Ruth b'Iyyun Series (xi)

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:

https://www.sefaria.org/groups/FHJC-Megillath-Ruth-Series

In accordance with Naomi's hopes and plans for her, and for her beloved daughter-in-law's future well-being, Boaz has made public his willingness to redeem the entirety of Elimelekh's estate; Which includes taking Ruth, Elimelekh's daughter-in-law, as his wife. We recently saw the unnamed First Redeemer turn down, or avoid his familial duties. This left the way wide-open for Boaz to step in.

We therefore pick up with Boaz designating the role of "witnesses" to the Judean bystanders, as he formally takes on the responsibilities as "Redeemer".

Our first midrash will play a word-game, not unlike many we have already seen. Before reading the midrash, read the following verses from Genesis:

Now with that, take a look at the midrash. In order to pick up on the word-play, you'll have to take a look at the Hebrew side - but you don't have to worry about translating the whole thing. Even just the first line or two should make it evident!

What is the ultimate claim that this midrash is trying to put forth? How many different ways does it have of proving this claim?

Are there other proofs the midrash could have brought, but didn't? If so - why might the midrash have left those out?

Let's go a little further in the megillah:

This is a beautiful passage! Naomi, a woman who had a very privileged background, before having to flee to exile where she would lose everything, is now seeing all good blessings restored for her before her very eyes!

And not only that; her neighbors are looking on, and are clearly experiencing deep and genuine joy right along with her!

But with that... what's odd - downright bizarre, even - about the above passage?

As usual, there are probably several oddities with this passage from Scripture. This next midrash will pick out one:

There are actually a few different things going on in this midrash. But what is its primary concern?

What other questions are addressed en route to answering its main question?

Does this shed light on your reading of the pshat of the megillah itself? Or, do these questions and answers remain in the domain of Rabbinic midrashic interpretation?

This last midrash has been consistent with this recurring motif we have revisited a number of times - that of the significance of each of the characters' names. Every name so far has been deeply significant. When one important character's name was withheld from us - there were instant red flags. We didn't even need midrash to point out the strangeness; though of course, midrash was quick to recognize and to address it.

With that, take a moment to think about the new names we have encountered in this chapter. Any thoughts on what they mean? Or to what the narrator is trying to draw our attention?

When you are ready, turn to the next midrash with this question on "names" in mind.

So what's going on here? What does it mean, In light of his father and In light of his mother? Who are Oved's father and mother here, after whom he is being named? And how, exactly, is the "drash" in this midrash working?

These next two passages of midrash come along as a pair - and together, it is yet another case of the sages flexing their "Scriptural-Mastery muscles," in which they demonstrate to us how mind-bogglingly thorough their command of Scripture was. I can only conclude that such mastery is certainly an outgrowth of the depth of the love they had for the teachings of our Israelite and Judean ancestors.

First of all... wowza! Were they only able to tell me how many times the term toledot is used and in what context - without known precisely which cases are spelled fully and which are spelled shortly... dayeinu! That would already be incredible!

As far as the content of this midrash goes, there are a few things going on. To be honest, I haven't quite figured out what the midrash means by "Six things between the world and its created things." Any thoughts?

While the concluding points are also not obvious to me, I do think I'm able to make more sense out of them than the beginning. What do you think? Why the two exceptions to the otherwise consistent spelling of "toledot?"

Remember I said there are two midrashim coming as a pair? Let's go ahead and take a look at the second of the two, in which we will see the list of "toledot" written out for those of us who don't happen to have every single letter of the Genesis-Deuteronomy constantly in our minds with, with as much familiarity as we have our own names:

Like the previous midrash, this one is playing with "toledot." But how is it doing so differently?

(On a side-note: "The Place" is a common epithet for YHWH in midrash, which usually gets translated as "God." Have you heard this before? What do you make of it? Time-permitting, and if there is enough interest, we can turn to Genesis 28 to see the evocative and moving origin of this epithet.)

And finally... the very end of the Megillah.

First off - congratulations on reaching the end of Megillath Ruth!!!

But before our siyyum, we still have some important midrashim to go over.

You might notice this next midrash is introduced by kind of a silly question; one that my teachers in yeshivah would have called a "rich man's kashya." But what I've come to notice in such cases is that rather than becoming dismissive, it's worth leaning in all the more; For whatever answer they had to the question was considered so important that it was even worth forcing a question in order to find an appropriate context for whatever midrash or teaching they had on hand.

Let's see if you agree here:

First of all - now that you've read this midrash - do you agree that the question seems kind of forced?

As for the rest of the midrash, here are a few questions to think about:

• What did you think of the parable? Did it map up onto the "nimshal" convincingly?
• Did the midrash even need a parable to begin with? Could it have taught the lesson without it? If not; what did the parable add? If yes, then why include the parable at all?
• Did you recognize any of the verses the midrash quoted?
• Is there a common denominator between Abraham and David that you can think of, that this midrash would choose them two for this?

Our next midrash might seem long and complicated on a first read through. But if you're prepared for it with knowledge of something called a "chiastic structure," than you should more quickly grasp what this midrash is getting at.

The word "chiastic" comes from "chiasmos," which in turn comes form the Greek letter "chi," which looks like an X . This is pretty neat, because the letter X perfectly encapsulates what a "chiastic structure" in literature looks like. It can be represented as such: A B C D C" B" A" . Notice how "D" is the middle and stands alone. A mirrors A', which is called A-prime.

Nearly all of the authors of the works we have in our TaNaKh-collection loved chastic strucutres, and they appear all over the place; in narrative, in lists, in proverbs, in psalms. The rabbis, picking up on this, also go out of their way to present things in chiastic structures throughout Rabbinic literature.

Before going into our midrash, I'll show you what might be the simplest chiastic structure in TaNaKhic literature:

And just in case anyone could use another example:

So with that, let's take a look at our midrash:

Did you spot the chiasmus?

Here's a question to think about: What is the connection between the midrash's conclusion of the verse of Isaiah to the reset of it?

Finally, our last midrash of this limmud (though there will be one more we will do for our siyyum later).

This midrash is more a commentary on a particular prayer-poem from the psalms-collection; but in explaining that prayer, it references the very end of Megillath Ruth.

First, the relevant verses from the psalm:

Note that because of the suprerscription, the midrash will be reading this as if it is the prayer of King David:

What are the various claims this midrash makes? How is it relying on Megillath Ruth to make a case?

I'll leave you with one concluding thought on this midrash, as to why I really love it.

If you have been following along in the FH Haftorah Series, we only just recently spoke about the Herald's (also known as Deutero-Isaiah) radical reinterpretation of Judean Royalty. (Found here: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/256449?lang=bi).

According to the Herald, any significance that being of the Royal Davidic Line ever carried has since been reapplied to the entirety of the People of Israel.

All of us, every single Judean and Israelite after the death of King Zedekiah, the last Davidic King who reigned in the 6th century, has since been exalted by the Almighty to be kings in his eyes.

Here is one such verse, also discussed in the link above, which illustrates this point:

And so if David was able to use his royalty as leverage when demanding YHWH's divine assistance, and he was able to boast of 5 generations of leadership - how much more so every single one of us today, whenever we experience hardship or difficulties in our lives?

And now, even though we have focused on midrash, I want to finish off our session with a comment on pshat. This comes from the HarperCollins Commentary on the last verse:

The genealogy begins with Perez, the first of the twins born to Judah by Tamar. The places of honor in the list, seventh and tenth, are occupied by Boaz, the hero of our story, and David, the preeminent king of Israel and founder of the dynasty of Judah. The genealogy turns the story into a chapter in the ancestry of David and raises the theme of family continuity to a theme of national continuity. The story of a family becomes the story of the royal family and hence the nation!

I love this as a wrap-up. I have heard it said that while the megillah seems to be a story of loyalty and dedication by the few survivors of what had once been a well-off and influential family, in truth it is a 4-chapter-long birth narrative of David, whom the authors of TaNaKhic literature would view as our most righteous and most important of earthly king.

In my opinion, the greatness of Megillath Ruth is it is equally and simultaneously about all of these things! Like so many other narratives throughout the works of the TaNaKh, the oftentimes unbeknownst the figures themselves, we as readers are invited to witness those moments when the intimate and personal has ramifications for, or even encapsulates, the national, or even universal. In the case of Megillath Ruth, the term "redemption" appears over and over and over again. It is just as much about the redemption of one family, or one individual (Naomi) as it is about the redemption of a people as a whole, which we as readers did not realize until the very last line, and which Naomi and Boaz did not realize in their lifetime!

And who ever knows when we are agents through whom YHWH is working, at any particular moment, in order to advance his own mysterious and grandiose purposes beyond a scope that we could ever have, as he did through the righteous deeds of Naomi, Ruth, Boaz, and everyone else involved?

And with that... see you later for our final limmud and siyyum!