UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) The scroll of Ruth re-told through librettos and music: biblical interpretation in a new key Leneman, H.F. Publication date 2004 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Leneman, H. F. (2004). The scroll of Ruth re-told through librettos and music: biblical interpretation in a new key. in eigen beheer. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:28 Sep 2021 CHAPTERR THRÏIt RITU IN RABBINIC AND RHLATRD LITERATURE INTRODUCTION N Thee term mklnish can be loosely applied to any re-telling of a biblical story. The gaps foundd in biblical narrative are filled in. one way or another, by each reader (eh.1. p. 13). An interpreterr that fills the gaps b\ rc-ielling parts of the .story creates a rniarasn. viicrasn is Lie paradigmm of interaction between the text author and the reader. Midrash dcri\ es from readers oi thee Bible who were stimulated by the text to indulge in imaginative comments, that sometimes wentt against its natural meaning (Weiss-lialivni. 159). This is as true for the librettists who wrotee versions of the Scroll to be set to music in the 19th and 20,h centuries as it is for rabbinic interpreterss writing 1400 years earlier. In fact, the common rabbinic device of placing other biblicall texts alongside the Scroll to support or highlight certain points was also used by the librettistss (Preface'to eh.6. p. 101). When the librettos are sung, this adds an entirely new dimension.. Both the libretto and music are forms of midrash, as will be discussed in chapter 6. Longg before oratorios and operas based on the Scroll were written and sung, the Scroll was chantedd as part of the Jewish liturgy on the holiday of Shavuot. Aspects of this tradition of cantillationn will be discussed at the conclusion of this chapter. Thee «zaps in the text that the rabbis perceived, or chose to fill, are culturally determined (ass for any reader or commentator). In some eases, they grappled with the same gaps and ambiguitiess as modern readers; in many other eases, issues or inconsistencies that troubled them wouldd seem irrelevant today. The midrashists' moral and philosophical approach to the text can onlyy be understood in the context of their contemporary mindsets, since all exegesis is time- boundd and historically conditioned (Weiss-Halivni. vii). Thee context for midrash is always the entire Bible. Rabbinic exegetes typically would connectt and reconnect texts from throughout the Hebrew Bible, harmonizing the contradictory ; «-M' -ir") . r-uv-niYinn^,^ /Fi^li^^p'"" as nimied in Dorr 3~M In their method,, any biblical verse could be used to clarify the original, base verse (Neusner. 3. 16). Theirr interest was in interpreting verses, not entire stories: they were concerned with the smallest details,, such as a troubling or suggestive word or phrase within a specific verso (Kugel 1997. 28). Alll ancient interpreters started from four basic assumptions, which must be kept in mind whenn discussing rabbinic midrash. First: the Bible is fundamental!} a cryptic document, which may seem to be savingg one thing while really meaning another: Second: the Bible is a book of instruction and relevant; Third: the Bible is perfect and harmonious and contains no mistakes; fourth: the Bible is divinely sanctioned. Partlyy due to these assumptions, there is really no distinction in rabbinic midrash between -'excuesis"" (reading from) and "eisegesis" (reading into) (Kugel 1994. 18-20). Thesee points are intricately connected. Because the rabbis viewed the Bible as perfect and divine,, thev felt it their duty to explain those parts that might trouble readers. They recognized thee existence of troubling passages as part of the cryptic nature of the Bible. But in the course ot theirr explanations, they felt it their duty to teach a lesson, since they viewed the Bible as a book off instruction. Therefore the aim of the rabbis writing midrash was a polemical one. Even when a midrashh seems to obscure the original text it is explaining, its purpose is ultimately to illuminate whatt is in that text (Komel. 248). The rabbis wrote midrash not only to fill in the gaps m the story,, but to make a moral point, to disclose what they pereen ed us a deeper meaning in the text, andd to stimulate the religious imagination (Da IT. 33). The primary concern of the midrashists was too let the Bible be the intellectual and religious milieu in which the Jew was living (Sternberger. 237). Inn their re-telling of biblical texts, the midrashists exhibited an unusual combination of literarvv criticism and literary creativity. They interpreted the texts not only as moralists, but also ass literarv critics, sensitive to hidden signals buried in it. In addition to the motive of instructing theirr readers, the midrashists w ere also responding to the changing cultural and aesthetic tastes u\^ theirr own times ( Hirseh and Asehkenasy. Introduction. 1). MIDRASHH ON RL'TIl Thee primary midrash on the Scroll is Ruth Ruhhah. which is part of the larger collection knownn as Midrash Rabhah. This collection is the oldest Amoraie midrash (c. 400 C.t.) on the PentateuchPentateuch (Fire Books of the Bible; and the Ine Mcgi/lot (scrolls). Ruth Rabhah falls between thee oldest midrashim-G'o/ow'.s Kabbah. Leviticus Ruhhah, and Lkah Rabhati (from which much o\o\ its material is taken)—and the later midrashim such as Exodus Rabhah and Deuteronomy RabhahRabhah (L. Rabinouitz. 'Introduction.' Ruth Ruhhah, vii}. 1 he compilation draws on all oï these,, as well as on the Jerusalem Talmud and Pvsiqta dc Rub Kahana. It covers the biblical text off the Scroll verse by verse (omitting only 4.16-1"7). RuthRuth Rabhah opens with a long Introduction, called a Pctihta. composed of several unconnectedd proems. The commentary is divided into eight chapters ol differing lengths. 1 he expositionn is largely homiletical. or instructional, with a few passages of literal exegetical value. Thee male voice and prerogatives dominate in Ruth Rabhah. even though the major characterss are women. Aggadic midrash reveals much more about men's assumptions and anxietiess than about women's concerns. "To study women in rabbinic literature is actually to studvv men" (Baskin 2002, 11). According to Neusner. it is not only a male perspective that governs,, but also the rabbinic mind-set in which all things are possible when biblical laws are observed.. The outsider—a woman—can become an insider: the Moabite can become an Israelite, andd her offspring, a king or even the Messiah, as long as biblical laws are followed (Neusner. 13). Inn addition to Ruth Rabhah} other sources to be included in this discussion are passages fromm various tracts of the Babylonian Talmud (B.'L.r. Rath Zuta, compiled by Buber from the MS Parmaa De Rossi dated to c.1400; Pesikta Rabhati: lobar Balak: Yalknt Shimon! from the 12di or 13llii century: and Sekhel Lor. a midrashie anthology on the Torah drawn from various earlier sourcess by Menahem b. Solomon in 1 139 (Sternberger. 321. 351. 357). When no page reference iss given, translations from these sources are my own." Many midrashie interpretations appear in almostt identical form in several sources. I will also refer to commentaries by several post- Knliizhtenmentt modem Orthodox commentators, such as Malbim. for purposes of comparison. Whenn a paee number i> indicated translations arc from the following editions: Rahyloiiiaii Ttthmul. I ranslatal h> A.. Cohen and others. London: Soncino Press. 1M35-1948. 34 vols,: MidrashMidrash FunhunuL S. Buber recension: \ol. 11. Lvodus and Leviticus. I rans. John !. 'iownsend. Hohoken. NY: Ktaww 10Q-; }\\ -ikhi Rahhau. 'I rans. By William Braude. New Ha\en: Yale Cmversm 1'vess. lMhs: RuthRuth Rahhah. in Midrash Rahhah.. trans. By 11. Lreedman and M. Simon. 3rJ edition. London and New York: Soncino.. 1 e^3: ZoharZohar Balak. 1 ondon: Soncino. l^S I rans. By Maurice Simon and Harry Sperling. :: All Hebrew texts are from the Bar Ilan Responsa CD Rom. \ersion 1U. 2W2. 54 4 GAPP FILLING IN MIDRASH ON RCTH Inn this chapter I will develop the motifs discussed in chapters 2 and 6: this includes gaps inn action time: cause motive; and character appearance. I will discuss these as they relate to the thee Scroll. ACC I ION 11MI-. Chapterr 1 Naomi decided to leave Moah when she heard that God "had remembered Ins people"" (1.6}. How did she hear? According to Ruth Rahbah: Shee heard from pedlars [sic] making their rounds from city to city {Ruth Rahhuh 2.1 1: 33). Thiss is a logical conclusion for the midrashists. who probably received news in this same wayy in their own day. (T commented on the same gap in ch. 2. p. 46)/ Whyy did Naomi tell her daughters-in-law to return home after allowing them to accompanyy her (1.8)? Vlalbim explains that Naomi had assumed they were accompanying her merelyy out of respect and courtesy, not with the intention of leaving permanently (Zlotowitx.