Ideas: chesed (lovingkindness), conversion to or reaffirmation of Judaism, loyalty. What we don’t point out is the chutzpah (nerviness) of both the book of Ruth and the character of Ruth. To see this, let’s look at a text of the Torah.

No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the A-d-nai’s community; not even the tenth generation (from now) shall be admitted into the A-d-nai’s community–never, because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt, . . . You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live.”

Deuteronomy 23:4-5, 7

לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל יְ־הוָה גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לֹא יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל יְ־הוָה עַד עוֹלָם. עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם… לֹא תִדְרֹשׁ שְׁלֹמָם וְטֹבָתָם כָּל יָמֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם.

Idea: Ruth was a Moabite, but seemed to go to Bethlehem with Naomi, married Boaz, became integrated into the society, and King David was her descendant. How was any of this possible when the law in the Torah seems so clear?

In continuing, the Rabbis were also puzzled. One text tries to defend King David credentials and honor.

Girded his sword like an Ishmaelite, exclaiming, “Whosoever will not obey this halachah will be stabbed with the sword–I have this tradition from the Beth din of Samuel the Ramatite: ‘An Ammonite but not an Ammonitess; A Moabite, but not a Moabitess.’”

BT Y’vamot 76b-77a

שחגר חרבו כישמעאל ואמר כל מי שאינו שומע הלכה זו ידקר בחרב כך מקובלני מבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית.

                  How does this harmonize Deuteronomy and Ruth?

A major point of this text is that when the Torah states that no Moabite shall ever be accepted into the community, it was referring to a Moabite male, but not a Moabite female. That would be one way to read the text. Of course, it does not seem like the intention of the text, but it is a way to harmonize the law in Deuteronomy with the reality depicted in the book of Ruth.

Nonetheless, the tradition that is ascribed to the court of Samuel the Ramatite might be later than the period of Ruth. So a text in Pesikta d’Rav Kahana (from the 5th-7th century CE) addresses this by placing the following into the mouth of Boaz himself.

“If you had come to us yesterday or the day before we would not have accepted you, since the halacha of ‘an Ammonite but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite but not a Moabitess’ had not yet been made.”

Pesikta d’Rav Kahana, Nachamu 16.1

שאילו באת אצלינו מתמול שלשם לא היינו מקבלין אותך, שעדיין לא נתחדשה הלכה עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית.

While this is clearly not the intention of Deuteronomy OR the book of Ruth, what it does show is:

●     The Sages of the rabbinic period were well aware of the conflict between the two texts.

●     They were well aware that in order to harmonize the two texts, they were creating new law.

●     They wanted the result to be that no law should discriminate against an entire people merely for having a different culture. While in the biblical period there may have been a need for differentiation and distinguishing of Israelite culture from their neighbors, in rabbinic times, this was no longer the case. Judaism was well established and the need now was for people to live together in mutual respect. Certainly no individual should be penalized merely because of the culture into which they were born, for everyone should be judged on their own actions.

It is, of course, a chutzpah of the book of Ruth to present this truth, clearly at odds with the law of Deuteronomy and its seeming intention to discriminate. We admire the Rabbis’ attempt to mitigate the discrimination, but the problem remains with the text in Deuteronomy itself, and with that text’s juxtaposition with the Book of Ruth.

Let’s look at another feature of the book of Ruth. Based on Boaz’ presentation to the elders at the gate in chapter 4, some have suggested that the marriage of Boaz to Ruth was a case of Levirate marriage. To better understand and analyze, let’s read that law.

When brothers dwell together and one of them dies with no offspring, the deceased’s wife shall not attach to another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall be intimate with her: he shall marry her and perform the levir’s duty.

The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. If that man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, she shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.”

The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to take her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in front of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare: “Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house!”

He shall be called throughout Israel “the family of the unsandaled one.”

כִּֽי־יֵשְׁב֨וּ אַחִ֜ים יַחְדָּ֗ו וּמֵ֨ת אַחַ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ וּבֵ֣ן אֵֽין־ל֔וֹ לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֧ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּ֛ת הַח֖וּצָה לְאִ֣ישׁ זָ֑ר

יְבָמָהּ֙ יָבֹ֣א עָלֶ֔יהָ וּלְקָחָ֥הּ ל֛וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וְיִבְּמָֽהּ׃

וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד יָק֕וּם

עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו הַמֵּ֑ת

וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

וְאִם־לֹ֤א יַחְפֹּץ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ לָקַ֖חַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּ֑וֹ

וְעָלְתָה֩ יְבִמְתּ֨וֹ הַשַּׁ֜עְרָה אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִ֗ים

וְאָֽמְרָה֙ מֵאֵ֨ן יְבָמִ֜י לְהָקִ֨ים לְאָחִ֥יו שֵׁם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א אָבָ֖ה יַבְּמִֽי׃

וְקָֽרְאוּ־ל֥וֹ זִקְנֵי־עִיר֖וֹ וְדִבְּר֣וּ אֵלָ֑יו

וְעָמַ֣ד וְאָמַ֔ר לֹ֥א חָפַ֖צְתִּי לְקַחְתָּֽהּ׃

וְנִגְּשָׁ֨ה יְבִמְתּ֣וֹ אֵלָיו֮ לְעֵינֵ֣י הַזְּקֵנִים֒

וְחָלְצָ֤ה נַעֲלוֹ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְל֔וֹ

וְיָרְקָ֖ה בְּפָנָ֑יו

וְעָֽנְתָה֙ וְאָ֣מְרָ֔ה

כָּ֚כָה יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה לָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יִבְנֶ֖ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית אָחִֽיו׃

וְנִקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בֵּ֖ית חֲל֥וּץ הַנָּֽעַל׃

                  What seems to follow this law? What seems different in Ruth?

Biblical law demands that when a man dies without a child, his brother should marry his widow. In such a case the offspring of the union belongs to the lineage of the deceased.

However, in the case of Ruth, there is no brother to marry Ruth–both brothers (Machlon and Chilion) have already died. Boaz does not qualify; he is merely a “relative” of Ruth’s father-in-law. Not only this, but according to Chapter 4 (which we chanted just prior to this teaching), the child of Boaz and Ruth is not reckoned as belonging to the brothers or to the line of their father Elimelech. Rather, the child is reckoned as Boaz’s.^[1]

Therefore, it seems that the language that vaguely alludes to Levirate marriage is not an actual Levirate marriage at all. So, why did Boaz use such language in front of the elders?

Most likely it was a subterfuge to justify a break with tradition—a particular Torah law in this case—by linking it to a worthy cause expressed in another Torah law. That is, everyone knew that according to Deuteronomy 23, Ruth could not be legitimately allowed any entrance into the community, so Boaz offered the elders a way out. If they could somehow publicly construe this as a relationship to help retain Elimelech’s line, it would start a precedent that would undo the Torah law in Deuteronomy 23 without an actual, formal, repeal of that law.

Boaz and Ruth get married, and the entire community seems happy. Why didn’t anyone formally object by citing Deuteronomy 23? Do they not know of the history of mistrust and war between the two peoples? Actually, the author of Ruth telegraphs awareness of this through the blessings Boaz receives. Let’s look at it.

May your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah—through the offspring, which Yhwh will give you by this young woman.

Ruth 4:12

וִיהִי בֵיתְךָ כְּבֵית פֶּרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה תָמָר לִיהוּדָה מִן הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן יְהוָה לְךָ מִן הַנַּעֲרָה הַזֹּאת.

And why start off King David’s genealogy with Peretz? That goes back nine generations, an unusual starting point in time for a genealogy.

For one, Judah’s “transgressive” act was also between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. Sleeping with a daughter-in-law is prohibited by the Torah (in Leviticus 18), just as Boaz’ marriage to a Moabite is prohibited by Deuteronomy 23. Judah also justifies the act, and the fact that the result was twins seems to indicate Divine approval. So, too, what seems like an illegal act may actually result in great blessing–a double fold blessing. Finally, Peretz’ name indicates “breach,” like a breach in a wall. Sometimes we, like Boaz, need to make a breach in the wall of Torah–a breach in halacha–in order to make room for the widow, the poor, and the stranger. Sometimes we must break tradition to repair it and even to save it. We should consider when this might be so in our time.

We have spoken of the chutzpah of the book of Ruth. As our time together nears its end, let’s make a point of the chutzpah of Ruth herself. Ruth at night goes over to the threshing room floor, where men are sleeping at various places. In accordance with Naomi’s urging, she finds Boaz, uncovers some area by his legs and lies down. He wakes up startled to find a woman, Ruth, lying by his private parts. She then tells him to spread his garment over her. It’s unclear what she intends by this, but Boaz is overjoyed at her chutzpah in taking the initiative in this relationship. He becomes a redeemer. Redeemers need not marry anyone, but Boaz, in an act of chesed, marries Ruth. His chesed matches Ruth–and they sustain a marriage.

The book depicts Ruth as having chutzpah vis-a-vis gender roles, cultural expectations, and procedures and expectations regarding courting, engagement and marriage.

The book itself shows chutzpah vis-a-vis established norms and halachah about who can be allowed to be part of the community and who cannot.

The holy chutzpah of Ruth–the book and the character–is that we must use our chutzpah for good–to help the most vulnerable living among us (even if they are Moabites!) to go against clearly unjust laws, and to show and increase compassion in the world. May this be our legacy as well!