The Book of Ruth

 

     THE BOOK OF RUTH

 

I.    UNEXPECTED ENCOURAGEMENT

 

            The Koren Bible in front of me looked worn out. Years of study and of leafing through it had left its mark. This evening, I was covering the Book of Ruth. I disliked the tome but, in the course of my steady Bible Reading, had to cover it every now and then. I was about to put the book aside and get ready to retire when Theophil materialised next to me. As he assumed the guise of my late pal Peppi, I realised that this was a friendly visit. If his object had been to castigate or scold me, he would have chosen the image known to monotheistic religions, that is, the form of Asmodeus, the Archfiend.

            “What prompted you to reveal yourself now, Maestro? I am curious but, as you know, it is always good to see you.”

            “Quite a few of your Orthodox friends – Christians, Muslims or Jews – would disagree. They think I am the epitome of  evil and fear me. But of course, nothing is further from my mind than harming a friend like you, Peter’le.”

            “So, what brings you here today, Maestro? Surely, you do not seek to tell me something about Ruth?”

            “No, Peter’le. I am not going to disclose any secret information. But I want you to have a good look at this succinct and well written tome. Surely, you are not perturbed by the style?”

            “Actually, I know it is lucid. I am deeply disturbed by two points made in the book. These induced me to describe it as Shtut, which means nonsense in modern Hebrew.”

            “Strong language, Peter’le. We’ll come back to it later. Presently, let us consider the two points you found disturbing.”

            “The first concerns the very opening of the book. In the Koren Tanach [Old Testament] Harold Fisch translates it as follows: “Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land.”

            “Surely, Peter’le, this is a good translation, isn’t it?”

            “It is. But the statement is vague. By contrast, Jonah refers to the period in which the Northern kingdom of Israel was reigned by Jeroboam II. The period mentioned in Ruth is confusing.”

            “Why is that so? Surely, it covers the years starting from the death of Joshua ben Nun and ending with the first year of Sha’ul’s Kingdom? That would be some 200 years or so.”

            “But, as you know, I belong to the many who doubt the Exodus and the conquest of the land of Israel by Joshua. So did the members of the Canaanite movement of the 20^th century, of which I was a member.”

            “The Canaanites of the 20^th century are largely forgotten, Peter’le. Who were they?”

            “A bunch of intellectuals, who took the view that to survive Israel had to sever its links with Diaspora Judaism and return to the Canaanite culture of a remote past.”

            “Very well, Peter’le, based on the Canaanite orientation and the premises you adhere to, what is the meaning of ‘the period when the judges ruled’?”

            “It probably refers to the very lengthy periods in which the Israelite consciousness started to form, that is, the period during which the Israelites became an entity of its own – an era of a national Israelite consciousness, departing from the mainstream of the population but   preceding the rise of the monarchy.”

            “That would, indeed, be a lengthy period,” agreed Theoph. “Let us assume that it might involve some three to four hundred years.”

 “So, we have a starting point,” I agreed. “But I can see a further difficulty. The Book of Judges relates the wars and campaigns of individual judges.  We are told nothing about judicial episodes (or legal cases) heard and tried by them. Am I overlooking anything?”

“No, Peter’le. Your statement is correct.  Judges is replete with tales of prowess and courage. Still, some ‘judges’ are just referred  and we are told how many years they ‘judged’. So, what were they?”

“Each was a leader. His function was to govern. This leads me to the conclusion that the correct title would be ‘Chieftain’ rather than ‘Judge’. Does this make sense?”

“It accords with the view of most modern scholars, Peter’le. And if you accept their view, it follows that the so-called sons of Jacob were eponyms. But Peter’le, ‘eponym’ is not a word used in everyday language.”

 “I get your point, Maestro. Here is a relevant example: ‘Jehudah’ might have been the name of the tribe’s first chieftain. In other words, ‘eponyms’ are tribal designations later cast in narrative forms as individual forefathers. I hope this clarifies the point.”

“It does,” was Theophil’s laconic reply.

“I think, Maestro, we can take this even further. Some chieftains (‘judges’) might have been contemporaneous and may have ruled only a section of the population. It explains, for instance, why the Song of Deborah [Jud. 5] does not refer to Jehudah or Shime’on. These tribes, or chiefdom-domains, were not viewed as part of the population governed by Barak.”

“On this point, too, your view accords with modern critique. So, all in all, the opening words of Ruth are vague about the epoch in which the narrative takes place. Let us leave this for the moment. What is your other (or second) cause for disliking Ruth?”

“The genealogy of King David, set out at the end of chapter 4. Why is he brought into the picture? The books of Samuel and Kings tell us a great deal about ‘his worthiness’. Why the need to drag him into Ruth?”

“Peter’le, Peter’le, do you have a valid, intellectual, objection or are you giving vent to the dislike for King David, which you share with many Israelis of your generation? Aren’t you yielding to a prejudice traceable back to your years in secondary school?”

“I suspect you hit the nail on its head, Maestro. What made you refer to this hostile stand?”

“Your behaviour, Peter’le. As you know, I have watched you when reading the bible. You bristle whenever you encounter David’s name. What do you have against him? Surely, not the ugly episode respecting Uriah and the possession of Bat Sheba?”

“Not really. It was a disgusting incident: having one of his choice adherents killed in battle and taking over his wife. Still, David repented and, we are told, that God – your friend, Maestro – forgave him. My dislike is due to a different reason. David wanted to join the rank of the Philistines in their final campaign against Sha’ul, the anointed King of the Israelites. In my opinion, this was treason!”

“That is, indeed, one point of view. What is the stand of Orthodox Jews, Peter’le?”

“They regard David as the very icon of the faith. I recall how, during my long-gone youth in Tel Aviv, I observed the Ḥaredim chanting: ‘David, King of Israel, lives, lives and exists’. They admire David for his prowess and the rise of the United Israelite Kingdom of his days.”

“Let us suppose, just for the moment, that this was also the view of Ruth’s author. Or, alternatively, let us assume that he was neutral about King David. In that case, wouldn’t the genealogy serve a purpose? Try to be detached, Peter’le.”

“In the case, it would. It tells us that Boaz was David’s ancestor. When read together with the opening line of the book, we are told that the story of Ruth took place four generations prior to King David’s birth. According to tradition, David’s reign was from 1010 to 970 BCE. Accordingly, Ruth is attributed to the 12^th or 13^th century BCE.”

“So, despite your dislike of King David, the genealogy helps to clarify the chronology,” observed Theophil. “Well, my friend, what do you have to say as regards your second cause for disliking the tome?”

“I withdraw it, Maestro,” I conceded.

“Well, then, we can now pursue our discussion without the vent of prejudices. Let us turn to the story: you will agree that narrating it is appropriate. Many people have never read the book.” 

 

II. UNFOLDING THE STORY OF RUTH

“Ruth commences by relating Elimelech’s migration from Beth Lehem in Jehudah to Moab.”

“Why did he do this, Peter’le?”

“We are told there was a famine in ‘the land’, presumably in Jehudah.”

“You better spell out the route he took, Peter’le. The book does not specify. Some people would want to familiarise themselves with it.”

“Beth Lehem (which means ‘House of Bread’) is located in the Judean Hills. To get to Moab, a traveller had to descend to the Judean desert and onwards to Jericho. There he would cross the Jordan and ascend to the Moab Plateau (known as the ‘fields of Moab’).”

“Was it a difficult and lengthy journey?”

“Not really. It covered about 70 kilometres and took about six days by foot.”

“Was Moab a suitable venue when famine prevailed in Jehudah? Wouldn’t Egypt have been a safer destination?”

“Not really. Egypt is some 400 kilometres away from Beth Lehem and has had a culture and a language differing from Jehudah’s. Moab was more appropriate. Its language was very similar to Hebrew; it was closer to Beth Lehem than Egypt and a move to it could be made readily.”

“So much for the destination. Did Elimelech’s family join him?”

“It did, Maestro.  Elimelech was accompanied by his two sons, Maḥlon and Kilyon, and his wife, Naomi.”

“What do these names tell us, Peter’le?”

“Maḥlon suggests that its bearer was a sickly man; Kilyon tells us that the person is dispensable, and ‘Naomi’ means ‘pleasant’.”

“The significance of these names is straightforward. Kilyon signals the extinction of the bearer and his family tree. The lineage of Maḥlon, whose sickliness suggest early death, may be redeemed.  Well, what else are we told about these people?”

“Elimelech died in Moab, Maestro. Presumably, he was buried there. After his demise, the two sons married Moabite girls: Maḥlon wed Ruth and Kilyon took Orpah.”

“What do these names imply, Peter’le?”

“Orpah is straightforward. It depicts a person that does not follow a lead but ‘turns back’. ‘Ruth’ is not as clear. Philologists have worked out that it is traceable to ‘friendship’ or ‘companionship’.”

“Suitable in the case of the unfolding story?” asked Theophil.

 “It is.  After some ten years the sons died. Naomi, who heard that the deprivation was over in Jehudah, decided to return to Beth Lehem. Initially, both daughters-in-law sought to accompany her. When she entreated them to stay put, Orpah kissed her goodbye but Ruth stayed with her, saying: ‘Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for wherever thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodges, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God’.”

“Hold on, Peter’le: does this mean that she converted?”

“The author implies this, Maestro.”

“But is this in accord with the prevailing stance of Judaism?”

“It is not, Maestro. According to Deuteronomy [23:3-6] Ammonites and Moabites cannot be admitted to ‘God’s community’. And, in any event, Judaism is non-proselyting. Conversion is subject to certain rituals and formal acceptance.”

“This is, indeed, the approach of modern Judaism, Peter’le. How about older traditions?”

“We know from Esther that gentiles could convert. I suspect that in Ruth’s era a convert’s ‘act of faith’ was adequate. Further, Jonah indicates that gentiles could make offerings and undertake vows to Jehovah even without abandoning their own deities.”

“Well, Peter’le, we must not lose the thread. Please continue to narrate.”

“When Naomi and Ruth arrived in Beth Lehem, the entire population was abuzz or stirred. They found it hard to believe that the returning person was Naomi.”

“Why, Peter’le?”

“The author does not tell us; but Naomi’s reply throws light on the reason. She told the townspeople that she had left in affluence but had returned ‘empty’. On a plain reading she may be regarded as saying that she had left in the company of her husband and sons but returned without them. But, Maestro, such a reading would sidestep her coming back with the loyal and

devoted Ruth.”

“I take your point, Peter’le. So, what does the author seek to convey?”

“Perhaps he hints that Elimelech had been a well-established or even prosperous man. We know that he possessed land (later redeemed by Boaz). Further, Elimelech’s name is of relevance: it means ‘My God is King’. Traditional Midrashim suggest that Elimelech left at the very start of the famine, seeking to look after himself but shirking the duty to help his fellows to obviate a collapse threatened when the famine commenced.”

“I take your point, Peter’le. But I have noticed that, when you mention Elimelech, a sly grin descends on your face. Why is that?”

“Don’t you know?”

“I’d like to hear it from your own mouth!”

“In modern Hebrew, ‘Elimelech’ is used to describe a clumsy fellow – a schlemiel!”

“But what has this got to do with Ruth? Your association relates to a funny Yiddish song, about the Rebbe Elimelch. That worthy was a Hassid – not a person figuring in the book we discuss.”

“You are right, Maestro. I’ll try to suppress my untoward amusement. Still, Ruth does not include any favourable comment about Naomi’s husband or his two sons.”

“Quite so. And we better proceed to discuss the text.”

“Naomi and Ruth arrived in Beth Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest, which fell late in March or at the beginning of April. It was followed by the wheat harvest, which usually commenced in May or June.”

“Elimelech had a plot of land. Well, was it productive?”

“It was not. It is clear from the text that Ruth and Naomi were poor. Under biblical law [Lev. 19:9-10 and Deut. 24:19-22], the poor, widows and resident foreigners [gerim] were entitled to glean, that is, to collect the ears of barley and wheat left behind by the reapers. Naomi’s widowhood and Ruth’s status as a ger placed them squarely within this group. Their poverty underscored it.”

“And Peter’le, this right was also consecrated by custom.”

“At Naomi’s suggestion, Ruth gleaned in Boaz’s field,” I continued.

“What does the text tell us about him?”

“He is described as an ‘Ish Ḥayil’, that is, a  successful, prosperous and principled man. He was known to Elimelech and was of the same family. Boaz lived in Beth Lehem, where he probably had his headquarters. He ‘went up’ to the field during the harvesting season. He himself did not carry out the manual work involved. He engaged reapers. The author implies that he was not young.”

“A positive portrait?” asked Theophil.

“It is. It contrasts with the description of Elimelech, who is mentioned without the addition of any accolades.”

“Point taken,” agreed Theophil. “Please continue.”

“Boaz was told that Ruth was the Moabite girl, who had chosen to leave her own country and home and accompanied Naomi. He was impressed, stressed that Ruth had   adopted her mother-in-law’s faith and treated Ruth favourably.”

“Did he recognise Ruth’s conversion? Did he approve?”

“He did! This is implicit in the wording.”

“Ruth hand-threshed the barley she collected and it yielded one ephah [איפה ].”

“What does this measure signify, Peter’le?”

“An ephah is about 13 to 18 kilos: an exceptionally large quantity for ‘gleaning’. This tells us that Boaz’s attitude towards Ruth was  generous.”

“Does the text convey this?”

“It does. When Ruth returned home with it, Naomi appreciated that they were favoured by Boaz, saw in this the hand of providence and conceived a plan. She asked Ruth to put on her best clothes, to proceed to Boaz’s threshing ground when barley was winnowed and sown (in late autumn or early winter) and to lie down next to his place of sleep. Ruth did so. When Boaz woke up, Ruth asked him to ‘redeem’ her.”

“Hold on, Peter’le. The subject of redemption is cardinal. It may be rightly described as the heavy point of Ruth. Do not elaborate now; we’ll come back to it later.”

“Very well, Maestro. Boaz told Ruth that there was a redeemer closer than him but informed Ruth that he was next in line and that he was prepared to redeem her. He also told her that her decision to prefer him to younger adults was ḥésed.”

“What does this word mean. Peter’le?”

“It depends on the context. Generally, it means ‘grace’ or ‘kindness’. I believe that this is the best meaning attributable to Boaz’s words. He followed them up by giving Ruth six measures of barley. His aim was to ensure she would not return home empty-handed. The gift also signified his decision to act.”

“Why six rather than, say, five or eight measures?”

“Six is close to seven, which implies a completed act or period – like the seven days of a week. Six signifies an incomplete process but the firm intention to go ahead. Naomi understood. She told Ruth that Boaz had undertaken to proceed forthwith. And, once again, she saw in it the hand of God and his ḥésed.”

“Up to now Naomi remains in the background, Peter’le. She makes the decision to return to Jehudah and takes the initiative of advising Ruth to proceed to Boaz’s threshing ground.  All the same, the emphasis is on Ruth.”

“It is,” I agreed. “On the very next day Boaz went to the city’s gate. When the ‘closer redeemer’ passed by, Boaz asked him to sit there and summoned some of the town’s elders.”

“Is this location of significance?”

“It is. The gate of a town frequently functioned as the place at which transactions were concluded. In a period in which literacy was limited, dealings were often carried out by formal witnessing or attestations.”

“Any example?” asked Theophil.

“Abraham’s purchase of a burial ground, narrated in Genesis [cap. 23]. This highly important transaction was carried out at the gate.”

“Very well. And how about the transaction in Ruth?”

“Boaz told the man, who is referred to just as Ploni Almoni...”

“Was that the man’s name?”

“It was not. It is translated as ‘such and such’. The man’s real name is suppressed although it must have been known to Boaz because both were members of Elimelech’s family. Boaz told this fellow that Naomi and Ruth had decided to sell the relevant plot of land and stated that Ploni had the right to redeem. Initially, Ploni Almoni agreed to do so. Thereupon, Boaz pointed out that the ‘redeemer’ was bound to marry Maḥlon’s widow and that the first born would be named after the deceased husband. Thereupon, Ploni changed his mind saying that he could not go ahead because, if he did, he would ‘harm his own inheritance’. As Boaz was next in line, he there and then agreed to redeem. Ploni sealed the bargain – that is, waived his priority right – by taking off his shoe. Boaz bought the land, married Ruth and the first born was called Obed by the town’s women. And we are told that Obed was King David’s great grandfather. Naomi became the newborn’s nanny; and her own future was secured thereby. Beth Lehem’s population observed: ‘Naomi had given birth to a son’.”

“Here I have a few questions, Peter’le. First, are the laws of redemption and of levirate [Yibum], as described in Ruth, similar to the legal principles set out in Deuteronomy? Secondly, why does the text suppress Ploni’s real name? Thirdly, is the removal of a negotiator’s shoe an act sealing a bargain? Finally, why is Naomi referred to at this stage?”

“The first question, Maestro, is central. As you yourself have already suggested, I think we better discuss it in detail subsequently. Ploni’s name is suppressed for a simple reason. By withdrawing from his initial intention of redeeming Ruth, he shirked responsibility and acted unkindly. He did not deserve to  have his  name immortalised. For that reason, it is not disclosed. The third question is a difficult one. Let us leave it for the moment.”

“And the last question?”

“Boaz’s redemption of the land and his wedding Ruth secured Naomi’s old age and conferred on her an important function or status. As Obed is regarded Maḥlon’s son, Naomi’s line through Boaz was saved from extinction. Having become Obed’s governess, she was no longer destitute. Further, she brought up an ancestor of the most highly revered Jewish King. In effect, she ceased to be a poor widow and became a historically significant person.”

“Is this the very end of Ruth?” asked Theophil.

“It is not. The author sets out David’s genealogy, commencing with Perez. At first glance, it can be taken at face value. On a closer examination, the reference to Perez may be one of the heavy points of the book. This, too, deserves elaboration.”

“Do you think these hidden – or camouflaged – messages were fully comprehended by the audience?”

“This becomes clear when we unravel Ruth’s background. I suggest we turn to it.”  

“Very well,” agreed Theophil.

 

III. RUTH’S BACKGROUND

 

1. When was Ruth Composed?

“The scholarly consensus is that the book was composed in the 5th century BCE.”

“What took place during this period?” asked Theophil.

     “Cyrus the Great sanctioned the return from exile in 538. A first stream of ascendants returned a year later. Ezra and Nehemiah came to Jerusalem after another one hundred years.  In due course, Nehemiah was constituted the Governor of Jehud.”

            “What was their orientation, Peter’le? It is discernible from their two respective books: Ezra and Nehemiah.”

            “The two books are stylistically very different. Ezra is written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. The Hebrew style is, in my opinion, poor. Nehemiah is expressed in resonant Hebrew. And it is an elegant piece of writing. In some ways, though, it is written as a memoir, in which the author (presumably Nehemiah) asks God to remember him ‘for good’ [13:31].”

            “I agree, Peter’le. But what was the policy or outlook of the two leaders?”

            “Segregation. They wanted the Jews to remain a nation apart. Both condemned mixed marriages, that is, marriages in which one of the spouses is a gentile [Ezra: 9:10-12; Neh. 13: 23-27]. Jews were induced to divorce their foreign wives: Ezra chapter 10.”

            “Were these measures popular?”

            “I have my doubts, Maestro. On the one hand we are told that the people did as ordered and even entered into a covenant confirming the adoption of this policy. The principle involved became a cornerstone of the Jewish religion.  It still applies in Israel of today, where family law remains governed by religion. On the other hand, intermarriages were common during the 5^th century BCE. Ezra tells us that even Priests and Levites married out [9:1-2; 10:2-3].”

            “Are your doubts about the popularity of the policy supported by the scriptures?”

            “They are, Maestro.  Nehemiah relates how he had been called back by his Persian Emperor. Upon his return to Jehud, he discovered that his principles had not been adhered to. The day of rest – the Sabbath – was not observed [Neh. 13:15-22], one of Nehemiah’s opposers (Tobia the Ammonite) was given an office in the Temple and  also ‘Jews …  had married wives of Ashdod, of Amon and of Mo’av [Moab]: and their children spoke half of the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the language of Jehudah [Hebrew], but according to the language of various other people [ibid. 23-24].” To me this suggests that, when Nehemiah was not there to enforce his policy, the population reverted to its older ways.”

            “I take your point, Peter’le. Tell me a bit more about the supporters of Nehemiah’s policy and its opponents.”

            “The supporters included the Perez family, which originated from the cohabitation of Jehudah and Tamar [Gen. 38].”

            “The tale is relevant. Let us hear it,” interjected Theophil.

            “Jehudah himself married a Canaanite woman. His first born, Er, wedded Tamar. It is not clear whether she was an Israelite. When Er died without an heir, Tamar had a levirate-marriage ceremony with his brother, Onan. The marriage, though, was not consummated by Onan. Upon his demise, Tamar expected to be given to Jehudah’s third son, Shela. Jehudah blocked this levirate marriage because he thought it might lead to Shela’s death. Tamar thereupon dressed up as a temple prostitute. Jehudah, who did not recognise her, cohabited with her and, as a guarantee of her reward, pledged with her his seal, cord and staff. Later, when Tamar was accused of sexual impropriety, she produced these to identify the biological father of her embryo.”

            “Was her cohabitation with Jehudah not incestuous?”

            “It was not, Maestro. When Tamar solicited Jehudah, she was a widow.”

            “How did Jehudah react when exposed?”

            “He conceded that Tamar was ‘more righteous’ than himself. In due course, Tamar gave birth to Perez, whose family became prominent in his tribe.  When its scions returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile, they became staunch supporters of the policy ordained by Ezra and Nehemiah. They were also listed by Nehemiah amongst the followers, who helped him in the restoration of Jerusalem’s ruined fortress walls.”

            “Was there a group opposed to the doctrines emphasized by Ezra and Nehemiah?”

            “There was. That much can be gleaned from their books. Nehemiah singled out Tobiah (to whom he refers as ‘the Ammonite slave’) and Sanballat the Horonite.”

            “What can you tell me about them?”

            “Tobiah is a Hebrew name, meaning ‘God is good’. It has remained in use in today’s Israel. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Great Priest, Elyashiv, gave Tobiah quarters in the Temple itself when Nehemiah was called back to the Emperor’s capital. It seems clear that Tobiah was a highly influential head of a group opposed to Ezra and Nehemiah. Sanballat was, in all probability, the governor of a province adjacent to Jehud. Notably, Elyashiv is condemned as being too close to Tobiah but, at the same time, is mentioned positively as aiding in the restoration work.”

            “And, as already pointed out by you, Ruth was composed during the period involved, that is, the 5^th century BCE. Any direct support for this scholastic conclusion from the book?”

            “Not really, Maestro. Still, the opening words indicate that the story took place at an early age. Further, when the author discusses the removal of a shoe, he refers to an obsolete custom that prevailed ‘long ago’. And the genealogy at the end of the book is in point. It would not have been set out before King David became an icon.”

            “To sum up, the scholarly consensus is that the book was composed during the 5^th century BCE. The text indicates that it was composed long after the events described in it. Further, Ruth is included in the last part of the Tanakh – the Ketuvim [Scriptures] – which comprises other late books, like Job and Ecclesiastes. Well, let us now turn to the next issue.”

 

2. Where and by whom was Ruth Composed?

            “To deal with this issue, we have to start by describing Jewish settlements that existed during the 5^th century BCE,” I began.

            “Quite so,” agreed Theophil. “Well, start the ball rolling.”

            “Esther, which is also a late book, tells us that the Jews were a nation spread all over the Persian Empire. Large communities congregated in Babylon, Shushan and Damascus. There were also communities in Egypt.”

            “So much for the Diaspora, Peter’le. How about Jehud?”

            “Jerusalem was a major centre, although we know that the town was sparsely populated. The Temple [Mikdash] was the centre of Judaism. Its position was entrenched even prior to the arrival there of Ezra and Nehemiah.”

            “Was Ruth composed there?”

            “I think so, Maestro. To start with this is the scholarly consensus. In addition, there is a clear indication in the book.”

            “Please spell it out. But avoid technicalities. These are superfluous here.”

            “The plot takes place in Beth Lehem, in Jehud. In contrast, Job and Jonah have no close nexus with it. Job lived in Utz – in Transjordan – and Jonah was ordered to proceed to Nineveh (in Assyria). His main, unfortunate, experience took place in a ship sailing away from Jaffa. In both books, the outlook is broader than in Ruth. The theodicy issue – discussed in Job – is not confined to Jews. And Jonah tells us that God is universal, and that his mercy is shown even when the repenting  nations is gentile. Ruth deals solely with issues concerning Judaism.”

            “How about the style, Peter’le? But, please, refer to it succinctly.”

            “I am not a philologist, Maestro. Still, I noticed that Aramaisms are less numerous in Ruth than in the other two books. This indicates that the author’s Hebrew vocabulary was broad. He did not have to borrow words from foreign tongues. And we do know that the Temple’s scribes and priests in Jerusalem had an excellent command of Hebrew.”

            “Very well. So, we conclude that Ruth was composed in Jehud, most likely in Jerusalem. What can you tell me about its author?”

            “Biblical books do not disclose the author’s identity. But I have a hunch – a mere guess.”

            “Out with it, my friend. If you do not assert that a guess forms a reliable conclusion, you have every right to voice it.”

            “Both Ezra [2:62] and Nehemiah [7:64] refer to defiled priests. These were defrocked because they were unable to verify their pure origin. Such individuals were, effectively, deprived of their living, which was based on tithes and a portion of certain offerings.  I suspect that one of these individuals composed Ruth.”

            “Our conclusion, then, is that Ruth was composed in Jehud – in all probability in Jerusalem – in the 5^th century BCE. We cannot be certain about its author’s identity, but your hunch is that he was a defrocked priest. Let us now turn to the normative principles discussed in the book.”

            “I agree,” I replied. “There are quite a few of them, and it is best to cover each on its own. To my mind, they are (i) land redemption, (ii) levirate marriages, and (iii) Ḥaliza, viz. shoe removal. We then have to consider the role of ḥésed (viz. generosity or grace) and the purity of race issue.”

           

IV. RUTH AND LAND REDEMPTION

            “Before we turn to specifics, please tell me, Peter’le, what was the object of land redemption?”

            “The civilisation of ancient Israel was tribal. The object of the land redemption doctrine was to ensure that land – the insignia of property and prosperity – remained with the relevant tribe, clan and family.”

            “Does the Pentateuch seek to regulate this?”

            “It does. Chapter 25 of Leviticus says that all land belongs to God. It cannot be sold in perpetuity, because its possessors ‘are only strangers and sojourners [tenants]’. The text further provides that if poverty induces an owner to sell his land, his ‘nearest kinsman’ is entitled to buy it back, viz. redeem. If the land is not redeemed, it reverts to the original owner during the Jubilee year, which takes place every fifty years.”

            “Is the redeemer obliged to act or does he just acquire a right?”

            “All the text says is that the Go’el [redeemer] ‘shall come and redeem it’.”

            “Does the land revert to the original owner upon redemption?” asked Theophil.

            “The text is not clear. I believe it does.”

            “Is the very same concept expressed in Ruth, Peter’le?”

            “The custom elaborated in Ruth is far more detailed. It recognises a hierarchy of redeemers. If the next of kin fails to redeem, the right vests in the next in line. Ruth tells us that, in the instant case, the first in line was Ploni. The right vests in Boaz when Ploni waived his priority. But this is not the only way in which the custom applicable in Ruth differs from the concept found in the Pentateuch. Ruth links redemption to levirate marriages. When a person redeems land he also ‘acquires’ the original, deceased, owner’s wife. Their first born is regarded as the deceased’s son and the right of possession of the land vests in him. In the Bible, levirate marriages are treated as a separate principle.”

            “I think, Peter’le, that there is yet a further distinction. According to Leviticus redemption applies only once the land has been sold. Under the custom applied in Ruth, the redeemer can step in as soon as the land is put up for sale.”

            “Right you are, Maestro. Further, Ruth assumes a moral obligation where Leviticus articulates only a legal entitlement.”

            “Am glad you see the point. Does any specific transaction recorded in the Old Testament apply this custom?”

            “I think that Jeremiah chapter 32 is in point. I know that we are not concerned with prophecy or Jehudah’s history. But I need to clarify the background before I give details of the transaction.”

            “Point taken; and it is valid.  Please go ahead.”

“Chapter 32 is one of the prophet’s consolation sermons. It predicts that, after the ensuing devastation by Babylon, ‘houses and fields and vineyards shall be bought again in the land’ [32:15]. And he demonstrates his strong belief by redeeming a plot of land.”

            “Turn to it, Peter’le. As you know, our subject is land redemption; not prophecy.”

            “The episode took place during the siege of Jerusalem. Jeremiah, who was at that time locked up in the ‘court of the guards’, was visited by his cousin, who referred to a plot in Anathoth and told Jeremiah that ‘the right of inheritance is thine, and the right of redemption is thine; buy it for yourself’ [32:7]. Jeremiah decided to go ahead.”

            “Can this be regarded as falling within the scope of the land redemption law spelt out in Leviticus.”

            “It cannot, Maestro. Such a right (or duty) would accrue only if the cousin had sold his land to a third party. But, in my opinion, it is covered by the custom applicable in Ruth. Jeremiah acquired the land before the cousin had sold it out.”

            “How about the procedure, which involved the execution of a deed? Boaz acquired the land when concluding the bargain by a declaration witnessed by the elders?”

            “True, Maestro. But in Jeremiah’s such a procedure was ruled out by the political situation. Jerusalem was besieged and Jeremiah was, effectively, in prison. Acquisition by deed was the only means available.”

            “Why did this custom fail to be given effect to in the Pentateuch, Peter’le? Let us, just for the moment, assume that the laws set out in the Five Books of Moses attempted, inter alia, to give customs the effect of law?”

            “I am unable to give a comprehensive answer that falls within the scope of our subject. That said, it is of course possible that the custom related in Ruth applied only in Jehudah and, later, in Jehud. Such a geographically restricted custom may not have found its way into the Pentateuch. Let me emphasise that Jeremiah and Ruth take place within this realm.”

            “It seems to me that we have really covered the land redemption issue, Peter’le. We better move to the next.”

 

V. LEVIRATE MARRIAGES (YIBUM)

            “Let us start by examining the Pentateuch, Peter’le.”

            “The law in point is set out in chapter 25 [verses 5-10] of Deuteronomy. When a man dies childless, his brother should marry the widow in order to produce an offspring in the deceased brother’s name, thereby preserving his lineage. If the surviving brother refuses, a formal public ritual (ḥalitza) releases both parties from this obligation.”

            “Quite a narrow principle, isn’t it?”

            “Isn’t it ever? Further, it applies only if the two brothers ‘lived together’, which has been liberally construed as living during the same time or era.”

            “Does this principle affect the dead brother’s wife”

“It does. She is not allowed to ‘marry out’, unless the surviving brother has refused to levirate. In modern times as well as in antiquity this principle has been circumvented by asking the surviving brother to refuse to levirate, whereupon she is set free.”

            “Has this doctrine applied in any event described in the Bible?”

            “It has. The case of Jehudah and Tamar, discussed earlier on, is a case in point.”  

            “How about Ruth?”

            “It refers to a custom broader than the norm codified in Deuteronomy. Ruth treats the surviving wife as acquired with the redeemed land, even if the Go’el [redeemer] is not the deceased’s brother. I am not aware of any other Biblical episode giving effect to this custom.”

            “Agreed, Peter’le. Neither Ploni nor Boaz was Maḥlon’s brother. Further, as the latter had no surviving brother, Ruth was free to marry out of the clan or tribe. Her decision to marry Boaz (who was no longer young) was ḥésed. And Boaz treated it as such. Well, how would you summarise the distinction between the legal principle and the customs applied in Ruth?”

“In Deuteronomy, levirate marriage is a narrowly defined legal obligation; in Ruth, it is transformed into a voluntary, ethical act grounded in ḥésed.”

“Well said. Let us now proceed to the next point, namely the removal of the shoe.”

 

VI. REMOVAL OF SHOE PROCEDURE [ḤALITZA]

“In my opinion, Maestro, here Ruth and Deuteronomy are irreconcilable.”

“Let us hear you, then,” Theophil spoke tersely. “You better start with the biblical principle.”

“According to the rule set out in Chapter 25 of Deuteronomy, the issue of ‘shoe removal’ [ḥalitza] arises only in the context of levirate marriages [yibum]. When the surviving brother refuses to wed his brother’s widow, she is expected to ‘go up to the gate to the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refused to raise up to his brother a name in  Yisra’el, he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother [levirate]. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and he shall stand, and say, I do not wish to take her; then shall his brother’s wife approach him in the presence of the elders, and loose [remove] his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, Thus shall it be done to that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Yisra’el, The house of him that his shoe loosed’ [Deut. 25:6-10].”

“A lengthy quote, Peter’le. Why didn’t you paraphrase it?”

“Because I dislike it. It sounds outlandish to me! I prefer to present it as composed!”

“Peter’le, Peter’le – we need to avoid emotive rejections. Don’t you think that this law served a purpose at its time?”

“It might have served a purpose in a kinship-based society in which public ritual, communal shame, and symbolic acts regulated family obligation and property transmission.  In contrast, our modern society is grounded in individual autonomy, gender equality, and aligned with prevailing ethical and social norms.”

“I take your point, Peter’le. How does Rabbinical law cope with this?”

“Today ḥalitza is performed through a formal ceremony before a rabbinical court, which replaces the elders at the gate. The widow removes a special shoe from the levir’s foot, recites the prescribed declarations and spits on the floor. This releases both parties from the obligation of levirate marriage. And let me add that in many cases the widow is not at all interested in marrying the levir.”

“Well, Peter’le. To my way of thinking this is a neat manner of circumnaventig the principle or, rather, adapting it to our era. What is wrong with that?”

“I should prefer its outright repeal. I see no point in seeking to keep an obsolete principle alive by a meaningless procedure!”

“This is the view of secular Judaism. The Rabbis feel that they must retain every principle spelt out in the bible. So, they seek to adjust or modify a rule to maintain it.”

“Isn’t a straightforward repeal far more appropriate?”

“This is a general issue which goes far beyond our current discussion. I suggest we leave it and proceed to ḥalitza as set out in Ruth. Please start the ball rolling by describing it.”

 

“Ruth refers to ‘shoe removal’ when discussing redemption. Boaz tells Ploni that, by redeeming the plot of land, he also acquires Ruth, which means that he has to wed her and that their first born will be considered Maḥlon’s son and heir. To waive his priority right to go ahead, Ploni removes his shoes. The text tells us that this is a formal act which is legally binding.”

“Is this akin to the procedure described in the Bible”

“It is not.   In the biblical ḥalitza the shoe removal is part of a procedure in which the man is publicly shamed. In Ruth it constitutes a legally binding procedural step. In my opinion, the two are distinct and separate of each other.”

“Traditional writers have spelt much ink on reconciling the two!”

“What a sheer waste of time and liquid toner! In my opinion, the custom outlined in Ruth had never been in effect!”

“Strong words, Peter’le. Treading on land with a shoe is in some instances seen as a symbolic appropriation.”

“But shoe removal? It is as perplexing as Nikita Khrushchev’s performance at the United Nations Assembly on 12 October 1960.”

“What did he do, Peter’le?”

“Having lost an argument, he – the then Head of the Soviet Union – evinced his frustration by taking off his shoes and banging the desk with them.”

“Obviously, you feel very strongly about the subject. It seems to me, my friend, that we better leave ḥalitza. Let us turn to the next item: what does the author of Ruth seek to tell us. What is the book’s message?”

 

VII. RUTH’S MESSAGES

 

            “Ruth advances two main messages. The first is ḥésed. Basically, this denotes an act done out of kindness and not as a compliance with a legal obligation.  The second message is ‘leniency’ toward the ger (foreign resident), whose devotion and piety are more meaningful than ritual adherence by persons born into the faith,” I observed.

            “I agree with you, Peter’le. I suggest we discuss these in detail and then turn to additional messages that emerge from these two.”

            “To start with Ruth and her sister-in-law have no legal duty to marry foreigners residing in Moab. Their doing so and treating their husbands well constitutes ḥésed. So is their devotion to Naomi. Initially, both wish to accompany her when she departs from Moab. Ruth’s decision to adhere to her is yet another ḥésed. So is Boaz’s assumption of the redemption and levirate marriage duties.”

            “Does this have a general implication, Peter’le?”

            “I think it does, Maestro. The author implies that an act of grace (ḥésed) is to be preferred to or is more significant than the mechanical performance of a legal obligation.”

            “Point taken,” approved Theophil. “Let us turn to the second message.”

            “Ruth is a ‘ger’ and, throughout the books, is described as a Moabite woman. She is also a widow and poor. At the same time, she is an ancestress of King David and is fully embedded in Israel’s ancient history. We are told that conventional belonging is created by commitment and conduct rather than by genealogy or purity of blood.”

            “Does this view undermine the ethnic purity doctrines that were current in Jehud of the 5^th century BCE, Peter’le?”

            “It does. It clashes with the doctrines postulated by Ezra and Nehemiah, who regard the taking of foreign wives – intermarriage – as dangerous and impure and preach segregation and expulsion. Ruth suggests that exclusionary racial policy is historically misguided and religiously unjustified. Even the Perez family – staunch supporters of that policy – are of mixed blood.”

            “You made your point, Peter’le. Let us turn to subsidiary or supplementary messages.  These should not be overlooked.”

            “A cardinal one is that women are often decisive actors that shape history. Naomi initiates the return to Beth Lehem and, later on, devises the threshing-floor strategy, which leads to Ruth’s redemption. Ruth sustains the household in Beth-Lehem and sets the redemption in motion by appealing to Boaz. And the women of Beth Lehem name Obed. All this shows that history is often driven by women operating outside the formal power structures.”

            “Any other examples in the Old Testament?”

            “I can think of two, Maestro. One is the story of Jehudah and Tamar, discussed earlier on. The other is Deborah’s persuasion of Barak respecting the overthrowing of Jabin, the King of Canaan (Jud., 4).”

            “Any further message or implication, Peter’le?”

            “There is, Maestro. Ruth implies that redemption is not just economic but also social. It is not merely a technical property transaction. In Ruth, it restores the heroine’s human dignity and social stability.”

            “And the general implication?”

            “God – or providence – operate through kindness and mercy rather than strict adherence to legal principles. And this ḥésed is shown not only to Israelites but also to gentiles, who adopt God’s commandments. And, Maestro, this doctrine is in line with the world view of Jonah.”

            “How about the theodicy issue, discussed so thoroughly in Job, Peterle?”

            “It arises in Ruth, Maestro. When Naomi arrives back in Beth Lehem, she asks people to refer to her as ‘Mara’ (which means ‘bitter’) and observes that God has dealt with her severely. As we are not told that Naomi committed any sin, it looks as if she is an innocent person, made to suffer without reason.”

            “But is the point analysed?”

            “It is not. It is resolved when Boaz redeems and marrie Ruth. We are told that Obed’s birth and Ruth’s new status secure Naomi’s future. If there is any message here, it is simple and straightforward: the suffering of the innocent is redressed if they continue to have faith.”

            “Does this solution appeal to you, Peter’le?”

            “It does not. The lucid debate in Job demonstrates that the issue is complex and often not resolved.”

            “Well, Peter’le, we have covered the messages of Ruth. But I can sense that, although you are in tandem with their thrust, you do not like the book. As you know, I can read your thoughts and emotions.”

            “I know that you can and have done so presently, Maestro. But I am not certain whether my reaction is purely emotive or ground in reason.”

            “The point requires detached analysis. But you are tired, my friend. Our chat has stretched over a few hours. I suggest you retire. We can proceed tomorrow.”

            “But won’t I meander about throughout the night?”

            “You won’t. I’ll take care of this. So, sleep well.”

 

 

 

 

VIII. IS RUTH LIKEABLE?

            Next morning I woke up refreshed and relaxed. Having taken my hearty breakfast, I was about to switch on my iPad, with the object of listening to music. Then, to my surprise, Theophil made his appearance.

            “We have some unfinished business, Peter’le. Let us get back to our drawing board. Do tell me why you continue to dislike Ruth. I know that your aversion for King David – which you have already conceded – is one ground. Does your antipathy go any deeper than that?”

            “It does, Maestro. Let us take my first point:  the author sermonizes throughout. We are told that Boaz is Ish Ḥayil. Why doesn’t he  enable us – the readers – to reach this conclusion as we engross ourselves in the text? It shows that Boaz is exactly that: a prosperous, progressive and principled man.”

            “The author does the same with Ruth. We know from the very start that she is a principled woman, who knows when to act, Peter’le. Let us consider your other reservations and then discuss them together.”

            “The author doesn’t show any internal struggles in the characters’ dominating the book. Think about Naomi’s plan respecting Ruth’s nocturnal visit to the threshing grounds. Surely, either she or, in the very least Ruth, were aware of the risk involved in a single woman proceeding to a barn after the men have finished their work and had a few drinks. Doesn’t Ruth risk her reputation and honour?”

            “But Peter’le, we already know that Boaz is not the sort of man who would take advantage, don’t we?”

            “We do; and that is a defect. In a well written work, we would see how Ruth settles her misgivings by consenting to Naomi’s plan. In the book as written, she simply agrees to go ahead.”

            “Any other reservations, my friend?”

            “Yes, Maestro. Ruth is repetitive. For instance, Boaz is introduced three times! Is this needed?”

            “In a literary piece, it would not be. And in that context, your other objection would be sound and convincing. But tell me please: is Ruth such a work, say, a short story?”

            “Actually, it isn’t,” I conceded after some internal reflections. “It is a religious text. And it is read every year at Shavuot [Pentecost] in Ashkenazi Synagogues.”

            “Precisely, Peter’le. We deal with a work that seeks to make some religious or doctrinal points. People do not read as a literary work. If they read it at all, their object is to comprehend the faith it promotes. In that case, would your reservation be valid?”

            “Not really, Maestro. I have to concede that, thereupon, my reservations become irrelevant. They would be pedantic when applied to a purely religious work.”

            “I am glad you concede the point. The reservations raised by you are not weaknesses. Your having withdrawn them shows that, to the very end, you have kept an open mind.   Still, before we end this session I am going to raise my final point. Suppose that Ruth was read by an orthodox leader. Would he wish to suppress the book?”

            “Nehemiah might have done so. Tolerance was not one of his attributes. But later religious leaders  adopted Ruth! This acceptance was not merely doctrinal or theoretical. The book circulated.  Scraps of it were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran [Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls (Brill, 2019), pp. 735-8].”

            “What does this establish, Peterle?”

“It confirms that by the 1^st century BCE (at the latest) the text has been entrenched or, in other words, accepted as a standard text of Judaism”

            “Why, do you think it was recognised in such a manner Peter’le?”

            “Because it mashes with dogma.  It tells us that ḥésed can be exercised so as to amplify, perhaps even override, legal norms; and that once accepted as a member of the community, a ger is to be treated with the same respect as a person of pure blood.”

            “Precisely, Peter’le. And this message complements dogma; it does not militate.”

            “I still prefer Job, Jonah and Ecclesiastes!”

            “I know, Peter’le. They appeal to you for their scholarly merit. As religious narrative, Ruth is to be preferred. The reader is not left in doubt.”

            “I agree,” I nodded affirmatively. “And, Maestro, Ruth rhymes with Shtut but makes sense. 

           

            For a few minutes we continued to sit together. I then felt that I was hungry.

            “Why don’t you proceed to your favoured restaurant, Peter’le. You deserve a good meal. And don’t worry about sugar and calories. Today, I’ll sort this out for you.”