‬, rather than ‫ותבוא‬, which would indicate Ruth’s arrival), then Boaz does not go directly to the gate, but passes through the town first, presumably going to his home (Hubbard, Ruth, 232, comment 5). This is immaterial to the contrast created between the characters. Compare: P. Trible, “A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth,” Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon, 1982; vol. 2) 182. Zakovitch, Ruth, 103. T. M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy (SBLMS 55; Atlanta: Scholar’s, 2001) 279; V. H. Matthews, Judges and Ruth (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 239. In fact, his decision to go to the gate may result from a combination of both of these reasons (as Hubbard suggests, Ruth, 232–33).

262

reenter the gate of his hometown). From the reader’s perspective, Ruth is already accepted when Boaz promises to see her redemption through; now, her acceptance is about to receive legal recognition. The narrator’s language, “and behold, the redeemer who Boaz had spoken of passed by” (4:1), suggests that something unexpected is occurring, with “behold” (‫ )והנה‬being a keyword of surprise.7 His appearance, however, is no doubt anticipated by the reader, for Boaz approaches the gate for the very purpose of meeting him. Thus, there is disparity between the content and the form of the story – the narrator presents the meeting of Boaz and the redeemer as a chance encounter, just as Ruth “happens” to arrive in Boaz’s field (2:3–4), and just as Boaz “happens” to visit his field when she was there – “Just then (‫)והנה‬, Boaz arrived from Bethlehem” (2:4). The emphasis on this coincidence alerts the reader to the orchestration of divine providence. Even if there is no great surprise at the redeemer’s appearance, the narrator prefers presenting events thus. Like in the field scene, providence brings the characters together – it is now up to them to determine how the plot will evolve.8 Boaz’s words to the redeemer and the elders reveal much about his status at the gate – he tells them what to do, and they follow. A comparison of his orders and their execution leaves no room for doubt: And he said: Turn back and sit here, Peloni Almoni and he turned back and sat. And he said: Sit here, and they sat (4:1–2). No one questions him, but does as he says. 7 8

Berlin suggests that the function of the word “‫ ”והנה‬in chap. 4 is to mark the shift to Boaz’s perspective (A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [Sheffield: Almond, 1983] 92). Compare to the language of the midrash: “And behold, the redeemer passes before the gate that Boaz spoke of… even if he had been at the other end of the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have transported him and brought him there in order that that same righteous man [i.e. Boaz] would not have to sit and regret his waiting…Rabbi Eliezer says: Boaz did his part, Ruth did her part, Naomi did her part, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said, I too will do my part” (Ruth Rabbah, 7:8).

263

Boaz speaks more extensively to the redeemer than to the elders, bidding him not only to “sit here” (‫ )שבה פה‬but to turn back (‫)סורה‬, as well as referring to him as ‫פלוני אלמוני‬. Boaz’s longer command is a result of his special interest in this character. Moreover, the actual words he uses are intriguing: the verb “turn back” (‫ )סורה… ויסר‬literally means to “turn aside from one’s course,”9 and takes on the figurative meaning of “stray” in the context of behavior, such as “he should not consider himself above his brothers, and should not stray from what he has been commanded” (Deut 17:20); “he did not stray from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nevat” (2 Kgs 13:11), and many more.10 The connotations of this verb anticipate that events will unfold as a distinctly legal scene, but that this scene is colored by motives that transcend the reach of the law. Boaz indeed expects the redeemer to turn aside, to stray from his normal path.11 Even more intriguing is the wordplay that conceals the redeemer’s true name. The narrator could have easily relied on pronouns, thus avoiding his name altogether (‘and he said to him, Turn back and sit here / and he turned back and sat’) without missing a beat. However, the narrator insists on relating that Boaz called him by name, and pointedly omits this name from the text. Many have rightly commented that this omission fulfills the principle of “measure for measure,” (‫ – )מידה כנגד מידה‬the redeemer refuses to resurrect the name of the dead, and hence his own name is erased from the text.12 J. A. Thompson-Elmer and A. Martens, “‫סור‬,” NIDOTTE 3.238. See also: HAL, 748; S. Schwertner, “swr,” THAT 2.149; M. Z. Kaddari, Complete Academic Biblical Hebrew Dictionary (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006) 751–52 (Heb.). 10 Thompson-Elmer and Martens, “‫ ;”סור‬Kaddari, Dictionary, ibid. 11 There is room here to debate whether this contains an allusion to the story of Yael and Sisera: “And she said to him, Turn, my lord, turn to me, do not fear, and he turned to her into her tent” (Judg 4:18). I am torn, despite the fact that in the Bible, this verb only appears in imperative form in these two cases, and that the story of Yael is also pertinent to the attitude towards foreign women (see also: J. Grossman, “Ruth Versus the Gibeonites,” Or Ha-mizrah 49 (2004) 139–151 [Heb.]). 12 As Rashi already noted ibid., and similarly: P. Trible, “Two Women in a Man’s World: A Reading of the Book of Ruth,” Soundings 59 (1976) 273; C. M. Carmichael, “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture 9

264

However, the etymological meaning of “‫ ”פלוני אלמוני‬has literary value in itself. Most scholars agree that the root of the word “‫”פלוני‬ is probably “‫הפלייה‬,” which is related to the word ‫פלא‬, “wonder” – connoting one who is different, who stands apart.13 The second half of his appellation is “‫אלמוני‬,” which means “anonymous,” presumably derived from the word “‫אילמת‬,” “silence,” hiding one’s identity.14 This etymology is relevant to the scene before us, for Ruth, an outsider, a foreigner, is about to be legally recognized, acknowledged as a member of the community. This family member’s refusal to redeem her denies her admittance into the community, condemning her to remain an outsider forever. By labeling him as ‫פלוני אלמוני‬, the author brands him with the fate he would have allotted to Ruth.15 The verb “to sit” (‫ )לשבת‬is particularly noticeable in the opening of this scene, describing the actions of Boaz himself, (“and he sat there”), his words to the redeemer and his consent (“Sit here… and he sat there”), and his words to the elders and their consent (“Sit here, and they sat there”). Hubbard suggests that this verb has legal significance, and this might well explain their wordless acquiescence, as they sit, anticipating Boaz’s words and the legal case he is about to

of Contempt,” JBL 96 (1977) 335; A. Reinhartz, ‘Why Ask my Name?’: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) 20; M. Carasik, The Bible’s Many Voices (Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 2014), 226. 13 As Rashi already noted (“an expression of “‫)”כי יפלא‬. See: BDB, 311–12; G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1965) 35. 14 Many suggest this, among them: W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1962) 59; Gerlemann, Ruth, 35; Hubbard, Ruth, 233, comment 10; Zakovitch, Ruth, 103. Bal suggests that the redeemer’s anonymity describes Boaz’s attitude towards him: he hides information from him, and is not interested in his participation in the legal process – in a sense, Boaz is denying his existence (Heroism, 58). 15 Linafelt suggests that the ring of “Peloni Almoni” (‫פלוני אלמוני‬, anonymous redeemer) echoes the names of Naomi’s dead sons – Mahlon and Chilion (T. Linafelt, Ruth [Berit Olam Series: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Minnesota: Liturgical 1989] 5, 65). I find this claim doubtful, although if he is indeed correct, then the sting of the redeemer’s refusal to marry Ruth is more pronounced.

265

present to them.16 Moreover, this repetition has literary value, as “to sit,” the root ‫ ישב‬, is one of the Leitwort in the narrative, particularly in contrast with the root ‫שוב‬, to return, which immediately follows the description of the elders being seated: “Naomi, who has returned (‫ )השבה‬from the fields of Moab” (4:3). This is the final appearance of this pair of Leitwort in the narrative.17 As I discuss in the introduction, these two words are contrasting: to return indicates movement, while to sit indicates stability. At the beginning of the final scene, Boaz and the elders sitting at the gate hints at the closure of the entire plot: the women’s instability is at an end, and their permanent home in Bethlehem is about to be established. Why did Boaz take ten elders? This number may well be a typological symbol of wholeness.18 This number also appears in chap. 1, as the number of years the family spent in Moab (1:4).19 However, in this context, ten is the number that symbolizes the publicity of Boaz’s forum. As many have commented, in the Bible, the minimum number of people required to constitute a community or a public seems to be ten,20 as emerges, for example, from Abraham’s debate with God on the 16 Hubbard, Ruth, 236. See also Bahar, “Difference,” 83, on the relationship between “sitting” (‫ )ישיבה‬in this chapter and “standing” (‫ )עמידה‬in context of the law of ritual shoe removal in Deuteronomy 25:8. 17 In the townswomen’s words to Naomi in 4:14–15, the sound/letter combination “shev” (‫ )שב‬is prominent, albeit with a different meaning than that of the root “‫”ישב‬: Blessed is the Lord who has not withheld (‫ )השבית‬a redeemer from you today…he will renew (‫ )משיב‬your life and sustain your old age (‫…)שיבתך‬ better to you than seven (‫ )משבעת‬sons” (Campbell, Ruth, 164; B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 [1978] 47). This only emphasizes the fact that two of the key verbs of the book of Ruth, ‫ישב‬, to dwell, and ‫שוב‬, to return, are not used here. 18 Zakovitch, Ruth, 103. 19 There may be significance in pointing out that the two places the number ten features in the narrative are here, when ten elders sit at the gate, and at the beginning of the first chapter, which describes the family’s sojourning for ten years in Moab; the ten years which resulted in their death can be compared with the presence of the ten elders who propel the plot towards life and continuity (compare: Linafelt, Ruth, 103). 20 J. B. Segal, “Numerals in the Old Testament,” JSS 10 (1965) 5. He first shows how the number ten is a recurring motif in relation to gifts (2 Sam 17:17; 1 Kgs

266

eve of Sodom’s destruction, when both parties agree that if there are ten righteous people in the city, it will not be destroyed (Gen 18:32).21 As Boaz wishes to instigate a legal process with significant communal bearing, he must receive public recognition and consent. Ten elders represent the public ruling: their consent to Ruth’s marriage will represent Ruth’s legal admission into the Bethlehem community.

The First Dialogue – the Redeemer Consents to Redeem the Field (3–4) With Boaz’s opening words, the reader recoils in surprise. Until now, the subject at hand has been Ruth’s security (‫ )מנוחה‬through marriage, and chap. 3 concluded with the reader’s expectation that Boaz will spread his wing over her. As expected, Boaz approaches the gate the very next morning, but opens with a discussion of a field that belongs to Naomi. Not only is there no explanation of the connection between the field in question and Ruth, but this is the first time the reader hears of this field. Moreover, between Naomi’s lament upon her return to Bethlehem, and Ruth’s venture to Boaz’s field to glean, the reader is

14:3, among others). He also claims that “10 was the smallest effective group, not only of inanimate things, but also of persons, among the Israelites.” In this context, he brings our story, along with other stories, as examples (Judg 6:27; 1 Sam 25:5; 2 Sam 15:6 [and again: 20;3]; 18:15). 21 Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (A Continental Commentary; trans. by J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 292; N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS; Philadelphia, New York and Jerusalem, 1989) 134. For a range of opinions on this issue, see: J. Blenkinsopp, “Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom,” JJS 33 (1982) 123. In light of this, H. Haag („Die Biblischen Wurzeln des Minjan, “in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel, Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60 Geburtstag [ed. O. Betz et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1963] 235–242) also argues that the root of the Jewish law that mandates that at least ten men (a minyan) must be present in order to constitute communal prayer can be found in the Bible itself.

267

under the impression that Naomi has no land to speak of.22 In an attempt to solve this problem, Tod Linafelt proposes that, indeed, Naomi owned no land, and Boaz fabricates the entire discussion in order to bring up the question of Ruth’s redemption casually: “while everyone is focused on the noble duties of land-redemption, Boaz can slip in the fact that he is also “acquiring” Ruth.”23 This reading would pose a great risk to Boaz, however, for, assuming that the field’s existence was not challenged in the first place, if the redeemer would have agreed to marry Ruth, then Boaz’s fabrication would have been revealed. While this reading is innovative, and solves the problems that arise from the field’s sudden appearance in the text, it is not convincing; the characterization of Boaz is incongruent with a conspiracy of this sort. Moreover, when Boaz declares that he will take Ruth for a wife, he again mentions “all that belongs to Chilion and Mahlon” and their “portion” of land (‫ )נחלה‬upon which Mahlon’s name will be resurrected (4:9–10).24 22 H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973) 15; Campbell, Ruth, 157; R. Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Customary Law,” in A Light unto My Path (ed. H. Bream, R. Heim and C. Moore; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974) 254; Rudolph, Ruth, 66; F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther (WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996) 212. A legal problem, which some scholars have commented upon, is that according to biblical law, a widow does not inherit her husband’s land, and it is therefore unclear why Elimelech’s field was under Naomi’s ownership, rather than in her husband’s kinsman’s hands. It seems that in ancient Israel, a childless widow was entitled to keep her husband’s property until her death, after which her husband’s kinsmen would inherit (T. C. Eskenazi, “Out From the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era,” JSOT 54 (1992) 25–43 (see also: P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique [Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953] 5; Z. Valk, “The Right of Inheritance of a Daughter and Widow in Bible and Talmud,” Tarbiz 23 (1952) 14–15 [Heb.]). 23 Linafelt, Ruth, 67. 24 H. H. Rowley suggests a similar, more subtle reading in “The Marriage of Ruth,” The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1952) 175, as does Campbell, Ruth, 158. In their opinion, Naomi does not know what field Boaz is talking about, although this field does exist. This solves the problem of why it is not related to the reader that Naomi wants to redeem this field. According to this reading, Boaz is not taking a great risk, for

268

If Naomi’s field indeed exists, then why is it mentioned here for the first time? What is the narrative effect of Boaz’s sudden discussion of land-redemption and the postponement of the discussion of Ruth’s marriage that the reader is waiting impatiently to hear?25 Raphael Patai suggests that the custom of levirate marriage can be seen as an extension of the laws of inheritance: When a son dies childless, his brother inherits his lands, and as part of the deceased brother’s assets, he also “inherits” his wife, that is, “he has the right and the duty to marry the widow.”26 Patai proves this from our scene, as Boaz links the right to redeem the field to the marriage of Ruth. According to this approach, the redemption of the field is mentioned for the first time together with the redemption of Ruth because these two discussions come under one “legal file.”27 Ilana Pardes proposes that the field appears for the first time at the gate scene as a symbol of Naomi’s renewed acclimatization in Bethlehem: “Just as the absence of this piece of land up until this point coincides with Naomi’s initial sense of homelessness, so its appearance in the happy ending reveals the change in Naomi’s feelings towards

there is a field that can be sold, although Boaz himself indeed invented the fact that it was for sale. 25 In fact, much of the reader’s surprise at the sudden mention of the field is related to the reader’s understanding of the term “redeemer,” which has already featured in chaps 2 and 3. Since, in biblical law, this term is also related to the purchase of one’s fields by one’s own family, it may be posited that the reader expects Boaz to be the redeemer, to be the one who redeems family property that had been purchased by a stranger for whatever reason (see: H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth (ATD 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1969) 280; Joüon, Ruth, 81; Hubbard, Ruth, 238). However, as mentioned above, the term “redeemer” is also a synonym for a family member, and in the context of the narrative, the reader can sense the implied responsibility that this anonymous kinsman has to marry Ruth through the fact that he is referred to as “the redeemer.” 26 R. Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible and the Middle East (New York: Doubleday, 1959) 98–99. 27 See also: Bal, “Heroism,” 56–59.

269

Judea.”28 It is no coincidence that a presumably neglected piece of land is claimed by a new owner at the same time that Ruth is acquired by a new husband. Fertility of man and soil are entwined in the narrative, and the field is a reflection of Ruth herself: both have lain fallow, and both are set to be sown with the family seed. Whether Ruth is connected to Naomi’s field from a legal perspective or on a symbolic level, Boaz’s sudden mention of the field adds a dramatic twist to the plot. In order to understand the literary function that this field serves in the narrative, let us analyze his declaration. His words can be divided into two parts: firstly, he describes the field in question, and then he moves on, raising the issue he promised to deal with upon the threshing-floor. The first part of his words contains an inner chiasm:29 a. The portion of field b. That belonged to our brother Elimelech b’. Has been sold by Naomi a’. who has returned from the field of Moab

This structure hints at the contrast between the two characters and the two “fields.” At the heart of Boaz’s words, Elimelech is presented in parallel to Naomi. Elimelech, who was kinsman (“our brother”) of both Boaz and the redeemer, is mentioned first, for this “fraternity” is what lies at the heart of this redemption. However, as Linafelt rightly comments, the mention of Elimelech before Naomi lends certain chronology to his words.30 Elimelech belongs to the past: once, he had a field. Now, he is no more, and the matter at hand deals with Naomi, who wishes to sell (or has sold) this field. The more interesting parallel he raises pits Elimelech’s field against the fields of Moab. The irony is clear: Elimelech left his home and field in Bethlehem in order to find sustenance in the fields of Moab. Now, while Bethlehem is blooming once again, his wife has been forced to 28 I. Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 114–15. 29 Linafelt, Ruth, 65–66. 30 Linafelt, ibid.

270

sell his field in order to survive. Perhaps, if his field can be redeemed, his problematic decision to leave his field behind, the decision which led to so much untimely death and suffering, can also be corrected. Boaz refers to Elimelech as “our brother” as a general expression of blood relation (perhaps they are cousins?),31 but this also serves to raise connotations of the law of levirate marriage, which, according to Deuteronomy 25, applies to brothers. Although the case before us deviates from the classic deuteronomical legal situation, the author already begins to color the scene with levirate associations.32 Boaz’s use of the past tense, that Naomi “has sold,” (‫ )מכרה‬her plot of land, has generated much debate among scholars. Presumably, Boaz offers the field to the redeemer only now (4:5), and he eventually buys it “from Naomi’s hand” (4:9), so his use of past tense is puzzling. Theoretically, this expression can be understood in one of two contradictory ways: either the phrase “has sold” does not refer to a previous sale, but to the sale at hand – that is, she is “about to sell,”33 or the narrator’s use of the phrase “from Naomi’s hand” does not actually refer to Naomi herself, but to a third party who already bought the 31 As opposed to Morris, who claims that Boaz referring to Elimelech as his “brother” here is an expression of closeness, of friendship, but not of actual blood relation (L. Morris, Judges and Ruth [TOTC; London: Tyndale, 1968] 299). In the Babylonian Talmud, B. Bat (91.) it states that the anonymous redeemer and Elimelech were brothers: “Rav Hanan the son of Rava said in the name of Rav: Elimelech and Salmon and the anonymous redeemer and the father of Naomi were all the sons of Nahshon the son of Aminadab.” This opinion was adopted by E. Lipinski, “Le Mariage de Ruth,” VT 26 (1978) 126–127. 32 See also: Gow, Ruth, 172. 33 For a form of past tense that also serves as present tense, see: B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 30.5.1c. Some have interpreted it thus, among them: Campbell, Ruth, 144; Sasson, Ruth, 114; Hubbard, Ruth, 239. As they comment, a similar style can be detected in Abraham’s words to Ephron: “I will give money for the field, take it from me” (Gen 23:11). Some argue that, in order to show this, the verb ought to be vocalized ‫( מוֹכְרָה‬Rudolph, Ruth, 65–66; Hertzberg, Ruth, 277), although past tense may be used when referring to an action that is about to be carried out, especially when the speaker wishes to emphasize its imminence. (Compare: Gerlemann, Ruth, 35; Joüon, Ruth, 81).

271

field from Naomi (or perhaps even from Elimelech upon their departure to Moab),34 and now the family wishes to “redeem” the field in order to restore the family land.35 The advantage of the latter reading (that the field has already been sold) is that the term “redemption” is in dialogue with Leviticus 25 (25–28), which deals with a field that has already been sold that the family wishes to “redeem.” However, Boaz specifically states that Naomi, not Elimelech, “‫ ”מכרה‬the field, and moreover, the first reading is more appropriate in the context of the story: Naomi is about to sell the field, and indeed, Boaz shortly purchases the field “from Naomi’s hand.” In this light, there is room to debate whether Boaz’s use of past tense in his description of Naomi’s sale of her lands has special literary significance. It may be that this is simply a form of legal discourse which indicates that a certain event is about to take place,36 but it seems that the shifting perspectives in time play an important role in this scene, as this phenomenon repeats itself in Boaz’s next words: “And I thought (‫ )אמרתי‬to disclose to you, saying” (4:4). Here, too, there has been much debate regarding the verb ‫אמרתי‬, which is in past tense, although Boaz is only saying these words now. Some have proposed to read this as “I thought I should disclose the matter to you” (JPS),37 while others argue that again, his words are to be understood 34 As Brichto proposes, “Kin,” 14–15. Similarly, Gordis suggests that what is at stake is not the sale of the field itself, but the right to redeem the field (“Love,” 252–59). The field itself has already been sold, but now the right to redeem it is being purchased from “Naomi’s hand.” 35 A broad discussion of this issue, including a summary of the different positions can be found in Sasson, Ruth, 108–11. 36 As Hubbard surmises (Ruth, 239). As I mention above, this language is also used in the legal dialogue that precedes Abraham’s purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs. 37 As I mention above, in the discussion of the supervising boy’s words to Boaz (2:6–7), the verb “say” (‫ )אמר‬in biblical narrative may mean “thought” or “intended” (BDB, 56; HALOT, 4, 66). Among those who interpret this thus are: Segal, Tradition, 116 (he compares thus to Jeremiah’s redemption of Hanamel’s field – Jer 32); Joüon, Ruth, 81; Campbell, Ruth, 144; Bush, Ruth, 205; A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. by K. C. Hanson), Continental Commentaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 128.

272

in the present tense, despite the fact that the past tense is used.38 If the latter is correct, then two consecutive instances of tense volatility demands explanation. It seems that Boaz’s language is calculated to move the redeemer into action with their imminence, their urgency. Naomi is desperately trying to sell her field, but the redeemer, her husband’s closest kinsman, is not playing his part. This is Boaz’s pretext in gathering the elders – Naomi’s welfare rests upon the redeemer’s shoulders, but as no action has been taken on his part, Boaz is wondering whether he ought to take his place. Boaz is a man of action – he commands, and others immediately obey his orders.39 Boaz’s manipulation of tense, his play between the past and the immediate future, implies what he has not said explicitly: the moment can be seized, and the past can be restored to life, if action is only taken: the name of the dead can be resurrected. The author is fond of active characters, characters who take initiative – as the theology of the book of Ruth dictates, redemption is born of human action.40 Jack Sasson surmises that the expression “I will disclose to you” (‫)אגלה אזניך‬, which literally means, “I will reveal your ear” is an ancient expression based on the legal gesture of “uncover[ing] his ears by either parting his hair or his kaffiyeh” before speaking.41 Hubbard proposes that as this expression elsewhere in the Bible refers to secret information (1 Sam 20:2; 12–13; 22:8; 17), the “uncovering of the listener’s ears” reveals precisely how these secrets were relayed: the 38 Sasson, Ruth, 115–16; Hubbard, Ruth, 239. 39 As mentioned above, in my discussion of 2:9, this is already evident in chap. 2, when he assures Ruth that “I have commanded the boys not to touch you”: he has not yet given orders, but once he does, they will be instantly obeyed (see chap. 2, footnote 88). 40 The transition from the past to the future is also expressed through Boaz’s use of first and second person. He opens with the field that belonged to Elimelech, which is now being sold by Naomi, but immediately involves the redeemer – “I thought to disclose to you;” I stand before you; “buy” (‫ )קנה‬is shortly followed by “I come after you.” In one sweeping motion, Boaz brings the problems of the past into the present, establishing a connection between their deceased kinsman and the role it is up to them to play. Compare: E. van Wolde, Ruth and Naomi (trans. by J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1997) 96. 41 Sasson, Ruth, 116.

273

ears were uncovered so the secret could be whispered directly into them.42 This interpretation seems incongruous with our story. What secret, exactly, is Boaz referring to? His ensuing words do not reveal any information at all, rather, they propose action: “Acquire [it] before those sitting here, and before the elders of my people” (4:4).43 Moreover, the expression “reveal your ear” recalls a similar expression that appears twice in the scene at the threshing-floor: Ruth reveals Boaz’s feet (3:4,7).44 Boaz’s feet were revealed the night before, and the redeemer’s ears are revealed now. Symbolically, the contrast between these two exposures reflects a more profound difference between the two potential suitors and their involvement with Ruth: Boaz’s relationship with Ruth develops from the inside out: in the intimacy of night, Ruth uncovers his feet, and now Boaz approaches the gate to make their relationship public and official. In contrast, the redeemer undergoes a more conventional process: first, he hears of a possible relationship, and he may choose to redeem the field and Ruth; she will “uncover his feet” only if he chooses to redeem her.45 In the end, it is the nonconventional, informal process that triumphs: from the uncovering of Boaz’s feet to the town gate. For now, Boaz does not use the verb “to redeem,” (‫ )לגאול‬but “to acquire,” (‫)לקנות‬: As Naomi is “selling,” the redeemer must “acquire” it before “those sitting” and “before the elders.”46 Here, he refers to the elders who he sought out and sat down at the beginning of the scene (4:2),47 and the double expression suggests that his audience plays two 42 Hubbard, Ruth, 240, comment 23. 43 Bush, Ruth, 205–06 (who because of this, claims that the expression cannot be interpreted as the revealing of a secret). 44 Compare: Sasson, Ruth, 116; E. Strouse and B. Porten, “A Reading of Ruth,” Commentary 67 (1979) 67. 45 Compare: 1 Sam 25:24. 46 The expression “the elders of my people” echoes Boaz’s words to Ruth at the threshing-floor: “For all the elders of my town known that you are a valiant woman,” Now, the time has come for “the elders of his people” to confirm this apparent admiration with action (although at this point in the scene, Ruth has not yet been mentioned). 47 In the opinion of: Joüon, Ruth, 82; Campbell, Ruth, 145; and as opposed to those who argue that “elders of my people” and “those who sit” are two

274

roles: “the elders” represent the townspeople, and those “sitting” represent the court, the witnesses for this transaction. Boaz seeks Ruth’s acceptance from a legal perspective, but, no less important, from a social perspective as well. Only after the initial mention of the sale of Naomi’s field does the verb “redeem” flood the text like a burst dam: “If you will redeem, then redeem, but if he will not redeem, tell me, that I may know. For there is no one to redeem but you, and I come after you” (4:4). This verb is striking not only because of its intensive repetition, but because it replaces the first verb Boaz uses – “redeem” replaces “acquire.” Note that each instance of the word “redeem” refers to the redeemer’s action, not those of Boaz himself – while his sentence appears to be symmetrical, presenting two different choices (“if you will redeem…if he will not redeem”), it emerges that, at least in reference to the word “redeem,” there is no symmetry at all. Referring to the redeemer, Boaz says, “if you will redeem, then redeem,” but referring to himself, he does not say, as expected, “tell me, and I will redeem,” but “tell me, and I will know.” (4:4) His final use of the word is also directed at the redeemer, “for there is no one to redeem but you,” and about himself, merely adds that “I am after you,” rather than “I am after you to redeem.” This already hints that Boaz does not merely wish to position himself as an alternative to the redeemer, should he not wish to redeem. As we will shortly see, Boaz is transforming the technical, formal act of redemption in this scene into an act of much broader implications. Further asymmetry is reflected in Boaz’s use of first, second and third person (according to the Masoretic text). When Boaz presents the option of the closer kinsman agreeing to redeem the field, he addresses him in second person: “if you will redeem, then redeem,” whereas he describes the redeemer’s potential refusal in third person: “if he will not redeem, then tell me.” While this may well have been the result of scribal error, and the versions which use second person

separate groups of people (Rudolph, Ruth, 59; Morris, Ruth, 303). It is unlikely that Boaz would mention the curious onlookers (“those who sit”) before the council of the distinguished elders of Bethlehem (“the elders of my people”).

275

in both cases may be correct,48 the use of the third person creates a distancing effect, hinting that the redeemer’s refusal will be seen in a negative light. Thus, the use of third person may have been intentional: considering the redeemer’s refusal, Boaz reverts to a more formal, distant style of speech.49 The two options Boaz places before the redeemer refer back to his words to Ruth upon the threshing-floor: Boaz to Ruth at the threshing-floor (3:13) If he will redeem you, good, he will redeem you and if he does not desire to redeem you, then I will redeem you.

Boaz to the redeemer (4:4) If you will redeem, then redeem but if he will not redeem, tell me, that I may know. For there is no one to redeem but you, and I come after you.

A comparison of these two statements reveals a preference Boaz does not openly admit to: while he reassures Ruth that if the redeemer indeed agrees to marry her, it is a “good” option, he takes care not 48 As documented in some versions of the Masoretic text and in all ancient translations. In light of this, most scholars favor the second person here, for example: Campbell, Ruth, 139; Bush, Ruth, 209; Hubbard, Ruth, 237; Zakovitch, Ruth, 105; K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary , (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 82. A. B. Ehrlich, Mikra KiPheshuto (reprinted, New York: Ktav, 1969) 402 (Heb.), and Rudolph (Ruth, 59) surmise that this word was written as a side comment and was only incorporated fully into the text at a later stage, which is highly unlikely. Jack Sasson suggests that Boaz turns to address the elders in the middle of his speech, saying to them: “and if he will not redeem,” and then Boaz turns back to the redeemer and continues, “tell me” (Sasson, Ruth, 118, and see also LaCocque, Ruth, 129). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra explains the use of the third person as an indefinite subject: “and if the redeemer will not redeem it (‫( ”…)ואם לא יגאל הגואל אותה‬in his commentary on Ruth 4:4). 49 See more examples of the third person used to create a formal effect: Gen 41:10; 44:19; 1 Kgs 21). LaCocque (Ruth, 129) comments that Boaz’s use of third person links his speech directly to the legal discourse of field redemption in Leviticus: “and if it is not redeemed (‫( )אם לא יִגָּאֵל‬Lev 25:30, 54), and this may explain why the author chose to use the third person. However, it is questionable why the author does not use the Niphal verb structure, in order to strengthen this intertextuality.

276

to encourage the redeemer (and omits the word “good”),50 rather, he focuses on the second option by discussing it at length, lingering on the thought of the redeemer refusing to redeem.51 The connection between the scene at the threshing-floor and the final scene emphasizes the central surprise of the gate scene. Ruth asks Boaz to redeem her (3:9) and in response, Boaz promises to see her redemption through (3:12). While the word redemption is repeated again and again, the reader receives no hint that there is a field to be redeemed as well. While the definition of Boaz as a “redeemer” may hint at his family duty towards the family land, from both the exchange at the threshing-floor and in Ruth and Naomi’s conversation afterwards, it transpires that he is a kinsman who has no discernible duty towards the family land. At the gate, Boaz echoes his own words in 3:13, but he says them in relation to the redemption of Naomi’s field, not to Ruth. This substitution is inherently related to Boaz’s reinterpretation of the law that takes place in this scene, a process which unfolds during his second address to the redeemer. The narrator does not relay the redeemer’s motives, but only his agreement: “And he said: I will redeem” (4:4). The narrator does not dwell upon whether he feels compelled to agree due to local custom; whether he has personal interests in acquiring Naomi’s field; or whether he agrees out of compassion for the bereaved widow; rather, he progresses immediately to the most climactic moment of the scene: to Boaz’s second speech, when he finally brings Ruth into the picture.

50 Zakovitch, Ruth, 105. 51 Compare: M. Bal, “Heroism and Proper Names, Or the Fruits of Analogy,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 58.

277

The Second Dialogue – From Redemption to Acquisition (5–8) Boaz’s words to the redeemer are awkward and difficult to understand, and our version of the text may contain errors that affect the meaning of the entire verse. In order to reach (what I consider to be) the most accurate interpretation, we must take into account that Boaz’s words move the anonymous redeemer to retract his agreement to redeem the field, which allows us to make two assumptions: firstly, that Boaz presents information that was unknown to the redeemer when he consented to redeem the field; and secondly, that this information threatens the redeemer in some way. Beattie suggests that the redeemer initially agrees to Boaz’s offer because there are no more sons in Elimelech’s line, so he is sure that the field will remain his forever, but once he hears that Boaz is planning to marry Ruth (Beattie adopts the Kethiv version, “Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, I will have acquired (‫ ”)קניתי‬he withdraws his offer,52 as redeeming Elimelech’s field will not be a worthwhile investment if Boaz should have children.53 This reading explains why the redeemer withdraws his offer, but it does not explain the redeemer’s ensuing words: “lest I destroy (‫ )אשחית‬my own estate” (4:6). This reply does not refer to mere monetary loss, but “destruction” – a verb which raises connotations of ruin, or religious or moral corruption (like in: Gen 6:11; Exod 32:7; Ezek 20:44): “The word is a very strong one. It means to ruin suddenly, spoil, corrupt.”54 The accepted reading of this 52 The accepted position in scholarship adopts the Qere version. For readings that favor the Kethiv, see: Rowley, “The Marriage of Ruth,” 185, comment 1; Rudolph, Ruth, 59. A (partial) defense of the Kethiv version is offered by Bush, Ruth, 218–219. 53 D. R. G. Beattie, “Kethibh and Qere in Ruth IV 5,” VT 21 (1971) 490–494; D. R. G. Beattie, “Ruth III,” JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48. Linafelt phrases this similarly: Boaz says to the redeemer that the day that he – the redeemer – will purchase the field, he – Boaz – will acquire Ruth as a wife (Linafelt, Ruth, 68). 54 A. P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 1: Psalms 1–41 (Kregel Exegetical Library series; Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic and Professional, 2011) 376. See also BDB, 1007–08.

278

verse considers that Boaz’s introduction of Ruth as part of the deal (in order to “perpetuate the name of the deceased on his estate,” 5) is the new information which deters the redeemer from purchasing the field.55 The word “from” (‫ )מאת‬implies that Ruth is also the seller of the field, alongside Naomi; and she is also being acquired, alongside the field. Ruth’s complex involvement in this contract has a dramatic effect upon the entire legal discussion: the issue at hand is no longer a mere question of property staying within the family, but the reestablishment of the name of the deceased on his own property: Boaz’ words are seen to be very carefully chosen. Up to this point he has spoken only of Elimelech and Naomi in relation to the field, but now in verse 5 he points out that Ruth also is an interested party, because she is the wife of the

55 Many read Boaz’s words as if he had said “And also Ruth the Moabite… you shall acquire,” rather than “and from Ruth the Moabite” (like: Ehrlich, Mikra KiPheshuto,402; Gray, Ruth, 380; Hubbard, Ruth, 243, comment 8. And see also D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (New York: Mack Publishing, 1974) 224, comment 53). Similarly, Gow suggests adding a mappiq in the ‫ ה‬at the end of Boaz’s speech referring to Ruth: ‫“ – ּקניתה‬you shall acquire her” (M. D. Gow, “The Significance of Literary Structure for the Translation of the Book of Ruth,” BT 35 (1984) 309–320. Alternately, Boaz’s words can be read thus: “On the day you acquire the field from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you acquire the wife of the deceased,” in order – herein lies the change – “to establish the name of the dead upon his property.” Boaz’s concluding words imply that the redeemer must also acquire Ruth, for otherwise, the name of the dead will not be reestablished. This is reflected in several translations, such as “Then Boaz said, ‘On the day you buy the land from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, you acquire the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.” (NIV); “Boaz continued, ‘When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate.” (JPS). This translation was criticized by Gow (“Translation,” 302–03), and Bush (Ruth, 216–17). Bush’s criticism, that it is difficult to assume that there are two holders of rights connected with the purchase of the field, is not convincing, as that is Boaz’s very claim. Bringing Ruth into the picture is not purely a legal question – rather, it is part of Boaz’s special attitude towards the law, which also reflects the author’s attitude towards the letter of the law.

279

deceased, and because of this she claims the performance of the levirate linked with the redemption of the field.56

Many have debated as to whether the connection Boaz draws here reflects ancient socio-legal norms. According to biblical law there is no legal connection between marrying a widow and redeeming a field.57 I believe this surprising legal innovation reflects and perpetuates the author’s inclination to propel the plot through constant dialogue with the law, but not blind adherence to it. Boaz reinterprets the law, and the redeemer facilitates this reinterpretation, but he is not willing to take such steps himself. While the circumstances do not allow for a formal act of levirate marriage (which explains why the redeemer does not propose this himself at any point), once Boaz raises the possibility of a symbolic act of levirate marriage, the redeemer readily renounces his rights as the closest kinsman (and sacrifices his rights to redeem the field) in order to allow this reinterpretation of levirate marriage to restore the family name to the family estate.58 This reading is reinforced by Boaz’s declaration later in the scene (4:9–10),59 when he declares that he will himself fulfill what he has proposed to the redeemer – he 56 M. D. Gow, “Ruth Quoque – A Coquette? (Ruth 4:5),” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990) 30. Compare: Daube, Ancient Jewish Law, 37–43. 57 Adele Berlin argues that the package deal Boaz proposes is connected to the period in which the story was written – assuming it dates back to the period of the Second Temple – the inextricability of Ruth and the field, of reinforcing and restoring the family line through levirate marriage and the redemption of family land by other kinsmen, is characteristic of a family re-inhabiting its land in the post-exilic period. She emphasizes that this is not a new derivative of an existing law, but a completely new innovation. (“Legal Fiction: Levirate “Cum” Land Redemption in Ruth,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 1 [2010] 3–18). Artus phrases this more subtly – he also believes that the author of Ruth combined two existing laws to create a new concept, but he reads this combination as a derivation from the law in Deuteronomy. (O. Artus, “Les frontières de la communauté judéenne à la lumière du livre de ‘Ruth,’” Transeuphratène 37 [2009] 11–20). 58 Similarly: Nielsen, Ruth, 84–89. 59 Rudolph (Ruth 59) claims that the comparison of the verses shows that Boaz is acquiring Ruth as a transaction parallel to the purchase of the field, not as a package deal. I believe he is correct, although this confusion emerges as a result

280

“will perpetuate the name of the deceased on his estate,” and in order to achieve this, he draws a new connection between the laws of family redemption of lands and levirate marriage.60 Fewell and Gunn may be correct in arguing that he ties his marriage with Ruth “the Moabite” to the redemption of the field in order to lend legal validation to their union, which, due to her Moabite origins, would not be valid otherwise.61 If this is the case, then here, Boaz is distinctly acting against the accepted law. In this light, it becomes clear why Boaz does not present himself as a “redeemer” alongside the closer redeeming kinsman, why he is so careful in his use of the verb “redeem” (‫ )גאל‬as opposed to “acquire” (‫)קנה‬. As the verb “redeem” – as a legal term – is connected to the redemption of the field, Boaz prefers using the word “acquire” so that Ruth can be added to the deal as an another acquisition: “on the day you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, and from Ruth the Moabite, you must acquire the wife of the deceased” (5). Weiss rightly argues that the verb “acquire” (‫ )קנה‬does not take on its usual meaning of “to buy,” but – as is found in rabbinic literature – it is an expression of marriage, a substitute for the biblical expression “to take,” (‫)לקיחה‬.62 This is especially evident in Boaz’s later words, “and also Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as a wife for myself ” (10). As the expression “acquire” can be freely used as a legal term that expresses both ownership (of the field) and marriage (to Ruth), it is clear why Boaz chooses to make use of this relatively unusual verb: through this of the confusion inherent in this scene, in which the normal boundaries of the law are reinterpreted. 60 See also: Bal, “Heroism,” 59. 61 D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990) 89–93. Although in their opinion, after the night on the threshing-floor, Boaz is interested in Ruth on a personal, romantic level, while I believe that what is emphasized in the narrative is not Boaz’s personal feelings, but his strong desire to reestablish the name of the dead. 62 D. H. Weiss, “The Use of QNY in Connection with Marriage,” HTR 57 (1964) 244–248. See also: Campbell, Ruth, 147; Sasson, Ruth, 121–25; Bush, Ruth, 217–18; Linafelt, Ruth, 69.

281

verb, Boaz can present the package responsibility that the redeemer ought to undertake. If he acquires the field, he must also acquire Ruth for a wife.63 The play of these two verbs is also evident as the scene unfolds: The redeemer responds to Boaz with the words: “You redeem my redemption for yourself ” (6). The narrator then explains the Israelite custom of shoe-removal (7), and describes how, as the redeemer tells Boaz to “acquire for yourself ” (8), he removes his shoe. While this repetition is designed to return the reader to the plot after disrupting the narrative with a meta-narrative explanation,64 the narrator does not merely repeat the same words as before, but, alters the language in a certain way, preparing the reader for a new development in the plot.65 Before 63 For a different explanation of the change in verb, see: B. A. Levine, “In Praise of the Israelite Mišpaha: Legend Themes in the Book of Ruth,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God (ed. H. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 100–02. For a range of opinions regarding how pronounced the concept of “purchasing a woman,” Boaz’s acquisition of Ruth as a business transaction, is in the story of Ruth, see: Leggett, Levirate, 225–29. Bush, in Schmidt’s wake, seems to be correct in claiming that it is difficult –in our case too – to consider this verb an indication of a business transaction, and, as mentioned above, it is preferable to view this as a verb that, in rabbinical tradition, is used in the context of marriage. 64 And therefore, the author pointedly repeats the characters in question: “and the redeemer said to Boaz.” As Hubbard comments (Ruth, 252), this is the only time in this scene where the names of both characters are mentioned, which, in his opinion, prepares the reader for the climax of the scene. About the phenomenon of resumptive repetition, see: J.-L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (trans. by Sr. P. Dominique; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 77–82. 65 For a striking example of this phenomenon, see the repetition in Gen 39:1 (“And Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, an Egyptian who was one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him there”) which links this story to the information relayed before the story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 37:36 (and the Midianites sold him to Egypt to Potiphar one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard”). In 37 the narrator focuses upon Joseph, who was sold; in 39 the narrator focuses on Potiphar, who “bought.” For a discussion of this, see, among others: M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 414–15; V. P. Hamilton,

282

the meta-narrative explanation, the redeemer reportedly says “redeem for youself,” but immediately after, the reply related by the narrator is “acquire for yourself.” Even if Rudolph is correct in asserting that the expression “acquire for yourself ” is a legal term that marks the transferal of ownership (in light of Jeremiah 32:7–8),66 in this scene, there is a significant difference between the terms “redeem” and “acquire.” In relation to the field, the anonymous redeemer uses the expression “redeem,” but once Ruth enters the picture, he adopts Boaz’s semantics and uses the word “acquire,” referring both to the field and to Ruth. The Masoretic version is therefore justified in presenting the redeemer’s response as “redeem my redemption for yourself ” and “acquire for yourself,”67 for not only the field’s legal redemption is under discussion, but the issue of acquiring Ruth together with the field is also at stake, and the term “redeem” cannot be legally applied to this package deal.

“The Wife of the Deceased” – From Two Widows to One Couple As the men speak, Ruth’s status is covertly undergoing one of the most dramatic turning points in the narrative. This metamorphosis can be revealed through Boaz’s use of the expression “the wife of the The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995) 458; C. Westermann, Genesis 37–50: A Continental Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1986) 61. Some view this kind of repetition as a literary device (Y. Kaufmann, The Book of Joshua (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1959) 76–77 (Heb.); Ska, Introduction, 78), while others see it as testimony to the stages of the text’s formation (I. L. Seeligmann, “Hebräische Erzählung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung,” TZ 18 (1962) 305–325). In our case, too, there are differences of opinion. This is related, of course, to the narrator’s explanation of the custom to remove the shoe, as mentioned above. 66 Rudolph, Ruth, 67. 67 In the Septuagint and the Peshitta, the redeemer’s final words are repeated: “my redemption,” and Joüon (Ruth, 87) chooses to adopt this version.

283

deceased (‫)אשת המת‬. This presumably refers to Ruth (“and from Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased”) although the deceased most recently referred to is Elimelech (3), who was Ruth’s father-in-law, rather than husband.68 In fact, Boaz’s words seem deliberately vague, as he mentions Naomi and Ruth together, so that the expression “the wife of the deceased” may refer to either of them: on the day that you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, you must acquire.” Ruth being referred to as the “wife of the deceased,” even though the deceased person in question seems to be Elimelech, or at least the confusing syntax of the sentence,69 all points to what Ruth has insisted on from the beginning of the story – that she and Naomi are one. The two women are an inextricable pair of widows, mourning for their lost loved ones as one – be the deceased in question Elimelech or Mahlon. Until now, the narrator has depicted Ruth and Naomi as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, but it is unclear as to whether the Judean community has perceived them as each other’s family. The boy supervising the reapers, after all, describes Ruth as “the girl who returned with Naomi from the fields of Moab” (2:6). In his eyes, Ruth is no daughter-in-law, and no “wife of the deceased,” but a “Moabite girl” who has followed Naomi back to Bethlehem. The supervising boy’s perspective may well reflect the eyes of the community at large: that is, they do not take to this relationship kindly, and certainly do not feel that Naomi and Ruth’s relationship has any legal ramifications. At the gate, before the town elders, Boaz defines Ruth as “the wife of the deceased” for the first time, recognizing the Moabite girl’s first marriage as legitimate. Ruth the Moabite belongs to Naomi, just like the field 68 Compare: Joüon, Ruth, 83; Hubbard, Ruth, 243 (as opposed to Rudolph [Ruth 67] who claims that the “deceased” mentioned in the verb relates to Mahlon). As Rudolph also mentions (ibid.), Köhler suggests that the phrase “and from Ruth the Moabite” is a later addition by a scribe who did not understand that “the wife of the deceased” was referring to Naomi, not to Ruth (L. Köhler, “Ruth,” Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift 37 (1920) 10). 69 Daube sees deliberate ambiguity in Boaz’s words (Daube, Ancient Jewish Law, 40), and while I agree with him in this respect, I do not believe that the redeemer was disinclined to marry Ruth because he was already married, as Daube proceeds to argue.

284

belongs to Naomi, and both of them must be redeemed. Boaz presents the field as Ruth’s as well as Naomi’s because Ruth is part of Elimelech’s family: the family estate belongs to her as well; Ruth and Naomi are devoted to each other; and only death will do them part.70 Therefore, ironically, absurdly, it is not until Ruth is taken under Boaz’s wing that her first marriage and her family ties to her mother-in-law and deceased husband are acknowledged by the community of Bethlehem.

From the Redeemer to Boaz The anonymous redeemer’s role in the narrative hints at the problems Boaz must face. The redeemer is not only an obstacle between Ruth and Boaz – he also represents a socio-legal consciousness that Boaz must overcome in order to marry Ruth. In order to understand the perspective that the redeemer represents, the reader must determine why he retracts his offer to purchase the field when Ruth becomes part of the deal. The redeemer has presumably heard about Ruth – who, after all, lives with his kinsman’s widow – before Boaz mentions her,71 so his refusal does not stem from his surprise at her actual existence. The redeemer uses the word “destroy” as he explains his refusal: “I cannot redeem for myself, lest I destroy (‫ )אשחית‬my own estate” (6), which is surprisingly harsh language – why should the redeemer lose or ruin his estate if he takes Ruth for a wife? The key to understanding his words, therefore, lies in his use of the word “destroy,” and what he means by his “estate.” The Aramaic translation interprets “my estate” as his home – his family: “Since I have a wife, I have no right to take another in addition to her, lest there be dissention in my house, and I destroy my 70 Similarly: LaCocque, Ruth, 131. 71 According to Beattie (“Kethibh and Qere,” 492, comment 3): “Boaz knew all about Ruth before he met her (2:11), while the whole town apparently witnessed her arrival (1:19) and knew all about her too (3:11).” This opposes Leggett (Levirate, 231–32), and E. W. Davies (“Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Go’el,” VT 33 (1983) 233–34).

285

own estate.”72 Melzer expresses the redeemer’s concerns more subtly: “he intended to say that the matter was liable to cause disputes and arguments between the sons,”73 and others have suggested that the birth of another son would threaten the inheritance of the sons he already has.74 According to this reading, when the redeemer understands that he will have to support two wives, and the field will belong to Ruth’s heir (who will be named for Mahlon) he quickly withdraws from the deal.75 Joüon claims that the redeemer’s concerns are not realistic; the birth of a son who will inherit Naomi’s field will not really threaten the redeemer’s existing sons, and in his opinion, his exclamation “lest I destroy my own estate” is an exaggeration made in the heat of the moment.76 I wish to read the redeemer’s reaction based on a combination of two suggestions: that of Zakovitch and that of Brichto’s. Both of them reject the notion that the redeemer’s concerns are economic, but they disagree about what does motivate the redeemer’s refusal. Zakovitch bases his explanation on a midrash that views Ruth’s Moabite origins as the reason for this refusal: 72 Levine, Aramaic, 36. Levine comments that it is difficult to assume that the book of Ruth is disinclined against polygamy, a phenomenon which is not ruled out in the Bible (Aramaic, 102). In all likelihood, the Aramaic translator was not citing a formal or legal prohibition, but rather expressing concerns for the redeemer’s family-marital relationships. 73 Meltzer, Ruth, 30. 74 Rowley, “The Marriage of Ruth,” 179; W. J. Fuerst, The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations (Cambridge: CB, 1975) 26; W. McKane, “Ruth and Boaz,” TGUOS 19 (1961–62) 39–40. Similarly: Rudolph, Ruth, 67. Because of this, some have claimed that the entire concept of levirate marriage is an act of altruism: the one who performs the levirate marriage sacrifices a part of his estate to an inheritor who does not bear his own name, but rather the name of his brother. (D. Weisberg, “Levirate Marriage and Halitzah in the Mishnah,” Annual of Rabbinic Judaism 1 (1998) 41; G. M. Schwab, “Ruth,” in Numbers – Ruth (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) 1299–1230). 75 E. Würthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth (HAT 18; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1969) 20–21; Campbell, Ruth, 159; “The closer redeeming kinsman acts like a normal, solid person, behaving like any responsible citizen would; however, “normative” responsibility is not enough here.” 76 Joüon, Ruth, 84.

286

Rabbi Shmuel the son of Nachman said… [the redeemer] said: the first ones [Mahlon and Chilion] only died because they married them, so I should marry her? May I be spared from marrying her, lest my seed should be flawed, I do not wish to taint my children (Ruth Rabbah, 7:8).77

Indeed, surprisingly enough, Ruth is referred to as “the Moabite” in this dialogue, despite the fact that this very scene sees her official acceptance into the Israelite community. This epithet may hint to the problems of taking Ruth for a wife, as Zakovitch argues.78 In Brichto’s opinion, the anonymous redeemer’s refusal results from his reluctance to perpetuate the name of the dead: as the son who will be born to Ruth will be named for her first husband (Mahlon), the redeemer is afraid that this will inadvertently threaten his own name after his death – after all, his own estate will be inherited by a son who does not bear his own name.79 Brichto’s entire claim seems somewhat forced on a textual level – there is no hint to his fear for his own soul after his death – but the argument that his refusal stems from his reluctance to name his child after Ruth’s first husband is nonetheless convincing. Boaz’s offer ends with the words “to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his estate,” so that the redeemer’s refusal “lest I destroy my own estate” is a direct response to this issue – he does not wish to perpetuate the name of his deceased kinsman, Mahlon. As opposed to Joüon’s claim that his exclamation is an exaggeration, the redeemer views the act of perpetuating the name of Mahlon, who died in sin, as an actual threat to his own name. His refusal to marry Ruth recalls the figure of Onan, the son of Judah, who refuses to impregnate Tamar in order to perpetuate the name of his brother, her first husband, and the word “destroy” (‫)אשחית‬, which seems out of place in our verse, evokes the story of Onan: “and it was when he came upon his brother’s wife he spilled his seed (‫ )ושחת‬to the ground” (Gen 38:9).80 77 And in light of this midrash, Rashi comments on our verse: “to have flawed seed, as it says, “No Amonite or Moabite should enter the congregation of God.” 78 Zakovitch, Ruth, 106–07. 79 Brichto, “Kin,” 11–23 (15–16 in particular). 80 See more about this linguistic connection in, among others: LaCocque, Ruth, 51.

287

After all, the renewal of Mahlon’s name by the family he left behind in Bethlehem is not a simple task. The remnants of Elimelech’s family who shamefully return to the town they abandoned in hard times ten years before are not received warmly upon their return. Elimelech and his sons assimilated in Moab, as is evident from their marriage with Moabite girls, and the family of traitor-emigrants has no doubt been the subject of many wagging tongues amongst those who they left behind. Now, when Boaz presents the anonymous redeemer with the challenge of redeeming Ruth in order to “perpetuate the name of the dead,” he is asking no small favor – to resurrect the deceased, to raise sons who will bear the name of that selfsame Mahlon who married a Moabite woman, is a daunting prospect. The redeemer’s words “lest I destroy my estate” can thus be understood as “lest I soil my estate by perpetuating the name of Mahlon upon it.”81 Nonetheless, the redeemer comes across as a neutral rather than negative character. Even if he is angry at the deceased and does not wish to perpetuate his name himself, he steps aside and allows Boaz to perform the act of redemption. Indeed, his words seem to hint that he is eager to see Ruth renewing her lost family, even though he does not wish to play a role in this renewal: I cannot redeem for myself lest I destroy my own estate You redeem my redemption for yourself For I cannot redeem.

The anonymous redeemer opens and concludes his words with “I cannot” (‫)לא אוכל‬. Hubbard claims that the redeemer’s words seem to relay that he is almost refusing against his will – for “I cannot” is not the same as “I do not wish to redeem” or “I will not redeem.”82 This expression (in future tense, with an accompanying negating word) sometimes hints to lack of authority or insufficient ability, such as 81 Perhaps there is some subtle wordplay between “Mahlon” (‫ )מחלון‬and “portion” – nahala (‫)נחלה‬. 82 Hubbard, Ruth, 245.

288

“I cannot (‫ )לא אוכל‬transgress the word of God” (Num 22:18); “you must not (‫ )לא תוכל‬eat within your own gates” (Deut 12:17); “I must not (‫ )לא אוכל‬return with you” (1 Kgs 13:16).83 Through the repetition of “I cannot,” the redeemer gives the impression that he does not have the authority to redeem Ruth. Moreover, while he states that he is unable to “redeem for myself,” he urges Boaz to “redeem for yourself.” The redeemer could have easily refused and left matters lie without turning to Boaz. The fact that he hands his own rights over to Boaz and tells him both “to redeem” and to “acquire” what he himself cannot suggests that he is happy to enable Ruth’s redemption alongside the field’s. Thus, this secondary character fits in with the general geniality of this scene – while he refuses, he seems to imply that it is not out of choice, and he immediately clears the way for Boaz to do what must be done. Herein lies the crucial difference between the redeemer and Er’s brother Onan – for Onan did not hand the responsibility of perpetuating Er’s name over to his younger brother, but rather prevented Tamar from entering into a proper levirate marriage. The redeemer does not wish to redeem Ruth himself, but allows Boaz to do so immediately. He is presented as a foil to Boaz, just as Orpah in chap. 1 is a foil to Ruth. Just as Orpah’s reasonable refusal illuminates Ruth’s act as an extraordinary kindness that shatters social norms, the redeemer’s reasonable refusal illuminates Boaz’s act as one of boundary-crossing kindness. The Removal of the Shoe As many have commented, the narrator’s (surprising) focus on the procedure of the shoe removal is in subtle negotiation with the deuteronomical law of ritual shoe removal, keeping in line with the scene’s

83 Kaddari, Dictionary, 426.

289

many references to the laws of levirate marriage.84 At the same time, the mention of the removal of the shoe also contributes to the scene in itself. The actual structure of the narrator’s explanation is noteworthy: “Now this was formerly done in Israel in cases of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would take off his sandal and hand it to the other. And this would serve to testify in Israel.”

The double mention of the word “in Israel,” which frames the verse, emphasizes that this was no sly legal manipulation on Boaz’s part, but that his acquisition of Ruth is lawful: the marriage is authorized by the town elders, the ceremony is performed according to the law and customs of Israel. Ruth’s Moabite origins have no bearing on the traditional Israelite ceremony. The narrator’s focus on the official, ceremonial aspect of this transaction conveys how sensitive Boaz is to Ruth, for he ensures that their union will be authorized by the ancient, time-honored customs of his – their – people. Therefore, on the one hand, the scene at the gate witnesses a shattering of social conventions and a manipulation of the law on Boaz’s part through his association of the field’s redemption with the laws of levirate marriage and his extension of these laws to a Moabite girl – but, at the same time, he manages to retain formal procedure and traditional ceremony in order to endorse his actions, keeping them within the boundaries of the law. Moreover, beyond its legal role, the act of shoe removal plays a symbolic role in this scene. Despite the time-old debate of who is the

84 However, the narrator himself explains the removal of the shoe as symbolic closure of a transaction or agreement, and the allusion to the law of ritual show removal (halisa) only lies beneath the surface (Carmichael, “A Ceremonial Crux,” 333–34). In S. Bahar’s opinion, the narrator’s expression of “removing the shoe” (‫ )שליפת הנעל‬rather than “halisat” the shoe (‫ )חליצת הנעל‬draws a distinction between the deuteronomical law of ritual shoe removal and the act described in the narrative (“the Difference”), See also Hurwitz (“Term”) who argues that despite the fact that this verse is a later addition, it cannot be used to determine when the book of Ruth was originally written. ▪

▪

▪

290

▪

subject in the sentence “and he removed his shoe” (8),85 it appears that the redeemer is the one who removes his shoes as an expression of the transferal of his ownership to Boaz.86 From a grammatical perspective, the subject of the sentence seems to be the redeemer, for the verse opens with his speech (“acquire for yourself ”), and the next verse opens with a new speaker, “and Boaz said to the elders.” Thus, it appears that the subject whose action opened v. 8 continues to be the subject through the verse (the redeemer “removed his shoe”), whereas Boaz only becomes the subject in the next verse.87 Moreover, even if the law in Deuteronomy 25 is not directly related to our scene,88 it is nonetheless clearly in dialogue with the laws of levirate marriage and ritual shoe removal, so that Zakovitch is correct in stating that with these laws hovering in the background, the redeemer seems to be removing his shoe as an expression of his transferal of the rights of redemption to Boaz.89 What is the significance of this act? 85 Ancient commentaries have already expressed one of the two positions (see: the Babylonian Talmud, B. Bat. 47a; Ruth Rabbah 7,12), and this question has plagued exegetes from every generation. Some claim that Boaz is the one who removes the shoe, thus testifying to his purchase of the field (the Aramaic translation interprets the verse thus – and describes the “shoe” as a glove that Boaz removes from the redeemer’s right hand; Ruth Rabbah 7:12), or that the shoe is a token payment that legally validates the purchase of the field (E. A. Speiser, “Of Shoes and Shekels,” BASOR 77 [1940] 15–20). 86 Sasson, Ruth, 145–46; Campbell, Ruth, 150 (in his opinion, the ambiguity in the narrative reflects the tension the one who removes the shoe and the one who submits it to the other. He also raises the possibility that both of them removed their shoes (“each man his shoe”); A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (Stockholm: Coniectanea Biblica; Old Testament Series 34, 1992) 145; Hubbard, Ruth, 250. 87 The Septuagint adds “and he gave it to him” after “he removed his shoe,” which strengthens the symbolic significance as the shoe passes from one hand to another (similar to Speiser’s direction, above). However, the Masoretic text emphasizes the actual removal of the shoe from the redeemer’s foot (rather than its being a symbol of transaction). See: Viberg, Symbols, 145. 88 As Hubbard claims (Ruth, 250–51). 89 Zakovitch, Ruth, 108. However, it must be emphasized that in the law of halisa, the rejected woman is the one who removes the shoe of he who rejected ▪

▪

291

In biblical literature and Mesopotamian literature in general, shoes, feet, and walking are symbols of strength, power, and agency.90 Abraham walks the length and breadth of Canaan and thus acquires the rights to the land; Moses tells Israel that “everywhere your feet tread will be yours” (Deut 11:24); Moses and Joshua remove their shoes before the burning bush and at Jericho, for the ground is defined as hallowed ground, a place of revelation, and removing their shoes is an expression of accepting God’s authority over them;91 among other examples.92 Similarly, the removal of a seller’s shoe during a transaction symbolizes the removal of his ownership from that object, and the transferal of ownership to the buyer (in this case, to Boaz).93 In this context, the redeemer’s act of removing his shoe harks back to Ruth’s act upon the threshing-floor: “and she uncovered his feet and lay down” (3:7). On the threshing-floor, Boaz’s feet are revealed, just as the redeemer’s foot is revealed as he takes off his shoe at the gate. The contrast between these two exposures is, of course, related to the contexts of each scene: Ruth reveals Boaz’s feet as a symbolic gesture of connection, while the redeemer’s feet are revealed as an expression of detachment from Ruth and the field in question; Boaz’s feet are revealed as an intimate, personal gesture, while the redeemer’s shoe is removed in a formal, public setting. And, I might add, Boaz’s feet are revealed in a gesture that breaks convention and circumvents the law, while the redeemer’s foot is uncovered as a formal, customary act that signifies the law’s very fulfillment.

90 91 92 93

her, whereas in this scene, the redeemer removes his own shoe, which somewhat weakens the connection between Ruth and the deuteronomical law. M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT 221; Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988) 403 and on. The claim that these instances indicate that it is forbidden to wear animal hides on one’s feet (ie. leather sandals) when in the presence of God (V. P. Hamilton, “‫נעל‬,” NIDOTTE 3.120–21), has no basis. See more on this in: B. Halprin, “The Shoe in the Bible,” Festschrift for Haim Gevariahu (ed. B. Z. Lurie and S. Avramsky; Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1990) 238–39 (Heb.). Compare: G. M. Tucker, “Witnesses and ‘Dates’ in Israelite Contracts,” CBQ 28 (1966) 44; H. C. Brichto, “Taking off of the Shoe,” Proceeding of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (1969; Vol. 1) 28–29 (Heb.); Schwab, “Ruth,” 1340.

292

Boaz’s Declaration (9–10) All who sit at the gate bear witness to Ruth’s final, official acceptance into the Israelite nation. At the threshing-floor, Boaz already reassures Ruth that “all the elders of my people know that you are a valiant woman,” and now, this is confirmed as Boaz receives approval to take Ruth for a wife. Boaz’s words to the elders are very similar to his proposal to the redeemer:94 Boaz’s proposal to the redeemer (5) And Boaz said On the day you acquire the field

Boaz’s declaration to the elders (9–10) And Boaz said to the elders and all the people You are witnesses today that I have acquired all that belongs to from the hand of Naomi Elimelech and from Ruth the Moabite and all that belongs to Chilion and you must acquire the wife of the Mahlon deceased from the hand of Naomi. to perpetuate the name of the deceased And also Ruth the Moabite upon his estate the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired for a wife to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate and the name of the deceased will not be cut off from amongst his brothers and the gate of his hometown You are witnesses today.

Comparing Boaz’s two speeches, we learn that he is a man of few words but much action. When he presents the package deal – the field and Ruth – to the redeemer, he speaks briefly, as if he is asking a small request, but when he makes this acquisition himself, he describes the 94 This parallel may have structural significance as well. See: K. K. Sacon, “The Book of Ruth: Its Literary Structure and Theme,” AJBI 4 (1978) 15; Gow, Ruth, 79–80 (who eventually favors alternate structures that present the overall structure of the scene, and sees v. 5 as the central axis of the entire scene).

293

sale at length. This is particularly evident in his opening and closing words. When he turns to the redeemer, he initially only speaks of the field (“on the day that you acquire the field”) but when he announces his own acquisition, he extends his purchase to include “all that belongs to Elimelech and all that belongs to Chilion and Mahlon.”95 When he concludes, he does not merely declare that he will “perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate,” as he says to the redeemer, but he adds, “and the name of the deceased will not be cut off from amongst his brothers and the gate of his hometown.” Besides these two differences, Boaz does not mention the names of Elimelech’s sons to the redeemer at all, but he explicitly mentions them when he makes his acquisition. Particularly apparent is the contrast between his first description of Ruth as “the wife of the deceased,” and his second as “the wife of Mahlon.” With this naming, the reader experiences a sense of closure as the characters who make only brief appearances at the beginning of the story, but whose absence has haunted the entire narrative, finally return to center stage. In a sense, Elimelech and his sons are the narrative’s first protagonists, and the story told is truly theirs, for it is the story of their perpetuation upon their estate. Finally, the entire family achieves resurrection, particularly Mahlon, whose wife has struggled to perpetuate his name.96 95 The order the sons are listed – in the Masoretic text, but not in the Syrian translation and in some manuscripts of the Septuagint – is the opposite of their presentation in the exposition (“and the name of his sons were Mahlon and Chilion”; “and the two of them, Mahlon and Chilion, also died”). Rudolph (somewhat hesitantly) suggests that the order here is alphabetical, which well suits the legal atmosphere of the scene (Rudolph, Ruth, 60). Campbell claims that the reversed order is a result of the biblical tendency towards chiastic structure (Ruth, 151); Sasson argues that the character most relevant to the scene (ie Mahlon, whose name is to be resurrected) is mentioned last (compare 1:4; 14) (Sasson, Ruth, 150); and Nielsen suggests that in ch. 4, Mahlon is mentioned last to show that he is the younger son, which fits in with the recurrent pattern in Genesis, in which the younger son is favored over the older (Nielsen, Ruth, 90). 96 See especially: Trible, “Comedy,” 189; Porten, “Rhetoric,” 24; G. H. Cohen, “Name-Giving in the Book of Ruth,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 2 (1986) 151–160 (Heb.).

294

Some have commented that in his declaration at the gate, Boaz plays a different tune – at the threshing-floor, he seems to be concerned for Ruth’s welfare, and Ruth is presented as a character in her own right who even chooses who she wants to marry (3:10), while it now appears that Boaz’s sole purpose in marrying Ruth is to “perpetuate the name of the deceased.” Ruth is not the focus of his speech but Mahlon, her husband; Ruth is but part of “all that belongs to Elimelech” and “all that belongs to Chilion and Mahlon.”97 Trible argues that the difference stems from the intimate nature of Ruth and Boaz’s conversation at the threshing-floor and the legal, public nature of his declaration at the gate: “Thus in a private conversation with Ruth, Boaz made her welfare the sole object of his concern, but in a public discussion with men he makes Ruth the means for achieving a male purpose.”98 The two faces Boaz presents in these two scene in fact reflect the dual purpose of Ruth’s marriage, which presents a solution to the two main problems posed by the plot: Ruth’s lonely, insecure isolation (in Naomi’s words, her lack of “security”), and the threatened erasure of the family name, which was relayed in the story’s exposition. At the threshing-floor, Ruth achieves security through Boaz’s promise, and at the gate, the name of the dead promises to be resurrected. Gillis Gerlemann comments that this dichotomy is reflected in subtle wordplay: in chap. 3, Ruth’s name is juxtaposed with the town gate: “For all the elders of my people (‫ )שער עמי‬know that you are a valiant woman,” (3:11), whereas in chap. 4 the name of the dead is mentioned at the gate: “and the name of the dead will not be cut off from amongst his brothers or the gate of his hometown” (4:10).99 “All the people at the gate” (4:11) are witnesses to the pair’s official entry: through Boaz’s kindness with the living and the dead, both Ruth and the name of Mahlon are readmitted into the gates of Bethlehem. 97 A. Phillips, “The Book of Ruth – Deception and Shame,” JJS 37 (1986) 10; O. Avnery, The Threefold Cord: Interrelations between the Books of Samuel, Ruth and Esther (Ph.D. Thesis; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2012) 138. 98 Trible, “Comedy,” 186–87. See also: Linafelt, Ruth, 73. 99 Gerlemann, Ruth, 32.

295

Boaz concludes by defining all present as witnesses, which Linafelt uses as the basis of the chiastic structure of Boaz’s words:100 a. You are witnesses today b. that I have acquired all that belongs to Elimelech and all that belongs to Chilion and Mahlon c. from the hand of Naomi. c’. and also Ruth the Moabite the wife of Mahlon, b’. I have acquired for a wife, to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate, and the name of the deceased will not be cut off from amongst his brothers and the gate of his hometown a’. You are witnesses today.

This division suggests that Boaz draws a parallel between Naomi and Ruth (the two central components of c and c’); repeats the verb “acquire” in connection with the men of the family and the resurrection of their name (b – b’); and defines those present as witnesses as the framework of his speech. The first half of his speech discusses the purchase of the field, while the second half focuses on Ruth. Even if this structure is arguable, the act of defining his listeners as witnesses is unmistakable.101 This definition is crucial for Boaz’s purpose: while Boaz could presumably have taken Ruth for a wife without the people of Bethlehem’s approval, Ruth would not have become an integral part of the community, and their marriage would not have served as a platform for “perpetuating the name of the dead.” The testimonial aspect of this scene is essential in order to admit Ruth into the town gates as one of their own.102 Boaz does as Naomi expects of him: her 100 Linafelt, Ruth, 72. Similarly: Bush, Ruth, 195. 101 Meltzer, Ruth, 32; Zakovitch, Ruth, 108–09; LaCocque, Ruth, 136. 102 In order to emphasize the aspect of testimony (‫ )עדות‬of this act, the narrator ends his explanation of this custom with the words, “and this is as testimony (‫ )לתעודה‬in Israel.” The act itself, as well as the witnesses sitting at the gate, testify to the validity of the legal act. The term “testimony” here is mentioned only once more in the Bible, in the prophecy of Isaiah: “Bind up this testimony of warning…consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning” (Isaiah 8:16,20). This does not seem to be an intentional reference, even though Isaiah’s prophecy deals with “the children the Lord has given me,” who are “signs and wonders” of God’s help that is to come (18).

296

final words of the previous scene reassure Ruth that “the man will not rest, but will settle the manner today” (3:18), and now, Boaz emphasizes that his onlookers are “witnesses today.”103 These two characters do not encounter each other at all within the narrative, but, once again, their semantic fields are similar.

The People’s Blessing: Security and Estate (11–12) His onlookers confirm his words: “And all the people at the gate and the elders said, Witnesses” (11). The Septuagint differentiates between “the people at the gate” who declare “witnesses,” and the elders, who bless the couple with the ensuing blessing: “May the Lord give the woman who is coming to your house…”. Alexander Rofé convincingly argues that the Septuagint has the midrashic tendency of dividing a single speech between different speakers, and the Masoretic version is therefore the original.104 If so, the order of the speakers is intriguing: for Boaz turns to “the elders and all the people” (9), whereas the “people at the gate” are listed before “the elders” when they reply. While this chiasm may be purely esthetic,105 the narrator may be attempting to present the popular opinion before the official opinion, emphasizing that beyond the limited scope of formal legal approval, Ruth’s social future is also promising. Ruth is accepted by the people even before the elders authorize her acceptance.106 103 Campbell, Ruth, 152. This literary aspect does not rule out the legal significance which accompanies the expression “today” (which is evident also in ancient Accadian legal texts): “the formula in Israel legal affairs indicated the consummation and perpetual validity of a transaction” (Tucker, “Witnesses,” 44–45). 104 A. Rofé, “Ruth 4:11 LXX – A Midrashic Dramatization,” Textus 20 (2000) 129–140. 105 As Campbell, for example, claims (Ruth, 152). The order reversal led Bush to favor the Septuagint version mentioned above (Bush, Ruth, 239). 106 LaCocque may also be corrected in claiming that the expression “all the people” (‫ )כל העם‬hints to “the entire town” (‫ )כל העם‬mentioned in chap.1 at

297

The blessing of the audience at the gate is addressed to Boaz, and as they begin by confirming themselves as witnesses, it is obviously bestowed at the gate, when Ruth is not present. Nonetheless, its main contribution to the narrative is the new status it awards to Ruth. The blessing is arranged concentrically:107 a. May the Lord grant the woman who is coming to your house b. like Rachel and Leah, who both built the House of Israel c. Be valiant in Ephrathah and let your name be called in Bethlehem b’. may your house be like the house of Peretz, who Tamar bore to Judah a’. th.gh the offspring that the Lord will grant you from this girl.

The framework of the blessing (a – a’) acknowledges God as the One who “grants”: “to teach that all that is enclosed within this blessing is a result of God’s grace and kindness.”108 Its opening and conclusion echo Naomi’s words to her daughters-in-law at the story’s beginning: “May the Lord grant that each of you find security in the house of a husband” (1:9). In chap. 1, Naomi expresses her hopes that God will grant them security with a new husband in Moab, but at the story’s end, her hopes are fulfilled in Bethlehem – the house that Lord has granted Ruth is Boaz’s house. In components b-b’, “the woman coming to your house” is compared to legendary figures from Israelite heritage: firstly, “the woman” is compared to Rachel and Leah, and then Boaz’s “house” is compared to the house of Peretz, who was born from Tamar. The central axis features one of the Leitmotifs of the narrative: “let your name be called.” By placing “Bethlehem” in parallel to “Ephratah,” the reader is invited to recall chap. 1, where Elimelech’s family is described as “Ephratites from Bethlehem of Judah” (1:2). This closure is not mere literary embellishment, but rather, it emphasizes – this time, from the perspective of the people Naomi and Ruth’s return to Bethlehem (1:19). There, the entire city witnesses her misery and destitute, barren grief, and now, the “entire town” celebrates her redemption (LaCocque, Ruth, 138). 107 It can also be arranged in a chiastic structure, as Linafelt proposes (Ruth, 73–74), by dividing the third part into two parallel components. See also: Zakovitch, Ruth, 110; Bush, Ruth, 195. 108 Zakovitch, ibid.

298

of Bethlehem – how a family that was nearly wiped out has been resurrected through God’s grace. Tracing the structure of the elders’ blessing illuminates how it weaves two threads of the plot together. The first half of the blessing focuses upon Ruth, while the second half focuses upon the children she will bear. First, the elders bless that God grant “the woman who is coming to your house” to be like Rachel and Leah, two mothers who built the house of Israel. The second half of the blessing hopes that God will grant “offspring” to the house of Boaz. Herein the two problems of the plot are solved: Ruth, the Moabite girl, is accepted into Bethlehemite society as an Israelite. Her comparison to Rachel and Leah, “who both built the house of Israel” compares Ruth’s path to the process that the two foremothers underwent: they also left their father’s house and joined Jacob on his journey to the Land of Canaan.109 All the women mentioned in the blessing are figures from outside of the family who built up the house of Israel – Ruth, too, is a foreigner who has been accepted into the Israelite community in order that she, too, can build a house in Israel.110 In parallel, Ruth – as the wife of the deceased Mahlon, whose name she is hoping to resurrect – is authorized to marry Boaz, and the blessing for offspring that concludes their words highlights, above all, their hopes for family continuity. These two circles overlap in the blessing’s central axis, which is arranged in a classic parallelism: “Be valiant in Ephrathah and let your name be called in Bethlehem.” The first half makes use of the word “valiant” (‫)חיל‬. In this context, the meaning of the expression “be valiant” is to succeed,111 and, presented in parallel to “let your name be called,” it presumably refers to successful, vigorous offspring 109 LaCocque adds that, paradoxically, one of Jacob’s reasons for going to Haran was to marry a woman not from Canaan, and now, Ruth is compared to the wives of Jacob who he took from his mother’s family (LaCocque, Ruth, 138). However, he also emphasizes that the parallel mainly relies on the foreignness of Jacob’s wives and their acceptance into the family of Israel. 110 Gow, Ruth, 128. 111 BDB, 299; R. Wakely, “‫חיל‬,” NIDOTTE 2.124.

299

(compare: Joel 2:22; Prov 31:3).112 On a deeper level, the term “valiant” connects with its two other appearances in the narrative – the first pertaining to Boaz, “a valiant man (‫( ”)איש גיבור חיל‬2:1), and the second time used by Boaz to describe Ruth: “you are a valiant woman (‫( ”)אשת חיל את‬3:11). The elders’ blessing brings these two valiant characters together, expressing hope that they will build a valiant home together. This expression is particularly suited to the first half of their blessing, which is directed to Ruth as a character who has found security with a worthy husband. The second half of the parallelism – “and let your name be called in Bethlehem” – repeats the recurring theme of names and continuity that is so prevalent in this scene. Thus, the central blessing of the witnesses at the gate closes the first half of the blessing and opens the second. The two themes that are fulfilled with this marriage are also expressed through repetition of the word “house” (‫)בית‬, which appears five times in this blessing, in several different senses of the word. In biblical Hebrew, the basic definition of “house” is “a structure made of stone, bricks or wood for human habitation.”113 However, this plain meaning has been extended in several directions. One such use refers to “family members,” the members of a household, as in: “take your father and your households (‫ )בתיכם‬and come to me” (Gen 45:18); another refers to a clan or tribe, as in “so you shall say to the house (‫ )בית‬of Jacob, and speak to the children of Israel” (Exod 19:3).114 The elders first bless the “woman who is coming into your house,” in the literal sense of the word. When they bless Boaz that his house should be like the house of Peretz, they are referring to his family, his household. In between, Ruth’s marriage is equated to the building of “a house in 112 Thus, for example: Nielsen, Ruth, 91; Kaddari, Dictionary, 296. On the difficulty of explaining the expression “let your name be called” (‫ )וקרא שם‬in this context, see: Rudolph, Ruth, 60 ("‫ ;)"ויקרא שמך‬Joüon, Ruth, 90–91 ("‫)"וקנה שם‬. Sasson criticizes these possibilities, Ruth, 156. Campbell explains the word “‫ ”חיל‬in the sense of fertility, and suggests seeing this blessing as two chronological stages: “And may you show fertility in Ephrathah/ And (then) bestow a name in Bethlehem” (Ruth, 153). 113 Kaddari, Dictionary, 98; BDB 108. 114 G. H. Wilson, “‫בית‬,” NIDOTTE 1.655–57.

300

Israel.” Here, the word “house” is used in a wider sense, referring to the nation of Israel. Most fittingly, the central part of the blessing also mentions the word “house”: “let your name be called in Bethlehem.” This subtle repetition closes the circle opened by Elimelech when he and his family left Bethlehem for the fields of Moab.115 Order has been restored, and the remnants of his family have come back home, back to Bethlehem, ready to restore the family name to its former glory. The different meanings of the word “house,” packed into these few lines, closes the circles that the narrative revolves around. Ruth’s entry into Boaz’s actual house answers her request upon the threshing-floor that he spread his wings, his protection, over her – now his roof will shelter her. At the tale’s beginning, Naomi urges her daughters-in-law to “go back, return, each woman to her mother’s house” (1:8), and prays “may you find security in the house of a husband” (1:9) – now, Ruth has found shelter with her mother-in-law’s own kinsman, and she will live with both her “mother” and her husband – all Naomi’s prayers are fulfilled at once. Ruth, like Rachel and Leah, will build a house in Israel – no longer is she considered foreign, but she is part of the Israelite community. “The House of Peretz,” categorizes Boaz and Ruth’s new home as a place of continuity, of the endurance of generations. The house of Elimelech has not been wiped out – it is being resurrected. The relationship between the two halves of the blessing also reflects a transition from the general to the specific: the language of the first lines is based on traditional, formulaic blessings, while the second half is more tailored for Ruth and Boaz’s unique situation. At first, the elders speak of the “woman coming to your house” (a) while they conclude by referring more specifically to “this girl” (a’); they open by mentioning “Rachel and Leah,” and conclude by mentioning Tamar, the mother of Peretz. While the matriarchs are important figures for any new bride in Israel,116 the unique mention of Tamar and 115 See my discussion of the contrast between the house and the field in chap. 1, note 28. 116 In the words of Hubbard (Ruth, 259): “Such wishes for fertility may have been typical in the ancient Near East (cf. Gen 17:16; 24:60) and are still popular today.”

301

the house of Peretz has special significance for Boaz and Ruth’s story in particular.117 Many scholars have discussed the hidden analogies in this blessing, particularly in the lines that refer to Rachel, Leah and Tamar (b-b’). This is the only place in the bible where motherhood is mentioned in the context of blessing.118 As Zakovitch comments, the formula “like Rachel and Leah” is probably a feminization of the blessing that Jacob coins: “May the Lord make you like Ephraim and Manasseh” (Gen 48:20).119 It is no coincidence that this blessing of motherhood and femininity features in the story of Ruth, where the two main heroes are women. The explicit mention of Tamar is most surprising, as the elders could have referred to the house of Peretz or Judah alone. This reference is probably designed by the narrator to reinforce the role Tamar plays in her own story, thus strengthening the intertextuality of the narratives. The mention of Tamar also draws attention to the covert function of the reference to Rachel and Leah, for the entrance of these women into the house of Israel was only achieved through

117 At first, Ruth is described as a “woman” (‫)אישה‬, but then, surprisingly, she is called a “girl” (‫)נערה‬. The former is more appropriate in context of marriage between a “man” and a “woman.” (A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [Sheffield: Almond, 1983] 89. Sasson (Ruth, 153) emphasizes that the word “‫ ”האשה‬in this blessing means not “woman” but “wife.”). Hubbard proposes that the phrase “this girl” (‫ )הנערה הזאת‬closes an inclusio opened with Boaz’s first encounter with Ruth, when he asks his supervising girl “whose girl is that?” (‫( )למי הנערה הזאת‬Hubbard, Ruth, 262). This term should also be read in context: the reader is under the impression that there is a considerable age gap between Boaz and Ruth (mainly from Boaz’s comment that she “you have not turned to younger men” 3:10; and from his addressing her repeatedly as “my daughter”), so there is value in emphasizing Ruth’s youth, despite Boaz’s age, as an expression of hope for their fertility (from the offspring that the Lord will grant”). See also LaCocque, Ruth, 140–41 (on the difference between the terms ‫)אישה ;עלמה ;נערה ;ילדה‬. 118 I. Pardes, “Creation According to Eve,” in Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 79. 119 Zakovitch, Ruth, 9, 110.

302

deception.120 Laban’s replacement of Rachel with Leah casts a doubt over the legal validity of this union; Tamar’s temptation of Judah without his recognition of her is similarly problematic. In spite of this subversion, it is clear to the reader that Rachel,121 Leah, and even Tamar are central, founding figures in the house of Israel’s history, and the author seeks to add Ruth to this list: those who question her status and her right to be part of the community need only to consider Rachel, Leah and Tamar.

120 Nielsen adds that Leah’s marriage to Jacob was also achieved through deception, without Jacob’s knowledge, like Tamar’s relations with Judah, and almost (!) like Ruth’s seduction of Boaz in the dark of the threshing-floor (Ruth, 92). 121 The reader might wonder why Rachel is mentioned along with Leah – presumably, one matriarch is sufficient (for the sake of comparison with Tamar within the blessing; and Ruth, the blessing’s recipient), and while Leah is the mother of Judah, and Tamar is the mother of Judah’s son Peretz, who the Bethlehemites are descended from, the mention of Rachel might be considered superfluous. Yael Shemesh proposes that the two women mentioned evokes the presence of Naomi, who is not explicitly mentioned here. (Y. Shemesh, “Ruth-A Women’s Story,” Bar-Ilan University’s Parashat Hashavua Study, Parashat Naso, 6 June, 2003). Pardes suggests that Ruth herself reflects an aspect of both mothers, two different models of femininity in the Bible. She is both “the beloved wife,” like Rachel, and she is also “the bearer of sons,” like Leah (Pardes, “Creation,” 79–91). Once again, the two loose threads of the story are woven together at the story’s end – Ruth embodies both Rachel, in the sense that Boaz spreads his wings over her and grants her security, and Leah, who bears sons to perpetuate the family name.

303

Two Mothers in Bethlehem (4:13–17) Better to you than seven sons

Marriage and Birth (13) In short, rapid-paced sentences, the narrator briefly relates what could be considered the climax of the plot: “And Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife” (4:13). The terse nature of this report downplays its significance, presenting it as a technical series of events, a process that must be undergone. There is no emotional involvement reported between Boaz and Ruth. While emotional penetration is rare in biblical narrative, this detached report is followed by explicit descriptions of Naomi’s inner world as seen by her neighbors, a juxtaposition which underscores the lack of emotion between Ruth and Boaz’s relationship. Here, too, it seems that the narrator wishes to remove any suggestion of romance or love from their union, which is based on mutual desire to perpetuate the name of the deceased. This lack of romantic love is emphasized through intertextuality: the expression “And Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife,”1 is almost identical to the description of the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca: “And he took Rebecca and 1

According to the Masoretic version. The Septuagint (B) omits “and she became his wife,” presumably because of redundancy (J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation [2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989] 161). Note the verb “And Boaz took” in the wider context of the story: the verb “took” is an expression of marriage because of the ancient custom in which the groom would “take” his new wife to his house. As Bush comments, this metaphorical expression is fulfilled through the language of the elders’ blessing in 4:11: “May the Lord grant the woman who is coming to your house” (F. W. Bush, Ruth / Esther [WBC; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996] 253). Through her marriage with Boaz, Ruth is granted entrance into Bethlehem, into a stable home, truly one of the community.

she became his wife and he loved her” (Gen 24:67).2 The strong affinity between the story of Ruth and that of Abraham’s servant’s search for a wife for Isaac,3 reinforces the likelihood that this allusion is intentional. This allusion expresses what is lacking from the Ruth narrative: Rebecca becomes Isaac’s wife, “and he loved her.” The narrator does not use this verb to describe the relationship between Boaz and Ruth, but the word “love” does feature in the same passage, describing Ruth’s love for another character: “for the daughter-in-law who loves you bore him” (15).4 Even in a passage that describes Ruth’s marriage to Boaz, their sexual union and resultant birth of a son, the only mention of love refers to Ruth’s feelings towards Naomi, while her marriage remains devoid of any trace of similar emotion. Another surprising element of the narrative lies not in what is missing from the account, but what has been added: the description of Ruth’s son’s conception – “and the Lord granted her pregnancy” is unique in biblical narrative. (Compare: Gen 16:4; 30:4–5; 38: 2–3; 18; 2 Sam 12:24). Some scholars have proposed that this verse serves to explain how she conceived despite her apparent infertility during her marriage to Mahlon in Moab.5 However the author does not explicitly say she is barren, so there is no reason to expect special justification of her pregnancy. Rather, God’s sudden appearance can be read as divine endorsement of the entire process.6 Ruth and Boaz’s union first receives legal authorization, and now, this approval is seconded by God in the form of divine blessing.7 As we will shortly see, this is 2 Y. Zakovitch, Ruth (Mikra Leyisra’el; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 113. 3 See the introduction’s discussion of the theology of the narrative. 4 This is the only mention of “love” in the narrative. 5 Sasson, Ruth, 162; A. LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. by K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 141. In Nielsen’s opinion, the rapid pace of events (marriage-pregnancy-birth) answers the problem of infertility alluded to in the exposition (K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997] 92). 6 See also: T. L. Constable, “A Theology of Joshua, Judges and Ruth,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (ed. R. B. Zuck ; Chicago: Moody, 1991) 111. 7 Similarly: T. C. Eskenazi, and T. Frymer-Kensky, Ruth (JPS; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011) 87–88.

306

followed by popular, social approval as expressed through the townswomen’s blessing. Three partners work together in this brief passage: Boaz (“and Boaz took Ruth”; “and he cohabited with her”); Ruth (“and she became his wife”; “and she bore a son”); and God (“and the Lord granted her pregnancy”). These three partners have already collaborated to solve the issue of sustenance: God is the one who “take[s] note of His people and give[s] them bread” (1:6), at least from Naomi’s perspective; Ruth goes out to glean; and Boaz shares his bounty with her. Although God is the one who takes note of “His people” – that is, He ends the famine for His people as a whole, from the narrator’s perspective, Boaz is the one who provides for Ruth and Naomi. Here, however, the narrator openly relates God’s hand in Obed’s conception.8 As I mention in the introduction, this is the only place in the narrative where the narrator presents God’s direct intervention. Some scholars have commented that this is the moment when “the cat is finally let out of the bag” – that in retrospect, God’s hand is revealed to have had bearing on the entire plot. Hubbard, for example, writes: “His action constitutes a kind of theological inclusio for the whole book…For a brief instant, Yahweh stepped from the shadows to center stage.”9 However, the simpler reading, in fact, presents the opposite: God’s open intervention in the final scene only emphasizes how, until this point, the plot has been driven by the characters alone. As I discuss in the introduction, the concept of dual causality is uniquely manifested in the book of Ruth, wherein the story does not unfold from two corresponding perspectives, two sets of footprints along the same path; but rather from the linear-chronological integration of two factors that affect the plot at different points. God and the characters takes turns in shaping the plot – He is presented as a close observer of the characters’ actions who orchestrates chance encounters that will allow Him to test the course they then choose to take. Granting Ruth’s pregnancy is, in a sense, akin to God’s statement to Abraham: “I now 8 Nielsen, Ruth, 93. 9 R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: 1988) 267.

307

know that you fear God” (Gen 22:12) – a divine seal of approval for the moral course of action the characters have freely chosen.10 This divine seal of approval is in dialogue with the legal approval granted through the elders’ blessing, which contains the verb “grant,” (‫)נתן‬: “May the Lord grant the women who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah” (11); “from the offspring that the Lord will grant you from this girl” (12); indeed, God now “grant[s]” her pregnancy (13).11 The intense repetition of the verb ‫ נתן‬harks back to the beginning of the narrative. When Naomi attempts to convince her daughters-inlaw to go back to Moab, she says: “May the Lord grant you security, each woman in the house of a husband” (1:9). Now, God is granting Ruth “security in the house of a husband” and granting her seed, not in Moab – as Naomi assumed – but in Bethlehem.12 This framework is also hinted to through the language used to describe Naomi’s perspective of the famine in chap. 1: “for she had heard in the field of Moab that the Lord had taken note of His people and given them bread” (1:6). The word “‫ ”פקד‬in the Bible is often associated with God’s opening of the womb (as in “for the Lord had taken note (‫)פקד‬ of Hannah and she conceived and bore three boys and two girls” [1 Sam 2:21]),13 thus creating an associative inclusio which emphasizes 10 LaCocque claims that the story’s conclusion strongly recalls the end of the Job narrative. There, too, God recompenses Job with children to replace those who died at the story’s beginning (Ruth, 141). See also: A. Bazak, “A World of Kindness will be Built: The Book of Ruth and the Book of Job,” Megadim 18 (1993) 170. I might add that just as Job is recompensed as a result of his successful navigation of his ordeals, Ruth and Naomi are awarded security and redemption for their (and Boaz’s) conduct throughout the narrative. 11 B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978) 47; Hubbard, Ruth, 268. 12 Zakovitch, Ruth, 110. 13 The meaning of the verb ‫ דקפ‬changes in context, as Speiser already notes: “there is probably no other Hebrew verb that has caused translators as much trouble as pqd.” (E. A. Speiser, “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel,” BASOR 149 [1958], 21). Many different semantic analyses of its meaning have been offered (for an extensive summary, see: J.B. Van Hooser, The Meaning of the Hebrew Root PAQAD in the Old Testament [Ph.D. thesis; Harvard University,

308

the dual blessing of fertility in the narrative: in the first chapter, God grants fruit of the earth; in the final chapter, fruit of the womb.14 This cross-referential language hints to Ruth’s private journey: God, who takes note of “His people” in chap. 1, also “takes note” of Ruth at the story’s end – for now, she is one of “His people.”

The Choiring of the Town: Let Your Name be Called (14–15) Following the men’s blessing to Boaz (11–12), the women bless Naomi. Despite the obvious contrast between the blessings – the former a masculine-legal-official affair, the latter a feminine celebration of love and renewed hope in old age,15 both serve to accept Ruth as part of the community. A brief comparison reveals their similar content: The elders’ blessing (11–12) And all the people at the gate and the elders said: Witnesses! May the Lord grant the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, who both built the house of Israel. Be valiant in Ephrathah and let your name be called in Bethlehem

The women’s blessing (14–15) And the women said to Naomi:

Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today. And let his name be called in Israel.

1962]; T. F. Williams, “‫פקד‬,” NIDOTTE 3.657–63). In any case, this verb is particularly prevalent in divine blessing (Williams, 659). 14 E. J. Hamlin, Ruth: Surely There Is a Future (Edinburgh: Handsel, 1996) 73. George Schwab argues for additional verbal connections between 1:6–14 and 4:13–17 (Schwab, “Ruth,” 1344). 15 N. K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 557; LaCocque, Ruth, 137–38.

309

The blessing of the elders “at the gate” opens with legal affirmation of their role as “witnesses.” Obviously, there is no such statement in the women’s blessing, and this difference symbolizes the inherent difference between them: the elders’ blessing is given in a legal context, while the women bestow theirs in a social, personal setting. Her official acceptance is followed by her acceptance “by the people,” and the former is, in a sense, trumped by the latter: while the elders bless Boaz “let your name be called in Ephrathah,” the women’s blessing is more ambitious: they bless the newborn that his name will be called in all of “Israel.”16 Like the elders at the gate, the women also begin with the invocation of God’s name. While the elders bless Boaz with an echo of his own words in the field (2:4;12), the women, too, bless Naomi with words that recall her own in chap. 2, when she hears that Boaz is Ruth’s benefactor (2:20). The women’s blessing also surpasses those integrated in the story until now: until now, the characters have blessed each other in God’s name, whereas the women now bless God Himself for His providence. God’s first explicit intervention in the text, wherein Ruth’s pregnancy is granted (4:13), is followed by the women blessing God himself for his actions. Thus the story concludes with a song of the people, and not with an official blessing; not with the formal congratulations of the men, but with the glad song of the townswomen rejoicing. The narrative’s recurring pattern, which reconfigures the legal semantic field within everyday life, is also expressed through two semantic changes within the women’s blessing. 1. The first semantic change is related to the term “redeemer” in the women’s blessing: “who has not withheld a redeemer from you today.” This term is intensively repeated in the chapter, featuring twelve times besides the women’s blessing. The verse’s plain meaning is that the redeemer in question is the child, Obed – the rest of the verse, “he will renew your life and sustain your old

16 Zakovitch, Ruth, 113.

310

age” certainly refers to him.17 However, some have challenged this reading with the claim that throughout the chapter, the term “redeemer” refers to a kinsman, and has legal implications. As Boaz is the one who takes on the closer kinsman’s responsibilities, he is therefore the “redeemer” in the verse:18 “The reference is to Boaz, who fulfilled the obligation of a near kinsman; and this very day, having secured an heir for Mahlon, has given full effect to his office.”19 In order to reconcile this claim with the rest of the verse, Richter proposes changing the version of the text.20 However, I believe that Bush is correct in his assertion that “There is nothing improper in applying such a general sense to a child who is the son of Naomi by a legal fiction.”21 Moreover, the author seems to be deliberately playing with the term “redeemer.” Indeed, until now, the word in this chapter has carried certain legal weight, but in the women’s blessing it takes on the meaning of “kinsman” (as in chaps. 2–3) in a personal, emotional context. The women present the idea of “name perpetuation” with emphasis on the personal, emotional aspect of naming a child for one who has been lost: “he will renew your life and sustain your old age.” The newborn child is not merely “perpetuating the name” of the sons Naomi has lost – he will fill the loss in Naomi’s life, refill all that God “emptied” in chap. 1 (1:21). 17 Among others: Zakovitch, Ruth, 113; Bush, Ruth, 253; Eshkenazy and FrymerKensky, Ruth, 89. 18 Among others: J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (NCBC; London: Eerdmans, 1967) 400, and see more in: D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (New York: Mack Publishing, 1974) 255, n. 2. 19 I. Bettan, The Five Scrolls: A Commentary on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (Cincinnati: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1950) 71. 20 H. F. Richter, “Zum Levirat im Buch Ruth,” ZAW 95 (1983) 123–126. At first the women call the son ‫גאל‬, “redeemer” (4:14), while later they refer to him as “son” (4:17). This led Sasson to claim that there are two different versions of the child’s birth redacted in the text’s final editing (Sasson, Ruth, 158–161, 168–70, 233–40). 21 Bush, Ruth, 253.

311

2. The second semantic problem in the women’s blessing also concerns an ambiguous pronoun referent, this time in the expression “and let his name be called in Israel.” Campbell deliberates about the subject of this phrase – the accepted reading is that the blessing is directed towards the new-born child (Obed),22 but it may also refer to God – meaning that the women express their hope that God’s greatness will be proclaimed amongst all His people – and Campbell eventually settles on the latter meaning.23 Neither reading is preferable from a purely linguistic perspective, but this very ambiguity encompasses an ingenious play on the motif of naming. Throughout the chapter the concept of the “name” refers to the name of the deceased (5, 10). The blessing directed at Boaz is also concerned with his successful perpetuation of the name of the deceased (11). The women’s blessing no longer refers to name perpetuation in the legal sense, but in the context of God’s kindness towards Naomi. Those who hear Naomi’s story will spread the word of God’s greatness, establishing God’s name in light of the perpetuation of her family name. Thus, the legal aspect of the story exceeds its boundaries and enters into a greater dialogue: fulfillment of a legal act serves as a basis for spreading God’s name in the world. 22 Among those who hold this opinion: F. Meltzer, Ruth from The Five Megillot (Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Rav Kook Foundation) 33; Zakovitch, Ruth, 113; Eshkenazy and Frymer-Kensky, Ruth, 89. 23 E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 163. He rightly mentions the similar ambiguity of 2:20, which I have already discussed as deliberate ambiguity that highlights the correlation between the kindness of God and the kindness of Boaz. Joüon proposes that it refers to the name of the dead – Elimelech or Mahlon (Ruth, 93), but this reading is problematic, as Campbell has already noted (P. Joüon, Ruth: commentaire philologique et exégétique [Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1953] 163). Loretz claims that the phrase “and let his name be called in Israel” is an expression of individual naming and is not a general blessing (O. Loretz, “Das Verhältnis zwischen Rut-Story und David-Genealogie im Rut-Buch,” ZAW 99 [1977] 124–126). Sasson also argues that this phrase is a formulaic expression that is usually followed by a name, which is missing here (Ruth, 164–66).

312

The Feminine Signature (14–17) The women’s blessing that concludes the tale focuses on Naomi, and thus Naomi is transformed into the hero of the story, which opens with the tragic death of her family and concludes with birth of a new generation.24 However, the focus upon Naomi seems somewhat contrived, for the reader is aware that Naomi’s situation has only improved because of all Ruth has done for her.25 This ambivalent conclusion – that Naomi is presented as hero in the framework of the story, while Ruth’s actions comprise the heart of the text – is the very essence of the tale: Ruth’s actions save Naomi from her distress, while at the same time, all that is done for Naomi’s sake redeems Ruth herself. Ruth, presented as secondary to Naomi in the story, is the covert heroine, acting out her own story. However, even if the narrator seeks to present Naomi as the heroine, Ruth (and Boaz’s) total absence from the stage is somewhat surprising. The narrator is not merely focusing upon Naomi – Ruth is deliberately overlooked. Ruth is the one who conceives and gives birth, but the townswomen relate to Naomi alone. This is even more surprising in relation to the general pattern of the chapter. Once Boaz completes his legal procedure (1–10), two blessings are bestowed: the first is given by the elders to Boaz (11–12), and the second by the townswomen after the birth – to Naomi (14–15). If Boaz receives the first, from the men, it is only expected that Ruth should receive the second, from the women – yet Naomi, not Ruth, is the parallel

24 See, for example, LaCocque, Ruth, 6; Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky, Ruth, 88. For those who take the opposite position and see Naomi as a secondary character throughout the story, see J. H. Stadler’s survey in: “Die Figur der NoomiMara im Buch Rut,” lectio difficilior 2 (2007). She herself sees Naomi as the story’s main heroine. 25 Compare: A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 83–84.

313

recipient to Boaz.26 Both Boaz and Naomi are blessed through Ruth, but she is never a direct recipient, never in the spotlight herself. The focus on Naomi rather than Ruth is even more obvious in light of the story’s conclusion, which can be divided into two parallel parts:27 The “taking” of Ruth and the birth of her son (13–15) And Boaz took Ruth And she became his wife And he cohabited with her, and the Lord granted her pregnancy, and she bore a son. And the women said to Naomi, Blessed is the Lord, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today And let his name be called in Israel. And he will renew your life and sustain your old age, For the daughter-in-law who loves you bore him, She who is better to you than seven sons.

Naomi “takes” the son (16–17) And Naomi took the child And she became his foster mother

And the neighbors called him a name, saying, A son is born to Naomi, And they called his name Obed, Who is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

26 Regarding this technique in general, see: M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 186–229; J. Grossman, “Deliberate Misuse of Idioms in the Biblical Narrative,” Tarbiẓ 77 (2008) 23–44 (Heb.); Idem, “The Vanishing Character in Biblical Narrative: The Role of Hathach in Esther 4,” VT 62 (2012) 561–571. 27 Bush, Ruth, 251. For a different division, see Hubbard, Ruth, 263. M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos 1992) 81–82, proposes a concentric structure: a. 11–12: The elders’ blessing for the “girl” who will establish a house for Boaz like that of Peretz. b. 13: Boaz takes Ruth. c. 14–15: The townswomen: Blessed is the Lord who has not withheld a redeemer. b’. 16: Naomi takes the child. a’. 17–22: The neighbors’ blessing the birth of a son for Naomi and the dynasty of Peretz.

314

This arrangement divides the closing scene of Ruth into two stages: firstly, the “taking” of Ruth and the birth of her son, and secondly, Naomi’s “taking” of the child to her bosom. In both stages, the townswomen open their mouth in response to these two “takings,” blessing Naomi directly (in the first stage) and indirectly (in the second stage, through his naming). A more balanced parallel could have been achieved if the townswomen were to bless each woman in turn – that is, firstly Ruth, after the birth of her son, and then Naomi, after she takes the child to her bosom. This blatant asymmetry places Naomi in the spotlight at Ruth’s expense. Ruth’s absence in these verses can be seen as her effacement in order to make room for Naomi’s role as mother of the child.28 The author takes drastic measures to present Naomi thus: “In every respect it seems as if not Ruth, but Naomi, is the mother of the child.”29 Two aspects of this scene particularly serve the relationship the author is attempting to establish: Firstly, according to the usual formula of birth narratives, the name-giving immediately follows the birth (for example: Gen 21:2–3l 25:25–26; 29–30; 38:3–5; Judg 13:24; 1 Sam 1:20). Obed’s birth strays from this sequence: his name is given only after the townswomen’s blessing (which follows his birth) and only after Naomi takes him to her bosom and becomes his nurse. This name-giving can be read as the end of the birth process. The postponement of naming the child until Naomi places him on her bosom presents Naomi as an alternative mother to the child. Similarly, the naming of Moses is also postponed until after he is adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh 28 See also: M. Carasik, The Bible’s Many Voices (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2014), 225. Brenner reads Ruth’s absence as her “giving up” her son to Naomi, in contrast to the usual struggle between female pairs in other biblical stories where the biological mother fights for her son – such as Hagar (A. Brenner, The Book of Ruth: Literary, Stylistic and Linguistic Studies [Tel Aviv: Afik and Sifriyat Po’alim, 1988] 25 [Heb.]). 29 E. van Wolde, Ruth and Naomi (trans. by J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1997) 113. See also: J. Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves (trans. by L. S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1991) 74.

315

(Exod 2:10) – only then is his birth story concluded.30 Ruth’s role as mother is relegated through her lack of involvement in the child’s naming, as I will clarify below. Secondly, the most striking symbol of Naomi’s surrogate motherhood is her taking of the child and placing him on her bosom (16). There is debate regarding the legal significance of this act, and four major approaches have been raised: a. Some hold that this expression denotes legal adoption.31 According to this reading, Naomi’s placing of the child on her bosom is a formal act which symbolizes adoption, one that recalls the expression “she shall bear upon my knees” used by Rachel and Leah (Gen 30:3;13), or Jacob’s taking Ephraim and Menashe upon his knees (Gen 48:1–14).32 This approach is significant for both adopting parent and adopted child. From Naomi’s perspective, formal adoption is the best expression of her return to motherhood – without it, she has no actual family connection to the newborn child. Adoption expresses the renewal of her status and causes her neighbors to joyfully exclaim that “a son has been born to Naomi.” Moreover, from the child’s point of view, there is further significance to this adoption. Gerlemann argues that after all is said and done, Obed’s biological mother is not fully Israelite, and the author, who seeks to endorse the child with this narrative, therefore makes Naomi his adopted mother.33 30 G. F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1–2 (JSOTSup. 135; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 93. See also: W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB 2; New York: Doubleday 1999) 154. 31 R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. by J. McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 51; E. Würthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth (HAT 18; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1969) 23; A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (Stockholm: Coniectanea Biblica; Old Testament Series 34, 1992) 166–76; M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT 221; Neukirchen Vluyn 1988) 222. 32 As Gerlemann proposes (G. Gerlemann, Rut, Das Hohelied [BKAT; NeukirchenVluyn: 1965] 37–38). 33 Gerlemann, ibid.

316

b. Gow argues that this language hints that Naomi was the one who should have undergone an act of levirate marriage, but due to her advanced age, Ruth took her place as a kind of surrogate mother.34 Placing the child on Naomi’s bosom, therefore is an act of legal and symbolic significance that shows that Naomi is the child’s legal mother (without any need of adoption).35 c. Ludwig Kohler claims that placing the child upon Naomi’s bosom implies that Naomi is the infant’s wet nurse. This is no legal act, but a physical demonstration of her motherhood.36 This reading is problematic as it is biologically unfeasible that Naomi would have been able to nurse the child without giving birth herself,37 particularly as she claims to be past the age of childbearing (1:12).

34 Compare with D. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 39; R. H. Hiers, Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law (New York: Continuum, 2009) 43. 35 Gow, Ruth, 170 (and see comment 93, ibid., for references to other scholars who have adopted this reading), and compare also: H. Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwägungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte,” OrAnt 8 (1969) 111; for criticism of his method see: J. M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God (WUNT 2.48; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992) 68–75; Polak, “Dialogic Pattern in the Book of Ruth,” Bet Mikra 46 (2001) 217 (Heb.): “Seeing as the boy is considered Boaz’s son, Naomi must take special action in order to ensure that he is linked to her husband’s household.” 36 L. Köhler, “Die Adoptionsform von Ruth 4,16,” ZAW 29 (1909) 312–14 (He connects this to legal adoption, and in this context, refers to a story in the Babylonian Talmud, t. Sabb 53b, which tells of a man whose wife dies and he miraculously manages to nurse his child [Köhler, 313]). In contrast, Sasson and Rudolph comment that ancient Hebrew makes a distinction between “foster mother” (‫)אומנת‬, which is Naomi’s appellation, and “wet-nurse” (‫)מינקת‬ (Sasson, Ruth, 172; Rudolph, Ruth, 171). Meir Gruber tones this theory down somewhat by claiming that due to Naomi’s age, it is unlikely that she was able to actually nourish the child, but she served as a pacifier of sorts. This theory is based on Hilma Granqvist’s anthropological studies of the customs of agricultural society (M. Gruber, “The Reality Behind Ruth 4:16,” in Festschrift for Haim Gevariahu (ed. B. Z. Lurie and S. Avramsky; Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1990) 233–35 [Heb.]). 37 As Gruber rightly argues, ibid.

317

d. The fourth approach simply reads Naomi’s embracing the child as an expression of joy and closeness between them. This act is neither formal nor symbolically legal, but merely demonstrates the love Naomi feels for her daughter-in-law’s child.38 As I mention in the introduction, the fourth approach is the most likely in the context of the story. Nonetheless, the language of this expression may be paying tribute to a legal act – that is, these approaches are not “opposite view[s],” and it is not necessary to deliberate if “there is no legal matter at all involved but merely a gesture of affection.”39 This scene is consistent with the entire narrative that synthesizes two worlds together; exploring an act of legal significance within a narrative context that illuminates its emotional, personal facet. With this approach, the reader is also invited to acknowledge the nursing imagery implicit in this scene.40 Thus, this scene hints at what the townswomen openly declare: “A son has been born to Naomi” (4:17).41 Why is it so crucial to depict Naomi as the symbolic mother of the child who has been born to Ruth? As I have mentioned, it is difficult to accept the claim that after Ruth’s long, arduous journey, the author still fears that the child will only be considered a legitimate Israelite if he is taken from Ruth’s arms and placed on Naomi’s bosom. Orit Avnery views the omission of Ruth’s name from the townswomen’s blessing as a detrimental statement: “almost every hero of the story is granted a 38 Rudolph, Ruth, 71; W. J. Fuerst, The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations (Cambridge: CB, 1975) 28–29; Campbell, Ruth, 164–65; Hubbard, Ruth, 274–75; J. Fleishman, Parent and Child in Ancient Near East and the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 49 (Heb.). 39 Viberg, Symbols, 166. 40 Viberg rejects this association, claiming that Naomi is already unable to bear children (based on 1:12) and it is therefore inappropriate to load her with symbols of nursing (Symbols, 167, comment 6). However, literary symbolism is not subject to reality – on the contrary, one of its greatest strengths lies in its ability to transcend the limitations of reality by loading text with fantastic connotations. 41 Porten comments that the scene opens with the statement “and she bore a son” referring to Ruth, and closes with the statement “a son has been born to Naomi” (“Rhetoric,” 47).

318

name (with the exception of the anonymous redeemer… And behold, as the narrative draws to a close, when every conflict seems to have been solved, Ruth’s name is not established.”42 However, the exclusion of Ruth and the focus upon Naomi serves a certain literary purpose. First of all, as many have commented, the presentation of Naomi as the child’s mother closes a certain inversio opened with the story’s beginning – from tragic bereavement to the birth of consolation. The birth of Ruth’s child serves to perpetuate the name of the dead – of Naomi’s son Mahlon – so as Naomi holds the newborn, in a sense she is holding “her” own child. In this, the “levirate marriage” that features in the story deviates from its legal boundaries into the emotional sphere, expressing the characters’ identification with the legal process. This is particularly evident through the townswomen’s reappearance onstage. Their collective voice (“and they said”) is a reflection of their collective reaction to Naomi’s return from Moab: “And they said, Can this be Naomi?” (1:14), and moreover, to Naomi’s own lament at that time.43 There, Naomi bids her neighbors to call her by a new name – Mara (1:20), while here, the neighbors give a new name to her “son.” This emotional aspect is crucial to the story’s design. The tale could have ended with the “perpetuation of the name of the dead” – the central motive for Ruth and Boaz’s marriage. The author’s decision to conclude the story with the townswomen’s words to Naomi, though, brings all the gravity of the “perpetuation of the name of the dead” into the realm of emotion, and the full significance of the 42 O. Avnery, The Threefold Cord: Interrelations between the Books of Samuel, Ruth and Esther (Ph.D. Thesis; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2012) 141. Van Wolde adds that Ruth’s function in the story, like that of Tamar in Genesis 38, is to propel the plot forward for the Judean men who are unable to do so themselves – and after they do so, they disappear (E. van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue With Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” Biblical Interpretation 5 [1997] 1–28). 43 See, among others: S. Bertman, “Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth,” JBL 84 (1965) 165–168; Berlin, Poetics, 86; Porten, “Rhetoric,” 24; F. Polak, Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1999, Second Edition) 214 (Heb.); LaCocque, Ruth, 138.

319

birth of a son is not realized in light of Mahlon and Elimelech, whose names are being resurrected, but in light of Naomi, who gets to hold the son of her loving daughter-in-law against her bosom. This conclusion is a culmination of the pattern that is established throughout the plot: the law of levirate marriage is illuminated from Naomi’s personal perspective; the legal world serves the moral world. At the same time, the narrative’s focus on Naomi reflects an aspect of Ruth and Naomi’s relationship. At first glance, it appears that the traditional model Naomi adheres to for the course of the narrative triumphs over the model that Ruth presents, for the story ends with the birth of Ruth’s son: the daughter-in-law fulfills Naomi’s expectations – she marries and raises a family. However, the emphasis on Naomi’s happiness in these verses hints that Ruth’s agenda is also successful: for Ruth has borne a son for the sake of Naomi, and not for the sake of her own security; Ruth’s son is Naomi’s “son,” and now she and her mother-in-law will never be parted. At the gate, Naomi and Ruth are presented as one widowed entity,44 and now they are presented as one mothering entity.45 Two have become one, inseparable from each other. This is validated by the words of the townswomen of Bethlehem – finally, Ruth is acknowledged as Naomi’s “daughter-in-law.”46 This is not merely a formal definition – the townswomen describe the emotional bond between the characters (“who loves you”) and the extraordinary kindness Ruth has shown Naomi (“who is better to you than seven sons”), recognizing that their connection extends far beyond the question of perpetuating the name of the dead. Therefore – as opposed to Avnery’s claim, above – there is special significance to the townswomen’s use of the term “daughter-in-law,” for it shows acceptance of Ruth’s bond with Naomi, which would not be expressed through the mention of Ruth’s name. The local establishment has already authorized Boaz’s request to marry Ruth as a member 44 See above, in the discussion of the ambiguity of Boaz’s words: “the wife of the deceased” in 4:5 (which refers to Ruth and Naomi as one). 45 Compare: Van Wolde, Ruth, 113–14. 46 Compare: K. M. Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 202. Sasson (Ruth, 158) presents Ruth and Naomi’s relationship following Obed’s birth in a more complex light.

320

of Elimelech’s family, legally recognizing Ruth’s connection to Naomi; now, the townswomen – their neighbors, their society – accept Ruth as one of their own, acknowledging the ties between Naomi and the Moabite girl. The neighbors’ supportive attitude towards Naomi and Ruth reaches extreme proportions when they are the ones who give the child his name: “And the neighbors gave him a name, saying, A son has been born to Naomi, and they called his name Obed” (4:17). This is the final verse of the story, and as Bal notes, the final word is awarded to the neighbors, of all people.47 This incident is both unusual and baffling. To a certain degree, this recalls the birth of Peretz (‫)פרץ‬, the elder of the twins Tamar conceived with Judah, when the midwife proclaims: “How you have burst out” (Gen 38:29), but the midwife does not actually name the child; the name is merely based on her description of his unusual birth.48 Why has Ruth’s author strayed from the universal convention of the child’s naming by the parents, and transferred this right to the neighbor-women?49 This anomaly is yet more blatant within a narrative where the question of names and naming is so central. By having the townswoman name the child, the author chooses to conclude the story by addressing the social issues it raises. Firstly, this scene solves the problems raised by the townswomen’s encounter with Naomi as she returns from Moab in the story’s first chapter – not only from a structural-literary perspective, but from a social perspective. The alienation that can be traced throughout the story finally comes to a palpable end: the neighbors’ naming of the child celebrates Naomi’s reentry, and Ruth’s entry, into the Bethlehemite community – not only 47 M. Bal, “Heroism and Proper Names, Or the Fruits of Analogy,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 54. 48 Bush, Ruth, 259. 49 Pardes proposes that the author seeks to avoid specifying whether Ruth or Naomi names the child: “Perhaps as a way of assuring the joint motherhood of Ruth and Naomi, neither of them names the child.” (I. Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992] 106).

321

from a legal perspective, which occurs in the gate scene, but from a social, emotional perspective. For ultimately, it is the quality of the interaction with their fellow townswomen that will dictate the social quality of Ruth and Naomi’s lives. The Judean men, with their legal discourse of estate and the family name, can proclaim what they like, but Naomi and Ruth will never become part of the community if not accepted by the women who surround them, who weave their cloth and grind their grain and raise their children together, as a community. By naming the child – “in Israel” – the women are accepting him as one of their own, allowing Ruth and Naomi reentry into that most coveted of circles – the golden circle of Israelite motherhood. Secondly, I have already mentioned Gerlemann’s suggestion – Naomi serves as the child’s foster mother in order to legitimize the status of one born to a Moabite mother.50 This comment is problematic in light of the painstaking efforts the author takes to show how Ruth is accepted as an Israelite, even comparing her to Rachel and Leah, the foremothers of the House of Israel. Obed is not legitimized through his connection to his adopted grandmother, but through his mother’s public, witnessed entry through the gates of Bethlehem, and her reputation as a valiant woman in Israel. However, Gerlemann is correct that the neighbors’ collective naming of the child legitimizes him within the community, and even awards him special status. In a sense, the newborn is “taken” from his parents in two stages: immediately following his birth, he is “taken” by his adoptive grandmother, and, soon after, his naming – a duty which traditionally rests on the parents’ shoulders, representing their responsibility towards their child – is undertaken by his neighbors. Rather than being the child of outsiders, he has become the child of all – the child of the entire Bethlehemite community.51 This sense of collective parentage anticipates the national role that Obed’s grandson is to play; the universal House he will establish.

50 Gerlemann, Ruth, 37–38. 51 Compare: A. B. Ehrlich, Mikra KiPheshuto (reprinted, New York: Ktav, 1969, vol. 3) 403 (Heb.).

322

The story thus concludes with the shattering of a yet another social convention – a faithful end to the entire story. The child whose birth has transpired through the breaking of legal and social conventions is named not by his parents, but by society as a whole – the entire community partakes in the perpetuation of the name of the dead. The child’s naming by the neighbors may be unconventional, but neither is it conventional for a daughter-in-law to cling to her mother-in-law; nor for a field owner to display generosity beyond the requirements of the law; nor for a kinsman to appendix marriage with a Moabite girl to the legal procedure of field redemption. Many hurdles have stood in the way of name perpetuation, and the neighbor-women express their identification with the hurdles overcome through this naming, which becomes an event of social significance that transcends the traditional naming of a child by his parents.

“The Father of Jesse the Father of David” (17) The plot concludes by transporting the reader from the distant narrative past to the present: “he is the father of Jesse the father of David.” (4:17) Beyond the chronological trajectory of a new-born infant into a grandfather, this brief addition sets the story within new proportions: as the personal story of Ruth strikes its final chords, it is transformed into a crucial moment in history, a story of national significance – the story of the founding of the royal line of David.52 This conclusion casts the story in an entirely new light. The private tragedies and triumphs of a certain family in Israel become the prelude for the founding of a dynasty; personal events take on historic significance. The mention of David at the end of the story amplifies the actions of the individual characters of the story – it emerges that a private decision, particularly one of kindness and compassion, has the power to transform reality at large, to reverberate far beyond its 52 Hubbard, Ruth, 277.

323

expected scope. Even Israel’s royal dynasty begins with a kind word in a field of barley.53 Thus the story achieves its objective: opening in the shaky period of the Judges, where every man is for himself, the compassion of the individual penetrates the story so deeply that the way is paved to royalty. Just as the beginning of the narrative is embedded with allusions to the final stories of Judges,54 its end alludes to the beginning of the book of Samuel, to the birth of the prophet who will one day anoint King David himself.55 The elders’ blessing to Boaz, “May the Lord grant” (11–12) echoes the blessing of fertility that Eli bestows upon Hannah: “May the God of Israel grant your request that you have asked of him” (1 Sam 1:19),56 and indeed, these two blessings 53 Tod Linafelt (Ruth [Berit Olam Series: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Minnesota: The Liturgical Press 1989] 80–81) comments that the mention of David at the story’s end is ironic, assuming that the author has the anti-royalist tendencies common to biblical authors – for the characters did not succeed in creating a culture of kindness and mutual help, and there was still need to establish a monarchy. This reading is interesting but the accepted view that the mention of David at the story’s conclusion raises the reader’s positive connotations is more likely, and it is hard to read irony or cynicism in this ending. 54 As I have discussed in the introduction, see references to other studies above. 55 The story’s conclusion with David raises the motivation to find allusions to David’s kingship within the story itself. Zakovitch draws connections between David’s biography and the Ruth narrative, such as: the repeated mentions of Peretz; the expression “Bethlehem of Judah”; the connection to Moab; the expression “valiant man” (Zakovitch, Ruth, 32–33). Yitzhak Berger presents an extended analogy between the story of Ruth and the story of David, Abigail and Nabal in 1 Sam 25 (“Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25,” JBL 128 (2009) 253–72). Additionally, many individual scenes in Ruth generate a dialogue with the story of David, such as David’s attempt to dissuade the gentile Itai the Gittite from joining him when he fought against Absalom’s rebellion, which recalls Naomi’s dialogue with Ruth as she leaves for Bethlehem, and Boaz’s speech to the anonymous redeemer, which recalls the prophet Nathan’s speech to David regarding his request to build a house for God. 56 As Hannah’s response to Eli’s blessing – “and she said, May your maidservant find favor in your eyes” (18) recalls Ruth’s response to Boaz’s blessing in the field: “and she said, I will find favor in your eyes, my master, for you have comforted me, and have spoken to the heart of your maidservant” (Ruth 2:13).

324

are fulfilled with the special intervention of God (1 Sam 1:19 / Ruth 4:13). The strongest allusion to the book of Samuel can be found in the townswomen’s description of Ruth and Naomi’s relationship: “for your daughter-in-law who loves you bore him, she who is better to you than seven sons” (4:15). As the issue of “sons” is so central to the narrative as a whole, the townswomen have chosen an apt way to praise Ruth.57 Naomi may have returned “empty” of sons, but she has been granted a worthy alternative – an even worthier alternative, in the words of the townswomen.58 This comparison transports the reader to the beginning of the book of Samuel, to Elkanah’s words to Hannah: “Aren’t I better to you than ten sons?” (1 Sam 1:8).59 The book of Ruth reaches the shores of the book of Samuel, ending with the birth of David. This bridge, built on kindness, is the bridge that leads Israel from the anarchistic period of the Judges to the foundations of the royal dynasty of David.

Hannah’s prayers are granted, and Hannah bears a son, and Boaz’s relationship with Ruth also leads to the birth of a son. 57 Seeing as the women’s blessing here can be considered a foil to Naomi’s lament in chap. 1, the women’s words “better to you,” (‫ )טובה לך‬answers “and Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me” (‫( )הרע לי‬1:21). 58 Compare: Campbell, Ruth, 168; Pardes, Countertraditions, 87. In parallel to the key verb root in chap. 1 – ‫( שוב‬return), (which also appears in Naomi’s words: “and empty has the Lord returned (‫ )השיבני‬me”), the townswomen’s blessing makes special use of the sound ‫( שב‬see the introduction). It is difficult to determine if this is intentional. 59 See more about this connection in: Nielsen, Ruth, 94. LaCocque adds that in this scene, the author raises associations of four different women in all: Rachel and Leah (11), Tamar (12) and now, Hannah (Ruth, 143).

325

Appendix – The Lineage of Peretz (4:18–22) And Jesse begot David

The concluding verses of the narrative (18–22) should be read as an appendix to the story. Even if these verses were written by the same author as the entire narrative (as LaCocque claims, among others),1 from a literary point of view, this unit is not a direct continuation of the plot, and it can be considered a final stitch that the narrator uses to link the narrative to the royal dynasty of Israel. As Hubbard comments, such genealogical lists are found mainly in Genesis, but unlike these lists – which open the narrative that concerns each family – the genealogical list of Peretz in the book of Ruth concludes the narrative.2 While this list was probably added to the text at a later stage of its editing, it has great bearing upon the reading experience of the text.3 The first question that arises from this unit is that of its necessity. Boaz’s relation to David has been related in the previous verse (“who is the father of Jesse the father of David” [17]) – if so, what information does this appendix contribute? Surprisingly, the list begins with Peretz rather than the father of the tribe, Judah. Thus, these verses are linked to the story itself, when the elders bless Boaz that his house will be like the house of Peretz, 1

2 3

A. LaCocque, Ruth (Continental Commentary; trans. by K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 148. He supports his claim with three arguments: (1) This unit concludes an inclusio opened at the story’s start – 10 generations correspond to 10 years spent in Moab). (2) The list begins with Peretz in relation to the elders’ blessing in 4:12. (3) Boaz has a special symbolic status within this list, for he is the seventh. R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, (NICOT; Grand Rapids: 1988) 281. Even if Witzenrath’s claim that the entire theme of the book is completely dependent on whether it is read with or without the appendix is somewhat exaggerated (Das Buch Rut [SNAT 40; Münich, 1975] 343–368.

hinting that their blessing is fulfilled. Given the symbolic saturation of the book of Ruth, it is also worth noting that beginning the list with Peretz creates a typological model of ten generations, from Peretz to David. Moreover, it seems that special efforts were taken to reach this particular number, as some generations have been omitted: careful calculations reveal that there are five generations from Peretz until Nachshon, who was the head of his tribe in the generation of the Exodus from Egypt (Num 1:7), and therefore, just five generations from the Exodus from Egypt until the birth of David. Five generations between Peretz and the Exodus is reasonable, but five generations are not enough to span the period between the Exodus from Egypt until the birth of David. As some scholars have noted, the purpose of the omission of some generations is to retain the traditional “ten-generation” model.4 This model touches upon two different issues, and thus makes two separate contributions to the narrative as a whole. The first is intratextual: the ten generations can be compared to the ten years Elimelech’s family spends in Moab.5 The story opens with Elimelech and his sons’ death in Moab, and the dynasty brought as an appendix shows how this family is granted redemption and continuation.6 In retrospect, the reader is able to see that even from perspective of the death of Elimelech, all’s well that ends well. However, this ten-generation list can also be viewed in a wider biblical context, connecting the story of David’s birth to the founding of 4 5

6

A. Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” Yediot Bahaqirat Eretz-Israel Weatiqoteha 31 (1967) 25 (Heb.). It should be noted that the author openly incorporated the number ten in chapter four, when ten elders gather at the gate at Boaz’s request (4:2). Porten comments that in the exposition, the names of the characters are mentioned ten times in total, which is relevant from a literary perspective (B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 [1978] 24–25). I am doubtful as to whether this is an intentional act on the author’s part (after all, there are not ten different names in the exposition, but the narrator repeats the names of various characters, which totals ten mentions in all). Nonetheless, it is notable that Mahlon and Chilion do not feature in the list at all. In the end, they are not truly resurrected, for Obed is counted as Boaz’s son in this list.

328

the Israelite nation, and humanity itself: to the model of the ten generations between Adam and Noah (Gen 5) and from Noah to Abraham (Gen 11). Thus, the line of Peretz is presented as the product of divine calculation and providence; as the culmination and continuation of a time-old historical tradition.7 Moreover, as John Hamlin comments, the tenth generation of the “ten generational model” that features in Genesis also marks the beginning of a new era, the start of a better age – as does Noah, and as does Abraham.8 Following this pattern, the book’s conclusion with the birth of David is profoundly connected to the narrative’s objective. The bridge that links the period of the Judges to kingdom of David thus marks the end of an epic journey that begins with the birth of Peretz in Genesis 38, and culminates with the birth of a new age in the figure of David. In light of this comparison, there is room to consider whether it is coincidental that Boaz is seventh in the list.9 Beyond being a typological number in itself, in the genealogical list of the generations from Adam to Noah, the seventh generation, Enoch, merits special attention: “and Enoch walked with God, and is no more, because God took him” (Gen 5:24), thus conveying certain significance to Boaz for being seventh in the list. The description of Enoch anticipates his descendant Noah’s “walk[ing] with God” (Gen 6:9) – this format may indicate that the seventh generation lays the groundwork for the important 7

8 9

The literary model of ten generations is widely prevalent in ancient Eastern descriptions of royal dynasties, such as those of Shamshi-Adad and others (Malamat, “King Lists,” who mentions the lineage in the book of Ruth on page 25). See also: J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with A Philological Commentary and A Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd Edition; JSOT 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 183–84. The formula of “and X begot Y” is prevalent in the literature of the period of the Second Temple (in Chronicles and Nehemiah), and is used twice in Genesis (11:27, 25:19). This strengthens the argument that the book of Ruth was written in the period of the Second Temple, but Gow argues that this formulation is designed to connect the lineage in Ruth to God’s choice of Abraham and the generations of Isaac, for this is the only place where this style features in Genesis (M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose [Leicester: Apollos 1992] 187). E. J. Hamlin, Ruth: Surely There Is a Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1996) 73. G. A. Rendsburg, “Notes on Genesis XV,” VT 42 (1992) 266–68.

329

descendant of the tenth generation. Boaz, as the seventh generation, lays the groundwork for the arrival of David.10 In any case, Obed, the son of Ruth and Boaz, is not merely the name-perpetuator of Elimelech and Mahlon: he transcends this role, becoming a link in the chain of the royal dynasty of Israel.11 Moreover, the concept of ten generations has polemical significance. The prohibition to marry Moabites mentions ten generations: “No Amonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation” (Deut 23:4). If this list of ten generations that concludes the book of Ruth is in dialogue with the law that forbids intermarriage with Moabites, then this narrative concludes with the triumph of kindness and compassion over the law; with Ruth’s successful integration into the community of Bethlehem despite the limitations of this law. A story driven by two female protagonists concludes with a list of ten generations of men, and, once again, the women fade into the background. Some read this ending as the author’s surrender to convention: even the author of Ruth ultimately reverts to the accepted narrative patriarchal authority.12 This reading, however, misses the significance of this concluding unit. In ancient Eastern society, dynasties were always patriarchal because women would join their husband’s clan, so the family line was traced through the men. In the context of the book of Ruth, the fact that Ruth and Boaz’s son Obed becomes an 10 Zvi Ron even proposes that in this list Boaz is listed as the tenth generation of Abraham, and, counting from Adam: “Noah is the tenth in line, Abraham the twentieth, and Boaz the thirtieth” (Z. Ron, “The Genealogical List in the Book of Ruth: A Symbolic Approach,” JBQ 38 (2010) 85–92). 11 Compare: LaCocque, Ruth, 148. 12 T. Linafelt, Ruth (Berit Olam Series: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Minnesota: Liturgical 1989) 79–80. Based on the change of perspective from a “feminine perspective” to a description of the lineage of Peretz, which is a “masculine perspective,” Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes sees this list as an appendix – which was added by a male author, to the text itself – which was written by a woman (“Ruth: A Product of Women’s Culture?,” in Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 134–39. This conclusion is highly problematic, seeing as a stylistic change does not necessarily indicate a change in author.

330

integral part of Peretz’s lineage testifies to the legitimacy of Ruth and Boaz’s marriage. Ruth’s omission in Peretz’s lineage is not a mark of her failure to integrate into the Judean community, but a success: there is no need to set her apart by mentioning her, for her son forms a valid link in the royal chain that extends from Peretz to David.

331

Afterword

Three axes form the underlying structure of the Book of Ruth: the relationship between human action and divine action; the attitude towards the law; and the attitude towards the Other. All three axes develop similarly: initiative and responsibility is settled upon human shoulders alone. As I discuss in the introduction, and touch upon throughout, the story is not characterized by the usual concept of dual causality, but rather by “integrative causality”: God orchestrates situations in which people are forced to act; the person freely decides how to act, and God reacts to his or her decisions. Ultimately, it is the characters’ actions that allow the story to reach its happy end – the author ascribes the outcome of the plot to its characters’ decisions no less than to the acts of God. The end of the story hints at human limitations – “and the Lord granted her pregnancy” (4:13), but until this point, the characters alone advance the plot, and it is human action that leads to Boaz and Ruth’s union. The narrative’s attitude towards social and legal conventions is similarly presented. Here, too, the legal world is a starting point for the character’s actions, rather than its end. The entire story revolves around social customs and legal procedures, but is not characterized by adherence to these customs and laws – rather, it unfolds according to their reinterpretation, which is governed by compassion towards the living and the dead. “Proper” social conventions are bent beyond recognition when Ruth joins Naomi on her journey back to Bethlehem, privileging loyalty to her lonely mother-in-law over the prospects of building a new home. The characters’ decision to deviate from the accepted norm is significant when their actions are read against the established law. When the plot is placed in Boaz’s hands, he relates to the law with gravity, yet extends its borders – effectually creating new laws. Thus, in the field, he allows Ruth to glean amongst the sheaves

and commands his workers to intentionally leave grain behind for her; whilst at the gate, an inherently legal scene, he annexes an act of quasi-levirate marriage to the legal process of field redemption. This linkage, above all, illuminates the complexity of the narrative’s attitude towards the law.1 This is not an anarchistic story that mocks and undermines the law and its accompanying customs – Boaz makes a point of acquiring Ruth in the authorizing presence of the town elders – but it is subversive nonetheless, hinting that the law itself is not a sufficient course of action for one who is governed by kindness and compassion. Here, kindness and compassion are the motivating forces behind every legal motion, even at the expense of breaking the boundaries of the accepted law.2 The third pillar of the story – attitude towards the Other – is obviously affected by the two aforementioned axes, and it also serves to reflect their fulfillment. The idea that Naomi and Ruth’s fate rests on the shoulders of Boaz, and Boaz’s readiness to reinterpret the law, are what ultimately allow Ruth’s acceptance into Bethlehemite society as a fully-fledged citizen. Moreover, Ruth is not only “accepted” as an Israelite – she even saves an entire Israelite family from obliteration. Ruth, with all her courage and freedom of decision, is the one who enables perpetuation of Elimelech’s family upon its estate; the Moabite clinging to the fringes of society is the one who reestablishes an Israelite name. This reversal emphasizes the subversive light that colors every facet of the story. By the story’s end, the reader senses how Israel’s most important royal dynasty is founded though the initiative of Tamar the Canaanite, which leads to the birth of Peretz (Gen 38), and the initiative of Ruth the Moabite, which leads to the birth of Obed. A royal line’s first generation and seventh generation arise from 1

2

As I have mentioned several times, from the perspective of narrative design, Naomi is presented as the hero of the story, despite the fact that Ruth is the main propeller of the plot. From a perspective of challenging and redefining the law, the author identifies with Ruth and Boaz, while Naomi is presented as a secondary character who is hesitant to accept new norms. In this sense, Naomi is secondary to Ruth. See especially A. LaCocque, Ruth (Continental Commentary; trans. by K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 153–54.

334

women who test social and legal boundaries – and only thus does the line conclude with the birth of David. The story’s subversive vein is not striking or demonstrative – on the contrary, it is not surprising that many scholars perceive the book of Ruth as a tranquil, ideal story. For all its tranquility, which is certainly palpable, and certainly contributes to its reading pleasure, the story gently subverts accepted norms, and presents compassion and kindness to the underprivileged as a supreme value that trumps these norms. In this light, the narrator’s emphasis upon God’s open intervention at the end of the story – “and God granted her pregnancy” (4:13) – is particularly significant. This emphasis shows how God Himself validates the characters’ actions, despite the fact that they deviate from the accepted law. Thus, the narrator adds divine approval to the blessings of the elders and the townswomen, and He too is presented among those who have adopted the new interpretation of the law that evolves at the gate. As the townspeople of Bethlehem welcome Ruth into their gates, they are also welcoming a profound new awareness of the law as a product of kindness and compassion – compassion that establishes the women’s salvation; compassion that establishes the Davidic line.

Reading the Story in Light of Winnicott The eminent psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott (1896–1971) attributed great importance to what he coined a “transitional object.” Towards the end of their infancy, children often become attached to certain objects that they constantly hold and caress, and even refuse to be parted from – to the point that parents are unable to wash the filthy toy or “security blanket,” which cannot be replaced or substituted with anything else. According to Winnicott, this attachment is related to the child’s separation process from his or her mother. As long as children are nursing, they perceive the mother’s breast as an integral part of their self, and they are unable to grasp that their mother, and her breast 335

in particular, is a separate entity that exists outside of their own selves. Eventually, they will come to accept the separate existence of this entity, but in order to facilitate the development of a nursing infant into an autonomous person, separate from his or her mother, infants often adopt some kind of object, which on the one hand reminds them of their mother, and therefore constantly accompanies them to compensate for their mother’s growing absence in his life; and on the other hand, unlike their perception of the breast, the infant perceives the object in question as a separate entity from him or herself. The “transitional object,” therefore, represents the child’s evolving reality, and eases his or her’s acceptance of this reality. The book of Ruth is a “transitional narrative” for Ruth and for the reader who is prepared to read the story in its natural context: following the period of the Judges, and concluding with the birth of the Davidic era. As I have discussed, Naomi is the “hero” of the story, and Ruth’s actions stem from her desire to be close to her, but over the course of the story, these actions lead to the formation of a new identity.3 When Ruth chooses to accompany Naomi, she is effectually “cutting herself off ”: from her cultural roots; from her family; from her people and her language. The key word in chap. 1 is “return,” (‫ )שוב‬and as I discuss in context, the central tensions of the chapter emerge through the various appearances of this root, and the disparity between the characters climaxes through it: for Naomi is “returning home,” while Ruth is not really “returning,” but rather following Naomi “back.” Ruth’s pledge to Naomi does not sufficiently render Naomi’s own returning point as her own. In fact, Ruth’s decision effectually replaces her geographical destination with a human destination – Naomi herself: “Wherever you go, I will go” (1:16). Thus Ruth displaces herself, erases her own geographical-national-cultural identity. Yet she has not yet attained a new identity, as the author expresses through Boaz’s words in chap. 2: 3

Among those who do not wish to define Naomi as the hero of the story, some have argued that the two characters are inseparable, and one cannot be extricated from the other (O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction [trans. by P. R. Ackroyd; New York: Blackwell, 1965] 481–482). According to this perspective, both women, in parallel, go through an absorption process in Bethlehem.

336

“how you left your father and mother and your birthplace and went to a place you had not known before” (2:11). If so, Ruth’s story opens with detachment, with erasure of her past. Ultimately, Ruth will be granted a new identity, a new family and home, and she will be perceived as a true woman of Bethlehem, passing through the town gate, her son taking his place in the line of Peretz. Ruth’s story is certainly one of transition – it marks Ruth’s detachment from “her mother’s house” (1:8), from the Moabite identity she shares with Orpah (who is initially inseparable from Ruth: “and they said” [1:10]) in order to establish a new Israelite identity of her own. How does this “transitional story” unfold? Are there certain elements in the story that facilitate her detachment and reattachment? Here, too, we can borrow a central term from Winnicott – a “good enough mother.” According to Winnicott, a “good enough mother” (“not necessarily the infant’s own mother”),4 places her child’s needs before her own, whereas the “not good enough mother” privileges her own needs above the child’s, thereby not allowing the child to develop in suitable emotional conditions. As I have held throughout this discussion, I do not identify with the readings that perceive Naomi as one who is only concerned for her own good. On the contrary, Naomi is characterized as one who seeks her daughter-in-law’s comfort, even at her own expense. This is evident from her soliloquys in chap. 1 and the language of her words to Ruth at the beginning of chap. 3. Naomi is, for Ruth, a “good-enough mother” – who is concerned for Ruth’s wellbeing, even at the expense of her own interests. As Winnicott holds, this mothering eases Ruth’s transition into her new life. However, it is clear that the figure of the “good enough mother” is most strongly represented through the figure of Ruth herself. Ruth is most strikingly characterized by her generosity, her altruism. She places the needs of others before her own, as is evident in every chapter: she joins Naomi in chap.1; she gleans more grain than she needs 4

D. W. Winnicott, “Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena—A Study of the First Not-Me Possession,” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 34 (1953) 93.

337

for herself, even saving the leftover parched grain that Boaz gives her for Naomi in chap. 2; she acts according to Naomi’s will in chap. 3, and her words to Boaz do not entreat his pity for her own sake, but for the sake of the family line: “for you are a redeeming kinsman” (3:9). From this perspective, Ruth’s acceptance in Bethlehem is justified through Ruth’s ability to encounter another and efface herself for the other’s sake. Measure for measure: she who is willing to accept her surroundings and be concerned for those around her deserves to be accepted, to have society make room for her, despite her otherness. This idea is particularly striking in the dialogue between Boaz and Ruth in the field. There, the question of her otherness is raised openly: “How have I found favor in your eyes that you acknowledge me, when I am a foreigner?” (2:10). Boaz’s response rings with the concept of measure-for-measure: “I have been told of all that you did for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband, how you left your father and mother and the land of your birth and came to a people you had not known before…” (11). Boaz is not praising Ruth for her decision to join the Israelite nation – on the contrary, her journey to a new people is defined as a sacrifice made in order to join Naomi – but for “all she [has done] for [her] mother-in-law after the death of [her] husband”; her detachment from her parents and her departure to an unknown destination. This kindness is what justifies Boaz’s disregard of her otherness – what dispels the alienation surrounding the Moabite girl is her devotion to her mother-in-law despite the cultural differences between them. The spatial movement of the story also reflects its transitional nature, the story of a foreigner’s integration in Bethlehem: the setting of the narrative closes in, edging closer to the town, growing ever distant from Moab. As I discuss in the introduction, chap. 1 takes place along the road, between Moab and Bethlehem, in a neutral setting that reflects how Ruth has left her homeland but has yet to arrive at her destination. In this chapter, Ruth’s “mother’s house” still features as a feasible place for Ruth to return (1:8). In chap. 2, the plot develops in the open field, outside the town itself. The open field is a public place, bustling with workers and gleaners. In this scene, Ruth’s 338

“Moabiteness” is explicitly mentioned by the supervising boy, and the narrator himself refers to her as “Ruth the Moabite” (2:2; 21). Her former identity plays a significant role, as Boaz must admonish his workers not to harm her. In chap. 3, the encounter still takes place outside the town, at the threshing-floor, but unlike the open field, the moonlit threshing-floor exudes a sense of intimacy, of space gradually converging, of new, more private boundaries. Ruth’s former identity is completely absent from this scene, and instead, for the first time, the reader hears of “the elders” of Boaz’s “people” (‫)שער עמו‬, who appreciate and praise her (3:11). Chap. 4, Boaz’s legal acquisition of Ruth, occurs at the gate, the official entrance of the town –Ruth is officially admitted within its limits, and the elders bless Boaz and the “woman who is coming into your house” (4:11). From the road; to the field; to the threshing-floor; to the town gate and the town; to her very own home; Ruth has finally reached her destination. Reading Ruth’s journey as a transitional narrative also casts the role of Naomi in a new light. From the perspective of the process that Ruth is undergoing, Naomi serves as a “transitional object.” As I mention above, a transitional object has two faces: on the one hand, it fills the place of the absent mother, but on the other, its very presence draws attention to her absence. So Naomi functions within the story: on the one hand, Ruth lives with her, under her matronage, and is referred to as “my daughter.”5 Ruth ventures out into the field and the threshing-floor only at Naomi’s word, and it is to Naomi that Ruth reports back at the end of each scene. The party traditionally responsible for a young girl’s “security” – that is, her marriage – is her parents, and in the story, Naomi indeed fulfills that role (3:1). In fact, this role is already hinted to in the dialogue of chap.1, where Naomi raises her daughters-in-law’s “mother’s house” (1:8) as the best option for them, while Ruth chooses Naomi as a mother-substitute instead. From this perspective, Naomi fills the role of the missing parent (Ruth’s “parent” being a symbol of her “absent past”). Nonetheless, at the same 5

And as I mention in my discussion of chap. 2, Naomi’s referring to Ruth as “my daughter” creates a framework for the two central scenes in the narrative – for Ruth’s venture into the field, and her venture down to the threshing-floor.

339

time, Naomi also highlights what Ruth is lacking, for she is unable to support her “daughter” – rather, Ruth is the one who ventures out to provide for Naomi. Moreover, Naomi does not manage to find a husband for Ruth herself, and has Ruth go down to the threshing-floor to entice Boaz. In this sense, Naomi is a classic “transitional object”: she represents the missing home – but only represents her. When Ruth comes home to Naomi after a hard day’s – or night’s – work, all she is lacking is most palpable. Within this structure, Boaz can be read as Ruth’s new identity, one that truly replaces her old Moabite past. The widows have no-one to provide for them or protect them, and Boaz fills this role by providing them with food and taking care that no-one harms Ruth in the field. This care is extended over the course of the entire harvest season, so that Boaz acts as their ‘breadwinner” even before his marriage to Ruth. It is needless to add that when Boaz takes Ruth for a wife, he becomes Ruth’s new “home.” In chap. 1, Ruth leaves her “mother’s house,” (1:8) and in chap. 4, she finally becomes “the woman who is coming to Boaz’s house.” (4:11) In the interim, she dwells with Naomi – in her “transitional house.”

Bridges “He that will be a head, let him be a bridge” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, English Traits)

Winnicott’s approach is also important in light of the story’s objective, as directed at the reader. As mentioned in the introduction, the story opens in the period of the Judges (“and it was in the days when judges ruled” [1:1]) and concludes with the birth of the most enduring king of Israel (“the father of Jesse who is the father of David” [4:17; 4:18–22]) – this story marks the transition from a time of anarchy to a

340

time of monarchy.6 The narrative’s allusions to the end of the period of the judges and its conclusion with the birth of David (as opposed to the reign of Saul)7 seem to imply that the author of Ruth is affiliated with the pro-monarchist movement who views the introduction of kingship in a positive light, rather than the anti-monarchic movement. The book of Ruth marks the end of anarchy, where “every man did as he sees fit” (Judg 21:25) and the institution of law and order, of the royal dynasty of David. In this light, the book of Ruth can be perceived as a “historical process,” as a bridge from one period to another. The narrative itself can be perceived as a “transitional object” from a period where the reader encounters characters such as the people of Gibeah, who fail to perceive those around them as separate entities with their own needs and desires; and a period in which order is restored, and “justice and righteousness for all his people” is done (2 Sam 8:15). As we have seen, the narrative structure hints to “movement,” to transformation from social alienation to acceptance of the Other. The townswomen of Bethlehem, whose initial exclamation, “Can this be Naomi?” (1:19) exudes alienation, are the same women who eventually celebrate the birth of Naomi’s “son.” The supervising boy, who represents the com6

7

For the connections between the story of Ruth and the final stories of Judges, and Ruth and the opening of Samuel, see: E. E. Campbell, Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975) 35–36; D. Jobling, “Ruth Finds a Home: Canon, Politics, Method,” in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. C. Exum and D. J. A. Clines; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 125–139; O. Avnery, The Threefold Cord: Interrelations between the Books of Samuel, Ruth and Esther (Ph.D. Thesis; Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2012). According to Y. Berger, the book of Ruth can be perceived as a corrective of the problems that arise during the Davidic reign (“Ruth and the David-Bathsheba Story: Allusions and Contrasts,” JSOT 33 [2009] 433–452; “Ruth and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25,” JBL 128 [2009] 253–272). The story of Ruth, which is set in Bethlehem of Judah, may even be viewed as the antithesis of the story of the concubine at Gibeah and Benjamin’s behavior in this story. This reading already privileges Davidic reign (Judah) over Saul’s reign (Benjamin). See a more detailed discussion of this comparison below and compare: Jobling, “Ruth finds a home.”

341

moner of Bethlehem, harbors reservations towards the Moabite girl (chap. 2), but this perception is overridden by the elders’ comparison of Ruth to Rachel and Leah, founding mothers of Israel. The kindness of the story’s protagonists, the sense of responsibility they display towards each other, their dedication and generosity, stand in profound contrast to the story of the Concubine at Gibeah and Micah’s idol. The Levite who leaves his house to be on his way is surprised to see his concubine lying at his feet: “And her master rose in the morning and opened the doors of the house…and behold, his concubine was sprawled at the entrance of the house, her hand upon the threshold. And he said to her, Get up, let us go, and there was no answer, so he took her onto the donkey and the man got up and went on his way” (Judg 19:27–28). The horror of this scene contrasts sharply with the image of Boaz awakening to discover a woman lying by his feet: “And it came to pass at midnight, and the man trembled and wrapped himself, and behold, a woman was lying at his feet. And he said, Who are you, and she said, I am Ruth, your handmaiden, spread your wing over your handmaiden, for you are a redeeming kinsman” (3:8–9). The concubine receives no compassion, not even from her own master, while Ruth is granted protection from a man who is not even obliged to help her – he is not even her closest redeeming kinsman. The concubine is the victim of unrestrained sexual corruption, while Boaz does not take advantage of a woman who voluntarily lies beside him in the darkness in the intimacy of the threshing-floor. The concubine remains nameless throughout the story and is cast out of a house that is not a house, a house that offers no protection – while Ruth states her name and is granted entry into Boaz’s own home, and merits to become the founder of the House of David. On the other hand, Ruth’s story is not all tranquility; its pastoral setting belies polemical tension. The story of Ruth challenges the institution of law and order like no other work, its underlying structure centering upon the reconfiguration of the letter of the law according to its spirit. The author ultimately perceives compassion for others as the governing force behind the redemption of Naomi’s family, and

342

the force which ought to govern all aspects of Israelite life, its social norms and its laws. The story of Ruth, however, is a story comprised of personal encounters, of individual acts of kindness. How can this network of private interactions serve as a bridge to a nationwide, collective establishment? One of the most fundamental questions in political thought is the question of individual relationships, of the “social contract” that precedes any national contract. According to Thomas Hobbes,8 humans are inherently unequal, which is liable to lead to anarchy, to “a war of all against all.” When there is no central power, each man seeks to increase his own personal security, even at the expense of others. The role of the government, therefore, is to redeem its citizens from such a situation by allowing the “sovereign” power over all for the good of all its citizens.9 A contrasting view can be found in a text of closer historical proximity to the book of Ruth than Hobbes’ seventeenth century work. While Plato famously rejects the theory of Athenian Democracy, one of the most important classic defenses of such democracy can be found in his dialogue Protagoras,10 where the sophist Protagoras seeks to justify democratic rule through his argument that every person has a natural sense of justice. He illustrates his argument with the parable-myth of Prometheus, who grants mankind the gift of technical wisdom (entechnos sophia), together with fire stolen from the gods’ chamber, helping him survive despite his relative weakness to the other animals. However, Protagoras explains, Prometheus was unable to bestow political wisdom (politikē sofia) upon mankind, for this gift was kept in Zeus’s castle, where he dared not enter. Thus mankind invented language and other technological innovations such His work Leviathan, in particular. See: G. Smith, A Critical History of Modern English Jurisprudence (San Francisco: Bacon, 1893) 13–20; L. Strauss, “What is Political Philosophy,” The Journal of Politics 19 (1957) 343–68; R. Tuck, Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). 10 M. I. Finley, Democracy Ancient and Modern (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1985) 28. 8 9

343

as housing and clothing, but fell victim to the other animals time and again, for they were stronger. Men attempted to unite within cities for protection, but these cities did not endure – due to lack of political wisdom, each man acted wrongfully towards the other, and they subsequently dispersed. Zeus, who feared for the survival of the human race, sent Hermes, the messenger of the gods, to give them shame (aidō) and justice (dikē), to facilitate the establishment of cities through “bonds of friendship and conciliation.” Shame and justice were distributed equally among everyone (as opposed to other, technical, skills). From all this, concludes Protagoras, political wisdom, in contrast to any other skills or characteristics, is common to all, for every man is endowed with some degree of virtue. Some scholars claim that these words contain the seeds of modern democracy; some have even compared this text to the opening sentences of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.11 For the sake of our discussion, I wish to set the democratic aspects of the text aside, focusing rather on Protagoras’s premise for establishing a state: “bonds of friendship and conciliation.” According to his parable, a collective form of government will not hold if its citizens are not individually virtuous – mutual respect and individual justice must precede the establishment of a government if that government is to endure. A similar approach can be found in the book of Ruth. The compassion between the characters that is so central in the story constitutes an essential prelude to the birth of King David – to monarchic government – for if the citizens are not virtuous, are not aware of the other on an individual scale, then that government cannot endure. The citizens of a government must first show compassion; must first show kindness to the weak, to the Other; must first “form bonds of friendship and conciliation” in order to come together under the rule of a central government.

11 A. Yakobson, “‘What Does a Carpenter Know About Politics?’ Democracy and its Justification in Plato’s ‘Protagoras,’” Zmanim – A Historical Quarterly 64 (1998) 23–32 (especially 27–28; Heb.).

344

The bridge that the book of Ruth builds between the two periods is a bridge for the people: the compassion and generosity of the future citizens is the prerequisite for monarchy. However, as David is descended from Ruth and Boaz, the book of Ruth also serves as a preamble to monarchy from the perspective of the king himself, describing the necessary qualities for an enduring leader. While the anti-monarchic approach is usually based on concern that earthly kingship will undermine “the Heavenly Kingdom,” another potential problem with kingship is hinted to in Deuteronomy 17: the king is liable to privilege his own ends above the needs of his subjects (“he should not consider himself above his brothers” – Deut. 17:20).12 If the book of Ruth is read as a necessary introduction to monarchy, the most crucial of kingly traits is clearly altruism. Just as Ruth places Naomi’s needs before her own; and just like Boaz reinterprets the law in order to bring Ruth under his wing; so too should the king of all Israel value his subjects more than he values his own ends. The king must be a “good enough mother,” a good enough leader for his people. From both a theological perspective and a legal perspective, the book of Ruth places responsibility upon the shoulders of the individual. 12 It is well known that the law of the king in Deuteronomy is surprising in light of the ancient perspective of monarchy, and these laws are an expression of the unique quality of Israelite monarchy (See, for example, P. Dutcher-Walls, “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16–17 in Its Ancient Social Context,” JBL 121 [2002] 601–616). Even the concern that kingship will take advantage of its position can be seen as the Bible’s unique awareness of the need to restrain power. See, among others: C. P. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 253–254; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 272–273; N.L. Lohfink, “Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18–18:22,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (ed. Duane L. Christensen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) 348; G. E. Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholar’s, 1986) 110; P. D. Miller, Deuteronomy (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1990) 147; G. N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship,” ZAW 108 (1996) 332.

345

In a narrative that focuses on progress and change, the importance of this position is manifold: Ruth’s acceptance in Bethlehem and the ensuing birth of King David will arise only if the “spirit of the law” overcomes the “letter of the law”; social anarchy will evolve into a unified state only if the individual first shows compassion and awareness of all around him.

346

DA S A LT E T E S TA M E N T I M D I A L O G an outline of an old testament dialogue

Herausgegeben von / edited by Michael Fieger & Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes Diese Reihe will den wissenschaftlichen Dialog zwischen dem Alten Testament und benachbarten Fächern fördern. Im Mittelpunkt des Interesses stehen der weit verzweigte Dialog zum Neuen Testament sowie die wechselseitige Beziehung mit den Humanwissenschaften, die durch die Vielschichtigkeit des Alten Testaments hervorgerufen wird. Dazu gehören neben der Theologie, Anthropologie und Ethik auch Gebiete wie Psychologie, Pädagogik, Soziologie, Ökonomie, Geschichtsschreibung, Musikwissenschaften und Sprachforschung. Aber auch zu naturwissenschaftlichen Fragen wie beispielsweise in der Medizin gibt es einige wichtige Bezugspunkte. In diese international ausgerichtete Reihe werden sowohl Monographien und Tagungsbände als auch Dissertationen und Habilitationen in deutscher, englischer, italienischer und rumänischer Sprache aufgenommen. Ein wichtiges Anliegen ist es, dass sich die Bände nicht ausschliesslich an Fachleute richten, sondern eine breitere wissenschaftlich interessierte Leserschaft ansprechen. This series intends to promote and stimulate the scientific dialogue between the Old Testament and its interrelated subjects. The interest is focused on the New Testament and its relationship with the human sciences. In addition to theology, anthropology and ethics and aside from areas relating to psychology, pedagogy, sociology, economics, historiography, music and linguistics, there are some important points of reference to scientific questions, including medicine. This international series will publish not only monographs and conference volumes but also theses and dissertations in German, English, Italian and Romanian. Of vital importance is the desire that these volumes address themselves not exclusively to specialists, but to the general interested reader.

Band/Vol. 1

Michael Fieger & Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes Der Einzug in Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Josefsgeschichte. 2007. ISBN 978-3-03911-437-5.

Vol. 2

Michael Ufok Udoekpo Re-thinking the Day of YHWH and Restoration of Fortunes in the Prophet Zephaniah. An Exegetical and Theological Study of 1:14-18; 3:14-20. 2010. ISBN 978-3-0343-0510-5.

Vol. 3

Jin-Myung Kim Holiness & Perfection: A Canonical Unfolding of Leviticus 19. 2011. ISBN 978-3-0343-0580-8.

Vol. 4

Michael Fieger & Jörg Lanckau (Hrsg.) Erschaffung und Zerstörung der Schöpfung. Ein Beitrag zum Thema Mythos. 2011. ISBN 978-3-0343-0479-5.

Vol. 5

Nicoletta Gatti & George Ossom-Batsa Journeying with the Old Testament. 2011. ISBN 978-3-0343-1006-2.

Vol. 6

Michael Fieger & Marcel Weder Krankheit und Sterben. Ein interprofessioneller Dialog. 2012. ISBN 978-3-0343-1105-2.

Vol. 7

Janusz Kucicki Eschatology of the Thessalonian Correspondence. A comparative study of 1 Thess 4, 13-5, 11 and 2 Thess 2, 1-12 to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2014. ISBN 978-3-0343-1474-9.

Vol. 8

Andreas Beriger, Stefan M. Bolli, Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers, Michael Fieger & Wilhelm Tauwinkl (Hrsg.) Vulgata-Studies Vol. I. Beiträge zum I. Vulgata-Kongress des Vulgata Vereins Chur in Bukarest (2013). 2015. ISBN 978-3-0343-1478-7.

Vol. 9

Jonathan Grossman Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries. 2015. ISBN 978-3-0343-1674-3.