This is part of the ongoing Forest Hills Ruth Series, with the focus being on midrash. The rest of the material can be found here:
We are now beginning chapter 4, the very last chapter of the Scroll of Ruth!
At this point, it seems like Naomi's plan has worked quite smoothly. Ruth the righteous Moabite, has charmed Boaz, the living kinsman of Elimech, Naomi's late husband. All that is left now are some logistics and some procedures; the gathering together of witnesses to acknowledge that Boaz is taking on his kinsman-responsibilities, which would result in his inheriting Elimelech's property, as well as taking Ruth as his wife.
However, there is one more important figure we have yet to meet; A redeemer that has the first right-of-refusal, even before Boaz...
(1) And Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And look! The redeemer was passing by, of whom Boaz had mentioned.
He said, “Turn, and sit down here, So-and-so!” And he turned and sat down.
(2) Then he took ten elders of the town and said, “Be seated here”; and they sat down.
(3) He said to the redeemer, “A portion of the field which belonged to our brother, to Elimelech, Naomi is selling, who returned from the fields of Moab. (4) I said I would make known to you [to your ear], saying, acquire before the settles, and before the elders of my people. If you would redeem, then redeem! And if he would not redeem, tell me. For other than you, there is no redeemer, and I am after you.
And he said, "I shall redeem!"
(5)And Boaz said, “When you acquire the property from the hand of Naomi, also from Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, you must also acquire, in order to establish the name of the deceased for his portion.
(6) And the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own portion. You redeem my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem.
(7) Now this was formerly done in Israel in cases of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would take off his sandal and hand it to the other. Such was the practice in Israel. (8) So when the redeemer said to Boaz, “Acquire for yourself,” he drew off his sandal.
This first midrash has a beautiful idea, as well as quite a funny joke!
Before reading, take another look at the first verse above. What, in the text, was bothering this midrash?
וּבֹעַז עָלָה הַשַּׁעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם וְהִנֵּה הַגֹּאֵל עֹבֵר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בֹּעַז (רות ד, א), מָה לַאֲחוֹרֵי תַּרְעָא הֲוָה קָאֵים, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם הֱטִיסוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לְשָׁם, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹא יְהֵא אוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק יוֹשֵׁב וּמִצְטַעֵר מִתּוֹךְ יִשּׁוּבוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה, כָּךְ דָּרְשׁוּ שְׁנֵי גְדוֹלֵי עוֹלָם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בֹּעַז עָשָׂה אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְרוּת עָשְׂתָה אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, וְנָעֳמִי עָשְׂתָה אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַף אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת שֶׁלִּי. וַיֹּאמֶר סוּרָה שְׁבָה פֹּה פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר פְּלוֹנִי אַלְמוֹנִי שְׁמוֹ
"Meanwhile, Boaz had gone to the gate and sat down there. And now the redeemer whom Boaz had mentioned passed by. He called, “Come over and sit down here, So-and-so!” And he came over and sat down (Ruth 4:1)":
What, he was just waiting waiting around and suddenly he appeared???
Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachman said: "Even if he was at the ends of the earth, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have flown him and brought him there so that a righteous man would not be upset sitting there".
Rabbi Berachya: "So expounded the two great men of the world, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua:
Rabbi Eliezer said: "Boaz did his thing and Ruth did her thing, and Naomi did her thing, and the Holy One, blessed be He said: "So I will do my thing". And he said "Hey, so and so, go there!"
Rabbi Joshua said: his name was Ploni Almoni ("so and so")".
Try "plugging" Rabbi Eliezer's words back into the text of the Scroll of Ruth itself. How does this radically change the story? Does it fit grammatically? Logically?
We've met a many characters throughout our study of this scroll. In every single case, their names gave penetrating insight; Whether it was to the nature of the character who bore the name (Naomi, Boaz), to the characters' future fate (Mahlon, Kilyon, Orpah), or helping to establish context (Elimelech).
Given this, do you find anything quite surprising about the above passage?
If not, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi) in our next source will point out this difficulty for us.
So-and-so. But his name was not written because he did not wish to redeem.1The person’s name was Tov (See above 3:13). His name is omitted because he did not discharge his duty as a kinsman. He therefore did not merit to be recorded as Tov [=good].
Note that the italics were not written by Rabbi Shlomo himself, but were added there by yet a later supercommentary. (Unfortunately, Sefaria did not identify the source.)
Do you find anything striking about it?
I find the next two comments by Rabbi Shlomo to be absolutely brilliant!
However, I'm not sure whether or not he is "right" as far as etymology goes. What do you think?
So. פְּלֹנִי means] covered and concealed, [as in] the expression of, “If there be concealed יִפָּלֵא”2Devarim 17:8. and “Is there anything concealed הֲיִפָּלֵא from Adonoy?”3Bereishis 18:14.
Rabbi Shlomo quotes two other verses which use the root פ-ל-א.
Let's take a look at them:
(ח) כִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט בֵּֽין־דָּ֨ם ׀ לְדָ֜ם בֵּֽין־דִּ֣ין לְדִ֗ין וּבֵ֥ין נֶ֙גַע֙ לָנֶ֔גַע דִּבְרֵ֥י רִיבֹ֖ת בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ בּֽוֹ׃ (ט) וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֙ וְהִגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ אֵ֖ת דְּבַ֥ר הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט׃ (י) וְעָשִׂ֗יתָ עַל־פִּ֤י הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַגִּ֣ידֽוּ לְךָ֔ מִן־הַמָּק֣וֹם הַה֔וּא אֲשֶׁ֖ר יִבְחַ֣ר יְהוָ֑ה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֣ לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹרֽוּךָ׃
(8) If a case is too baffling for you to decide, be it a controversy over homicide, civil law, or assault—matters of dispute in your courts—you shall promptly repair to the place that YHWH your god will have chosen, (9) and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem, and they shall announce to you the verdict in the case, (10) and you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that YHWH chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you.
(יד) הֲיִפָּלֵ֥א מֵיְהוָ֖ה דָּבָ֑ר לַמּוֹעֵ֞ד אָשׁ֥וּב אֵלֶ֛יךָ כָּעֵ֥ת חַיָּ֖ה וּלְשָׂרָ֥ה בֵֽן׃
(14) Is anything too wondrous for YHWH? I will return to you at the same season next year, and Sarah shall have a son.
The first verse above states that nothing is too "peleh" for God, and the other describes court cases which local judges are not qualified to judge. Our two translations are "wondrous" and "baffling."
This is a great root, and is quite dynamic. Have you seen this anywhere else?
Perhaps you recognize it from modern Hebrew; A peleh can be a miracle; But it can also be something surprising or strange, or beyond understanding. (A movie came out in 2017 called "Wonder," which was released as "Peleh" in Israel.)
A grammatical point which does make Rabbi Shlomo's interpretation quite compelling is that the letter "א" is part of a group called "weak letters," which I call the "Ahoy!" letters. These can go missing, when a word takes certain forms.
Remember, we are reading Rabbi Shlomo's comment on the term ploni, which was only the first half of a phrase, ploni almoni.
Let's now see what he has to say about "almoni":
And so. אַלְמֹנִי means widowed, without a name. (Another version: [He is called] אַלְמֹנִי because he was widowed of the words of the Torah, for he should have expounded, “[only] an Ammonite [is forbidden in marriage to a Jewish woman], but not an Ammonitess [i.e., an Ammonite woman is not forbidden in marriage to a Jewish man]; a Mo’avite, but not a Mo’aviteess.” Yet he said, “for I would mar my own inheritance.”)
In this last comment by Rabbi Shlomo, he quotes a midrash about Moabite men being forbidden, but not Moabite women. His explanation will make much more sense once we see a couple of different sources for this, which will lead us down a slight rabbit hole for the rest of this session. (But it will all be worth it!)
So let's start off by taking a look at something from the mishna and Talmud:
Ammonites and Moabites are forbidden, and their prohibition is eternal. However, their women are permitted immediately.
You're probably wondering - Where do they come up with this stuff?
If so, you are in good hands; for the Talmud was asking the same question!
There is a tanna’im dispute: The verse states: “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter into the congretation of YHWH; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of YHWH... forever! (Deuteronomy 23:4); An Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman, and similarly, a Moabite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman. This is the statement of Rabbi Judah, who derives the halakha from the masculine form of these two terms.
Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man, but not the way of a woman, to go forth to meet guests, females were not included in the prohibition.
Before we return to Rabbi Shlomo, we should look into just a couple of passages from the Torah which are very much relevant here, and which touch upon a portion that we just heard recited within the last few sabbaths!
(ד) לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א עַמּוֹנִ֛י וּמוֹאָבִ֖י בִּקְהַ֣ל יְהוָ֑ה גַּ֚ם דּ֣וֹר עֲשִׂירִ֔י לֹא־יָבֹ֥א לָהֶ֛ם בִּקְהַ֥ל יְהוָ֖ה עַד־עוֹלָֽם׃ (ה) עַל־דְּבַ֞ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם וַאֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר מִפְּת֛וֹר אֲרַ֥ם נַהֲרַ֖יִם לְקַֽלְלֶֽךָּ׃ (ו) וְלֹֽא־אָבָ֞ה יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ לִשְׁמֹ֣עַ אֶל־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֧יךָ לְּךָ֛ אֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה כִּ֥י אֲהֵֽבְךָ֖ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ׃ (ז) לֹא־תִדְרֹ֥שׁ שְׁלֹמָ֖ם וְטֹבָתָ֑ם כָּל־יָמֶ֖יךָ לְעוֹלָֽם׃ (ס)
(4) No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of YHWH; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of YHWH, (5) because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt, and because they hired Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse you.— (6) But YHWH your god refused to heed Bilamm; instead, YHWH your god turned the curse into a blessing for you, for YHWH your God loves you.— (7) You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live.
This verse might be familiar. Long ago, we looked at it during our "Interlude" session, the Making of a Midrash, when we were exploring King David's ancestral relationship to the Moabites. (Remember King Eglon?)
Both Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Judah believe that our permission to marry Moabite women comes from the first two verses.
Do you think either one is pshat? Or are these both drashas? Which is more reasonable?
Now that we have more context, let's look back at Rabbi Shlomo's comment on ploni almoni and see if we can make more sense of it. You don't have to scroll back up, here it is below:
Rabbi Shlomo is clearly quite critical of this unnamed individual. He was widowed from the words of Torah, and he should have been aware of this verse.
Other than the fact that this individual's name is very noticeably missing amidst a text in which names have played a huge significance, is there anything else which might be driving Rabbi Shlomo's comment?
I found a fascinating counter-point to Rabbi Shlomo in the Jerusalem Post, in an article published by Sari Nossbaum in 2009. Here are her words:
The first use of the term in the Bible to refer to an unknown person is in Ruth (4:1), when Boaz fails to remember the name of a passerby, seemingly a relative of his, and so to avoid embarrassment, he simply labels him Ploni Almoni.
So what do you think? I looked around, and did not (yet) see this possibility expressed anywhere else!!! Is this a reasonable interpretation?
One final point for today; Remember the discussion we had as to why the narratoor, as well as the characters emphasize Ruth's Moabite background repeatedly throughout? Take another look at verse 5:
(ה) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בֹּ֔עַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ֥ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד נָעֳמִ֑י וּ֠מֵאֵת ר֣וּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּ֤ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙ קניתי [קָנִ֔יתָה] לְהָקִ֥ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֖ת עַל־נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃
(5) Boaz continued, “When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate.”
Any ideas as to why he would do so here?
Stay tuned, we will pick up with this idea next week!