Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: A Tale of Two Patriarchs.

Ruth is a strange and beautiful book--beautiful because of its characters’ virtues and faithfulness,

but strange because of some of its literary features.

Why, for instance, at the Book’s climax,...

...do we not find a summary of its salient points (as any good editor would recommend) but, rather, a *genealogy*?

And why does the text provide us with so many details about Ruth and Boaz’s night-time encounter?

Why do we need to know about what Ruth wears, where she lies down, and how she ‘uncovers Boaz’s feet’?

Some possible answers are set out below.

But first, of course, a few numerical remarks.

The number 10 is prominent in Ruth.

Naomi sojourns in Moab for 10 years.

Ruth delivers a total of 10 speeches (1.10, 16, 2.2, 10, 13, 19, 21, 3.5, 9, 17).

Boaz gathers 10 elders to serve as witnesses for him.

And ch. 4 ends with a ten-fold genealogy, strung together with 10 occurrences of the vb. הוליד = ‘beget’.

The prominence of the number 10 is significant.

The law of Moses--which, of course, is based around the 10 words/commandments--is central to what transpires in the book of Ruth.

Ruth’s is a story about the demands of Israel’s law and the community defined by it.

Meanwhile, the name ‘Boaz’ occurs 20 times (2 x 10) because Boaz is a man who *magnifies* the law.

The law simply requires landowners not to ‘over-harvest’ their fields (to allow ‘the poor’ and ‘the sojourner’ to glean in them: Lev. 19.9, 23.22).

But Boaz goes beyond what the law requires, and leaves entire sheaves of wheat in Ruth’s path.

The law simply requires Boaz to buy back Naomi’s (recently sold) land (Lev. 25.25-30),

but Boaz requires not only the land, but Naomi and Ruth to be provided for (4.5),

per the spirit of the law (cp. Deut. 25.5-6 w. Lev. 25.25-30).

Equally prominent in Ruth is the number 12.

The name ‘Ruth’ occurs 12 times.

The vb. ‘glean’ (לקט) occurs 12 times (always with Ruth as its subject).

The most common conjugation of לקט is לקטה = ‘she gleans’,

which has a gematrial value of 144 (12 x 12).

The God of Israel is referred to 24 times (יהוה x 18, אלהים x 4, שדי x 2).

And the root גאל = ‘redeem’ occurs 24 times (גאל x 22, גְּאֻלָּה x 2).

Like that of the number 10, the prominence of the number 12 is significant.

Ruth is the story of a woman who comes to glean in Israel and is ultimately incorporated into Israel’s 12 tribes.

And, appropriately, the person who facilitates her incorporation is Boaz, Eli-Melech’s מוֹדָע--a word with a gematrial value of 10 x 12 = 120.

Note: In 2.10, Ruth responds to her מוֹדָע’s kindness with an anagram of מוֹדָע, viz. מַדּוּעַ = ‘Why (me)?’.

On, then, to some literary remarks.

The text of Ruth is full of wordplay and pleasant literary touches.

For instance: at the book’s outset, Naomi’s sons are said to ‘take’ (נשא) themselves wives (1.4),

which is an unusual choice of verb. (לקח would be more common.)

But our author employs the verb נשא because he wants to tell a story with it,

i.e., the story of Ruth’s journey from Moab to Judah (and from peril to security).

Ruth is ‘taken’ (נשא) in marriage by one of Naomi’s sons (1.4).

When Naomi decides to head back to Judah, Ruth ‘lifts’ (נשא) up her voice and weeps (1.9, 14) and pledges to stay by Naomi’s side.

And Ruth eventually becomes a provider for Naomi as she ‘carries’ (נשא) an ephah (אֵיפָה) of barley back to her.

Note: When Ruth gets home, Naomi wants to know ‘where’ (אֵיפֹה) she got an אֵיפָה of barley from.

The verb עזב is employed to tell a similar story, and is a significant root since עזב is an anagram of בֹּעַז = ‘Boaz’.

Ruth chooses to ‘leave’ (עזב) her family rather than ‘leave’ (עזב) Naomi (1.6, 2.11).

In response, Boaz tells his men to ‘leave’ (עזב) sheaves of barley in Ruth’s path (2.15).

And the God of Israel does not ‘overlook’ (עזב) Ruth’s kindness to his people (2.20).

Wordplay also features in Naomi’s (self-proclaimed) change of name (cp. 1.20).

In its original context, the name נָעֳמִי means ‘ostrich’ (cp. MH נָעֳמִית, JAram. נעמי, Arb./Syr. ⟨naʕām-⟩ = ‘ostrich’),

while the name מָרָא means ‘young lady’ (cp. Ugar. ⟨mr⟩ = ‘son’, Aram. ⟨mārā⟩ = ‘mistress’, OAkk. ⟨mārtu⟩ = ‘daughter, girl’),

but Naomi juxtaposes these two names--that is to say, she says she no longer wants to be called נָעֳמִי but מָרָא--in order to imbue them with a new significance...

...and hence to describe a transition from a state of ‘pleasantness’
(נָעֳמִי > נעם)

to one of ‘bitterness’ (מָרָא > מרר).

So far so good (perhaps).

But what about our original questions?

Why the genealogy?

Why such a detailed narration of Boaz and Ruth’s night-time encounter?

To answer these questions, we need to consider Ruth’s position within the canon of Scripture more carefully.

Boaz and Ruth are not isolated figures on the stage of the Biblical narrative; they are people with a history and a context.

Boaz is a descendant of Judah via Tamar.

As such, he is a man who not only has a history, but has a rather complicated and unsavoury history (cp. Gen. 38).

Ruth’s history is little better (and possibly worse).

Ruth is a Moabite.

As such, she is a descendant of Lot,

and hence (like Boaz) the product of an incestuous relationship (cp. Gen. 19).

Unsavoury though they may be, our text deliberately highlights both of these details:

4.18-22 explicitly traces Boaz’s ancestry back to Perez,

and 4.12 explicitly describes Perez as the son ‘whom Tamar bore to Judah’.

Meanwhile, Ruth is repeatedly referred to as ‘the Moabite’ (1.22, 2.2, 21, 4.5),

which is quite unnecessary.

(We do not need to be constantly reminded of Ruth’s background. And no-one else in Scripture is called Ruth, so disambiguation is unnecessary.)

Our author must, therefore, have a point to make, which I take to be as follows.

The encounter of Boaz and Ruth is not an encounter of two isolated individuals;

it is the convergence of two long and complicated histories and lineages--the reassociation of a rejected family tree within the line of promise.

It is also an incident which shares remarkable similarities with the incidents at the top of Boaz and Ruth’s respective family trees,

namely the encounters between Judah and Tamar and between Lot and his older daughter.

Consider some of the relevant parallels between the three couplets of people (i.e., Boaz and Ruth, Judah and Tamar, and Lot and his firstborn daughter).

First, in all three cases, people leave the land to which God has appointed them.

Judah leaves Egypt to return to Canaan (Gen. 38 is chronologically out of place);

Lot departs from Abraham to reside in Sodom and Gomorah;

and Naomi leaves Israel to sojourn in Moab.

Second, in all three cases, two men on whom the family’s future is dependent die at a young age (without children).

Judah’s two sons (Er and Onan) are smitten by YHWH;

Lot’s sons-in-law are swept away along with Sodom and Gomorrah;

and Naomi’s two sons die in Moab.

Hence, in all three cases, a crisis looms.

A family line seems unable to continue, and an ancestral name is endangered.

Judah is reluctant to give his third son to Tamar in marraige since he sees Tamar as a ‘black-widow-like’ character...

...and is fearful for his son’s life (Gen. 38.11);

Lot is scared to intermingle with the inhabitants of his new locale in Zoar (Gen. 19.29-30);

and Naomi and Ruth have little to offer a potential husband in light of: a] Naomi’s age, and b] Ruth’s status as a Moabite,

which clearly has a stigma attached to it (cp. 4.6).

Third, in all three cases, a woman decides to take matters into her own hands in order to preserve her family line; put more specifically, a woman seeks to conceal her identity and approach the nearest ‘eligible’ male.

Tamar covers herself with a veil and waits for Judah to pass by;

Lot’s daughters approach him under cover of darkness;

and Ruth follows the lead of Lot’s daughters.

Note: The word standardly employed to designate Ruth--viz. כַּלָּה = ‘daughter-in-law’--theoretically designates ‘a veiled one’ (cp. Aram./Syr. כלה = ‘veil’), which provides a further resonance with the story of Lot (לוֹט) since Heb. לוֹט = ‘veil’.

Fourth, in all three cases, the situation is referred to as the preservation of a ‘seed’ (זרע cp. Gen. 19.34, 38.8-9, Ruth 4.12), and is helped along by the consumption of wine.

Judah has been at a sheep-shearers’ festival,

where an abundance of wine is likely to have been drunk (Geoghegan 2006);

Lot has been plied with wine by his daughters;

and Boaz is merry with wine at the time when Ruth approached him.

As a result, none of the male procreators-to-be are aware of who has approached them.

Note: All of the resultant children are named by the mothers or female bystanders (Gen. 19.37-38, 38.27-30, Ruth 4.17).

Fifth, in all three cases, the male involved is a member of an older generation.

Judah is Tamar’s father; Lot is (obviously) the father of his daughters; and Boaz is considerably older than Ruth (2.5-6, 3.10-11).

At the same time, more specific parallels connect Ruth’s story with individual details of the stories of Judah and Lot.

For instance, the names of Naomi’s sons seem to anticipate their deaths, which is also true of Judah’s sons’ names.

The name ‘Mahlon’ (מַחְלוֹן) resonates with מַחֲלוּי = ‘tribulation’,

and the name ‘Chilion’ (כִּלְיוֹן) resonates with כִּלָּיוֹן = ‘destruction’.

In much the same way, the name ‘Er’ (עֵר) resonates with רע = ‘evil’ (cp. Gen. 38.7),

and the name ‘Onan’ (אוֹנָן) resonates with איננו = ‘he was no more’.

Furthermore, when Naomi sets out to return to Judah, she says it is unfeasible for her to marry and bear a son, and for Ruth and Orphah then to wait until he grows up (1.12-13),

which is exactly what Judah requires Tamar to do.

Linguistic parallels also contribute to the picture.

Ruth’s ‘nearer redeemer’ is reluctant to raise up children with Ruth since it will ‘mar’ (שחת) his estate,

while Onan is reluctant to raise up children with Tamar and hence ‘wastes’ (שחת) his seed.

Ruth therefore preserves her line with the help of חֲמוֹת = ‘a mother-in-law’,

while Tamar preserves hers with the help of חֹתָם = ‘a seal’ (an anagram of חֲמוֹת) obtained from Judah.

Similar linguistic subtleties serve to connect the stories of Ruth and Lot.

Naomi’s ref. to חסד עשיתם עמדי = ‘the kindness...done to (her)’ resonates with Lot’s ref. to חסד עשית עמדי = ‘the kindness...done to (him)’ (cp. 1.8 w. Gen. 19.19).

Boaz’s mention of עַמִּי = ‘My people’ resonates with the name of Lot’s son בן עמי = ‘Ben-Ammi’--a name which happens to consist of the name ‘Naomi’ (נעמי) preceded by the letter /b/ (3.11).

And Ruth is said to lie down (שכב) at Boaz’s feet in ‘silence’ (לָט)--a word which is reminiscent of the name ‘Lot’ (לוֹט).

Different arrangements of the consonants עמרה are also of significance.

Ruth leaves ‘the sheaves’ (העמר) she has brought Naomi to visit Boaz on a heap of grain (עֲרֵמָה),

while Lot leaves ‘Gomorrah’ (עֲמֹרָה) to dwell in a ‘cave’ (מְעָרָה) outside Zoar (cp. 2.15, 3.7 w. Gen. 19.30).

(Such examples can easily be multiplied.)

With these things in mind, then, let us reconsider the events of Ruth ch. 3.

Ruth’s encounter with Boaz now acquires an extra dimension.

As we read of Ruth’s journey to Boaz’s floor, we begin to feel rather uneasy--a fact not alleviated by our text’s suggestive language.

People lie down together (שכב).

Feet are uncovered.

And a ‘grain pile’ is mentioned (ערמה from ערם = ‘to pile up’),

which resonates with terms like עָרוֹם = ‘nakedness’ and עָרְמָה = ‘craftiness’.

Is another unsavoury sexual encounter about to mar the lineage of Judah?

Will the recognition/deception motif which has dogged Abraham’s line make another appearance?

Recall, for instance, how Jacob is able to deceive Isaac because he fails to recognise (הכיר) his disguise,

and how Laban fails to ‘recognise’ (הכיר) what Rebekah has taken from him,

and how Jacob ‘recognises’ (הכיר) Joseph’s coat and is hence deceived by Judah (Gen. 27.23, 31.32, 37.32-33).

The circumstances are, therefore, against Boaz and Ruth,

Sin crouches at the door.

And, when Boaz wakes up and notices a female whom he does not recognise,

we fear the worst.

Yet, thankfully, things pan out very differently to what we expect.

A clean break from the past is made.

‘Who are you?’, Boaz asks,

to which an honourable reply comes back: ‘I am Ruth’.

The ball is then back in Boaz’s court,

who responds in equally honourable fashion.

‘May you be blessed of YHWH’, he says.

‘Lie down until the dawn’ (3.13).

As such, we have a clean break from the past.

Things are finally put right, and are done in the proper manner.

Boaz becomes ‘the one who recognises’ Ruth (מכיר from נכר: cp. 2.19), and who treats her with dignity, despite her status as a ‘foreigner’ (נכר!).

And Boaz and Ruth’s story thus begins to diverge from the stories of Judah and Lot.

(We are not determined by our past, but by our God.)

Whereas Tamar covers herself in order to conceal her identity, Boaz covers Ruth with his cloak--i.e., he ‘spreads his wings’ (כנפים) over her--in the full knowledge of who she is.

Furthermore, his actions symbolises his intention to enter into a legitimate union with her (cp. 3.9 w. Ezek. 16.8)

as well as the way in which Ruth has found shelter ‘under the wings’ of Israel’s God (cp. לחסות תחת כנפי אלהי ישראל in 2.12).

And, significantly, Ruth is thus subsumed under the headship of Salmah/Salmon (שַׂלְמָה cp. 4.20-21),

whose name is an anagram of the שמלה = ‘garment’ worn by Ruth (3.3) and refers to a kind of ‘garment/cloak’.

The past is therefore undone,

and the manner in which it is undone is important to note.

Whereas things go wrong in the case of Tamar, who sits at the gate to Enaim, and of Lot, who sits at the gate of Sodom, Boaz goes to the gate in order to do set things right (ch. 4).

Whereas Lot seeks refuge in a ‘nearer city’ (Zoar), the result of which is disaster, Ruth avoids ‘a nearer redeemer’ (3.12) and instead finds refuge in Boaz.

And, appropriately, the end of the nearer redeemer’s role in the text--a man who is simply referred to simply as אַלְמֹנִי = ‘somebody’--signals the end of Ruth’s אַלְמָנוּת = ‘widowhood’.

Question: Why is a *sandal* passed to Boaz? Do the lexemes Heb./JBA שְׁמִטָּה = ‘a (Sabbatical) release of an obligation’, Syr. ⟨šmṭ⟩ = ‘sandal strap’, ⟨ŠMṬ⟩ = ‘to take off the shoes’ hint at some kind of memory of the custom?

Final thoughts:

Ruth is a story about major sins,

but it is also a story about the significance of what may seem (in the grand scheme of things) to be minor details.

The failures of two great patriarchs--viz., Judah and Lot--are not put right by means of some epic mission or military triumph,

but by means of the faithfulness and sense of covenantal duty of three apparently insignificant individuals--viz., Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz--,

and, as a result, their names will be forever remembered in history, and for all the right reasons.

These three individuals could never have dreamt of the eternal consequences of their actions,

but Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz allowed the line of Perez to take root in Bethlehem

(cp. 1 Chr. 2) which would ultimately turn out to be the line from which both David and the Davidic Messiah would be born (Matt. 1).

In the dark days of the Judges, faithful men and women could still be found in Bethlehem (despite Judg. 17-21!),

and such people allowed God’s line of promise to survive.

May we, therefore, take Ruth’s lessons to heart.

Plain old-fashioned faithfulness to our families, to our duties, and to the foreigners in our midst may not gain us too many applause here and now,

but is of great value in the eyes of our Lord.

The end.

Credits: Daniel Block (‘Judges & Ruth’), Rabbi David Fohrman (Videos on ‘Shavuot’), Ellen Van Wolde (‘Ruth in Dialogue with Tamar’).

P.S. For those kindly souls who want to download a non-tweet-bound version of these notes, cf. academia.edu/39775654/.