Ruth does not seem to be, at first blush, a very dramatic book. lts modest account begins with the journey of a family from Bethlehem to Moab during a famine. Tragedy ensues, all the male members of the family die, and Naomi is left alone, without her husband or sons. Nevertheless, Naomi’s daughters-in-law accompany her on her return to Bethlehem, proclaiming their intention to remain with her. Assuming that the women are interested in remarriage, Naomi strongly discourages them. While Orpah is persuaded to return to Moab, Ruth insists on accompanying her mother-in-law, declaring her eternal devotion to Naomi.
In the ensuing account, Ruth manages to procure food for herself and Naomi from Boaz, a wealthy landowner. After physical survival is ensured, Ruth approaches Boaz at night in his fields with the intent of marriage, so as to ensure continuity for Naomi’s family and land. Boaz assures Ruth that he, as a relative of Naomi’s dead husband, will take responsibility for her remarriage. The story ends happily with the birth of a child to Ruth and Boaz.
Why is the Book of Ruth included in the Bible? This serene, rather uneventful account of Naomi’s return to Bethlehem with her daughter-in-law Ruth, and their successful bid to obtain food and a husband for Ruth, seems no more than a nice, if unremarkable, narrative.
Ruth: A Book Of Reward For Hesed
A midrash addresses this very question: “R. Zeira said: This Megilla does not contain [laws of] impurity or purity, or prohibitions or permits, so why was it written? To teach you how good is the reward for those who do kindness” (Ruth Rabba 2:14).[2]
Hesed is hailed by this midrash as the most important theme of the book.[3] This key word appears three times in the book, modifying both God (1:8) and humans, namely, Ruth (3:10) and Boaz (2:20). The word can connote loyalty, compassion, generosity, goodness, kindness, or steadfast love.[4]
Apart from the notion of hesed, this midrash focuses our attention on the reward that attends one who performs hesed. The midrash does not explicitly identify this reward, nor does it delineate who exactly has performed kindness in this book. Perhaps the vagueness of this midrash is its very point. This book is not about one person or one reward. Rather, it is about the fact that kindness is both invariably rewarded and a reward in itself. All of society benefits from the generous behavior of individuals, and the results of human compassion are apparent and efficacious.
Reward for kind behavior is a well-developed theme in the Book of Ruth. We will see the manner in which it is woven into the very fabric of the plot and into the careful use of language throughout the book. And yet, this idea is not altogether general; the Book of Ruth certainly focuses on one person and one reward. That person is Ruth, the eponymous heroine of the book, who, as a foreign, impoverished Moabite, stands to benefit greatly from her reward. The word reward (sakhar) appears only once in the entire book, as part of Boaz’s blessing of Ruth (2:12): “God shall repay you your deeds, and your reward (u’maskurtekh) shall be complete from the Lord, the God of lsrael.”
Ruth’s kindnesses surely result in a specific reward, namely, kingship. This is explained explicitly in the Targum’s rendering of Boaz’s speech promising Ruth a reward: ”And it was told to me by prophecy that there will come forth from you kings and prophets because of [all] the kindness that you have done for your mother-in-law” (Targum, Ruth 2:11).
Nevertheless, because R. Zeira’s statement is unspecific with regard to the reward and its recipient, we can view the kindness of Boaz alongside that performed by Ruth, and search for various rewards given to those who perform kindness throughout the book.
Hesed of Selflessness
While the major characters in this narrative indeed perform extraordinary acts of kindness, there must be more to this midrashic idea than meets the eye. After all, Ruth is not at all unique in performing acts of kindness. Characters throughout the Bible engage in acts of kindness and are defined by them. Consider Abraham, whose legendary kindness constitutes the cornerstone of the Nation of lsrael, or his daughter-in-law Rebecca, whose extraordinary generosity is a precondition for her selection as a wife for Isaac. Actually, we can learn the importance of this character trait by paying attention to the Bible’s representation of God: God acts with hesed, which He extends for many generations (e.g., Ex. 34:6).
The notion that the Book of Ruth revolves around hesed raises a second difficulty. Ruth’s consistent devotion to Naomi surely constitutes the basis of our story. And yet, the bulk of Ruth’s kindness involves altruism and self-sacrifice. In chapter 1, Ruth remains with her aging, isolated mother-in-law, despite the fact that Naomi explicitly warns her that in doing so she will not marry or have a future. At the beginning of chapter 2, Ruth voluntarily relinquishes her dignity and gathers produce in the field to obtain food for herself and her mother-in-law. In the opening scene of chapter 3, responding unhesitatingly to Naomi’s difficult instructions, Ruth agrees to risk her reputation by stealthily approaching Boaz as he lies alone at night on the threshing floor, presumably for the sake of bearing children in order to ensure Naomi’s future. Finally, Ruth bears a child and gracefully exits the story, allowing Naomi to adopt the child as her own. Naomi places Ruth’s son in her bosom and becomes his foster mother, causing the women to proclaim, “A child has been born to Naomi!” (4:17). Ruth disappears from the narrative, having sacrificed her maternal rights for the sake of her beloved mother-in-law. All of Ruth’s kindnesses have one thing in common: Ruth repeatedly sabotages her own personal interests in her acts of kindness. It is striking that the midrash presents this as a model, a paradigm of kindness. Is this actually the type of kindness that Judaism wishes to promote? Is the excessive nullification of self in deference to the needs of the Other the ideal definition of hesed, the one that merits the greatest reward?
Ruth: A Book of David’s Lineage
Leaving aside the midrash for the present, I would like to examine a second passage that addresses the question of this book’s underlying purpose: “I would not be surprised if this Megilla were here simply to trace the genealogy of David, who was born from Ruth the Moabite” (Zohar Hadash, Ruth 25b).
This passage offers a different approach. Instead of suggesting that Ruth’s eternal message lies in the exceptional personality traits of its characters, the midrash suggests that the book’s central purpose is to sketch the background of the Davidic dynasty.[5] The story stretches out toward the birth of David, which occurs as the final, triumphant aim of the narrative (4:22).[6] In the Book of Samuel, David’s family background is curiously sparse (especially compared to the lengthy birth story of Samuel himself). The Book of Ruth is therefore necessary to lay the groundwork for David’s character and to understand his ancestry and background.
The need for a book describing David’s exceptional ancestors may be especially pressing considering David’s questionable lineage. Basing themselves on the verse in Deuteronomy, David’s detractors could easily claim that his Moabite great-grandmother renders him ineligible for leadership or even for inclusion in the Nation of lsrael:
No Ammonite or Moabite shall come into the congregation of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall not come into the congregation of the Lord for eternity. Because of the matter in which they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt. (Deut. 23:4-5)
Rabbinic sources do, in fact, draw our attention to this point, by constructing a scenario in which David’s background is questioned and probed by his adversaries:
So said Saul: “Does he descend from Peretz or does he descend from Zerach?”… Doeg HaEdomi replied to him, “Before you ask whether he is suitable for kingship or not, ask whether he is worthy to be admitted to the congregation or not! What is the reason? Because he descends from Ruth the Moabite!” Abner said to him, “We have learned, ‘Ammonite men [are prohibited from joining the congregation], but not Ammonite women; Moabite men, but not Moabite women’… because the reason [for their exclusion] is stated in the Bible — that they did not greet them with bread and water. It is the way of the man to greet them and not the way of a woman to greet them.” (Yevamot 76b)[7]
The trait of miserliness, of lack of concern for the welfare of their fellow man, disqualifies Ammonites and Moabites from admission into the Israelite nation. They did not give bread and water to the nation on the journey out of Egypt. Nevertheless, the Oral Law modifies this prohibition, applying it only to male Ammonites and Moabites. This gemara maintains that it was the men who were accustomed to bring food to travelers; thus, the omission highlights the negative character only of the male members of these societies.
Perhaps, then, the midrashim cited above actually converge, offering just one explanation for the purpose of the Book of Ruth. The ultimate objective of Ruth is to validate the purity of David’s lineage. The book does this by illustrating the manner in which Ruth, the Moabite heroine of the story, is a paradigm of kindness, consistently and selflessly giving to Naomi. This affirms the logic behind the halakhic distinction between the cruel male Moabites and their female counterparts, whose cruelty has not been established. By presenting an uncommonly kind Moabite woman, who is undoubtedly suitable for entry into the Israelite nation, the Book of Ruth illustrates the purity of David’s ancestry.
Ruth and Monarchy
The Book of Ruth should be read as the background not simply of David, but of the Davidic dynasty, the very institution of the monarchy.[8] This book moves from the period of the judges (1:1), whose chaotic end is attributed to the absence of a king (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), to the birth of the founder of the kingship (4:22), which anticipates the more stable period of dynastic kingship.
While this appears to be a welcome development, the Bible actually displays an ambivalent attitude toward the monarchy. One biblical passage appears to regard the appointment of a king as an imperative:
When you come to the land that the Lord your God has given you and you possess it and settle it and you say, “I will appoint for myself a king like all of the nations around me,” you shall surely appoint for yourself a king, which the Lord your God shall select for you, from among your brethren you shall appoint for yourself a king. (Deut. 17:14-15)
The eventual request for a king, however, infuriates both Samuel and God:
And all of the elders of lsrael gathered and they came to Samuel in Rama. And they said to him, “Behold, you are elderly and your sons have not walked in your ways; now appoint for us a king to judge us like all of the nations:” And this thing was bad in the eyes of Samuel because they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to God. God said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of this nation, to everything that they have said to you, because it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is Me whom they have rejected from reigning over them.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7)
Many exegetes struggle with these conflicting verses, attempting to resolve the contradictory approaches to the monarchy expressed in them.[9] Several rabbinic sources present this as an ongoing argument:
“And you will say, ‘I will appoint for myself a king”‘ — R. Nehorai said: This is a criticism of Israel, as it says, “It is not you whom they have rejected, but it is Me whom they have rejected from reigning over them” (1 Sam. 8:7). R. Yehuda said: But is it not a commandment from the Torah to ask for a king? As it says, “You shall surely appoint for yourself a king” (Deut. 17:15)? Why, then, were they punished in the days of Samuel? Because they asked for a king too early. (Sifrei, Deut. 17:14)[10]
Despite the controversy, it is difficult to imagine that the Bible is actually opposed to a monarchical system. God has already informed Abraham and Jacob that kings will come from them (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11). Despite the obvious failings of the monarchical system narrated in the Book of Kings, many prophets prophesy an ideal vision of the restoration of a monarchy, often specifically the Davidic monarchy (e.g., Is. 9:6; 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5; Ezek. 37:24-25; Zech. 9:9).[11] The majority of medieval exegetes and halakhic authorities consider the appointment of a king to be a biblical commandment.[12]
From a practical standpoint, it would seem that a monarchical system is best suited to facilitate the accomplishment of Israel’s national goals, the very reason for its existence.[13] The Nation of Israel is charged with two primary tasks: developing an ongoing self-conscious relationship with God and disseminating knowledge of God to the world at large. Both of these goals — but particularly the universal one —require a stable, strong, centralized government, one that can foster social unity, military security, economic prosperity, and international relations. This can pave the way to propagating God’s instructions to the world. Without these elements, it is unlikely that the nation will have the means or the standing to accomplish its goals.[14]
While the institution of monarchy has the potential to achieve greatness, it nevertheless contains an abiding danger. Monarchical systems concentrate power in the hands of one man. The king has all of the power infrastructures at his disposal: the judiciary, military, and treasury. As Lord Acton famously wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The history of monarchies, from ancient to modern times, substantiates the theory that monarchies generate tyrannical, corrupt behavior. One only has to examine the monarchy of northern Israel (described in the Bible alongside the Judean dynasty) to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, not one properly righteous king emerges from that system.[15]
Aware of this danger, the Bible creates safeguards and precepts that limit the power of the monarch and guide him to recognize that he is subject to God’s authority:
However, [the king] shall not keep many horses or return the nation to Egypt to acquire many horses, for God told you, “Do not return that way again:” And he shall not have many wives, so that his heart shall not go astray, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold. And when he shall sit on his royal throne, he shall write this Torah in a scroll before the Priests and Levites. And it shall be with him and he shall read from it all of his days, so that he should learn to fear his God and guard the words of this Torah and observe these statutes. Thus, he will not act haughtily with his brethren and not stray right or left from the command so that he and his sons will have long life in his kingship among Israel. (Deut. 17:16- 20)
As an additional precaution, biblical narratives suggest that the monarch cannot operate properly without an accompanying prophet, who functions as a check on the king’s absolute power by reminding him of his cardinal duties.[16]
Nevertheless, the institution of kingship, while desirable in many ways, remains a potentially corrupt institution. In order to find a formula for preventing Judean kings from sliding into tyranny as a result of their extraordinary power, the Bible presents another solution. This solution is found in the Book of Ruth, which describes the union of two uncommonly selfless individuals. While not guaranteeing that the king will necessarily adopt those traits, the Book of Ruth establishes a model of behavior that is expected and appropriate for a king of Israel. Ruth’s disregard for her own self-interest and her utter focus on the Other is meant to be adopted by her descendants, the Davidic kings. A king who is inclined to dismiss his own needs in favor of the needs of the Other is unlikely to use the power at his disposal to promote his own interests. Instead, he will employ the various infrastructures for the benefit of society.
This can account for the unusual nature of Ruth’s self-nullifying kindness, as noted above. It is true that Ruth’s type of selflessness is not something Judaism demands from its constituents. Yet it is an absolute necessity for our leaders. Not only do we expect it from our leaders, but it is a virtual prerequisite for the establishment of the monarchy. Without a Ruth at its helm, without someone with the ability to give unselfishly and totally to the Other, monarchy is not a promise or a vision of bounty, but a dangerous threat, a recipe for depravity and despotism.
The Nation of lsrael cannot sacrifice its moral or religious integrity for the material, social, political, or even religious advantages of a monarchy. If the king is tyrannical and corrupt, if he perceives himself as above the law, the nation will fail to accomplish its primary objective, creating an ideal society built on justice and righteousness. This would undermine the very purpose of the Israelite nation. Therefore, Ruth is presented as the progenitor and founder of the monarchical dynasty.[17] Only a king with the qualities of a Ruth, who is kind to the point of abrogating her own self, can retain power without it causing him to degenerate morally and otherwise. A king with a forebear who can guide and even predispose him to serve others can create a kingship whose goal is to serve the people and not to serve the king and his interests.
This reconciles the two disparate explanations found in the different midrashim that examine the essence of the Book of Ruth. The purpose of this book is in fact to indicate the importance of kindness, as R. Zeira noted specifically the type of kindness necessary to create and maintain the Davidic dynasty (as noted by the Zohar). The marriage of Ruth and Boaz represents an attempt to design a line of kingship where altruistic hesed is the underlying principle, thereby eliminating corruption and leading Israel to the fulfillment of its glorious goals.
Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy [Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2015], pp. 15–26
[2] Though Hazal debate whether certain books should be included in the biblical canon, there is no explicit discussion recorded regarding the Book of Ruth. Nevertheless, in the context of an ongoing debate regarding the canonicity of Esther and the Song of Songs, R. Shimon takes pains to assure us that “Ruth, the Song of Songs, and Esther do render the hands unclean” (Megilla 7a) —that is, they are canonical. This statement implies that the status of the Book of Ruth was also under scrutiny. Moreover, the Book of Ruth’s place in the third section of the canon (Ketuvim, or Writings) instead of in its second section (Nevi’im, or Prophets), despite its historical context and genre, may suggest that it was canonized at a later date. See, e.g., Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1976, 1991), 26- 30, where he assumes that the third part of the canon contains books that were not recognized as canonical when the Prophetic books were canonized. He also notes that Ben Sira (ca. 200 BCE) is not influenced in any way by Ruth, suggesting once again a late canonical date for the Book of Ruth.
[3] Modern scholars have also frequently cited hesed as one of the central themes of the book. See, e.g., Robert Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Customary Law;” in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. H. N. Bream and R. D. Heim (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 241; Jacqueline Lapsley, “Seeing the Older Woman: Naomi in High Definition,” in Engaging the Bible In a Gendered World, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006),107; Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, introduction to The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, ed. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), xv.
[4] Due to its wide spectrum of use, several monographs have been written about the meaning and significance of this word in Tanakh. See, e.g., Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press,1967); Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Missoula: Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum, 1978); Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). See also the brief essay by Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Hesed in the Bible,” in The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, ed. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), xlviii- ix. While no single word can adequately convey the range of meanings applied to this word, in this study I will use the common translation, kindness.
[5] Biblical scholars often conclude that this is the purpose of the Book of Ruth. See, e.g., Oswald Loretz, “The Theme of the Ruth Story,” CB Q 22 (1960): 391- 99; Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Ruth, Book of,” by Moshe Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971).
[6] The initial narrative setting of the Book of Ruth in Bethlehem, Judah (Ruth 1:1) creates a strong association with David, a Judahite from Bethlehem, Judah (I Sam. 17:12). Moreover, the description of the family as Ephratim (Ruth 1:2) recalls Jesse, David’s father, who is likewise referred to as an Efrati (I Sam. 17:12).
[7] Ruth Rabba 4:9 has a variant of this midrash.
[8] See Ibn Ezra’s introduction to the Book of Ruth.
[9] See Abrabanel’s concise formulation of this contradictory approach in his tenth question on Deuteronomy 16. In a well-known passage, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 20b suggests that it is not the request for monarchy that angers God, but rather the underlying attitude of the request, the people’s desire to be like the other nations.
[10] Cf. Sanhedrin 20b. R. Yehuda also counts the appointment of a king as one of the three commandments incumbent upon the Israelite nation upon entrance into the land (codified as law by Maimonides, Laws of Kings 1:1).
[11] A great deal more may be added to this controversial topic. In fact, many biblical sources can be adduced to support the biblical ambivalence about kingship. Narratives that express deep misgivings regarding monarchy include the end of the story of Gideon (Judges 8:22-23) and the parable of Jotham (Judges 9:8-15). On the flip side, the last five chapters of the Book of Judges indicate how terribly things can fall apart when there is no monarchical system. These chapters contain the recurring phrase, “In those days, there was no king in Israel; each man did what was right in his eyes” (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:15). The social anarchy and moral bankruptcy that predominate in these chapters constitute the strongest argument for monarchy. For more on this topic, see Rabbi Mosheh Lichtenstein, “Jewish Political Theory: The Commandment to Appoint a King,” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, vbm-torah.org/archive/kings/01kings.htm; Rabbi Elchanan Samet, “Parashat Shoftim,” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/47shoft.htm; Rabbi Amnon Bazak, “Chapter 8 [Part I]: ‘Give Us a King,’” vbm-torah.org/archive/shmuel/12shmuel.htm.
[12] Maimonides, Nahmanides, Sefer Hahinukh, and Maharsha view the appointment of a king as an obligation. Ibn Ezra (Deut. 17:15) regards the monarchy as permissible, but not obligatory. A notable exception to this approach is Abrabanel (Deut. 17;1 Sam. 8), who is generally wary of kingship.
[13] See Sefer HaHinukh 71 and 497 (77 and 493 in the Chavel edition), which makes a strong case that only a single absolute ruler such as a king can enable the nation to function effectively.
[14] The Queen of Sheba is not likely to have paid a visit to Israel during the tenure of a judge. Her declaration after witnessing Solomon’s kingdom, “The Lord your God shall be blessed” (I Kings 10:9), represents the magnificent fulfillment of Israel’s universal religious aspirations due to King Solomon’s successful and glorious reign.
[15] Although God endorses Jehu’s bid to decimate the House of Ahab, indicating that he has acted righteously in this matter (I Kings 10:30), Jehu’s enthusiastic bloodletting is condemned by the prophet Hosea (1:4). In any case, Jehu is the only king of lsrael who may be regarded in a positive light.
[16] See Rashi’s comment on Deuteronomy 17:20. This point is also made by the manner in which the Book of Samuel (that lays the foundations for monarchy), opens with the birth of the prophet and not the king. This indicates that the substructure of the monarchy is dependent upon the prophet. Moreover, many of the good kings are described working in conjunction with a prophet (e.g., Jehoshaphat in I Kings 22:7; Hezekiah in II Kings 19:2), while particularly evil kings are often depicted in opposition to the prophets (e.g., Ahab in I Kings 18:17; Jehoakim in Jer. 26:21; 36:20-26).
[17] I am not suggesting that this works out perfectly; many of the kings of the Davidic dynasty, descendants of Ruth and Boaz, do not internalize their qualities and become corrupt and self-serving. Nevertheless, I think that when viewed in a relative light, especially when compared to their northern counterparts, the Davidic dynasty is remarkably successful. The Davidic dynasty produces several pious and scrupulous kings who appear to have higher interests at heart and who succeed in squelching the quest for self-aggrandizement that generally accompanies power. Consider the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah.
