Ruth the Ancestor of David and Jesus Was An Israelite



Taken from: http://www.israelofgod.org/ruth.htm

Home

Back

The Story of Ruth the Israelite!?

Have you been taught that the Moabitess Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi, was a Moabite? Yes, that is the question, it is neither intended as jocular nor facetious, although it may well be rhetorical.

Ruth 1:4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

In the first chapter of the book of Ruth it appears to be quite clear that Ruth and her sister Orpah were Moabite by descent or lineage.

Ruth 1:1 ¶ Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

Further, as we can see in the above verse, Naomi, with her husband and sons, went to sojourn “in the country of Moab.” Now, if we stop here, we got about as far into this matter as the traditional scholars, theologians, biblical historians, and the vast masses of people who look to the bible as the word of God. By stopping here we are doing what so many do with the bible and in bible study, we take what appears to be “obvious” and indisputable as fact, then either ignore or find it imperative to “explain away” the contradictions within scripture created by our newly created “fact.”

What contradictions are we referring to? Glad you asked. For just one (there are several):

Deut. 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

While “forever” in the Hebrew does not mean for the rest of eternity, it does mean so far into the future as to be impossible to “see” (or foresee from that vantage point). Thus, the expression, “even to their tenth generation” is not literally specific, but an idiom meaning that they can forget it, it won’t happen. So, the difficulty in justifying the two positions- (1) that Ruth was a Moabite by lineage, and (2) Naomi’s sons, as well as Boaz, would marry a Moabite and not only bring her into the “camp,” but in turn bring her into the line of David and Jesus (Yeshua), is in stark contrast with Deut. 23:3 and what a God-fearing Israelite would possibly do, especially when we consider what God had to say about such actions, not just in this time frame, but even in the time of Ezra. It then makes God look incompetent or extremely forgetful in His old age, or maybe God is just double-minded? Not to mention that this all transpires little more than a century after God declared His stand concerning this very matter to Israel in Deut. 23 above.

Or, is it possible, just asking mind you, is it possible that we may not yet have enough information to determine whether our “understanding” of Ruth’s heritage is biblically sound or correct? Should we not presume that in a circumstance wherein we find either, (1) our understanding is contradictory to some or all scripture, or (2) that it “appears” that the bible is contradicting itself, that we are the ones who are missing information necessary to eliminate such apparent contradictions? Let’s see if we can find out what is what- biblically.

You can do your own in-depth study, but just to present the minimum necessary to unravel this apparent contradiction let’s first begin by retracing the trail of Israel on their way out of the wilderness and into the Promised Land. We pick up the travels in Numbers 21.

Numbers 21:13 From thence they (Israel) removed, and pitched on the other side (north of) of Arnon (an east-west river), which is in the wilderness that cometh out of the coasts of the Amorites: for Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.

OK, note that Israel crossed the Arnon and left the nation of Moab behind them, thus now entering into the land of the Amorites. By the way, the Amorites are not Ammonites. Ammon and Moab are brother tribes or nations and related to Abraham, and thus Israel, through Lot, but Amorites were, at least generally speaking, Canaanite.

What happened next?

Numbers 21:21 ¶ And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying,

22 Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king’s high way, until we be past thy borders.

23 And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel.

24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon (Ammonites were to the east of Amorites): for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.

25 And Israel took all these cities: and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof.

26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.

Now we see that Israel conquered and occupied the Amorite land from the river Jabbok (an east to west tributary of the Jordan and is north of the Dead Sea) and fully eastward to the border of the Ammonites, again, related to Moab.

So, for the land between the river Jordan and the Dead Sea on the west and the border of Ammon on the east, plus the land north of Arnon all the way to the river Jabbok, was now owned and operated by Israel and their to do with as they pleased.

Side note: It is vital to make notice that this describes the borders and nations at the time being discussed. Earlier in history the nation of Moab did “occupy” or possess land north of the Arnon- all the way to Jabbok, but they lost possession of that territory prior to the Israelites appearance and as such, Moab’s northern border was the Arnon when God told Israel to “by-pass” them (Moab). To further clarify what we have just covered we can read from Deut 2 below.

Deut. 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.

36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us:

37 Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the mountains, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us.

Just what did some Israelites think of this newly possessed land that was “east” of Jordan?

Numbers 32:1 ¶ Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle;

2 The children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake unto Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes of the congregation, saying,

3 Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon,

4 Even the country which the LORD smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle:

5 Wherefore, said they, if we have found grace in thy sight, let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession, and bring us not over Jordan.

The short story is that Moses and God agreed to let Reuben and Gad and half of Manasseh possess the newly possessed lands east of Jordan so long as they helped the rest of Israel conquer the lands west of Jordan.

Joshua 13 also confirms for us that Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh received for their inheritance this land east of Jordan. The half tribe of Manasseh possessed the land of Bashan, to the north of the land of the formerly Amorite land. This area also included the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee and the east bank of the Jordan river northward to (at that time) the land of the Hittites.

But, where again did Israel cross the Jordan and enter into the land west? We all know the story of Jericho, but who recalls where it was, or what the area was called where Israel camped immediately prior to their siege of Jericho?

Numbers 33:48 And they departed from the mountains of Abarim, and pitched in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

49 And they pitched by Jordan, from Bethjesimoth even unto Abelshittim in the plains of Moab.

50 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;

From this we can note that the “plains of Moab” are not in Moab! They may certainly have once been “in” Moab, but at the time of the entrance into the Promised land, the Moabites all lived well to the south, and their northern national border was the river Arnon, which the Israelites had already passed over to eventually arrive at the embarkation point in the “plains of Moab” for their march forward to Jericho.

We should also note that as a matter of course and history, 1 Chronicles 5 shows that this conquered and possessed land stayed in Reuben’s, Gad’s, and the half tribe of Manasseh’s control until Assyria took them away captive some 700 years later, Manasseh being in Bashan to the north of the Plains of Moab.

One might now ask, “So, what’s the big deal? This still does not prove Ruth was not a Moabite by race.” Well, not in itself, and not yet, but we do have more to consider as previously stated. There is still more to the story. Remember this?

Deut. 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

The Problems

1. How could a law abiding Israelite, whether Mahlon or Boaz, legally marry a Moabite?

2. How can we circumvent Deut 23:3 in order to accept the actions of Mahlon, Elimelech, Naomi, and later Boaz to let Ruth become a part of their family by law and bring her into Israel?

3. The women of Israel welcomed Ruth into the “family” in Ruth 4:11 … The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:

4. If Ruth was a Moabite by race, why would there be such attention to detail concerning the law of redemption by Naomi, Boaz, and the “near-kinsman” more near than Boaz? It would all have been performed in complete opposition to the very law being invoked to settle the issue being settled!

5. Judah’s eldest two sons were slain by God, Er for his wickedness and Onan for his disrespect for the very law Boaz invokes to accomplish his goal to marry Ruth. Now Er and Onan were both from a Canaanite mother, the first wife of Judah. Point being, God slew Onan for not obeying a part of the very law that Mehlon and Boaz would likewise have been guilty of breaking had Ruth really been Moabite.

The Solutions

We should closely take notice that in Numbers 25 we see the direct result of breaking the law. Are we to believe that later on this law is “suspended” for Mahlon and then Boaz, which would also mean it was suspended for Naomi, her husband, and all who welcomed Ruth into Judah? Considering the death of 23,000 Israelites that resulted from their law breaking, might it be somewhat still in the memory and history of Naomi, her husband, her sons, and Boaz and even his near kin?

Therefore, let’s look a little closer at what is really stated in the book of Ruth.

Ruth 1:1 ¶ Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

First of all, the use of the word “country” must be understood both by definition and also by context. The Hebrew word translated to “country” here is one that simply means or refers to “the country” as in a rural area or field, not a “nation.” For one example we can look at:

1Sa 27:5 And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country <07704>, that I may dwell there: for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee?

Notice that the “town” is “in” the country, as opposed to a major city in a metropolitan area. As a result of this we now have absolutely no reason to assume that “the country of Moab” was “the nation of Moab.” Nor do we have any reason to claim that the “plains of Moab” were “in” the nation of Moab, the location of which we previously addressed.

Next, we can note that the time period is one where-in Israel’s tribes were not yet unified into a Federalist single nation or kingship, but were independently ruled by judges, each with jurisdiction in their own tribe and not beyond or overlapping into other tribes.

Continuing, we see that Naomi’s husband was from Judah, and a town called Bethlehem. You may have heard of this town before? Thus, Naomi, her husband and her sons, were Israelites of the tribe of Judah, and in the land of Judah.

Putting this all together, with what we have so far, leaves us with Naomi and her family escaping the famine by traveling to a place identified as “the fields of Moab,” which then equates better to “the plains of Moab,” which were in Reubenite and Gadite possession and inheritance. Thus, Ruth, in the land of her nativity (Ruth 2:11), was either Reubenite or Gadite.

But Wait! There’s More!

One more “problem” to solve! Was Ruth and her sister a pagan worshipper, or a worshipper of the One True God?

A funny thing happened on the way to English from the Hebrew. We, in English, have a culture or cultural thinking that “god,” from the Hebrew word “elohiym,” must always refer to a deity of some sort, whether real or imagined (pagan, etc.). Thus, we can only perceive “elohiym” as either the God, or a “god” (as in false “god”). However, the facts are that “elohiym” can, and often is, used to identify a human being, too! Please do your own research on this if you wish. You may also peruse a number of the related articles on the Israel of God website (www.israelofgod.org) that relate to the use of “elohiym” in the bible.

What happens if we now put everything into the newly understood context- one that has no biblical contradictions and complies with the stated law of God?

Ruth 1:15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.

16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Now, finally, we can see that what the translators created in error is solved and resolved in truth. The references to “elohiym” in verses 15 and 16 are addressing their respective governments of the day, their “Judges”, who were known as “elohiym”. The “capitalization” of “G” in God in verse 16 is a translators doing, not the Hebrew’s.

The “her people” was either Reuben or Gad, and the “my people” was Judah. The “her gods” was simply the judges in Reuben or Gad, and the “thy God my God,” becomes “your judges my judges.” Now, the additional comment by Ruth in verse 17 makes even more sense as she invokes the name of the “G”od of Israel, Yahweh, something not likely by an alien, but totally expected from a law abiding Israelite.

What other “assumptions” have we made in what we think the bible “says”? You might be surprised!

Richard Fix

August 2005

Special Appreciation is given to RK Phillips for his work in documenting and identifying what some have suspected and most never knew.

Home

Back

THE GEOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE

SKETCH 1

SKETCH 2

Important Genealogy in Book of Ruth



This is the html version of the file http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/382/ruthgenealogy.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Page 1

Zvi Ron received semikha from the Israeli Rabbanut and his Ph.D. in Jewish Theology from Sper-

tus University. He is an educator living in Neve Daniel, Israel and the author of Sefer Katan ve-

Gadol (Rossi Publications: 2006) about the large and small letters in Tanakh. He is the Deputy

Editor of Jewish Bible Quarterly.

THE GENEALOGICAL LIST IN THE BOOK OF RUTH:

A SYMBOLIC APPROACH

ZVI RON

The Book of Ruth concludes with a genealogical list tracing the ancestry of

King David all the way from Perez son of Judah.

Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; and He-

zron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; and Amminadab begot

Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salma; and Salmon begot Boaz, and

Boaz begot Obed; and Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.

(Ruth 4:18-22).

This genealogical list is constructed in a way that indicates a particular

symbolism. In this article, we will note the symbols found in the list and de-

termine at what point the list shifts from a historic record to a symbolic one.

Additionally, we will see that the symbolic approach to this list solves a ma-

jor chronological difficulty.

There are ten people listed in this genealogy, paralleling other such lists in

Genesis. In Genesis 5, we have a genealogical list of the ten generations from

Adam to Noah. Genesis 11:10-26 contains another genealogical list of ten

generations, from Shem to Abraham. The first major era is from the Creation

to the Flood. The next list is found after the description of the nations des-

cended from Noah (Gen. 10) and the Tower of Babel narrative (11:1-9),

when the world is divided into many languages. These two sections indicate

that the world is now divided into many different groups. The genealogical

list in Genesis 11 covers the period from the Flood until the birth of Abra-

ham, patriarch of the Israelite people, the group on which the Bible will focus

from this chapter onward. A list of ten generations is used to indicate a transi-

tion from one major era to another. These ten-generation epochs were unders-

tood to be significant by the rabbis as well.

1

Note also that if we follow the genealogy from Adam through his descen-

dants, Noah is the tenth in line, Abraham the twentieth, and Boaz the thir-

tieth.

2

The list of ancestors in Ruth was written as a ten-generation list to

---

Page 2

ZVI RON

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY

86

evoke these earlier lists, and also to indicate that here a new epoch was be-

ginning; the epoch of the Davidic monarchy. Just as Noah began the post-

Flood world and Abraham began the Israelite people in a new world divided

into nations, David began the dynasty that will ultimately lead to messianic

times under the Messiah son of David.

The fact that David occupies the tenth position in this list is noted in rab-

binic literature as being significant. For example, Hayyim Yosef David Azu-

lai (the Hida) explains that the reason King David's name is written with an

extra letter "yud" in Books of I and II Chronicles [דיוד] is to indicate that he is

tenth in the genealogical list found in Ruth.

3

Others ascribe mystical impor-

tance to the fact that David is the tenth from Perez.

4

In this list the seventh person is Boaz, the hero of the Book of Ruth. In Ge-

nesis 5, the seventh person in the list is the saintly Enoch, who walked with

God (Gen. 5:24). Seven is always a significant number in the Bible; the se-

venth person on the list would draw special attention. The figures who occu-

py the seventh position and its multiples from Adam onward and on all have

either biblical or rabbinic significance; Enoch is the seventh, Eber the four-

teenth,

5

Isaac the twenty-first, and Nahshon the twenty-eighth.

6

Even if the

Bible itself did not always indicate that the seventh descendants were special,

the Rabbis did feel this way and noted in the Midrash what was so significant

about them. Note also that in I Chronicles 2:15 David himself is listed as the

seventh son of Jesse.

7,8

Even the term used to introduce this genealogical list, "generations [תודלות

–toldot]," is only found in the Torah, and nowhere else in the Prophets or

Writings. In the Torah, this term is found eleven times in Genesis and once in

Numbers.

9

Using this particular word in Ruth hints that the list should be

viewed as part of the Genesis family of genealogical lists. Furthermore, the

word toldot itself is only written using the letter "vav" at the end (תודלות as

opposed to being written

)

תדלות in two places in Tanakh, here in Ruth 4:18

and in Genesis 2:4, the prelude to the sin of Adam. The Midrash comments

that this is to hint that the six curses that came to the world as a result of the

sin of Adam will be undone with the coming of the Messiah.

10

A similar

theme is found in Exodus Rabbah, 30:3, which connects Ruth to Genesis 2:4

by explaining that the curse of mortality stemming from the sin of Adam will

be undone with the coming of the Messiah. The Rabbis understood that the

---

Page 3

GENEALOGICAL LIST IN THE BOOK OF RUTH

Vol. 38, No. 2, 2010

87

Ruth list was written in a way that indicates that it represents the culmination

of the cosmic saga of Genesis, the coming of the Messiah.

Considering that one of the major reasons given for the writing of the Book

of Ruth is to trace the lineage of King David,

11

it makes sense that the genea-

logical list was written using symbols that would indicate that Boaz and Da-

vid are figures of great significance.

THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM

If we understand that this genealogical list was intended as a symbolic re-

presentation, the chronological problem in this passage can be resolved. This

well- known problem is spelled out by Abraham Ibn Ezra in his commentary

to Ruth 4:17. He begins by explaining that we know Nahshon was the leader

of the tribe of Judah at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Num. 1:7), and

since that entire generation died in the wilderness, only his son Salma would

have been the first in the lineage to enter Israel. Even though only those over

the age of twenty at the time of the report of the spies died in the wilderness,

it is reasonable to assume that Nahshon was in fact over twenty at that time,

since he was already the leader of the tribe of Judah. In any event we are not

told that he entered Israel. This concurs with Seder Olam Chapter 12: "Nah-

shon son of Amminadab died in the second year after the Exodus. Salmon

was of those who entered the Land."

Ibn Ezra continues the calculation by stating that in I Kings 6:1 we are told:

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Children of Israel's exodus

from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in

the month of Ziv which is the second month, he built the Temple to God.

Since the Israelites wandered for 40 years before entering the Land of Israel,

we are left with 440 years from entering Israel until the Temple. If we then

subtract the 70 years of King David's life and the four years of King Solo-

mon's reign before the Temple was built, we are left with 366 years from

entering Israel to the birth of David. This period of 366 years is covered by

only four ancestors of David: Salma, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse.

Based on this calculation, even if Salma was an infant when he entered

Israel, each one of these Davidic ancestors would have had to father the next

in line at a very advanced age (an average age of 91!) in order to encompass

more than three-and-a-half centuries. Ibn Ezra further states that even if you

---

Page 4

ZVI RON

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY

88

say that Nahshon was less than twenty years old in the wilderness and did in

fact enter Israel (in contradiction to Seder Olam), this still leaves us with an

average age in the eighties for each member of the lineage to father the next

in line.

The Midrash deals with this difficulty by explaining that certain of the an-

cestors of David lived extremely long lives. Based on different midrashic

texts,

12

either Obed

13

or Jesse

14

lived to be over 400 years old, or alternative-

ly, Boaz, Obed and Jesse together lived for a period of over 400 years.

15

Ibn Ezra himself accepts that David's ancestors in fact fathered sons when

in their eighties. Boaz indicated that he was an old man when he told Ruth,

'You have made your latest act of kindness greater than the first, in that you

have not gone after younger men' (Ruth 3:10). Ruth Rabbah 6:2 states that

Boaz was eighty years old at the time the story in the Book of Ruth took

place. Since we know that David was the eighth son of Jesse (I Sam. 16:10-

11) it is reasonable to assume that Jesse was an old man when he begot him.

Ibn Ezra concludes that the four immediate patriarchal ancestors of King Da-

vid must have all fathered the next in line when they were at least in their

eighties.

Ramban, in his commentary to Genesis 46:15, also mentions that the ances-

tors of King David all fathered sons at a very advanced age. He notes that

even though by that time in history people did not live as long as in the time

of Abraham, miraculously these four men fathered children close to the time

of their death, at very advanced ages. Thus, the traditional rabbinic answer to

the puzzle of the genealogical list in Ruth is to explain that in fact Salma,

Boaz, Obed, and Jesse all fathered children while in their eighties or nineties.

It seems strange that these four ancestors all begot children at such an old

age.

16

Even more so when we compare the last four ancestors to the earlier

ancestors of King David: Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab and Nah-

shon. Here we have six individuals covering the entire period of the sojourn

in Egypt. The Talmud calculates that the time in Egypt was 210 years,

17

mak-

ing the time from one generation to another about 35 years. This means that

according to the approach of Ibn Ezra and Ramban, before the Exodus the

next in line was born when his father was in his thirties and after the Exodus

this age more than doubled.

---

Page 5

GENEALOGICAL LIST IN THE BOOK OF RUTH

Vol. 38, No. 2, 2010

89

A SYMBOLIC APPROACH

The difficulty raised by this section in Ruth disappears when we understand

that the list is a symbolic one, and not meant to be understood as an actual

historical record. There were in fact more ancestors between Perez and Da-

vid, but they were excluded from the genealogical list in order to maintain the

special seven-ten symbolism.

18

Where in this list is the ellipsis, where would the missing ancestors of King

David fit in? The lineage from Ruth is also found in I Chronicles 2:5-15.

There are additional details there regarding brothers and sisters, but the Da-

vidic lineage is the same.

The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul . . . . The sons of Hezron

who were born to him: Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai; and Ram

begot Amminadab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon, the leader of

the sons of Judah; and Nahshon begot Salma; and Salma begot

Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; and Obed begot Jesse; and Jesse

begot his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea

the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the the

sixth, and David the seventh (I Chron. 2:5-15).

We see that the lineage through Hezron and Ram includes additional in-

formation, the brothers of the Davidic ancestors. The siblings of David are

listed as well. From Amminadab to Jesse we have a simple list of fathers and

sons. This is the formulaic part of the list that can shift from the historical to

the symbolic. The chronological problem only begins after the Exodus, so we

can understand the genealogy until that point (Nahshon) to be a complete

historical record. Since the birth of Obed is an integral part of the Ruth narra-

tive, and David being the son of Jesse is integral to the narrative in Samuel I,

these connections should also be viewed as literal and historical.

This leaves us with only a few points on the list where we can veer from

the historical to the symbolic, Nahshon to Salma, Salma to Boaz, and Obed to

Jesse.

19

It is interesting to note that other than in the genealogical lists in Ruth

and I Chronicles, Boaz and Jesse are never referred to as "Boaz son of Sal-

ma" or "Jesse son of Obed." It seems that the best candidate for the actual

ellipsis point on the genealogical list is Salma, the figure who outside of these

two genealogical lists is not found linked to either his father or son.

20

---

Page 6

ZVI RON

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY

90

The story of Ruth takes place in the days when the judges judged (Ruth

1:1). We do not know when exactly during the period of the Judges the story

took place, and there are many approaches found in rabbinic literature.

21

The

opinion of Rav is that Boaz is to be identified with the judge Ibzan from

Bethlehem (Jud. 12:8).

22

Even if we do not accept that Boaz was literally the

same person as Ibzan, this timeline puts Boaz living 105 years before the end

of the time of the Judges, which works out well historically in terms of hav-

ing David the fourth generation from Boaz.

23

The one person in the genealo-

gy who covers all the years from entering the Land of Israel through Joshua

and over 200 years of judges until the time of Ibzan is Salma. If we under-

stand that there were in fact many unrecorded generations leading up to and

descending from Salma, the non-historical element of the genealogical list is

minimized to just one link in the lineage. All of the ancestors before and after

him can be viewed as historic and literally fathering the next in line, and at a

reasonable age.

Salma's role as a representative of many unmentioned generations can also

be seen in his position in the lineage. The Nahshon-Salma transition is found

in the exact middle, covering the shift between the first five ancestors and the

last five. It also covers the transition from wandering in the wilderness to

entering the Land of Israel, from Mosaic to post-Mosaic times.

24

While it may seem unusual to view Salma as a representative of many un-

listed generations, this understanding resolves the chronological problem that

the genealogy raises and fits in with the idea that the lineage itself is written

in a symbolic style. In fact, there are other places where we find shortcuts in

genealogical lists. Radak notes that for the sake of brevity, in I Chronicles

1:17, four of the grandsons of Shem; Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech, are

listed as if they were his sons. Similarly, Radak explains that in I Chronicles

1:36, Timna is listed as if she was the child of Eliphaz, while in actuality she

was his concubine, again for the sake of brevity. Radak further explains that

it is common practice to refer to grandchildren simply as children, as in I

Chronicles 3:15 where Shallum is listed as the son of Josiah even though,

according to Radak, he was actually the son of Jehoakim and grandson of

Josiah. While Radak explains that generations were sometimes skipped for

the sake of brevity, here in the Davidic lineage they were skipped in order to

create a symbolically and numerically significant list of ancestors.

---

Page 7

GENEALOGICAL LIST IN THE BOOK OF RUTH

Vol. 38, No. 2, 2010

91

The Midrash also understood Salma to be a transitional figure. In Ruth

Rabbah, 8:1, the Midrash asks why Salma is called Salma when he is men-

tioned as the son of Nahshon, but his name is changed to Salmon when he is

listed as the father of Boaz. The answer given is that the name Salmon is

meant to evoke the word sulam [ladder], to indicate that "up until this point it

is a ladder for princes, from this point in the lineage onward it is a ladder for

kings." We can view Salma as a representative of many missing generations

in the lineage, called in the Midrash the "ladder for princes" before the transi-

tional mid-point, and the "ladder for kings" after.

25

NOTES

1. Avot 5:2.

2. From Abraham to Boaz: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab,

Nahshon, Salma, Boaz.

3. Torat Hida HaShalem – Ruth (Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom, 1997) p. 104. The numerical value

of the letter "yud" is ten.

4. See for example the commentary Melo HaOmer to Ruth 2:17 and Lehem Lefi Ha-Taf, dalet, 7.

5. According to rabbinic tradition, Eber was the teacher of Jacob (Megillah 16b, 17a). He was

also a great prophet (Genesis Rabbah 37:7) and moral authority (Genesis Rabbah 52:11).

6. According to rabbinic tradition, in addition to being the head of the tribe of Judah, Nahshon

was the first Israelite to jump into the Red Sea (Sotah 36a, see also Numbers Rabbah 13:7).

7. This is in contradiction to I Samuel 16:10-11 where he is the eighth, see Radak on I Chroni-

cles 2:15 who offers multiple resolutions to this conflict.

8. On the prominence of the seventh and tenth position in genealogical lists in general and in

Ruth in particular, see Jack M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commen-

tary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation, 2nd Edition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1989) pp. 183-184. See also the remarks of the Ben Ish Hai in his work Aderet Eliyahu,

Parshat Va-Yehi, where he takes this idea even further, noting that Judah was the seventh Jew in

the world (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Reuben, Shimon, Levi, Judah).

9. Da'at Mikra – Hamesh Megillot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990) p. 4, note 2.

10. Genesis Rabbah 12:6. The numerical value of the letter "vav" is six.

11. See Torah Shelemah – Megillat Ruth (Jerusalem: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society,

1999) pp. 113-116, and Da'at Mikra – Hamesh Megillot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990)

p. 4.

12. See Midrash Lekah Tov, Genesis 47, note 22, for a discussion of the textual variants.

13. Midrash Tanhuma, Va-Yehi, 2.

14. See the commentary Anaf Yosef to Midrash Tanhuma, Va-Yehi, 2.

15. Genesis Rabbah, 96:4. See there the commentary of Rabbi David Luria. This Midrash also

appears in Yalkut Shimoni, Genesis, 156. See also Rashi on I Chronicles 2:11, where he states

that Boaz was over 300 years old when he fathered Obed.

16. For a traditional/literalist approach to these and other figures who lived extremely long lives,

see David Havlin, Lehatzdik Kodesh (Israel, 1991) pp. 171-173.

---

Page 8

ZVI RON

JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY

92

17. See Rashi, Exodus 12:40.

18. Other approaches have been suggested to resolve this chronological difficulty. See for exam-

ple, Philip Biberfield, Universal Jewish History vol. 1 (New York: Spero Foundation, 1948) pp.

29-33.

19. See also Robert L. Hubbard, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – the

Book of Ruth (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988) p. 284.

20. See also Entziklopediyah Olam Ha-Tanakh – Megillot vol.1 (Jerusalem: Revivim, 1987) pp.

104-105, for additional evidence that the ellipsis occurs with Salma.

21. Da'at Mikra – Hamesh Megillot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990) p. 16.

22. Bava Batra 91a.

23. Da'at Mikra, p. 16.

24. Hubbard, p.280. The significance of the Nahshon-Salma transition is found in traditional

rabbinic literature as well, see for example the commentary of the Vilna Gaon to the Song of

Songs, 2:8, where he writes that the Israelites were originally only supposed to leave Egypt

during the time of Salma, but due to God's mercy the Exodus took place during the time of his

father Nahshon.

25. Thanks to my dear friend and student Jonathan Engel for pointing out this interpretation of

the Midrash.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Detailed Instructions for Authors and journal style

can be found on our Internet website:

http://www.jewishbible.org