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.

The Painful Mangle That Produces Light

While running Bibliodrama on the Book of Ruth, and after we traveled with Naomi as she experienced one tragedy and hardship after another, I was moved to hear participant Shoshana Jenn Lubin point out that Naomi did not know while she was experiencing all this pain that this was eventually going to lead to the good - to Ruth returning to Bethlehem, and the birth of King David and the Messianic line. 

Similarly we have no idea while experiencing setbacks, sorrow and grief, going through the existential mangle, what light might be produced from this process in the end. Let us not forget Naomi, the bitter one who in the end, cradled a baby in arms that thought they had known the last of children.

My name is... well, who remembers my name? 
That young woman, pleasant of thought and countenance, has vanished under the weight of the years, the loneliness, the graves.

When I try to say my name, all that arises in my throat is the gall of loss. 
Do not ask me my name.

Let me pronounce a different name: Ruth.

The word itself is a blessing, She shines her light upon me, and for a moment I remember: I am Naomi. She too has lost, she too is empty. But while I am empty as a grave, she is empty like a vessel yet to be filled up.
She has a future, I sense that to be true.
I am envious, I am delighted. 

I am the Iyov of my time.

Shall I too be rewarded at the end with a new husband, new children?
Will anything serve to erase these lines from my face and make me young again?
Who can answer my cry?

Points of Choice

In three of the five megillahs we find a central moment that contains a weighty choice by a woman, which is the pivot for the entire narrative and its moral messages. Two of these choices are positive ones, and one is not.

I -  In the Book of Ruth, it is that moment in which Naomi urges her daughters-in-law to return to Moab. Ruth refuses to do so (1:14):

And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth held fast to her

This choice, and Ruth's subsequent famous speech, leads to her marriage with Boaz and the subsequent birth of the Davidic lineage.

II -   In the Scroll of Esther, Mordechai sends Queen Esther the terrifying instruction that she must go to the King although she has not been called - which carries a penalty of death.  

Mordechai says (4:14):

For if you remain silent at this time, then shall relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but you and your father’s house shall be destroyed. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

Esther replies in verse 16:

Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day; I also and my girls will fast likewise; and so will I go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.

This fateful and heroic choice leads to the salvation of the Jews of the Persian Empire.

III -  In the Song of Songs, we see a different kind of moment. The two lovers have been seeking each other. He has finally arrived at her abode and knocks at the door. Instead of eagerly answering it, she is suddenly attacked by a moment of torpor and apathy, and makes a strange choice not to arise (5:3):

I have taken off my robe; how could I put it on? I have bathed my feet; how could I soil them?

Although a moment later, she realises her folly and jumps up, he has already gone. They do not meet.

The Song of Songs is traditionally symbolic of the relationship between God and the Jewish people. In this verse are encapsulated all those moments in which the Jewish people did not leap up to answer God's call, in whatever way that was manifest - often with disastrous consequences.

This is the negative. But fortunately, we have Ruth's shining example and later that of Esther.

Fascinating, though, is a strong textual link between the Esther and the Song of Songs narratives. We find Esther explaining to King Ahasuerus:

For how can I endure to see the evil that shall come to my people? or how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred? (Esther 8:6)

The Hebrew word here for "how" is איככה. This is the very same word used by the female lover in the Song of Songs for "how could I put it on?" The word איככה appears nowhere else in the Tanach, and clearly signals a connection between the two stories.

Esther's איככה, her realisation of "I could not possibly (abandon my people)"shows that she has heard and answered the knock of destiny on her door. In doing so, she atones for and recitifies the moment of wooden-heartedness and sluggishness on the part of the lover who cannot possibly don her robe right now.

Teshuvah, Time Travel and Alternative Universes

Rambam (Maimonides) in Hilchot Teshuvah Chapter 2 says something a little odd:

Who has reached complete Teshuvah? A person who confronts the same situation of sin, and is able to commit the sin again, but nevertheless abstains due to Teshuvah alone, not due to fear or failure of strength.
For example, a man engaged in illicit sexual relations with a woman. Afterwards, they met in privacy, in the same country, while his love for her and physical power still persisted, and nevertheless he abstained and did not transgress - this is a person who has done complete Teshuvah

Can we ever be in the exact same situation again? The day cannot be exactly the same, the country cannot be exactly the same, the person we are interacting with is not the same* and our physical condition cannot be exactly the same. We ourselves are not the same person - we have had new experiences, we have new skin cells. It is never identical.

A few sentences further on, Rambam enumerates amongst the paths of repentance that the penitent "change his name, as if to say 'I am a different person and not the same one who sinned.'" This again seems to require an extreme - for the person to be entirely different, while everything else remains exactly the same. Neither option seems very likely. We rarely become entirely different; things rarely (actually, never!) remain exactly the same.

True - except in one, science-fictiony type scenario: alternative or parallel universes. In a parallel universe scenario, one travels down a different timeline where everything can remain exactly the same except for one thing. This is the archetypal "Sliding Doors" moment.

Teshuvah is a weird and illogical notion. Apparently we can go backwards, and wipe the slate clean of deeds concretely done. That should be impossible. It becomes much more logical if we view it as a form of time travel. If we make ourselves into a different person, then that new me gets to travel down a different time trajectory, where everything remains exactly the same (and, really, this is the only logical scenario in which everything remains 100 percent identical!), except me. I am a different person, and therefore I will act differently this time. Viewed this way, what we are asking when we do teshuvah and pray about it, is for G-d, who is beyond Time, to send us down a different timeline, one where that deed never actually occurred...

* * *

As a thought-provoking post-script, however, we can wonder how the change in action will affect the new timeline.There might be changes further down. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Teshuvah is a wonderful tool to erase damage to ourselves; yet, the things we do out of sin are also a part of us in a way. Can we become an entirely different person, a "good" person, without excising our vitality and what makes us human? Some Modern Western thought might suggest "no", ranging from the Clockwork Orange where Alex's treatment changes him from a violent but empowered human, to a helpless wreck who no longer enjoys classical music; to Star Trek: The Next Generation, episode "Tapestry", where Captain Picard goes back in time to prevent himself from engaging in a brawl and being stabbed in the heart, only to find himself in a new timeline where he is no longer the Captain because he is not a "risk-taker"!

Therefore, the challenge is to become that new person who did not sin, yet nonetheless retain the beating core of who we are, not surrendering what makes us interesting in this world, our unique strong self.
This is not an easy challenge! good luck

* The fact that the woman in this situation of illicit relations is deemed to be the same is an offense against the women's humanity, for how could she be the identical person as last time? In general she appears here as a passive object in the scene, which is a shame... if the man really has done teshuvah, will this not affect the woman too - we can imagine an entire scenario playing itself out, if we read this bibliodramatically.