A Woman of Valor Has Been Found: Ruth Amidst a Sea of Ambiguity1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Developing a Rabbi Hayyim Angel Methodology in Nach Instructor of Bible, Yeshiva College A WOMAN OF VALOR HAS BEEN FOUND: RUTH AMIDST A SEA OF AMBIGUITY1 Simple glass reflects the beam of light that shines on it only once. A precious gem, in contrast, reflects different sparks with its many facets; a single beam of light that shines on it is reflected and is returned to us greatly enhanced. (Feivel Meltzer)2 א"ר זעירא מגלה זו אין בה לא טומאה ולא eivel Meltzer’s analogy can serve this argument to a different level, one טהרה ולא איסור ולא היתר ולמה נכתבה as a guide for understanding might contend that much in Megillat ללמדך כמה שכר טוב לגומלי חסדים. a literary gem, Megillat Ruth. Ruth fits these criteria. Rather than FAppearing simple and idyllic on a being forced to choose between one R. Zei’ra said: This scroll [of Ruth] tells first reading, the complexities of the or the other possibility, Megillat Ruth us nothing either of cleanliness or of narrative become increasingly dazzling is best understood as containing uncleanliness, either of prohibition or with a closer look at the possibilities multiple facets that each add to the permission. For what purpose then was it of interpretation. In this essay, we will religious messages of the narrative. written? To teach how great is the reward explore the issue of textual ambiguities Seldom do we come across such an of those who do deeds of kindness. using Ruth as a banner example. Ruth Rabbah 2:14 ideal society, characterized by hesed Mordechai Cohen sets out two criteria (loyalty, loving-kindness), heroes, Although it appears that hesed is the for ascertaining deliberate ambiguities and no villains. At worst, there are predominant theme of our megillah, in a biblical text: (1) one must average characters such as Orpah, there is considerably less clarity over establish the cogency of two separate Boaz’s foreman, and So-and-so who how to define thathesed , or what other readings; (2) one must demonstrate serve as foils to highlight the greatness religious lessons emanate from the text how the ambiguity contributes to of Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz.4 R. Ze’ira’s of Megillat Ruth. Which characters the literary context by expressing classic statement captures the essence truly epitomize R. Ze’ira’s statement? something that could not be expressed of the megillah: What is the relationship between in unambiguous language.3 Taking divine providence and human hesed? 6 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 הוא ואשתו ושני בניו, הוא עיקר, ואשתו טפלה .The First Five Verses: end of the book, in Ruth it is not לו, ובניו טפלין להם. Punishment for Sins? Additionally, the characters in Megillat Ruth played an active role in He was the prime mover and his wife The Book of Ruth opens in a jarring changing their fate, whereas Job did secondary to him, and his two sons fashion, with Elimelech, Mahlon, and not. It is unclear whether Megillat secondary to both of them. Chilion dying at the outset. Some Ruth was intended to parallel the Ruth Rabbah 1:510 midrashim and later commentators מה ראה הכתוב להכריז עליו ועל אשתו ועל Book of Job or whether the two books contend that Elimelech and his sons בניו, לפי שהיו מעכבין זה )על( ]את[ זה, should be contrasted, with Megillat deserved their respective deaths. They מצרות עין שהיה בכולן. Ruth’s characters held responsible for maintain that Elimelech left the Land their original suffering and credited 5 Why did the text mention him, his wife, of Israel, or a starving community for their eventual happiness.9 behind,6 while his sons lingered in and his children? To teach that all of 3. This is a story of God giving just Moab and intermarried.7 them were stingy. recompense: Elimelech and his family Ruth Zuta 1:2 Perhaps the juxtaposition of are punished for leaving a starving From the text, it is difficult to Elimelech’s departure and his death community behind. The unwarranted determine whether Naomi did and his sons’ marriages and their lingering of Mahlon and Chilion in anything wrong, if she was an deaths suggest these conclusions. Moab led them to intermarry, causing innocent victim of her family However, there is a ten-year gap their untimely deaths. Likewise, the members’ sins, or if she was a victim between the sons’ marrying Moabites happy ending of Megillat Ruth may be of the unexplained deaths of her and their deaths (1:4). By including viewed as God’s reward for the acts of family members. the lengthy time separating the hesed performed over the course of the two events, the megillah appears story. The motives behind Naomi’s efforts to exclude intermarriage as a direct to persuade her daughters-in-law to Does the text teach divine cause of their deaths.8 We also are not remain in Moab also remain elusive. recompense? This reading is told how long Elimelech remained Although Naomi emphasized the possible, but no more compelling in Moab before he died. These marital prospects of Ruth and Orpah than a non-recompense reading. uncertainties yield at least three (in 1:8–15), it is possible that she was This uncertainty encapsulates possible lines of interpretation: driven by other considerations as well: our difficulty in pinpointing any ר’ שמואל בר נחמני בש”ר יודן בר’ חנינא Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion simply one specific interpretation of the .1 בשלש מקומות כתיב כאן שבנה שבנה שבנה died: The family left during a famine ephemeral characters in the opening כנגד ג’ פעמים שדוחין את הגר ואם הטריח for legitimate reasons. Ibn Ezra (on verses of Megillat Ruth. The initially יותר מכאן מקבלין אותו. insists that Ruth and Orpah straightforward narrative contains (15 ,1:2 converted prior to their marriages to significant ambiguities that will R. Shemuel b. Nahmani said in the Elimelech’s sons. The book’s opening continue throughout the book. name of R. Yehudah b. Hanina: Three verses are primarily background, times is it written here “turn back,” setting the stage for the main story of Naomi corresponding to the three times that a Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, and should not would-be proselyte is repulsed; but if he be understood as punishment for sins. We see a second ambiguity in the persists after that, he is accepted. 2. This story is parallel to Job: Like Job, character of Naomi. It is unclear Ruth Rabbah 2:16 מפני מה היתה מחזרת אותן כדי שלא תתבייש Naomi first complained about her whether she was a passive follower of בהן שכן מצינו עשרה שווקים היו בירושלים. ולא God-given lot (1:20–21). The deaths her husband, or an active participant היו מערבין אלו עם אלו ... ניכרים בלבושיהם and suffering at the outset of Ruth in abandoning the community בשווקים, מה שאלו לובשין לא היו אלו לובשין. are theologically significant, but the (assuming there was anything negative reader is not told how. about their leaving). Sensitive to Why did Naomi want to return them? the vagueness of the text, several Unlike the Book of Job, however, So that she would not be embarrassed midrashim address both sides of the by them. We find that there were ten where God’s direct involvement question: is discussed in the beginning and markets in Jerusalem, and they [i.e., the 7 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 classes of people who shopped at each] of the megillah with family, friends, Ruth. One might view the happy never intermingled. … The people were and land (4:14–17). ending either as a consequence of Naomi’s and the other characters’ recognized by their clothing — what one 2. Naomi is self-serving: Although class wore, another would not. Naomi always verbally expressed actions, or as a providential reward for Ruth Zuta 1:8 interest in her daughters-in-law, she her goodness, or some combination thereof. This view combines the first Ruth Rabbah 2:16 casts Naomi as really was more concerned for herself. unwilling to compromise Jewish She joined her family in abandoning two explanations above, and each religious standards. This view her community. She wanted to drive layer of motivation appears to be receives textual support from her Moabite daughters-in-law away simultaneously sustained by the text. Naomi’s observation that Orpah’s because they would harm her social return to Moab came with religious status upon return. Naomi knew she Boaz consequences as well: “So she said, could benefit from Boaz’s intervention; ‘See, your sister-in-law has returned therefore, she orchestrated the Yet another ambiguity can be found to her people and her gods. Go follow encounter between Boaz and Ruth in the person of Boaz. According your sister-in-law’” (1:15; cf. Ibn Ezra, to help herself. Fittingly, the narrative to all readings, Boaz was a hero. He Malbim). concludes with Naomi’s happiness — protected Ruth from harassment (2:9, she took the child and had the blessings 15) and helped her in other ways In contrast, Ruth Zuta 1:8 depicts a of her friends along with her land. unbeknownst to Ruth (2:15–17). less flattering portrait of Naomi. Her He provided sustenance for Naomi professed concern for the welfare Ruth is only a tangential figure in the megillah’s climactic frame.11 (3:15), completed the redemption of her Moabite daughters-in-law of Naomi’s field, and married Ruth cloaked a desire to protect her own 3.