Book of Ruth--Allegory and Hypotheticals

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- gal_from_usa
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Book of Ruth--Allegory and Hypotheticals
OP - November 22, 2014, 12:11 AM

http://distilleryimage0.s3.amazonaws.com/d8a8468e4ff311e2b45222000a1f97b0_6.jpg
A friend of mine posted this picture on facebook. It made me think about, and then point out, the fact that the book of Ruth is not an actual historical account, many proofs of which are hidden in the story; it is an allegory, a hypothetical legal situation given a historical narrative later specifically to make the point that "even a Moabite" could become righteous, in opposition to the (very racist) reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, who believed that no one born outside of a completely Jewish family could ever achieve piety or good character.

Boaz was actually Ruth's second husband. Her first husband had died childless, so it was the responsibility of his closest male relative (which would under ordinary circumstances have been his brother) to marry her and produce an heir for her first husband. That is to say, Boaz was required to knock her up, and the first son that would be born from that union was considered the legal heir, not of Boaz, but of her first husband (Mahlon, Boaz's nephew). The child would therefore inherit Mahlon's possessions, including his and his father's land holdings (women could not inherit property).

But it is extremely likely that the people in the book of Ruth were fictional, and the story symbolic, and the addition of David (who is himself of dubious historicity) being the great-grandson of Ruth was a later edit to stress the idea that "even a Moabite" could become righteous. This theory is particularly evidenced by the actual meanings of the names of the characters. One, Shlomi Almoni, is literally "So-and-so", which was a common legal shorthand for "hypothetical person 1." Mahlon and his brother Chilion's names mean "Sickness" and "wasting", and they die in the same paragraph in which they are introduced. Boaz doesn't actually have a meaning in Hebrew and occurs nowhere else in any local literature, it appears to be an entirely made-up word. Which would mean that it would not have been used in the Jewish community, where real people were named after their ancestors or something important that was happening at the time of their birth.

Even the name of Naomi's husband, Elimelech (God is my king), points to the period when this book was actually written: not during the time of the judges before there were any kings, as the story itself would seem to indicate, but rather in the post-exilic period, when there had been kings, but they had been subjugated by foreign armies. The people were very familiar with the rule of a king over them, but the throne of David was no longer king; instead, a foreign power (usually hostile toward the people practicing their faith) was in control, and as a show of defiance, they asserted that only God was their king. They could not assert this before they had ever had a king, nor would they want to assert it when there was a Davidian king as that would be seen as questioning his legitimacy. In the post-exilic period they could not name a Davidian heir to the throne their king or he would be executed by whoever was in power as a threat to their rule. So the authors subverted the rule of the foreign armies by proclaiming that they were under the rule of no one but God, but did it in a way that made it seem like this was something that their ancestors had believed long ago, and was not a current opinion.

As an unrelated side note, "so and so" was hypothetical person 1, but if the hypothetical scenario called for more than one hypothetical person, they were named, in this order, Reuben and Simeon. But by the fact that the first person was named "so and so", you knew that they were also hypothetical, and just because they had real names didn't mean they existed.

So let's say the hypothetical case was about a man's ox goring another man's slave. The set-up of the discussion would be "The ox of Shlomi Almoni gored the slave of Reuben, Simeon. Simeon lived for three days, and then he died. What is the law concerning the compensation of Reuben for the loss of his slave?" Or if there was a discussion of say, a man dying childless and having no direct relatives but two half-brothers. It would be set up as: "Shlomi Almoni died without sons. He was the only son of his mother; but the son of his father's wife was Reuben and the son of his father's concubine was Simeon. Upon whom does the responsibility of the levirate marriage fall, on Reuben or on Simeon?" It's complicated, but it follows set rules, and once you know the rules you can understand the whole discussion. (As far as I know, these examples aren't actually dealt with in the Talmud, so don't ask me what the answers to the questions are lol. I just came up with them to explain the way the system works.)

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Book of Ruth--Allegory and Hypotheticals
Reply #1 - November 22, 2014, 09:31 AM

Nice

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Book of Ruth--Allegory and Hypotheticals
Reply #2 - November 22, 2014, 10:17 AM

i once wrote a cabbalic tafsir of the book of ruth that related her to hajar …. your post reminded me of that

Quote
5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance.” 6 And the close relative said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it.” 7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was a confirmation in Israel. 8 Therefore the close relative said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself.” So he took off his sandal. 9 And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. 10 Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.”

Ruth represents God as an inflitrating agent of immanentization. The field of Naomi is immanence (Divinity everywhere): but Ruth is that immanence componentized, encapsulated, rendered monadic. Divinity everywhere packaged up into a form of capital, coinage.

What is the nature of Ruth's transaction? Ruth is alienness, adopted by Israel. As alien, she embodies differentiation (like Hajar before her), a disruptive currency, like Bitcoin, like a computer virus: Ruth's capital, Ruth is capital. And, accompanying this field (a virtual phallus/yesod/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesod), she is negotiated, negotiable, between the traders.

When a trade arrives, it needs to be confirmed. Not as a sign of witnessing in a valuative, legal sense of a witness. But, rather, in the sense of a computational confirm, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_repeat-request">automatic repeat-request</a> protocol (the sandal), on receiver and deliverer ends. This confirmation protocol is the precedent to the actual settlement of the trade. Why a precedent? Because it is an agreement of terms and conditions, a formation of beginning and ending, a before and an after: the protocol's ACK is the phallus (basis, yesod, signifier) that permits transmission and settlement of the trade to occur.

The counterparty to the trade (the relative) is the shell/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qliphoth, across which there is inheritance/reincarnation/karma/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgul (there is an inheritance/karma of the shells). The coordinating party to the trade (the husband) is actually a proxy broker. Because, while seemingly an inner cloak/garment, protective of the agency of Ruth (the wife/capital) -- it is in fact <em>her</em> lineage that is transmitted. The impossible karma of gnosis. For the husband, here, is proxy, pure impossibility. The husband is nothing more nor less than a carrier hijab/veil/shell of gnosis transmission through time:
Quote
So she answered, “I am Ruth, your maidservant. Spread the corner of your garment over your maidservant, for you are a close relative. (Book of Ruth 3:9)

In contrast, the wife, rendered yesodic/phallic and generative, is possibility: tangible capital, expressed, confirmed, settled.

And through this process, David/Kingdom/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malkuth is born.

Quote
13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a close relative; and may his name be famous in Israel! 15 And may he be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him.” 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her bosom, and became a nurse to him. 17 Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, “There is a son born to Naomi.” And they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. 18 Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; 19 Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; 20 Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon;[e] 21 Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; 22 Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Book of Ruth--Allegory and Hypotheticals
Reply #3 - November 22, 2014, 09:55 PM

Also, 'Bo-az', in the style of the others the picture breaks down (e.g. Broke-az), would mean 'Smelly-az'… Not really the one to wait for!
1« Previous thread | Next thread »