Methodology and Concluding Remarks

 

Over the course of writing this series, I have allowed the techniques of analysis that I employed to speak for themselves. I have generally not dwelled on the methodologies involved, relegating most of my methodological comments to footnotes. If the analysis of the text was compelling and enlightening on its own merit, then that, more than any analysis, justifies the approach that I have been using. Nevertheless, in today’s shiur, I think it would be worthwhile to consider the methodologies employed throughout this series.

 

The Study of Tanakh and Literary Criticism

 

            In 1962, R. Aharon Lichtenstein delivered a public lecture at Stern College entitled, “Criticism and Kitvei Ha-Kodesh.”[2] He posited what was at the time a somewhat novel proposition: students of Tanakh may well be rewarded by the attempt to apply literary criticism to learning Tanakh. R. Lichtenstein did not publish his essay until quite recently,[3] but in the interim, others have independently reached the same conclusion. In the 1980’s, academic scholars of both Bible and literature began to undertake precisely what R. Lichtenstein had proposed. Scholars such as Robert Alter, Meir Sternberg, Adele Berlin, and Shimon Bar-Efrat (to name just a few) began to employ poetics in interpreting biblical texts, often yielding magnificent insights. Even if these studies were not undertaken with the intention of mining the text for its deeper religious meanings, many of the observations and conclusions paved the way toward a more profound understanding of the Tanakh.

 

For the student of Tanakh steeped in tradition, the approach commonly termed “New Criticism” should be of particular interest.[4] This literary approach treats the text as an object, or a product, rather than a window upon historical actuality or the sensibility of the author. This is substantially different from the critical approach that dominated academic study of the Bible for approximately two hundred years, an approach that sought to determine the history of the composition of biblical narratives. Proponents of that approach have frequently and openly declared that they reject the divine origin of the Bible, and that form of criticism has therefore generally been regarded as one which clashes with Jewish tradition.[5] In contrast, a literary approach that is interested in the final product – namely, the literary unity of the final text – facilitates a reading of the Tanakh that uses rigorous academic methods while allowing for a presupposition of textual unity.[6] While this approach is not designed to promote the concept of Torah min ha-Shamayim, it more easily coheres with it than did previous academic biblical studies.[7] I maintain that when properly applied, a literary approach to Tanakh study can deepen our understanding of devar Hashem and enhance yirat Shamayim.

 

One aspect of New Criticism which is considered to be central is the manner in which it focuses on features inherent within the text.[8] It is interested in a close, unmediated reading of the text, and it perceives meaning that emanates from the patterns, allusions, and structure of the text itself, rather than the external questions that surround its origin. Some New Critics maintained that one should look for the meaning of a text not only within itself, but also within the web of allusions to the canon of existing literature as well.[9]

 

The literary approach described here is one that we have encountered quite frequently during the course of our study of Megillat Ruth. Throughout these shiurim, I have assumed the internal allusive character of biblical texts, frequently noting parallels between Megillat Ruth and other books of the Bible. These shiurim often engaged in close readings, paying careful attention to individual words, syntax, and the order in which sentences and ideas unfold as they are read. I have also endeavored to draw attention to conscious rhetorical devices of writing, such as omissions, subtle variances, ambiguities, and allusions. During the course of this series, we have observed many other literary techniques, such as the employment of key words and phrases, thematic patterning, division of units, character development, type scenes, plot movements, wordplays, chiastic structures, and language cues.[10]

 

Despite the usefulness of applying these academic literary methods to Tanakh study, the theological dimension of that application is often ignored by scholars. Academic literary studies can become an exercise in intellectual and aesthetic prowess,[11] focusing on the form while ignoring the notion of a deeper religious meaning.[12] The New Critical perception that literature has no referential function and is not intended to convey any meaning, but is instead an artistic creation meant to be appreciated solely for its aesthetic merit,[13] is particularly anathema to a religious student of the biblical narratives.[14] It is insufficient for the religious student of the Tanakh to examine these narratives for their purely literary or aesthetic value.[15] Indeed, I believe that the traditional student of the Tanakh has the liberty (and perhaps the obligation) to reject certain notions of these literary methodologies that do not cohere with the religious objectives of Tanakh study.[16]

 

One principle that characterizes traditional interpretation of biblical texts is the insistence on discerning the religious meaning that emerges from a text. For traditional sources, it is never sufficient to reveal the aesthetic beauty of a text well written. The ultimate criterion for determining whether a particular textual idea is compelling is whether it is meaningful and adds a significant dimension to our understanding of the narrative. I have consistently sought to apply this notion in my reading of Megillat Ruth.[17]

 

Use of Traditional Texts

 

For a religious student of Tanakh, perhaps the most attractive feature of the New Critical textual concerns is the manner in which they so often cohere with midrashim and with traditional exegetical methodologies employed in the study of Tanakh. New Critical methods feel familiar to the student well-versed in Chazal’s approach to the text. Chazal are not often self-conscious about their methodology,[18] nor do they offer a consistent, systematic reading of Tanakh narratives using any one methodology. Nevertheless, midrashim tend to be sensitive to many of the techniques associated with New Criticism. In fact, Robert Alter makes the astonishing assertion (for an academic scholar) that “in many cases, a literary student of the Bible has more to learn from the traditional commentaries than from modern scholarship.”[19] In this vein, Alter alleges that it is the midrashic assumption of the deep interconnectedness between all biblical books that accounts for the Midrash’s exquisite ability to be attuned to the “small verbal signals of continuity and significant lexical nuances” that are so important for interpreting Tanakh.

 

Consider, for example, Chazal’s appreciation of literary parallels. Midrashim draw our attention to the connection between the narrative of the sale of Yosef and the attendant deception of Yaakov (accomplished with the words “haker na” in Bereishit 37:32) and the story of Yehuda’s desertion of his brothers along with the attendant deception of Yehuda (accomplished with the words “haker na” in Bereishit 38:25).[20] Narrative analogies based on literary parallels are common in Chazal, who embrace and astutely apprehend literary connections between many biblical narratives.[21] For example, midrashim compare the story of Joseph in the palace in Egypt to that of Esther in the palace in Shushan,[22] just as they point to the parallels between Avraham’s sojourn in Egypt and Israel’s later sojourn in Egypt.[23]

 

Midrashim likewise recognize literary connections that point to similarities between various biblical characters. Examples include comparisons between David and Esav,[24] Pinchas and Eliyahu,[25] and Boaz and Shimshon.[26] Chazal are likewise sensitive to the notion of a key word,[27] an inclusio,[28] different words used to modify characters,[29] a deliberately ambiguous phrase,[30] type-scenes,[31] and wordplays.[32]

 

In our study of Megillat Ruth, we have frequently encountered Chazal’s literary sensitivities. I have endeavored to weave together traditional readings and an academic methodological approach. While I have frequently cited academic studies of Megillat Ruth, I have no less frequently cited midrashim and traditional commentaries, often in search of their literary contributions. I did not cite every midrash or exegete, but rather those that I felt could either illuminate the simple meaning of the narrative or offer a deeper understanding of the theological idea lying at the heart of the narrative.

 

I have been particularly interested in illustrating the manner in which midrashic readings reveal the core of the peshat, the simple meaning of the text. All too often, those who are searching for the peshat dismiss or ignore the midrash, which appears to stray far from the text. While the midrash may not be designed to explain the verse itself, it has been my experience that a deeper examination of midrashim often reveals that at the core of the midrash lies a deep apprehension of the meaning of the narrative. When the midrashim do stray from the simple meaning of the text, it is often enlightening to ask why they did so and to try to determine the objectives of the midrash. This is especially true when the midrash offers an implausible or homiletical reading. To this end, I have on occasion introduced midrashim that appear to have strayed far from the peshat, with the express purpose of explaining the manner in which the midrash actually penetrates to the core issues of the narrative.[33]

 

A Literary Theological Reading

 

I would summarize my methodological approach as the combination of the systematic application of literary poetic tools (especially those aligned with the approach of New Criticism and found unselfconsciously in many midrashim) along with an insistence that the reading must yield a deeper apprehension of the theological meaning of the narrative. The most useful designation for this method is a “literary-theological reading,” originally designated such by R. Shalom Carmy.[34] While this approach is located well within the continuum of traditional readings of the Tanakh, it is distinguished by the fact that it represents a self-conscious methodology that employs literary academic tools to mine the texts for insights and deeper meanings.

 

This method is one of the exciting new vistas that have recently opened for Tanakh study, especially in Israel.[35] Utilizing academic methods along with traditional ones,[36] this approach is deeply relevant to the contemporary religious student, who is devoted to religious tradition but also steeped in modern scholarship and a current approach to texts.[37]

 

Perhaps the foremost champion of this approach is Herzog College, a teacher training college located in Alon Shevut and associated with Yeshivat Har Etzion.[38] From its inception, Yeshivat Har Etzion incorporated serious study of Tanakh in its curriculum at the insistence of both R. Yehuda Amital zt”l and R. Aharon Lichtenstein. The founding of Herzog College several years later created a suitable setting for the study of biblical texts that could combine both academic methodology and a traditional approach in searching for religious meaning in the text. Its journal, Megadim (first published in 1986), has produced many articles that attempt to combine traditional and academic approaches in order to produce a rich and compelling reading of the Tanakh. More significantly, its teachers college has produced thousands of teachers who are trained to employ this combined interpretative approach in their own teaching. It is my great privilege to be a member of the staff of this illustrious institution, which has paved the way for a profound and enlightening approach that can yield magnificent insights into the Tanakh.

           

Personal Musings

 

As the series draws to a close, I find myself regretting its end. Kasha alai ha-pereida – it is hard for me to end this series. Writing this has been a wonderful experience. I have received many enlightening comments from readers that deepened and broadened my understanding of the importance of this short narrative. Perhaps the most gratifying part of this experience has been in realizing just how bottomless are the depths of Torah study. After more than twenty years and hundreds of hours spent exploring this Megilla in a classroom setting, I have been unceasingly amazed to discover how many new insights emerged from a different sort of encounter with this book, an encounter brought about by systematic research and by formulating my ideas in writing.

 

On a personal note, my grandfather recently asked me how it is possible to write more than thirty shiurim on a book of four chapters. While spoken in jest, his query remained with me. I hope that these chapters have justified themselves. I trust that the readers who have remained with me from the beginning of the series have not found it to be repetitive (beyond reason) and have benefitted from the consciously deliberate pace. In broadening the scope of the Megilla to include many different biblical narratives, I have aimed to show that no book of Tanakh should be read as an independent entity, but rather should also be understood within the broader context of the entire corpus of the Tanakh. It is my opinion that this sort of analysis can yield deep and satisfying insights.

 

I have tried to illustrate the manner in which Megillat Ruth functions as the nexus for many different Tanakh themes: kingship, redemption, chessed, how to build a harmonious and well-functioning society, ideal leadership, the relationship between names, identity and destiny, blessings, house building, and effective social interactions. At the risk of repeating myself, I have allowed these themes to crop up in numerous shiurim so that there is no doubt as to how deeply these ideas are woven throughout the Megilla.

 

Megillat Ruth documents the manner in which people lead their humdrum lives, without dramatic events and extraordinary miracles. And yet while it records ordinary interactions, it also features the extraordinary behavior of two great individuals who succeed in reversing the negative trajectory of society during the period of the Judges. Ruth and Boaz teach us how two individuals can act in accordance with their own conscience and in contrast to the social alienation and apathy that prevails. In doing so, they bring this lawless and hopeless situation to an end and pave the way toward a society of daily blessings, in which the nation can build a strong and unified house. It is my fervent prayer that a deeper understanding of this magisterial book and its exemplary characters will have a positive impact upon our society, especially in this blossoming and critical stage of building a society in modern Israel.

 

Acknowledgements

 

I want to take this opportunity to thank several key people who have been instrumental in producing this series. Of course, I bear sole responsibility for the ideas presented. Nevertheless, there have been many people without whom this series would not have taken the shape that it has attained, and I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to them.

 

I must begin by thanking my students who have been a sounding board for these ideas during the past twenty-odd years of teaching Megillat Ruth (and other books of Tanakh that have had an impact upon my understanding of Megillat Ruth) at Midreshet Moriah, Matan, and Herzog College. My students are the initial impetus for this series; their comments and questions have helped me reformulate my thoughts and reconsider the book of Ruth, and have inevitably made their way into these shiurim. I thank my conscientious editor, Meira Mintz, who has saved me from many mistakes. Several of the earlier shiurim were also edited by Joe Wolfson, whose astute comments at the beginning of the series were always appreciated. I am deeply indebted to my dear friend Aviva Aharon, whose keen artistic eye was extremely helpful and who enabled me to see my ideas through the eyes of the reader. My husband, Ronnie, who founded the VBM nearly twenty years ago and serves as its Editor-in-Chief, encouraged this series from the beginning, and despite his grueling work schedule, reviewed every single shiur. Finally, I thank those whose presence in my life provide support and love, indirectly facilitating the writing of this series. My children, Tehilla, Yisrael, Ariel, Yehoshua and Noam: You are the inspiration of everything that I do. To my father, Dr. Allen Zeiger and his wife, Leah, and my in-laws, Rabbi Zvi and Sandy Ziegler, I offer my love and gratitude for your support and encouragement.

 

And, to you, my dear readers, who have encouraged me and written with questions, comments, or just to ask why you have not received the most recent installment, I appreciate your enthusiasm and insightful remarks.

 

I have dedicated this series to my mother, of blessed memory, who was appropriately named Naomi Ruth. My mother was an exemplar of abiding compassion and generosity, which is really what this book is all about. My ability to appreciate the great characters in Megillat Ruth is undoubtedly due in part to her personal example, and she remains for me a source of constant inspiration and encouragement. I am grateful for the many years that I was able to experience her daily love and kindnesses, which have had an indelible impact upon me.

 

With deepest gratitude, I express praise and thanks to the Ribbono shel Olam, who has given me shefa berakhot and the opportunity to learn Torah and disseminate it. I hope that this series has merited the zekhut, le-hagdil Torah u-leha’adirah, to spread the love of Torah and a deeper appreciation of its profound and rich ideas, as well as its moral teachings.

 

I welcome all comments and questions: [email protected]