LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE
BOOK OF RUTH: PART 4
On the Threshing Floor: It Happened One Night
The storyteller begins to tease and tantalize us in earnest. Naomi, continuing to advise Ruth as she would her own daughter, proposes some bold conduct:
The storyteller begins to tease and tantalize us in earnest. Naomi, continuing to advise Ruth as she would her own daughter, proposes some bold conduct:
1Then Naomi her mother in law
said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well
with thee? 2And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens
thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to night in the threshing floor. 3Wash
thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee
down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he
shall have done eating and drinking. 4 And it shall be, when he lieth down,
that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in,
and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt
do. 5And she said unto her, All that thou sayest unto me I will do.
This sounds like
Naomi is telling Ruth the Moabitess to reenact one of Lot’s evenings in the
cave with his daughters. First, dress to the nines; second, ply Boaz with
food and drink; third, lie down next to him; fourth, uncover his feet
(sometimes a euphemism for genitals, but like Freud’s cigar, it could just
be feet); fifth, let Boaz be Boaz and follow his lead. Pretty shocking
stuff, and the sage Rashi, among others, was at pains to say that, in this
instance, the plain meaning was not what was meant at all.
 |
|
Marc Chagall Ruth Lying at Boaz's Feet
|
I think the scene
can be played either way, but makes a better (more coherent) story if the
encounter is electric, but chaste along the lines of two Hollywood remarriage
comedies directed by Frank Capra, both of which play with themes of hesed and famine.
These are: It Happened One Night, starring Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert;
and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town starring Gary Cooper and Jean Ashton. It is
hard to say whether Capra consciously adopted themes from Ruth, but his
treatment of close encounters of this kind may illustrate what Rashi is
saying. Let’s go back to the Ruth story first, and then look at it
through the lens of Capra’s camera.
6And she went down unto the floor,
and did according to all that her mother in law bade her. 7And when Boaz
had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the
end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid
her down. 8And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid, and turned
himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet.
Did
she do all that her mother-in-law bade her? Rashi disagrees. According to
Rashi, Ruth must have waited for her ablutions until she arrived at the
threshing floor and after arrived after everyone else, including Boaz.
Otherwise, he reasons, she would have appeared as a common prostitute,
completely out of place, and noticeably so to everyone else present.
Rashi insists that everything by Ruth must be seen as having the purest, chaste
and modest of intentions, including that she must have been modest even in
the way she stooped to glean. Perhaps Rashi had in mind the story of
Judah and Tamar, another case in which a kinsmen needed to be prompted to take
action for a damsel in distress.
In this respect,
Ruth is both modern and Shakespearean in depicting the subtle psychological
interplay between men and women when courting, among other things; in this
respect, modern movies (e.g. Shakespeare In Love) and Shakespeare’s plays (e.g.
As You Like It) are biblical in depicting the subtle psychological interplay
between men and women in courting, among other things. The superior social intellect of the women in
these encounters have led to the Harold Bloom hypothesis that much of the
biblical stories that feature women, particularly the parts attributed to the J
source, were written by a woman in Solomon’s court. Of course, the “evidence” for the Bloom
hypothesis would require both Shakespeare and Capra to be women.
I leave it to the close reader and/or attentive audience to
decides whether either Rashi or Bloom have a case to make. I think the
encounter on the threshing room floor is best treated as a gently teasing
scene, but necessarily chaste to be comic, not unlike the bus and motel bedroom
scenes in It Happened One Night. Clark Gable, as Peter Warne, a bit
inebriated and just fired newspaper reporter is at a bus station, having spent
close to his last cash on a ticket to return to New York. Also there is
Claudett Colbert, as Ellie Andrews, a spoiled runaway bride and heiress who is
already headline news. To avoid recognition she talks a woman into buying
a ticket for her. Peter boards the bus first, and finds a seat at the
rear, but encumbered with a pile of newspapers. While Peter argues with
the driver to get the papers removed, Ellie slides past and takes the whole
rear seat, where Peter finds her. She declines to give it up, so Peter
decides the seat is big enough for two. In the next shot the following
morning, we see Ellie nestled against Peter and his sweater wrapped around her
shoulders. She stirs awake, suddenly realizes the peculiarity of the
situation and later says, "I hope you don't misunderstand what happened
last night." Of course, we know, though Ellie does not, that nothing
along the lines of what Ellie may be imaging has happened. We, the
listeners around the campfire/hearth and in the theater, are confidants and
confederates with the storyteller, director and cameraman, and also Peter Warne
in our perspective on this part of the action.[1]
We get three
encores, with variations of the scene at subsequent campsites, auto parks
(motels) during their picaresque return to New York. On the bus next
day, they begin by sitting in separate seats apart from one another. The
traveling salesman sitting next to her makes a pass. Peters warns him off
claiming Ellie to be his wife. Peter then begins to take charge of
budgeting at this time of their mutual scarcity, but also with the backdrop of
the depression and real hunger in the land. This passenger later sees a
newspaper, recognizes Ellie and immediately sees an opportunity to collect a
reward. Peter scares him off, not exactly with the legerdemain of
Leverite marriage obligations. Given their collective shortage of
cash, Peter rents a single room as Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
Ellie is
suspicious (perhaps also hopeful) that his intentions may be more personal than
just getting her story as a re-entry to his reporting career. To show his
good faith, he strings up a blanket between the two single beds, which he
characterizes as "not as thick as the Walls of Jericho but a lot
safer." In a scene that caused sales of undershirts nationwide to
plummet, Peter causes Ellie to retreat to her side of the blanket by taking off
his shirt (no undershirt) and then turning off the lights, but thereby raising
the temperature of the scene. We see the invisible form of Ellie in a
darkened room moving against her side of the blanket as she is
undressing. In the stillness of the dark, they have their first serious
and intimate conversation. The
absence of sex supercharges the intimacy of the scene.
In the same way, the
absence of sex supercharges the intimacy of the scene on the threshing room
floor. We know, even though Boaz may not
(at least immediately), that nothing unchaste happened before he was startled.[2]
The storyteller invites us to enjoy with him the comic aspects of the
situation. Boaz awakes at midnight, a biblically portentous time of the
day, as we are reminded by the opening phrase of verse 8, "vayhi bahatzi
halaylah." The only other occurrence of the phrase in the
Tanakh is at Exodus 12:29: "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD
smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, when smote the Egyptians, and
delivered our houses." No coincidence, I think, that this seminal
act of redemption follows upon precise instructions of preparation from YHWH to
Moses to Israel, "And the children of Israel went away, and did as the
LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they." Exodus 12:28
|
|
|
|
Marc Chagall Boaz wakes to see Ruth at his feet
We are also
invited to focus on the way in which Boaz was startled, vayeherad, a relatively
rare word. We see the word used exactly in this form in the scene after
Jacob steals Esau's blessing. Genesis 27:33 "And Isaac trembled very
exceedingly, and said, 'Who? where is he that hath taken venison and brought it
me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea and
he shall be blessed."
Now, why is it
that this particular blessing resulting from the theft of a birthright deserves
such focal attention in Ruth? The answer, it seems to me, emerges from
the Jonathan/David relationship. By means more indirect and
ambiguous, David, the younger "brother" of Jonathan succeeds to all
that would be Jonathan's birthright. Further, though wrongfully deprived,
Esau eventually forgives Jacob since he has separately been blessed and has
enough, though forgiveness comes only after Jacob came prepared to give a great
deal back to Esau.
The Ruth
storyteller continues to evoke the Jacob/Esau blessing scene, but with a
twist. Nothing like the unexpected entry of a woman into a man's personal
space to get his attention:
9And he said, Who art thou?
And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt
over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman. 10And he said,
Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter: for thou hast shewed
more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou
followedst not young men, whether poor or rich. 11And now, my daughter, fear
not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth
know that thou art a virtuous woman.
The commentators
have various explanations for what Ruth proposes here. The range from a
modest proposal to join in Boaz' household as the equivalent of an adopted
daughter or ward, to a concubine to marriage as a primary wife. The
commentators agree that all three arrangements would be proper (setting aside
for the moment Ruth's Moabite origin). Rashi does not think Ruth is
proposing that either option two or three is to be consummated with a roll in
the hay in the wee hours of the morning.
Whatever it is
that Ruth proposes, she clearly takes charge in a way that Naomi did not
instruct or anticipate. She does not wait for Boaz to catch her
drift. Like other strong, intelligent and valorous Israeli women (Tamar,
Rachel, Hannah, Jael), she took steps to make this happen. Her words
harken back to her first encounter with Boaz in the field when he said
"YHWH recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of YHWH God of
Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust." I have here
modified the KJV translation to bring into sharper focus the elements of Ruth's
conversion to Judaism, as well as the magnitude of the blessing Boaz then
conferred on Ruth. Essentially, Ruth is saying to him I heard the words,
now let's see the deeds.
Boaz gets
it. He is both surprised and delighted by the proposal. He repeats
verbatim, Ruth's response to Naomi kol asher tomeri eyeseh lakh [all that you
say I will do for you]. Some of the commentators believe that he is
delighted, because he finally realizes that Ruth wants a conjugal relationship
with him, even though he in his propriety thought only to care for Ruth as he
would for a ward or daughter. I think another reading (or additional
layer of understanding) may be that he also grasps Ruth's farsighted goal of
providing both for herself and for Naomi, a goal that is not reached if only
Ruth comes under his mantle. What strikes him is Ruth's devotion to
Naomi, a love that surpasses that for men? We will look at this
aspect of hesed again in the more ambiguous relationship of Jonathan and
David. With all the escalating acts of hesed, not once have we heard a
declaration of love by either Ruth or Boaz for the other. In fact, only
one woman in the Tanakh has ever been said to be in love with a man:
"And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul and the thing
pleased him." I Samuel 18:20. That did not turn out so well.
One further
comment on the threshing floor. Threshing typically takes place at a high
place, where the wind aids in separating the wheat from the chaff.
Metaphorically, in Ruth, the threshing floor is an appropriate venue to
determine whether her conduct qualifies her to "return" to Israel, to
be redeemed by Boaz. Hence, David later negotiates for the purchase of
such a site near Jerusalem.[3]
On such sites also are built altars, most notably the first Temple. Often
the sites are located near the city gates. The threshing floor further serves
as a metaphor for prosperity and fecundity. Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensy at
50.
The story of Boaz
and Ruth is, like all romantic comedies, propelled by sexual tension and, like
the best romantic comedies, develops into a match of character and intellect
producing an abundance of good things, not the least of which is the line that
leads to David. We have the Israeli women's chorus, the equivalent
function of the newspaper in the modern remarriage comedies, confirm Ruth's
bone fides. In this tender tennis match, Ruth has now returned volley to
Boaz, who will control the final resolution:
12And now it is true that I am
thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I. 13Tarry this night,
and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the
part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do
the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to
thee, as the LORD liveth: lie down until the morning.
This sets-up the
last chapter at the city gates where Ruth's Moabite origin lurks in the
background, having not be mentioned even once before, during or after the
threshing floor encounter.
14And she lay at his feet until
the morning: and she rose up before one could know another. And he said, Let it
not be known that a woman came into the floor. 15Also he said, Bring the vail
that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured
six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the
city. 16And when she came to her mother in law, she said, Who art thou,
my daughter? And she told her all that the man had done to her. 17And she said,
These six measures of barley gave he me; for he said to me, Go not empty
unto thy mother in law. 18Then said she, Sit still, my daughter, until thou
know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in rest, until he have
finished the thing this day.
We get two
slightly different accounts of what happened before Ruth left the threshing
floor and returned to Naomi. In the confidential storyteller's account,
Boaz pours six measures of barley into Ruth's veil. Freudians might see
it as a metaphor for a seminal event. Are the six measures representative
of six days labor gleaning the field? In Ruth's account to Naomi, the six
measures are so that Ruth will not go empty (barren?) back to Naomi, echoing
Naomi's emptiness on returning to Bethlehem, which she left when full.
Since Ruth has the equivalent of six days gleaning, Naomi tells her to sit
still, rest, and leave it to Boaz. Six days of fecundity may reflect the
Genesis event, followed by a fallow Sabbath, a day of rest. The opening advice of the chapter is
recapitulated. As we now will see, this time Ruth does all that Naomi
tells her to do.
[1] I
have relied heavily on Stanley Cavell for his remarkable ability to provide
very compact scene and action summaries for these and other biblically themed
films in Cities of Words.
[2]
Marc Chagall appears to read the scene contra-Rashi, but it is also possible to
view the Chagall depictions as erotic dreamscapes.
[3]
Compare the negotiation by David with Abraham’s purchase of a burial site. Genesis 23.
No comments:
Post a Comment