The Book of Ruth

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. ...

“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’).” ...

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.” ...

“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.” ...

“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?” ...

“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].” ...

“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.” ...

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?” ...