The Well Scene: A Betrothal
MEGILLAT RUTH
By Dr.
*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Leonard Balanson
in memory of Rose Balanson zl
*********************************************************
Shiur #16: The Well Scene: A Betrothal
Modern biblical scholarship has noted the presence of what is
termed a type-scene, namely, an event that recurs in the Bible and whose
circumstances are expected to unfold in a given manner. One example is the
biblical story in which a man goes to a foreign country, only to fear that he
will be killed in order to enable a foreign king to seize his beautiful wife.
Consequently, the man introduces his wife as his sister, who is then taken by
the ruler to be his wife. The narrative ends when the ruler discovers the
deception and responds by offering gifts as compensation. While this repeated
biblical scenario contains variations, these general motifs appear in three
different biblical stories (Bereishit 12, 20, 26). In fact, scholars
maintain that it is the divergence from the expected course of events that can
highlight the storys essence or central message.
In a chapter entitled Biblical Type-Scenes and the Uses of
Convention, Robert Alter examines this literary phenomenon.[1] His illustrative
example is the betrothal scene that takes place alongside a well. As is the case
with many literary phenomena noted by contemporary scholars, midrashic
texts already observed the central component of the type-scene, noting that
betrothals take place next to wells in the Bible:
And he sat next to the well
(Shemot 2:15): [Moshe] absorbed the ways of the forefathers. Three people
found their match [alongside] a well: Yitzchak, Yaakov, and Moshe. (Shemot
Rabba 1:33)
Alter broadens, develops and explains this midrashic idea in a compelling
manner. To begin with, Alter adds two scenarios to this list, that of Ruth and
Boaz, and, more obscurely, that of Shaul and the group of girls that he meets in
I Shemuel 9:11-14.[2] Alter suggests
that this scene is supposed to unfold in particular circumstances and with
anticipated components. If any of these circumstances are changed or suppressed,
the reader is supposed to take notice and understand that this discrepancy
conveys an important message regarding the narrative.
The expected betrothal type-scene begins when a man journeys
to a distant land. There, he encounters a young woman who has come to a well.[3] As it turns out,
she is a member of his extended family. Water is drawn from the well, and the
young woman rushes home to tell her family about the mans arrival. The man is
invited for a meal and the betrothal is concluded between the man and the young
woman.
Why do some biblical characters have betrothal scenes while
others do not? Generally, we can assume that a betrothal scene highlights the
Tanakhs interest in an individual whose legacy or character is designated
for perpetuation.
Yitzchak and Rivka (Bereishit 24)
The most striking deviation from the betrothal type-scene of
Yitzchak and Rivka is that Yitzchak is not present.[4] This entire
betrothal scene is executed by a surrogate for Yitzchak, who is never given a
name in the narrative. Instead, he is referred to as the servant of Avraham.
Yitzchaks absence is not merely a technicality, but may be viewed as the key to
the entire narrative, characterizing Yitzchak and his marriage, as well as his
larger role in the narrative.[5] Yitzchaks
passivity is evident throughout his story, most notably in the episode of his
near-sacrifice. It is also manifest in the sole chapter devoted to his career,
Bereishit 26. This chapter, ostensibly devoted to describing Yitzchaks
life, refers to Avraham repeatedly,[6] and Yitzchaks actions
in this chapter carefully mirror those of his father.[7]
This imitative behavior epitomizes Yitzchaks role in the
formation of the Jewish nation. The first Patriarch, Avraham, is a visionary.
His relationship with God and the unique covenant which he establishes with God
is meant to be a model for his descendants. Nevertheless, his son, the second
Patriarch, cannot be a visionary.[8] To allow him to
innovate would result in a fundamental altering, a distortion of Avrahams
original vision. Instead, Yitzchaks role is to continue Avrahams path, to step
gingerly into the very large footprints made by his father. Yitzchaks legacy is
his fathers legacy, and he cannot swerve from it at all. This point is made in
the peculiar manner in which the text introduces Yitzchaks toledot, his
genealogy:
And these are the generations of Yitzchak, son of Avraham:
Avraham begat Yitzchak. (Bereishit 25:19)
After the introduction of Yitzchaks toledot, we anticipate that a list
of Yitzchaks descendants will follow.[9] Instead, the text
reverts back to Avraham, creating a mirror image effect. This irregularity
suggests that Yitzchaks future, his legacy, is not to be found in his future
generations, but in his ability to reflect the past, the legacy of his father.
It is
striking, in this regard, to note that Yitzchaks first spoken word is avi,
my father (Bereishit 22:7), and the last word that he utters is
Avraham (Bereishit 28:4).[10]
Yitzchaks passivity in the story allows him to accomplish his
role, solidifying and concretizing Avrahams mission. In light of this, it is
unsurprising that Yitzchak has a surrogate at his betrothal scene, one who is
consistently referred to as the servant of Avraham. Yitzchaks entire quest
for continuity, the reason for his marriage, is not in order to ensure his own
continuity, his own legacy, but rather that of Avraham.[11]
Yaakov and Rachel (Bereishit 29)
Unlike the previous scene, Yaakovs betrothal scene does not
involve a leisurely journey, but rather a desperate flight, an attempt to escape
his brothers wrath. Yaakov arrives at the well without camels, jewels, or
fanciful presumptions. The exceptional feature of this narrative is the large
stone that lies on the mouth of the well.[12] It is so massive
that the shepherds must gather together every day to remove it in order to draw
water. Yaakovs arrival at the well is marked by the information that his access
to the water is blocked. This proves to be no serious obstacle; when Yaakov sees
the beautiful Rachel, he approaches the well and rolls the stone off
single-handedly.
Once again, the singular component of the stone contains the
storys central idea.[13] Yaakov is not
simply the symbol of one who experiences adversity. More significantly, he is
the symbol of one who prevails over adversity. Yaakovs experience in utero
involves a struggle, as does his birth, as is indicated by his name.[14] He struggles for
the blessing and the birthright. Yaakovs marriage to the woman of his choice
requires tremendous effort, and his relationship with his children also involves
contention and hardship. In short, nothing comes easy to Yaakov, as is evident
in his climactic struggle with the man who renames him Yisrael:
And he said to him, No longer shall your name be said to be
Yaakov, but Yisrael, for you have struggled (sarita) with God and with
men, and you have prevailed. (Bereishit 32:28)
This struggle is evident in the several of the deviances present in
Yaakovs betrothal scene. As noted, this is no peaceful expedition to find a
wife; Yaakov is fleeing for his life. A correlate of this is the difficulty that
Yaakov encounters in accessing the water in the well. Similarly, Yaakov is not
invited to a meal. Yaakov cannot obtain a wife without committing himself to
years of hard labor, and he does not even receive the wife whom he had been
promised, the designated woman whom he met and loved at the well (Bereishit
29:18-28). Nevertheless, as in the rest of the story, Yaakov overcomes these
adversities by virtue of his own sheer force of will, emerging a stronger man
than before. Yaakov summons up supreme strength in order to overcome adversity
in all areas of life, serving as a model for his descendants for many years to
come.
Moshe and Tzippora (Shemot 2)
Several singular elements characterize Moshes betrothal to
Tzippora. Like Yaakov, Moshe is also not on a relaxed expedition to find a wife.
He is fleeing for his life from Pharaoh, who seeks to kill him (Shemot
2:15). Moshes early life is filled with conflict, and his betrothal story is
presented within this context. Moshes story is presented as the quest of a
young man for adulthood. The primary problem in Moshes early life is his
inability to find a role model who can help him achieve self-identity. The key
word in the second half of Shemot 2 (verses 11-22)[15] is ish,
man (appearing seven times),[16] and yet Moshe
cannot seem to identify with any of the men whom he encounters, neither Egyptian
nor Hebrew.[17] Wherever he
turns, Moshe encounters injustice and cruelty, which he cannot abide. He is
overcome by anger at the evil Egyptian taskmaster (Shemot 2:11-12), but
also cannot restrain himself when he sees two Jews fighting one another (Shemot
2:13). Moshes search for justice results in his loss of hope in mankind and his
flight away from civilization.[18]
Moshes inner conflicts and consequent goals find expression
in the unique features of this story. His characteristic quest for justice and
his uncompromising integrity feature in his betrothal scene. The callous
shepherds who banish Yitros sheep from the well are summarily dismissed by
Moshe, who rescues the girls and himself waters their flocks (Shemot
2:16-17). Unlike Yaakov, who is faced with an inanimate obstacle, Moshe is faced
with a human obstacle, a source of human injustice. Moshes character traits
which emerge in his betrothal scene are fitting for one who will liberate the
Jews from their slavery and become the lawgiver who conveys truth and justice to
the world.
However, the divergent element that seems to me to be the key
to this narrative is that this is the only story in which the man does not
actually meet a young girl at a well.[19] Instead, he
meets seven young girls at the well, none of whom has a name and all of
whom are equally designated for marriage. Indeed, the only appellation given to
these girls is that they are the daughters of the priest of Midian. It appears
that this betrothal scene is not about finding a wife, but primarily about
finding a father-in-law, a man (an ish) who can be a role model for
Moshe.[20] The final appearance
of the word ish in this chapter is when Moshe settles down to live not
with his wife, but with Yitro, who is termed an ish (Shemot 2:21).
Moshe marries Tzippora, but only after he has settled with the sole man
worthy of the appellation in the narrative. This is why the betrothal scene is
not focused on a single girl, but on the daughters of Yitro, any of whom can
engender a familial relationship between Moshe and Yitro. In the final analysis,
it is Yitro whose partnership enables Moshe to be an effective lawgiver by
helping him set up the judicial infrastructure (Shemot 18:13-27).[21] It is Yitro who
facilitates Moshes legacy, which is not passed down vertically through his
descendants, but horizontally, to this generation.[22]
Shaul and
the Young Women
One could easily dismiss the notion that Shauls meeting with
the girls who have gone to draw water is in any way a betrothal scene. After
all, Shaul does not marry any of these girls.[23] Yet the scene
does share some salient features with the betrothal type-scene.[24] The story begins
with Shauls journey (I Shmuel 9:4-5). When he arrives at his
destination, he encounters young women who have come to draw water (9:11). In
the continuation of the story, Shaul is invited to a meal by Shmuel (9:19,
22-24),[25] which sets into
motion an exceptional relationship.
The anomalies in this scene can lead us to draw a conclusion
similar to that we reached with respect to Moshes betrothal scene. Shauls
legacy does not lie in his building a dynasty, but rather in launching the
kingship.[26] By creating a
relationship with the prophet and conveying the idea that no king can function
properly without the guidance of a prophet, Shaul properly launches the
monarchy. This is his legacy.[27] To make this
point, Shauls betrothal scene is deliberately aborted mid-stream. Instead of
concluding with a marital relationship, designed to continue someones legacy
through their descendants, this narrative concludes with the commencement of a
different relationship (solidified by a joint meal), namely, that between king
and prophet. This relationship is fundamental to the fulfillment of Shauls
legacy as the first king of
Thus far, we have seen how the betrothal scene can be a useful
instrument of characterization. It can emphasize the central feature of these
stories, drawing our attention to the characters primary qualities and thereby
foreshadowing and explaining the events in their life.
Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 2)
As noted in a
previous shiur, Megillat Ruth consistently and meticulously avoids
any hint of love or romance between Ruth and Boaz.[28] We will
return to explain this matter in a later shiur. Nevertheless, Ruth and
Boaz do eventually marry. Their first meeting, therefore, anticipates the
ultimate goal of their acquaintance, namely, marriage.
It is striking that nearly all of the previously delineated
components of the betrothal type-scene occur in this story. A character travels
to a distant land. There, she encounters a man next to a well.[29] This man is only
significant, as we previously noted, due to his familial relationship with this
young womans husband. The man invites the young woman to a meal. As the story
progresses, the couple who met near the well are betrothed.
The anomaly in this narrative is clear. The protagonist of
this story is not the man, but the woman. We are focused on her marriage, and
she is the one for whom we seek a mate.[30] It is Ruths
continuity which we desire, and it is her legacy and character traits which we
seek to perpetuate. Indeed, this is the very essence of Megillat Ruth.
It is Ruth whose character will bring about the Davidic dynasty. Boaz
complements her character traits, thus ensuring her success, but Ruth most fully
embodies the qualities necessary for kingship, and it is thus her line which we
wish to perpetuate. Ruth is therefore ima shel malkhut, the matriarch of
kingship, in much the same manner that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are the
Patriarchs of the Jewish nation.
And so it says, And a chair was placed for the mother of the
king [Shlomo] (I Melakhim 2:19). This is Ruth the Moavite, who is the
Mother of Kingship. (Yalkut Shimoni, Ruth 596)[31]
This exercise in understanding biblical literary conventions
is not merely an aesthetically pleasing activity. I have tried to show that when
the Bible employs a subtle literary technique, it may be mined to reveal the
deeper ideas of the narrative. In this shiur, I have drawn your attention
to the variances in the betrothal type-scene in Tanakh in an attempt to
better understand the various personae and their central role in each narrative.
It is my hope that I have demonstrated the efficacy of exploring literary
techniques in order to derive the deeper theological messages of the biblical
narrative.
This
series of shiurim is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Naomi Ruth zl bat
Aharon Simcha, a woman defined by Naomis unwavering commitment to family and
continuity, and Ruths selflessness and kindness.
I welcome all
comments and questions: [email protected]
[1] This is the
title of the third chapter of Alters book, The Art of Biblical Narrative
(New York, 1981), pp. 47-62.
[2]
The similarity between the story of Shaul meeting the women who have gone out to
draw water and these other stories is also noted by a midrash (Pirkei
De-Rabbi Eliezer 35), which correlates the four narratives in which a man
entering a city meets young women who have gone out to draw water. The
conclusion of the midrash is somewhat different, suggesting that this
bodes well for the mans future, as it portends his impending success. The most
intriguing aspect of this midrash is that it adds this fourth narrative
(Shaul in I Shmuel 9) to the threesome suggested by the midrash
mentioned above. We will examine this narrative later in this shiur.
[3] The well,
which contains water, symbolizes continuity and life. Alternatively, it may
simply be the most obvious meeting place, as all the people in the town must
come to the well to draw water.
[4] Here I deviate
from Alter who, although he notes Yitzchaks absence, does not view this as the
most striking feature of this episode. In general, I will offer my own approach
to the significance of the variations of this type-scene. While some of my
suggestions overlap with Alters, generally, my approach contains independent
ideas and conclusions.
[5]
I have endeavored to focus on the deviant feature of the narrative, which I have
deemed the key point in uncovering its distinctive message.
Limited
space prevents me from developing each point fully. There are certainly other
unique features of this narrative that illustrate its message and ideas.
Consider, for example,
the singular test contrived by the servant of Avraham for finding the
appropriate wife for Yitzchak (Bereishit 24:12-14). This test seems
designed to find someone who can perpetuate an important aspect of Avrahams
legacy. The servant repeatedly justifies his bold appeal for divine intervention
repeatedly by referring to the merits of his master Avraham. This is
characteristic of the relationship between Avraham and God, which unfolds as a
series of tests and demands one from the other, underscoring the novelty and
closeness that characterize their unique bond.
[6] Bereishit
26:1, 3, 5, 15, 18, 24.
[7] The following
events in this chapter mirror Avrahams life, often explicitly referring to
Avraham, thereby indicating that the chapter is consciously creating a mirror
between the sons actions and his fathers. Yitzchak encounters a famine which
causes him to journey in search of a new place to dwell; God reveals himself to
Yitzchak and bequeaths upon him the blessing originally given to Avraham; out of
fear of the effect his wifes beauty could have on the townspeople, Yitzchak
introduces her as his sister, thereby incurring the wrath of the ruler, who
accuses Yitzchak of almost causing someone to commit adultery with his wife;
Yitzchak re-digs the wells originally dug by his father, bestowing (the same)
names upon the wells originally named by his father; Yitzchak builds an altar
and calls on Gods name; Yitzchak creates a covenant with Avimelech of Gerar and
Fichol, the commander of his army, and they take a mutual oath of fealty,
followed by the naming of the city Beer Sheva.
[8] It is
intriguing that Yitzchaks eyesight fails him in Bereishit 27:1. This
lack of sight may complement the notion that I have presented Yitzchak is not
meant to have sight which is independent of Avraham.
[9] See e.g.
Bereishit 6:9-10; 11:10-26; 11:27; 36:1-5, 9-19.
[10] I am grateful
to Elyakim Shachaf for pointing this out to me.
[11] Alter notes
that as a complement to this, Rivkas role in this story is uniquely active. In
my opinion, Rivkas activity, alacrity, exceptional kindness, and unwavering
determination render her a mirror image of Avraham (unlike other betrothal scenes, in this narrative, it is the young
woman who draws water for the man). This ensures that Yitzchaks passivity will not
result in the waning of Avrahams vision or in Yitzchaks inability to prevent
others from distorting it. Indeed, Rivka will fight to maintain the future of
Avrahams vision when it is threatened by Yitzchaks blindness to Esaus bad
qualities (Bereishit 27). Moreover, this entire betrothal scene is bent
on finding a wife who possesses extraordinary kindness to strangers, the classic
trait of Avraham. This emphasizes Avrahams role in this betrothal narrative,
inasmuch as it is Avraham who is being perpetuated here, Avrahams
traits which are sought and found.
[12]
As in the last scenario, I have attempted to focus on what I consider the key to
the dynamics of the narrative. Other unusual features also relate to the uniqueness of the character whose
legacy is at stake. This type-scene describes, uniquely, the intense love Yaakov
feels for the young woman he meets next to the well. This emotion is
characteristic of Yaakov, illustrating his passionate nature, which will feature
centrally in upcoming biblical narratives, particularly in his powerful love for
Yosef, and later Binyamin. It is the injudicious wielding of Yaakovs powerful
love that will prove to be his undoing, as his sons struggle to thwart Yaakovs
love for Yosef.
[13] It is
intriguing that the stone is a motif appearing throughout Yaakovs story.
Consider the stones which Yaakov sleeps on in Beit El (Bereishit 28), the
monument of stones he makes in Bereishit 28 and 35:14, and the stones
which mark the non-aggression pact he makes with Lavan in Bereishit
31:45-53. Jan Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (1975) p. 125, takes
this point one step further, maintaining that Yaakovs life is marked by stones
because he contends with the hard, unyielding nature of life. Indeed, nothing in
Yaakovs life comes easily to him.
[14] The text seems
to offers an etymological explanation for the name Yaakov, which refers to the
struggle to be born first: And afterwards, his brother came out, and his hand
was grasping the heel (ba-akeiv) of Esav, and he called his name Yaakov
(Bereishit 25:26).
[15] Structural
divisions of this chapter appear in Yehuda Raday, Shemot Perek 2 (Gisha
Chadasha), in Sefer Yaakov Gil (1979), pp. 241-245; David Ti, Moshe
Ha-Yeled Ve-Ha-Ish, Meggadim 22 (1994), pp. 30-42.
[16] In a deft
literary construction, the key word in the first half of the chapter is yeled,
boy, which appears seven times in the first half of Shemot 2 (verses
1-10)
[17]
In explaining the verse, And he turned this way and that way and saw that there was no man,
the Netziv (Haamek Davar, Shemot 2:12) suggests that Moshe
sees that no Egyptian intends to help the poor Jew. The parallel verse in
Yeshayahu 59:15-16 implies that this phrase (and he saw that there was no
man) relates to a general lack of societal justice.
[18] See R.
[19]
Once again, I have omitted some intriguing features of this story which, while
meaningful in their own right, do not, in my opinion, constitute the key to the
narrative. As I said previously, time and space limit my ability to properly
develop each variant in this story. I will briefly mention the notable absence
of a pre-existing familial bond between Moshe and his potential wives. This may
highlight the unique balancing act that Moshe must maintain between being an
insider and an outsider. While Moshe leads the Jewish people, represents them,
and acts on their behalf on numerous occasions, he must remain remote, distant,
and somewhat of an outsider if he is to be able to retain the authority and
respect necessary to fulfill his daunting mission (see, e.g., Ibn Ezra,
Shemot 2:3). Moshes betrothal to an outsider may be designed to remind him
that for the sake of his legacy, he himself must remain somewhat of an outsider.
[20]
In this vein, it is significant that during the course of his
betrothal scene, Moshe is mis-identified by the girls as an Egyptian man (Shemot
2:19). This suggests that Moshe has not yet concretized his own identity.
[21] Abravanel (Shemot
2) cites an illuminating midrash in which Moshes staff of God (Shemot
4:20) is initially firmly planted in Yitros orchard. No man was able to uproot
this staff until Moshe. It is because of Moshes prowess that Yitro gives
Tzippora, his daughter, to Moshe as a wife. Abravanel explains this midrash
in a metaphorical manner. He explains that this is a metaphor for Moshes
wisdom, which ultimately facilitates his prophecy. I would take this a step
further and suggest that this midrash alludes to the extraordinary
partnership between Yitro, whose wisdom lies fallow in his private orchard,
until Moshe arrives and releases Yitros knowledge into the world.
[22] It certainly
seems that Moshes children are not the point of his marriage. Indeed, they play
no significant role in Moshes life and do not inherit his position. Instead, it
appears that the central purpose of this marriage is to bind together Moshe and
Yitro.
[23]
In fact, Shaul does not have any betrothal scene at all. We know little about Shauls
wife, whom we encounter only in one dry, descriptive sentence (I Shmuel
14:50).
[24] To account for
the verbosity of the young women in I Shmuel 9:11, a midrash (Berakhot
48b; Midrash Tehillim 7:14) suggests that they are enamored of
Shauls beauty. This midrash appears to be aware that this is a potential
betrothal scene.
[25] The meal
itself is unusually detailed, calling attention to its importance in the
narrative.
[26] The betrothal
scene that does not result in marriage may hint to us at the very outset of
Shauls story that he is not meant to produce a dynasty, but rather to pave the
path to Judean monarchy and the Davidic dynasty. While this is contradicted by
Shmuels words in
I Shmuel 13:14, it helps explain the difficult question of why a Benjaminite
was chosen to be king, given the granting of kingship to Judah in Bereishit
49:10 (see Ramban ad loc.) This important topic is beyond the scope of todays
shiur. In any case, it seems to me that Shauls betrothal scene may
constitute another factor in the complex question raised above.
[27] That this is a
sine qua non for kingship may be seen in Rashis commentary on the law of the
king (Devarim 17:20).
[28]
It is possible that Boaz intends to suggest that the
young men (nearim)
who draw the water are the suitable candidates for marriage to Ruth (Ruth
2:9).
[29]
Although there is no explicit well named, the presence of a well in Boazs field is
indicated by Boazs words to Ruth (Ruth 2:9), And if you shall get
thirsty, you may go to the vessels and drink from [the water] which the boys
have drawn. Water which is drawn (shaav) comes from a well. See also
I Shmuel 9:11.
[30]
A similar reversal may be observed in Boazs allusion to Beresihit 2:24: And you
left your father and your mother (Ruth 2:11). While in Bereishit,
it is the man who leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, Boaz
describes Ruth as the one who leaves her father and mother. The word davak
also modifies Ruth, and not Boaz, in this narrative (Ruth 1:14; 2:8, 23).
[31]
A similar midrash appears in
Bava Batra 91b. I chose to
cite the later midrash in Yalkut Shimoni simply because its
phraseology renders the point more clearly.