Spiritual and Ethical Issues in the Historical Books of Tanach; JOSHUA, JUDGES, SAMUEL, KINGS (Nevi’im Rishonim)
by Dr. Meir Tamari

These four books ostensibly are merely the history of Israel from the entry into the Promised Land until the destruction of the Temple and the temporary loss of independent statehood. In fact they are actually, in a specifically Jewish sense, the most deeply religious and spiritual books of the Bible. One does not have to be specifically Jewish to see or feel the religion and spirituality in the revelations of the prophetic writings or in the words of the Tehillim. They speak to all people, as evidenced by the fact that the Bible is still the world's bestseller and there are millions of non-Jews who regularly recite the Psalms. However, it is specifically and intrinsically Jewish to understand that G-d is revealed in the prosaic material, in the political, social and military events in the lives of ordinary men and women, kings and leaders that are described in the Nevim Rishonim. Here are described the ideology and religious thoughts in Judaism, while in Chronicles we have the purely historical.

Righteousness and Kingship [2]
In order to clearly understand the story of Ruth and properly evaluate her righteousness-chesed, we need to clearly define exactly what Chesed is. All too often, we consider any act of charity and goodness to other people as Chesed; however, this definition does not seem to distinguish properly between Chesed and other kind and good deeds. Chesed is not the same as tzedaka, that is given to poor people. Halakhically, there are rules as to which people are entitled to receive charity. All the Codes [Rambam, Arba Turim, Shulchan Arukh] rule that, "One who has 200 zuz (considered the minimum for subsistence for a year), is not entitled to benefit from the communal charitable funds". The same sources limit the amount that an average citizen gives to charity, to that level at which they do not impoverish themselves in the process, thereby becoming themselves dependent on the public purse. There do not seem to be the same rules and restrictions regarding Chesed. Furthermore, acts such as 'Kibud Av vaEim that flow from obligations that exist between the parties cannot normally be considered as Chesed.

Chazal teach us about acting 'lifnim mishurat hadin', beyond our legal obligations as being Chesed. One who refuses to do so, by doing another person a favor with his wealth, time, knowledge, or strength is considered as having 'midat S'dom'. Halakhically, a Bet Din can force a person not to act with 'midat S'dom'; according to some with the full power of the law, and according to others only by persuasion. Rabbi S. R. Hirsch defines Chesed as acts of undeserved or unrequited kindness.

Perhaps the following two examples of such acts will clarify the special qualities of Chesed:
[1] Prior to their entry into Eretz Yisrael, Yehoshua made a covenant with Israel whereby, inter-alia, everybody could fish with a line and hook in the Kinneret even though that sea belonged to the tribe of Naftali. Anybody could gather weeds and herbs from a field used for the growing of crops and had the right of passage through fallow fields, effectively annulling any rights of trespass. These were examples of the dictum "one has a benefit and the other party has no loss."

[2] According to the halakha of 'Bar Metzra', a neighbor has the right of first refusal in the sale of real estate adjoining his property; a right that is enforceable in court to cancel a proposed sale. It has been argued that this right applies also in the case of the sale of shares in family-held corporations. Human nature surely militates against doing such acts of kindness to a neighbor who will thereby receive a benefit at no cost; therefore calling for the halakhic application of Chesed.
It would seem that such measures of acting beyond the letter of the law or of one's legal rights and obligations, is what defines Chesed. This merit of Chesed is fundamental to the Jewish concept of Kingship. We notice that only obligations of the king are detailed in the Torah (D'v. 17:15-20). Our Sages were divided as to whether the words of Shmuel when asked for a king were in fact rights or only a warning as to the wrong that would come from kingship (Shmuel Alef 8:11-18). Neither opinion hides the limitations imposed on a king. So Chesed is intertwined with the whole story of David HaMelech, his eternal dynasty and Melech HaMashiach. To Judah was given kingship and rule over the 12 Tribes of Israel and both the Mothers of this dynasty acceded to their roles because of their personification of Chesed.

First, Tamar who strove with all her might to see that Judah should have sons to continue the dynasty. She was a wife, first to the oldest son and on his death to the second one. Both died because they refused to have children. Chazal tell us that Tamar was beautiful and both sons did not want to mar the beauty of their wife by childbirth; egoism rather than a woman's fulfillment in giving birth. Although this was before Sinai, there was already the practice of Yibum, Levirate marriage, whereby a brother was obliged to marry his brother's widow if he died without children. Never- the less, after their deaths, Judah did not marry off his third son to Tamar to save him from a similar fate, despite the obligation of Yibum. Tamar, going beyond her obligations, put herself in moral and physical danger by initiating the act that forced Judah to fulfill his obligation by marrying her, thereby continuing the dynasty of Israel. This act was repeated in the story of Ruth. She could have simply remained a widow, but she too was driven by the mission of bearing the royal line, to show Boaz where his obligation lay. According to Chazal he was an old man so that there was not a physical nor sexual motivation behind his marriage to Ruth; only Chesed.

To her act of this Chesed to the dead husband and to Israel's Royal House, Ruth added chesed to her mother-in-law Naomi. In the story, her behavior is contrasted with that of her sister Orpah and the results in history are shown in Chazal's saying, "Let the descendant of the one who cleaves [Ruth-David] slay the descendant of she who turned her back [Orpah-Goliath. Oref being the back of the neck]. However, if we see Orpah's actions as perfectly normal and legal, we enhance the greatness of Ruth's Chesed. Orpah remained loyal and true to her mother-in-law as required of her son's widow. When Naomi decided to return to Bet Lechem [in Judah- to distinguish that town from all the others of the same name referred to in the Tanach], Orpah even was willing to accompany her. Only when Naomi herself points out that such action would be beyond reasonable, moral or legal expectations, does Orpah agree to return to her people and her country. The text also refers to her gods, prompting many commentators to argue that neither of the women had been converted when the sons of Elimelech married them.

Contrast these acts of Orpah to Ruth's refusal to leave Naomi despite the rational and normal arguments of her mother in law and we see the Chesed. Her consequent acts of gleaning not only for herself but also for her mother-in-law are also Chesed. The law requires an owner of fields to leave gifts for the poor; Peah -the un-reaped corners of the fields, leket - any ears or corn that fall from the reaper's grasp, and Shikhacha - any sheaves left forgotten in the field. The poor are expected to come and gather these gift themselves; indeed the halakha specifies different times for the poor - children, mothers and old people out of consideration for the needs and habits of each category. Ruth takes upon herself the gathering of the gifts for Naomi even though she was not obligated to do so - Chesed.

This is the 74th installment in Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times”

[The Parshat Vayak-hel Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
 [www.ou.org]