Ruth and Esther: Written and Oral Law

In Ruth chapter 3, Naomi gives the young Moabite, newly entered into the community of Israel, some odd and even disturbing instructions. She is to wash and anoint herself, put on nice clothing, and go that night to where Boaz is winnowing barley in the threshing floor. After he has eaten and lain down, Ruth is to go, and uncover his feet, and lie down there. "He will tell you what to do," concludes Naomi.

For a young unmarried woman to be told to go at night and be alone with a strange man in a threshing floor - to lie at his feet- is not a simple matter. It certainly sounds like a seduction scene (whether it is or not, and what the meaning of it all is, has been discussed extensively).

But Ruth's response is not to question. In verse 5 she simply says:

All that you say to me I will do.

I'd like to make two points here:

Firstly, I believe that this is a case of everything in the world having a time and place. Ruth was of Moabite stock. Her past would have been a source of shame to her, as the Israelites were not lovers of Moabites. Nonetheless, it came in handy here. It kicked in to allow her to do something that would have been difficult and embarrassing for the average Israelite maiden.

The Moabite women were sent to seduce the Israelites and entice them to serve idolatry (Numbers 25). This was Ruth's genetic legacy, though she had moved far from it. She was able to draw upon her original people's ability to wield sexuality as a tool in order to make happen here what needed to happen. While not every Israelite maiden is a paragon of modesty, a typical Israelite maiden does not have a collective culture of sexual brazenness to draw upon. Israelites do not send their women to seduce their enemies.

Going even further back, Ruth drew upon the genetic legacy from her ancesstresses the daughters of Lot, who, thinking that the world had ended and it was up to them alone to propagate the human race, also needed to overcome their own inhibitions in order to sleep with theri father.

Thus, even a not very respectable trait came into its own in this situation.

- - 

My second point is to note that Ruth's response 

All that you say to me I will do.

is very reminiscent of the phrase with which the Israelites accepted the Torah, naaseh venishmah, we will do and we will listen/obey. Unlike the nations of the world whom the midrash describes as asking "What is in it?" the Israelites, like Ruth, are willing to carry out instructions that might seem strange, even bizarre - and all because of their trust in, love for and devotion towards the giver of those instructions.

Indeed we read the book of Ruth on Shavuot, the festival of the receiving of the Torah. Very apt.

It can be suggested that Ruth represents the Written Law, which is what was given on Mt Sinai (along with, traditionally, the principles for the Oral Law).  She does exactly as Naomi instructs her. And yet, she also adds something when the situation calls for it. When Boaz asks (Ruth 3:9) "Who are you?" Ruth needs to make an answer. Naomi has not told her exactly word for word what to say; she has left it up to Ruth to navigate the situation.
Ruth replies:

I am Ruth your maidservant; spread your skirt over your maidservant; for you are next of kin.

These are her own words. She is taking the situation and interpreting it in the spirit of Naomi, just as the Oral law interprets the situation in the spirit of the Giver of the Written Law, as far as possible. Thus the Oral law begins. But it only comes to full fruition in the days of Esther.

The Talmud (Shabbat 88a) famously says that God held Mount Sinai over the heads of the Israelites and forced them to accept the Torah. Since this is not a very promising way to view our acceptance of the Torah - we could argue it is not legally binding - the Talmud then adds, "But they reaccepted it willingly in the days of Achashverosh."

Thus, Esther represents the full flowering of the Oral Law. And we indeed see Esther, once she makes a decision to do so, acting way beyond the letter of Mordechai's instructions; commanding that everyone fast for three days for her etc.  (Esther 4:16). This is not just a light addition - this is a full "taking the ball and running with it", applying the initial instruction and adding to it, filling out the details, based on appropriate reason and intuition.

This is the essence of the Oral Law, with principles that guide reason and intuition, to make things work in every new situation, as it demands.


* I thank Miriam Leah Gamliel and Judith Phillips, whose insights during a Bibliodrama on Ruth Chapter 3 form the basis for the blog.

Angry at Esther - God's Defender

I was discussing Megillat Esther with someone who expressed strong negative feelings that surprised me.

This person, a religious Jew who grew up in a rather different environment, every year becomes upset when he listens to the book of Esther being read, because there is no mention of God's name. He feels indignant, offended by the fact that Esther and Mordechai did not pray or give thanks to God for the miracles vouchsafed to them.

"The Torah makes it clear that it is always about God. We are to praise God and worship God," he protested. "What on earth is this?!?" He even suggested that we were punished with (longer) exile due to this egregious omission on the part of Esther and Mordechai. 

I found his defense of God moving, but of course I had my explanations at the ready. It's impossible that Esther and Mordechai omitted mention of God by accident, or due to any beliefs that the miracle of Purim came about accidentally/through human agency only. And the fact that the rabbis include the megillah and made Purim into a significant festival obviously validates Esther and Mordechai as people of faith.

But my conversational partner remained unconvinced and angry. This was the first time I had ever had such a conversation, and I must confess it came as quite a surprise. What I appreciated about it though was the absolute incomprehension of how you could have a religious text without God in it - no matter what the reason. 

I think since I've grown up with Esther for my entire life, I've always accepted the explanation that the book represents God's working in hidden ways. I find meaning in that message. Yet why should we accept that so easily - why indeed should there be a scroll in which God's name does not appear at all?

Yes, let us question that, let us be indignant for God's honour. Perhaps every year God awaits our zealousness for the divine name, to return it to centre stage. And perhaps every year, God sighs and shrugs upon seeing how facilely we accept the hiding of the divine. All of us, that is, except for my friend, who saves the day. Hmm.

Megillat Esther - The Great Chess Game

Chess came to Persia very early in its history. 

To me the megillah feels like a chess game. 

Player A: King Achashverosh, queen Vashti, knight Haman.

Player B: King G-d, queen Esther, knight Mordechai.

  

Player A's queen is knocked out very early in the game (BAD move) and that player then tries to get a variety of pawns to become a new queen. Unsuccessfully though: in the end, player B gets her queen (Esther) in among A's pieces.

This queen (Esther) starts causing havoc, along with her knight (Mordechai). In the end, she massacres A's pawns (Haman's sons and allies). She also uses A's own knight (Haman) to create a close to checkmate situation (1st party), followed by true checkmate (2nd party and the overturning of the decree).

P.s. Checkmating G-d was never really on the table 😉
And of course G-d is not just the King, but is also the player. 

Chanoch/Noach and Yuval/Levi

In this Times of Israel post I suggested that Chanoch and his grandson Noach share a trait, that has been passed down in partial form ("If you look at the letters of Hanoch (Het Nun Vav Chaf), Noah shares only two of them (Nun Het).")

חנוך

נח

Recently it struck me that the same might be argued for another ancestor and descendant: Yuval and Levi.

Yuval is called "the father all who played the lyre and pipe" (Genesis 4:20-21). In other words, the progenitor or father of music. Levi is a very musical tribe, who end up being the singers in the Temple. And the letters of Yuval's name partially descend into Levi:

יובל

לוי

Oholiav the Assistant

When God appoints Betzalel as the Chief Architect of the Mishkan, he also appoints Oholiav son of Achisamach to assist him. Oholiav is an engraver, and a skilful workman, and an embroiderer in blue, and in purple, and in scarlet, and fine linen. He is from the tribe of Dan. Rashi on Exodus 35:34 notes that this tribe is one of the lowliest tribes of Israel (while Betzelel hailed from Judah, the tribe of the kings).

Is there a significance to the tribe of Dan, in terms of Oholiav's job? One of my talented Bibliodrama participants, Joanne Jackson Yelenik, pointed out that the blessing that Jacob gives to Dan on his deathbed is (Gen: 49:17): 

17. Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that bites the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Joanne suggested that, just as Dan was there to be the vanguard of the camp, Oholiav was there to clean up the mess and make sure nothing fell by the way. Following her lead in looking at Jacob's blessings, I suggested a further role, using the image of the snake biting the horse's heels.

The evil inclination, or ego, could be compared to a rider on a horse. It tries to ride us and control us. Along comes the snake, and though smaller, is able to bite the heels of the horse and throw the rider. It is not a pleasant experience for the horse, but at least the rider is off its back. 

Perhaps, then, Oholiav's job was to make sure that Betzalel, of the kingly tribe and given the prestigious job of the Chief Architect of the Mishkan, did not for a moment slide into ego. That would be an inappropriate energy to enter via his hands into the vessels of the Mishkan.