******
Tonight I decided to talk about the book "Ruth", which we are going to read in two hours (my talk was around 3:00 A.M.). This book plays a very special role in our tradition. A literature masterpiece by itself it paves a bridge between Torah (Humash) and the Book of Samuel in describing the genesis of Israeli Royal Family (Beit David). It also constitutes a turning point in what role female and male heroes play in building the Jewish nation in general and the Royal family in particular.
Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky was not only a prominent Zionist leader. He was also a brilliant Russian writer and journalist. Jabotinsky once prepared a short speech for a feminist dinner. From the book I have I could not figure out where and when this speech was prepared and delivered, in which language, and to whom exactly. By some indirect indicators I could suppose it happened sometime in 20-ties of the previous century and delivered at a 8th of the March dinner of Zionist female activists. But this is just a speculation.
What struck me in his short speech, is that Jabotinsky part seriously, part kidding, made a statement that during the human history female rulers had statistically much better record than their male piers. He started with Salomeya Alexandra, who as Jabotinsky referencing to Josef Flavius "Jewish Wars" claimed, brought the only 10 years of quite and prosperity during the whole period of the Hasmonei family ruling in Judea. Whenever male representatives of the Hasmonei family came up to the power it was always accompanied by bloodshed, corruption, theft, curt intrigues, and lechery. I checked with the Flavious's "Jewish Wars". Not that rosy. but indeed Flavius claims that 9 years, when Alexandra was ruling, were the only period of relative quite and prosperity.
If we look at the early stories in Torah related to building of Jewish nation and the Royal family, females have always played a dominant and active role. Sometimes their decisions and actions are very controversial, at least according to our contemporary morale, but at the bottom line all their decisions this way or another lead to building of the Jewish nation and its Royal Family. Their male partners on the other hand were quite passive concentrating more on dialogs with G-d and spirituality.
We could start this survey with the "First Sin". In this story it was Eva who took the forbidden fruit while Adam passively followed her and once being caught immediately pushed all responsibility onto his wife. Very noble behavior, indeed! But in this case one might argue that Serpent was the real culprit. He devised the whole plot, he seduced Eva. She was a victim. Therefore we should probably discount this episode.
The next story is about Sarah, Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham is maintaining a very active dialog with the G-d and is told that his descendants will fill the Promised Land. There is only one practical issue at the moment. He and his wife Sarah do not have children. Sarah does see that Abraham is not young anymore and still does not have a heir. So she decides to bring her servant, Hagar, to Abraham and through this to ensure that Abraham will have at least one. Abraham plays a completely passive role, he just perfroms whatever Sarah tells him. Later on when Sarah has her own son, Yitzhak, she is very concerned about Ishmael, Hagar's son, and directs Abraham to expel them to the desert. Abraham is very sorrow about this decision, but the G-d tells him to obey to the Sarah's decision. Following a straightforward human logic both Hagar and Ishmael were supposed to die in the desert. And they would die if there were not saved by the Angel.
The next story is about Lot and his two daughters. After destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the Lot's daughters are fully convinced that they two and their father are the only people who remained on the earth. The elder daughter managed to convince her younger sister that the only way to prevent the human kind from extinction is to seduce their farther to make children with them. From the text we could assume that this incestuous act was forbidden even at that time, not talking about our modern times. It was probably forbidden for Sodomites however absurd this might not sound. To accomplish their plan the girls lead their farther to be drunk. Lot, again, plays a fully passive role. From the text it's unclear whether he was aware about what's going on. Rashi, however, makes it clear that on the morning Lot did realize but did not refrain from drinking at the second night. It's important to notice that the text puts more condemnation on the elder sister. She is who took the initiative and persuaded her sisters. For that reason her son has got the name Moav ("from my father") as if she was enforced to admit her crime in public. Still we should not forget that Ruth, the grandmother of King David, was from Moav. May be, and it is my speculation, this ability to make tough, controversial decisions, to execute and to assume the full responsibility is a crucial ingredient for building a King.
The next story, we will briefly stop at, is about Rebeka, who directs Jacob to masquerade himself as Esav and to steal his farther's blessing. Jacob does execute what his mother tells him, but he was scary and did not move until his mother says: "On me the curse, my son, on me". Is it another manifestation of a true leader character our Mother is trying to teach us?
The next story is about Jacob himself, and his wifes Rachel and Leah. Jacob almost does not interfere with the family building business. He loves Rachel, but when Leah comes first he reconciles quite quickly and just patiently works another seven years for Rachel. It looks like he leaves all important decisions about the family structure to the sisters. When Rachel complains that she does not have a child he blows up: "What do you want from me? Whether I'm instead of the G-d?"
Now we will turn our attention to Tamar. Tamar, as Ruth a couple of generations later, stubbornly wants to get a child from the Judah family. As if she knows that this is going to be the family of Kings. When two Judah's sons die and she realizes that Judah is not going to give her his third son, Shelah, she sets a 'trap' for Judah himself. Till the last moment Judah is absolutely blind to what's going on. Only when Tamar points him directly to his belongings does Judah creptitate "She is right, not me". May be for that reason the story of Tamar and Judah is briefly mentioned in the "Ruth" book.
So far we could conclude that in all these stories women somehow possessed an ability to grasp a situation and to make the most right decision however weird and controversial it did not look like. Men on the other hand were quite oblivious to the family and nation building, and did not disturb at the best.
Jabotinsky in his memories about the Jewish Legion mentioned that: “Strategy is an ability to spot immediately, in the space of a very wide front, the weakest point of enemy. To do this a very special trait, which British call 'imagination', is required …” In all stories surveyed above the strategic imagination seems to be belonging to our Mothers. Is it a wisdom of the heart?
With the story of Ruth it all suddenly changes. It's true that Ruth exhibits the same level of determination and strategic vision as Tamar or even her grand-grand mother - the elder daughter of Lot. Ruth is faithful to Naomi and is willing to go with her till the end. The main difference is the behavior of Boaz. From the very beginning there is no any reason to suspect that Boaz does not understand what's going on. The opposite is true - he is a real partner to Ruth, clearly understands what needs to be done and immediately assumes the full responsibility. At the final stage of the Royal family building male and female parts are playing in a full harmony.
This is a very rare situation. In "The Book of Samuel" and "The Book of Kings" (Sefer Malachim) the male role starts to be clearly dominant and active while the female role is more passive. Even when Bat Sheva decides to approach the aged King David in order to protect herself and her son Shlomo she does it only after Nathan, the prophet, tells her to do so.
Even in a more extreme form this is presented in the story of Purim. The book is titled "The Book of Ester", however Ester, the Queen, plays a pretty passive role. The whole drama from beginning till the end is lead by Mordehai. This is his fight with Haman, this is his way to shake Jewish people out of apathy. Ester is a hero, no doubt, but she follows the Mordehai will.
So what could we tell about these stories? Is it by an accident? Just a fruit of late night imagination? May be. I can suggest at least one plausible explanation. As with growing kids the Jewish nation and the Royal family needed care and protection of a Mom as long as they were young and vulnerable. Perhaps at this stage women have stronger intuition and instincts to protect an infant even at the price of committing a crime. Once the kid as grown (s)he needs another type of leadership and guidance and here the men start to playing a more dominant role.
Still the book of Ruth is a unique example when male and female partners are playing in a unison, in a true harmony. Somehow this unique quality has been lost. May be one day we will find a way to recover it.
