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:
Recall that last week we ended in the middle of the exchange between Boaz and the other kinsman-redeemer of Naomi and Ruth, whom the midrash has named "Tov;" an exchange which has legal significance, and is taking place in the sight of the elders of the community.
As we saw last week, this other redeemer expressed his willingness to take on the kinsman-responsibilities, which prompted the following response from Boaz:
(ה) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בֹּ֔עַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ֥ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד נָעֳמִ֑י וּ֠מֵאֵת ר֣וּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּ֤ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙ קניתי [קָנִ֔יתָה] לְהָקִ֥ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֖ת עַל־נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃
(5) And Boaz said, “On the day that 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.”
Here is the question we ended on:
Why is Boaz emphasizing Ruth's Moabite background? You probably recall that this is something other characters, as well as the narrator has done more than once, and we have asked this question before.
But how about this time around? Why does Boaz feel it is important to mention yet again?
The following midrash speaks to this very question. What is its answer?
"Boaz continued, “When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire (qanita) the wife of the deceased (Ruth 4:5)":
"I must acquire" (qaniti) is written. This proves the point that Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachman said that he was ignorant of the words of the Torah. He said: "the first ones did not die but rather because they took her and I am going to go and take her? I certainly am not going to take her. I will not pollute my seed and I am not going to create unfitness for my children".
And he did not know that the halakhah had been changed "Ammonite and not Ammonitess; Moabite and not Moabitess".
What's going on here? What does the midrash mean by him saying he won't "pollute his seed?"
How does this help us with our initial question above?
Here is the gloss by Robert Alter. Is he saying the same thing as the midrash?
One should note that Boaz makes a point of identifying Ruth as a Moabite, calculating that this will trouble the kinsman, for the Moabites are not merely foreigners but traditional enemies with whom contact has been proscribed. - page 3453 .
Is there anything in the text that might support this reading? Here is the passage from the Scroll of Ruth again, but with more context:
(3) And he [Boaz] said to the redeemer, "A portion of the field which was our brothers, Elimelekh, Naomi has sold, who has returned from Moab. And I said, I shall make known to your ears, saying, "purchase this before the settlers and before the elders of my people!" If you will redeem, great! And if not, tell me, and I shall know. For other than you, there are no others to redeem, but me who is after you."
And Boaz said, "On the day that you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, then Ruth the Moabite too, the wife of the deceased, you have acquired, in order to establish the inheritance of name of the deceased.
And the redeemer said, "I cannot redeem for me, lest I corrupt my own inheritance. Redeem yourself that which is my right to redeem, for I cannot redeem.
Does anything from the midrash above, or from what Robert Alter added, seem to fit particularly well here? If not, do you have any other ideas?
The next two verses in the scroll are quite strange for a number of reasons:
(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.
below: Ancient Judean sandals excavated at Masada!
These verses will be our focus for the rest of this session.
First off, try reading the above verses again, but substituting in proper names for the personal pronouns. (You can use "Ploni Almoni for the kinsman-redeemer). What are the difficulties?
Take a look at a variety of English translations for comparison. Plenty can be found at Biblehub here: https://biblehub.com/ruth/4-8.htm .
As far as what is actually happening, do any of the translations of verse 8 seem to disagree with each other? How about the King James 2000?
Almost every modern, and many traditional commentators as well, will state that this verse is unclear as to who is doing what. Here is the Jewish Study Bible's comment:
The sandal represents the conveying of gods or rights from one party to another. In Heb it is not clear whether it was the redeemer who gave his sandal ro Boaz or the other way around. Ruth Rabba opts for the latter, on the principle that it is the purchaser who gives the pledge. Modern interpreters generally prefer the former. In their view, the act symbolizes the fact that "Ploni 'Almoni" relinquishes the obligation and the privilege of redeeming the land and marrying Ruth. ---page 1580.
Let's take a look at two sources which, even after all that we've seen so far, we have not yet encountered in our studies.
The first one is the Targum. The word "targum" is Aramaic for translation, and it refers to the Aramaic translations of the books in the TaNaKh.
Take a look at the English translation of the targum of Ruth:
(7) Now the following custom was practiced in Israel in ancient times: When they would carry on business transactions, redeem, and exchange with one another, one would take off his right glove and give it to the other, thereby handing over the right of possession. In this manner the House of Israel was accustomed to make transactions with one another binding, in the presence of witnesses.
(8) When the redeemer said to Boaz, "Put forth your hand for the act of acquisition, and buy it yourself," Boaz took off his glove and made the purchase.
Isn't this wild??? The targum of Ruth is quite fascinating, for it might be one of the most ancient Aramaic translations of the books of the Ketuvim that we have. Consider these comments by D. R. G. Beattie, in an article published in 1985:
The divergence between the targum and the Mishnah is so radical that the meturgeman, if he lived in the post-Mishnaic period, would have to have been totally ignorant of several chapters of the Mishnah, and that, even granting that members of tha profession were not normally the most learned of men, is inconceivable.
This brings us, more or less, to the current state of affairs with the Targum of Ruth. It is now being seen, I think, as potentially very ancient. Several of the points adduced by Levine as evidence for a sectarian origin could as well, or better, be used as evidence for an early date.
---from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23040796?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
below: a fun diagram which presents the development of Judaism-related sects over time
To call this targum "sectarian" is to date it as far back as the second Temple!!! Which means that this translation could be seen to be a very early, "proto-midrash" on Megillath Ruth. (For a one-foot but helpful introduction to the meaning of "sectarian, see here: https://clas3375.wordpress.com/2020/03/18/sectarian-judaism-in-the-second-temple-period/)
The passage above is just one example in a long list of differences between the targum and the version as we have it in the TaNaKh. Here is what Dr. Israel Drazin, an expert on the targumm, has to say about this:
With the exception of Targum Onkelos, which was composed for the five books of Moses, the targumim are not literal, but contain additional midrashic - imaginative - elaborations that the original text does not suggest. These elaborations are frequently based on rabbinic ideas, but the Targums also contain material, sometimes even thoughts that do not reflect rabbinic law.
Dr. Drazin then gives a list of such differences between Targum Ruth and Megillath Ruth:
- Naomi and her family felt they had to leave Judea not only because there was a famine; this was the tenth famine.
- When the males in her family arrived in Moab, they became governors there.
- Ruth, who married one of Naomi's sons, was no ordinary woman; she was the daughter of King Eglon of Moab.
- Naomi's two sons died because they intermarried with non-Judeans.
- An angel told Naomi to return to Judea.
- The famine in Judea stopped because Boaz, a relative of Naomi, prayed for it to stop.
- Ruth begged to join Naomi when mother-in-law returned and said she wanted to be a proselyte to Judaism. Naomi taught her about the Sabbath, that Jews must obey 613 commandments, and not worship idols. (This concept of becoming a proselyte that the Targum mentions probably did not exist until close to a millennium after the episode, around the second century BCE. Ruth in the Bible was probably only seeking citizenship.)
- Since the Bible states that a Moabite cannot join the Israelites, Ruth and Boaz discuss whether this rule only applies to men, and decide that women are accepted.
- Ruth says she is happy because now she knows that she will have a place in the world to come. (Contrary to the Targum, the rabbis teach that all good people of all religions will have a place in the world to come.)
- Naomi advises Ruth to wash and put on perfume and jewelry, and go see Boaz during the night while he is sleeping.
- The Targum assures its readers that Ruth and Boaz did not have sex that night.
--- from http://www.thejewisheye.com/drgb_ruth.html
Are there any above that you find particularly strange, surprising, or interesting? We can take a look at any other cases to see them side-by-side.
Now let's take a look at that second source: Yoseph ben Matityahu.
Yoseph was an utterly fascinating figure. He was born in Jerusalem in the first-century CE to a priestly family, and whose mother was of royal Hasmonean descent. When Judea went to war with Rome, he rose through the ranks and became a recognized military commander, eventually becoming the leader of the resistance throughout the Galilee. He surrendered to General Vespasian in 67 CE.
Somehow, he demonstrated to Vespasian that ancient Israelite prophecies predicted Vespasian's rise from general to emperor. Vespasian must have been quite impressed, for he decided to keep him on hand as a slave and interpreter. When Vespasian did indeed become emperor in 69, Yoseph was granted freedom and full Roman citizenship. Yoseph ben Matityahu then took the name Flavius Josephus, "Flavius" being Vespasian's family name.
He was a close friend and confidant to Vespasian's son and successor, Titus, accompanying him throughout his military campaigns in southern Judea and against Jerusalem. He provided valuable information about Judea and her people. He would then go on to dedicate the rest of his life to writing history. His goal was to provide a comprehensive account of world-history from a Judean perspective for a Roman audience. His works are amongst the most important sources of information for the history of Canaan next to the Bible.
below: Josephus
With that, let's take a look at Josephus's version of the "shoe-removing" moment in his "Antiquities."
(4)Now about noon Booz went down into the city, and gathered the senate together, and when he had sent for Ruth, he called for her kinsman also; and when he was come, he said, "Dost not thou retain the inheritance of Elimelech and his sons?" He confessed that he did retain it, and that he did as he was permitted to do by the laws, because he was their nearest kinsman. Then said Booz, "Thou must not remember the laws by halves, but do every thing according to them; for the wife of Mahlon is come hither, whom thou must marry, according to the law, in case thou wilt retain their fields." So the man yielded up both the field and the wife to Booz, who was himself of kin to those that were dead, as alleging that he had a wife already, and children also; so Booz called the senate to witness, and bid the woman to loose his shoe, and spit in his face, according to the law; and this was done.
How strange is this! How many differences can you spot between our version in our Megillah, and this recounting as Josephus tells it?
Now let's think about it in light of what we saw in the targum above. What do you make of this? Why such lack of consistency between sources?
